Performing the dual roles of confessor and confessee, his own Linda Tripp and Monica Lewinsky, my husband Thomas Friedman found a new way to embarrass himself this week with "No More Mr. Tough Guy."
Thomas Friedman, for all his Joan Crawford drama posing, does not go over easy as a scorned woman. But there it was, for the whole world to see. His personal kiss-off letter to Dick Cheney. His "Dear, and Screw You, John" letter in Wednesday's New York Times.
The fly in his man tan? Laura Ingraham whom Dick Cheney now runs to. It's not as though Dick was ever Thomas Friedman's first choice. The whole world knew he was carrying the torch for Bully Boy so there's little chance that Dick didn't know as well. But it's always a shocker when your safety school denies you admission and there was Thomas Friedman boo-hoo-ing and vowing "No more."
Gail Collins actually found the column "sprite." She told me that during her "no hard feelings" call. No, Gail, no "hard feelings," no feelings at all. I don't waste time feeling anything for those not worthy of it. It's not my problem that in your racist little world Coretta Scott King's not worthy of an editorial or a column. Just like it's not my problem that no one ever taught you how to use a pair of tweezers.
And it certainly won't be my problem when Gail Collins brushes up against Davy Brooks, as I counseled her to do, and purrs, "I like farm animals."
She wanted an ice breaker. I told her to try that and to try to be sexual. That confused her, so I told her to act like she does when she stubs her big toe. She then managed to almost convincingly purr "I like farm animals."
"And I do," Gail told me in that chirpy voice. "I love horses and I loved Black Beauty when I was a little girl. That's a book, Betinna, don't start back up with that racist nonsense!"
"Wouldn't dream of it, Gail," I replied. "Just remember, 'I like farm aminals' while you press up against him."
"Do you really think he'll get the message?"
"I'm sure he will, Gail, I'm sure he will."
"Well whatever it takes. I am smitten with Mr. Brooks."
As she continued babbling on with what probably passed for girl talk at the turn of the century, the last century, I tuned her out and focused on Thomas Friedman standing before the mirror, trying on his new, red beret. Well Monica Lewinsky had a large ass too.
thomas friedman
david brooks
gail collins
the new york times
the common ills
cedrics big mix
thomas friedman is a great man
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Saturday, February 04, 2006
Friday, February 03, 2006
The Pig Is Racism, The Pig Is The New York Times
Thomas Friedman, Gail Collins, Nicky K and all the rest can go to hell wearing a white sheet over their White heads.
Wednesday, Gail Collins phoned. She opened with, "How are you, Betinna, I'm not good. This death has upset me so. I'm questioning life and death, purpose and intent, da funk and da noise."
I replied that the death had destroyed me.
"Really?" Gail asked in a curious tone. "You knew of her?"
"I kind of think the whole word did," I replied more than slightly irritated to find Collins seemed shocked that a woman of so much meaning, so much passion, so much drive would be known worldwide.
"I knew her," Gail said.
"Was she as wonderful as she seemed?"
"Much more. You know she really changed people's lives."
"I know!" I agreed.
"Women are so often written out of history, Betinna. Their achievements minimized, their work overlooked. I've written about this topic in book form."
Oh, yeah. That. It reads like it's from the mouth of Cokie Roberts; however, that may be lending its superficial tone too much weight. However, the book is perfect for smacking the bugs that have been crawling around since Thomas Friedman decided that since "someone" was sneaking into his supply of canned cheese and Ritz crackers, he needed to hide them throughout the apartment. "Someone" is clearly Thomas Friedman, something he might realize if he stopped pointing the finger at me and used that hand to shake his ever increasing jelly belly.
"Well Wendy was a good friend," Gail said softly.
Wendy?
"Who's Wendy?"
"Wendy Wasserstein! Hello, she just passed away! Don't you read the paper!"
Oh yeah, I saw that. I saw that front page story on a playwright and the editorial Gail Collins wrote about her. She was big on "the theatre belongs to all!" and, as part of that strategy, she helped low income children, who were 'gifted & talented' see plays. It struck me as another White Ladies Who Lunch program. I mean, if you believe the theatre belongs to all and you really want to help low income children, what the hell are you doing going to the 'gifted & talented' set who will, more than likely, see a play at some point on their own if they want to?
Wouldn't the point be to show struggling students the theatre, to open them up to a new world?
The whole thing struck me as a bunch of overly groomed matrons wanting to reward the 'exceptions' -- not to share the theatre.
I remembered reading the editorial Gail wrote (and signed) and thinking, "Oh, that's how it works. If you're a friend of Gail's and you die you get an editorial."
Meanwhile, what struck me as nationally, globaly, important news was that Coretta Scott King passed away.
1) Coretta Scott King, 79, Dies
In Georgia, Coretta Scott King - the widow of Martin Luther King Junior - has died at the age of 79. She had spent her life fighting for civil rights and preserving her late husband's legacy. In April of 1968 she led a march through Memphis just days after Martin Luther King Jr. had been assassinated. Later that year she led the Poor People's March in Washington, D.C. She continued working for equality, peace and economic justice for the remainder of her life, both in the United States and abroad.
2) Civil Rights Icon Coretta Scott King, 1927-2006
The Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rev. Joseph Lowery and Herb Boyd reflect on the legacy of freedom fighter Coretta Scott King, the widow of Martin Luther King Jr.
I made the mistake of saying that to Gail. She sputtered, she raged and then she hung up.
And I waited. I waited for the editorial on Coretta Scott King. I waited for op-eds on her by the regular columnists (like the fat monkey Thomas Friedman). Surely Nicky K who's always acting like he's the only voice speaking out for injustice would note Coretta Scott King's passing. The woman gave her life to fighting injustice.
And surely Gail Collins, the feminist, would bring in some guest writers to note the passing of Coretta Scott King, right?
No.
On Tuesday, Wendy Wasserstein made the front page as a playwright who died of cancer at the age of 55. We're told "Her Plays Spoke to a Generation." Presumably a White generation and the same sub-set that Sex and the City speaks to and of. Did Wasserstein have any Black characters in her plays? While reading the long article, I felt like every minor actress (plus Meryl Streep) in Hollywood was listed. I didn't see any Black names. On the editorial page of the same edition, Gail Collins went on about Wendy for ten paragraphs.
Coretta Scott King made the front page on Wednesday for her passing. Now Coretta never wrote a play starring Swoosie Kurtz (who I last saw in the teen exploitation rip-off of Dangerous Liasons). Is it Mrs. King's skin color or is it that she was known for politics?
Here's Wasserman's politics:
"My work is often thought of as light-weight commercial comedy," she told The Paris Review in 1997, "and I have always thought, No, you don't understand: this is in fact a political act. 'The Sisters Rosensweig' had the largest advance in Broadway history," for a play (not a musical). Therefore, she continued, "nobody is going to turn down a play on Broadway because a woman wrote it or because it's about women."
Well gee, thanks for paving the way for Lillian Hellman, Jane Wagner, Lorraine Hansberry and assorted others who were there on Broadway, as playwrights who happened to be women, long before 1997.
Success as a political act? Well the paper didn't see it that way when August Wilson died. But maybe his plays couldn't be easily compared to Sex in the City? Maybe if they'd been accused of being "light-weight commerical comedy" and he'd replied, "No, my success is a political act!" the paper would have cared about him?
But I read the long article. The type usually reserved for a head of state, not a playwright whose best days were behind her -- and they were. When you define your power as "success" and when success (ticket sales) begins to fail you (as it did her in 1997), then you're not cutting it. Was failure also a political act? Did it prove that women couldn't be playwrights on Broadway?
There'd be no reason to compare the two women. One was politically and historically significant and it wasn't the one doing watered-down Philip Barry. But the paper begged readers to compare the two women by the manner in which they were treated. Wasserstein dies and gets a front page article and an editorial. Coretta Scott King dies and just gets a front page story.
That's really it. Wednesday the editorials were devoted to "The State of Energy" and "Westward Into War With the Soviet Novelist and Reporter Vasily Grossman." On the op-ed page, two guest writers wondered "Can junior management end the transit wars?" Two other guest writers wrote of "Russia's Sweetheart Deal for Iran." One guest writer wrote "The State of the Union: A Citizen's Rebuttal." Maureen Dowd wrote of whatever she writes about in that attempt at wisecracking-gun-moll she's so fond of (but Ann Sheridan and Eve Arden did it so much better) while Thomas Friedman, the pig, wrote of "Addicted to Oil." Try "Addicted to In Between Meal Snacks," lard butt.
That was the day Gail and I spoke so I expected that Thursday, Coretta Scott King would get an editorial or op-ed devoted to her because Gail, who sees herself as educated, would surely want to right a wrong, right? Wrong.
"When You Wish Upon A Merger" wrote one guest columnist of the earth shattering issue of Walt Disney. Davy Brooks wrote of "The Nation of the Future" which apparently requires no looking back to note a historical passing. Bob Herbert quoted Coretta Scott King (three and a half lines) and actually mentioned that she'd died in his final two paragraph (three lines devoted to her and MLK) in "An American Obsession" or, as I liked to think of it, "Not About Coretta."
And the editorials? "Hamas at the Helm" because anyone a darker shade than beige scares the hell out of the New York Times. "The March of the Straw Soldiers" dealt with Bully Boy's spying even though the reporting in the paper continues to treat it as a non-issue, head-scratcher. And "Seducing the Medical Profession" gave Gail the chance to do what she was hired for, to self-congratulate the paper. ("Reed Abelson reported in The Times on Jan. 24 about a whistle-blower's lawsuit . . ." Yeah, he saw the court docket and somehow that's brave reporting, Gail.)
I thought, "Well maybe Gail considers these important topics for editorials?" Then I saw "Oh, Oscar!" about the Oscar nominations. The Oscar nominations? The Times needs to editorialize about Oscar nominations? But has no time for Coretta Scott King?
"Oh, Oscar!"? Oh, Gail.
I was fuming. I was raging. Thomas Friedman was kvetching, "Who the hell knew I married Angela Dickinson!"
"Angela Davis!" I corrected.
"Oh yeah," Thomas Friedman snorted. "One played Police Woman, the other was hunted by the police."
I just stared him until he stopped laughing.
"Um," he said staring at the ground. "Um, it's, see it's funny because it's juxtaposition."
"And funny because a Black woman is the butt of the joke? Or maybe you thinking Blacks should be hunted down?"
Thomas Friedman retreated to his office where, no doubt, he continued surfing online for fake nudes of the male cast from Saved By The Bell.
This morning, Thomas Friedman hands me the paper and tells me I'll be happy with it today.
Knowing the New York Timid too well, I finish my coffee before opening and flipping to the op-eds and editorials. Editorials? Four. None on Coretta Scott King. Opinion pieces? Paul Krugman writes of the "State of Delusion" which does not cover the paper's own delusion that they're somehow inclusive. Thomas Friedman writes about Bully Boy (he's got a poster of Bully Boy in a onesie nailed to the bedroom closet door) and oil in "Will Pigs Fly" (sooner than Lard Butts, Tommy, sooner than Lard Butts). Graphic designer Barbara Blauber does "Op-Art" about judging books by their cover. (Why not judge papers by what they choose to cover?) And not one, but two guest columnists are brought in to write two separate columns on Pope Joseph Ratzinger who, for the record, didn't die.
I guess Coretta Scott King doesn't matter to the paper. I guess her passing doesn't matter. She's known globally at least as well as Mother Teresa was. She dedicated her life to fighting for equality and peace. She was known around the world as a leader and her husband was as well -- her husband who was targeted by the FBI and who was assassinated. She fought for civil rights, for women's rights, for peace. She fought against poverty, against homophobia. On the national stage, she was certainly as graceful as Jackie Kennedy and she never felt the need to draw the veil and retire from public service.
So I found myself wondering, "Exactly what didn't Mrs. King do? What should she have done to have her death noted by the editorial and opinion staff of the New York Times?"
At first, I thought, "Well she should have written a play length version of Designing Women!" But then I remembered how August Wilson's passing was down played.
Then I thought, "She should have befriended Gail Collins!" Because women with unibrows are too often the butt of the jokes. Gail Collins should not be laughed at for her unibrow. There are plenty of other reasons to laugh at Gail Collins, trust me.
Which left only one thing that Coretta Scott King 'forgot' to do: Be born White.
If Coretta Scott King had been born White, you better believe Gail Collins would have dashed off an editorial to her.
Just as that hit me, Thomas Friedman came lumbering in, grinning, and obviously pleased with himself.
"Did you see it, Betinna?" he asked beaming at me.
"You didn't mention Coretta Scott King, you fat jerk!" I snarled tossing a waffle at him.
I think his feelings were hurt. But it was hard to tell as he had lifted the hem of his shorty robe up to his face in order to lick off the syrup from where the waffle landed.
When he was done with that task, he pointed to his column.
"I've got my readers saying, 'You should have listened to your wife!' about Iraq! I mentioned you! A Colored woman. See I'm not a racist."
That's when I realized the pig is racism, the pig is the New York Times. Thomas Friedman, Gail Collins and the rest are just the sop that gets fed to the pig.
the new york times
the common ills
democracy now
coretta scott king
mlk
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
thomas friedman is a great man
thomas friedman
gail collins
racism
Wednesday, Gail Collins phoned. She opened with, "How are you, Betinna, I'm not good. This death has upset me so. I'm questioning life and death, purpose and intent, da funk and da noise."
I replied that the death had destroyed me.
"Really?" Gail asked in a curious tone. "You knew of her?"
"I kind of think the whole word did," I replied more than slightly irritated to find Collins seemed shocked that a woman of so much meaning, so much passion, so much drive would be known worldwide.
"I knew her," Gail said.
"Was she as wonderful as she seemed?"
"Much more. You know she really changed people's lives."
"I know!" I agreed.
"Women are so often written out of history, Betinna. Their achievements minimized, their work overlooked. I've written about this topic in book form."
Oh, yeah. That. It reads like it's from the mouth of Cokie Roberts; however, that may be lending its superficial tone too much weight. However, the book is perfect for smacking the bugs that have been crawling around since Thomas Friedman decided that since "someone" was sneaking into his supply of canned cheese and Ritz crackers, he needed to hide them throughout the apartment. "Someone" is clearly Thomas Friedman, something he might realize if he stopped pointing the finger at me and used that hand to shake his ever increasing jelly belly.
"Well Wendy was a good friend," Gail said softly.
Wendy?
"Who's Wendy?"
"Wendy Wasserstein! Hello, she just passed away! Don't you read the paper!"
Oh yeah, I saw that. I saw that front page story on a playwright and the editorial Gail Collins wrote about her. She was big on "the theatre belongs to all!" and, as part of that strategy, she helped low income children, who were 'gifted & talented' see plays. It struck me as another White Ladies Who Lunch program. I mean, if you believe the theatre belongs to all and you really want to help low income children, what the hell are you doing going to the 'gifted & talented' set who will, more than likely, see a play at some point on their own if they want to?
Wouldn't the point be to show struggling students the theatre, to open them up to a new world?
The whole thing struck me as a bunch of overly groomed matrons wanting to reward the 'exceptions' -- not to share the theatre.
I remembered reading the editorial Gail wrote (and signed) and thinking, "Oh, that's how it works. If you're a friend of Gail's and you die you get an editorial."
Meanwhile, what struck me as nationally, globaly, important news was that Coretta Scott King passed away.
1) Coretta Scott King, 79, Dies
In Georgia, Coretta Scott King - the widow of Martin Luther King Junior - has died at the age of 79. She had spent her life fighting for civil rights and preserving her late husband's legacy. In April of 1968 she led a march through Memphis just days after Martin Luther King Jr. had been assassinated. Later that year she led the Poor People's March in Washington, D.C. She continued working for equality, peace and economic justice for the remainder of her life, both in the United States and abroad.
2) Civil Rights Icon Coretta Scott King, 1927-2006
The Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rev. Joseph Lowery and Herb Boyd reflect on the legacy of freedom fighter Coretta Scott King, the widow of Martin Luther King Jr.
I made the mistake of saying that to Gail. She sputtered, she raged and then she hung up.
And I waited. I waited for the editorial on Coretta Scott King. I waited for op-eds on her by the regular columnists (like the fat monkey Thomas Friedman). Surely Nicky K who's always acting like he's the only voice speaking out for injustice would note Coretta Scott King's passing. The woman gave her life to fighting injustice.
And surely Gail Collins, the feminist, would bring in some guest writers to note the passing of Coretta Scott King, right?
No.
On Tuesday, Wendy Wasserstein made the front page as a playwright who died of cancer at the age of 55. We're told "Her Plays Spoke to a Generation." Presumably a White generation and the same sub-set that Sex and the City speaks to and of. Did Wasserstein have any Black characters in her plays? While reading the long article, I felt like every minor actress (plus Meryl Streep) in Hollywood was listed. I didn't see any Black names. On the editorial page of the same edition, Gail Collins went on about Wendy for ten paragraphs.
Coretta Scott King made the front page on Wednesday for her passing. Now Coretta never wrote a play starring Swoosie Kurtz (who I last saw in the teen exploitation rip-off of Dangerous Liasons). Is it Mrs. King's skin color or is it that she was known for politics?
Here's Wasserman's politics:
"My work is often thought of as light-weight commercial comedy," she told The Paris Review in 1997, "and I have always thought, No, you don't understand: this is in fact a political act. 'The Sisters Rosensweig' had the largest advance in Broadway history," for a play (not a musical). Therefore, she continued, "nobody is going to turn down a play on Broadway because a woman wrote it or because it's about women."
Well gee, thanks for paving the way for Lillian Hellman, Jane Wagner, Lorraine Hansberry and assorted others who were there on Broadway, as playwrights who happened to be women, long before 1997.
Success as a political act? Well the paper didn't see it that way when August Wilson died. But maybe his plays couldn't be easily compared to Sex in the City? Maybe if they'd been accused of being "light-weight commerical comedy" and he'd replied, "No, my success is a political act!" the paper would have cared about him?
But I read the long article. The type usually reserved for a head of state, not a playwright whose best days were behind her -- and they were. When you define your power as "success" and when success (ticket sales) begins to fail you (as it did her in 1997), then you're not cutting it. Was failure also a political act? Did it prove that women couldn't be playwrights on Broadway?
There'd be no reason to compare the two women. One was politically and historically significant and it wasn't the one doing watered-down Philip Barry. But the paper begged readers to compare the two women by the manner in which they were treated. Wasserstein dies and gets a front page article and an editorial. Coretta Scott King dies and just gets a front page story.
That's really it. Wednesday the editorials were devoted to "The State of Energy" and "Westward Into War With the Soviet Novelist and Reporter Vasily Grossman." On the op-ed page, two guest writers wondered "Can junior management end the transit wars?" Two other guest writers wrote of "Russia's Sweetheart Deal for Iran." One guest writer wrote "The State of the Union: A Citizen's Rebuttal." Maureen Dowd wrote of whatever she writes about in that attempt at wisecracking-gun-moll she's so fond of (but Ann Sheridan and Eve Arden did it so much better) while Thomas Friedman, the pig, wrote of "Addicted to Oil." Try "Addicted to In Between Meal Snacks," lard butt.
That was the day Gail and I spoke so I expected that Thursday, Coretta Scott King would get an editorial or op-ed devoted to her because Gail, who sees herself as educated, would surely want to right a wrong, right? Wrong.
"When You Wish Upon A Merger" wrote one guest columnist of the earth shattering issue of Walt Disney. Davy Brooks wrote of "The Nation of the Future" which apparently requires no looking back to note a historical passing. Bob Herbert quoted Coretta Scott King (three and a half lines) and actually mentioned that she'd died in his final two paragraph (three lines devoted to her and MLK) in "An American Obsession" or, as I liked to think of it, "Not About Coretta."
And the editorials? "Hamas at the Helm" because anyone a darker shade than beige scares the hell out of the New York Times. "The March of the Straw Soldiers" dealt with Bully Boy's spying even though the reporting in the paper continues to treat it as a non-issue, head-scratcher. And "Seducing the Medical Profession" gave Gail the chance to do what she was hired for, to self-congratulate the paper. ("Reed Abelson reported in The Times on Jan. 24 about a whistle-blower's lawsuit . . ." Yeah, he saw the court docket and somehow that's brave reporting, Gail.)
I thought, "Well maybe Gail considers these important topics for editorials?" Then I saw "Oh, Oscar!" about the Oscar nominations. The Oscar nominations? The Times needs to editorialize about Oscar nominations? But has no time for Coretta Scott King?
"Oh, Oscar!"? Oh, Gail.
I was fuming. I was raging. Thomas Friedman was kvetching, "Who the hell knew I married Angela Dickinson!"
"Angela Davis!" I corrected.
"Oh yeah," Thomas Friedman snorted. "One played Police Woman, the other was hunted by the police."
I just stared him until he stopped laughing.
"Um," he said staring at the ground. "Um, it's, see it's funny because it's juxtaposition."
"And funny because a Black woman is the butt of the joke? Or maybe you thinking Blacks should be hunted down?"
Thomas Friedman retreated to his office where, no doubt, he continued surfing online for fake nudes of the male cast from Saved By The Bell.
This morning, Thomas Friedman hands me the paper and tells me I'll be happy with it today.
Knowing the New York Timid too well, I finish my coffee before opening and flipping to the op-eds and editorials. Editorials? Four. None on Coretta Scott King. Opinion pieces? Paul Krugman writes of the "State of Delusion" which does not cover the paper's own delusion that they're somehow inclusive. Thomas Friedman writes about Bully Boy (he's got a poster of Bully Boy in a onesie nailed to the bedroom closet door) and oil in "Will Pigs Fly" (sooner than Lard Butts, Tommy, sooner than Lard Butts). Graphic designer Barbara Blauber does "Op-Art" about judging books by their cover. (Why not judge papers by what they choose to cover?) And not one, but two guest columnists are brought in to write two separate columns on Pope Joseph Ratzinger who, for the record, didn't die.
I guess Coretta Scott King doesn't matter to the paper. I guess her passing doesn't matter. She's known globally at least as well as Mother Teresa was. She dedicated her life to fighting for equality and peace. She was known around the world as a leader and her husband was as well -- her husband who was targeted by the FBI and who was assassinated. She fought for civil rights, for women's rights, for peace. She fought against poverty, against homophobia. On the national stage, she was certainly as graceful as Jackie Kennedy and she never felt the need to draw the veil and retire from public service.
So I found myself wondering, "Exactly what didn't Mrs. King do? What should she have done to have her death noted by the editorial and opinion staff of the New York Times?"
At first, I thought, "Well she should have written a play length version of Designing Women!" But then I remembered how August Wilson's passing was down played.
Then I thought, "She should have befriended Gail Collins!" Because women with unibrows are too often the butt of the jokes. Gail Collins should not be laughed at for her unibrow. There are plenty of other reasons to laugh at Gail Collins, trust me.
Which left only one thing that Coretta Scott King 'forgot' to do: Be born White.
If Coretta Scott King had been born White, you better believe Gail Collins would have dashed off an editorial to her.
Just as that hit me, Thomas Friedman came lumbering in, grinning, and obviously pleased with himself.
"Did you see it, Betinna?" he asked beaming at me.
"You didn't mention Coretta Scott King, you fat jerk!" I snarled tossing a waffle at him.
I think his feelings were hurt. But it was hard to tell as he had lifted the hem of his shorty robe up to his face in order to lick off the syrup from where the waffle landed.
When he was done with that task, he pointed to his column.
"I've got my readers saying, 'You should have listened to your wife!' about Iraq! I mentioned you! A Colored woman. See I'm not a racist."
That's when I realized the pig is racism, the pig is the New York Times. Thomas Friedman, Gail Collins and the rest are just the sop that gets fed to the pig.
the new york times
the common ills
democracy now
coretta scott king
mlk
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
thomas friedman is a great man
thomas friedman
gail collins
racism
Monday, January 23, 2006
Found in the paper
Found in the paper:
"Alito and Inclusion"
Noting this from the Feminist Wire:
Judiciary Committee Votes Tomorrow on Alito; Filibuster Possible, Says Durbin
Tomorrow, two days after the 33rd anniversary of Roe v Wade, the Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on Samuel Alito, a Supreme Court nominee who in 1985 wrote that the Constitution does not protect a woman's right to an abortion. Women's rights leaders and activists rallied last night at the Supreme Court in support of the landmark Supreme Court ruling.
"Since we last gathered to commemorate Roe v. Wade, two seats have opened up on the Supreme Court, and George W. Bush has used both opportunities to nominate judges whose records show a disdain for privacy rights and individual liberties," said Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women. "The Senate is poised to vote on confirming Samuel Alito, who would replace Sandra Day O'Connor, a justice whose vote has upheld women's rights for nearly 25 years. How quickly the fate of women's reproductive rights could turn in this nation."
Already, at least nine Senators have come out publicly and strongly against Alito's confirmation, including four who voted in favor of confirming John Roberts as chief justice. In an interview with the Chicago Sun-Times, Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL), the Democratic Whip, said that a filibuster was possible.
"A week ago, I would have told you it's not likely to happen," Durbin said. "As of [Wednesday], I just can't rule it out. I was surprised by the intensity of feeling of some of my colleagues. It's a matter of counting. We have 45 Democrats, counting [Vermont independent] Jim Jeffords, on our side. We could sustain a filibuster if 41 Senators ... are willing to stand and fight."
GET THE INSIDE SCOOP with The Smeal Report and the New Leif blogs at MsMagazine.com
TAKE ACTION Call your Senators and urge them to oppose Alito
DONATE Make an emergency contribution to the Feminist Majority’s Save Roe Campaign. We must be a strong voice in this crucial fight to save Roe and the Supreme Court for women’s rights.
Media Resources: Feminist Majority; NOW statement 1/22/06; Chicago Sun-Times 1/20/06
It's the last lap in the home stretch. We can pull it out, we can dig deep and grab onto those last bits of energy.
Now we just got done with a roundtable for the gina & krista round-robin and you can consider what follows to be the writing of Betty and Cedric. If there's something we feel differently on or want to make our own point on, we'll indicate it, but this is our joint entry.
Every Saturday when we get together to work with The Third Estate Sunday Review gang (the gang is Ava, Jess, Ty, Dona, Jim and C.I; we are Rebecca, Wally, Mike, Elaine, Kat, Betty and Cedric) there are any number of items that are proposed for a feature. Some ideas are shot down because they're too big to undertake (unless they can be repitched as something easier in scope) and some are shot down because there's not enough interest in them from enough people. On something like that, if it's not just an idea you had but something that is really important to you, you can state that and everyone's willing to include it. But each edition there are ideas that we never end up having time to get to.
Everyone usually tosses out interesting ideas even if they are too large in scope. One idea that came from C.I. this weekend was about an article in the New York Times. It was on a topic that we hit on a lot in roundtables there. Ty usually has something to say on the issue as well. We made a point not to invite Ty to help on this entry because we know he would have said "yes" or felt guilty. As you'll see in the round-robin tomorrow, Ty's got a major exam first thing in the morning.
We left Ty out of this trying to make sure he was able to focus on studying. Had we not known of the exam, we would have brought him on board. We are the three Black voices of the community in terms of doing sites.
The article C.I. brought to the table was Neela Banerjee's "Black Churches' Attitudes Toward Gay Parishioners Are Discussed at Conference" and it ran in Saturday's New York Times on page A10. We'll note that Betty is from the Atlanta area and she does know of Dr. Kenneth L. Samuel of the Victory Church.
The article addresses a meeting last Friday between Black clergy and and the National Black Justice Coalition and the issue discussed was prejudice against gay men and lesbians. We have spoken repeatedly in roundtables about what has happened in our churches and how our congregations have had to face up to the fact that many of our brothers and sisters include those who are gay.
Betty: Cedric's church dealt with it way before mine did.
Cedric: The AIDS epidemic led to my church addressing it long before I was an adult.
Betty: Dr. Samuel is well thought of and respected by many in the Atlanta area for his work on this issue. Banerjee has no control over where the article appears or the length the paper decides to go with but this really should have been an article in the paper's Sunday magazine. Had there been more room, I'm guessing Banerjee would have noted that Dr. Samuel not only has critics but he has support from outside his own church. He, rightly, has made a name for himself by taking the gospels to heart.
The article details how Bully Boy and the Republicans were able to lure some Black churches into their tent by making gay marriage a wedge issue. African-Americans/Blacks should have known better than to throw in our lot with someone who stands in direct opposition to our own advancement as a people.
Whether you are an integrationist or an isolationist, the last thing we need to be doing is dividing our collective power by drawing a line between those of us who are straight and those of us who are gay. When our ancestors were working on plantations, masa' wasn't concerned about who were fantasizing about, just about squeezing every bit of life out of us he could. When the civil rights movement fought for integration, the racists standing in our way didn't care if the brother or sister sitting at the counter or going to the school dreamed about the opposite or same gender. When we were disenfranchised in Florida in 2000 and in Ohio in 2004, no one was concerned about what was or wasn't going on in our bedrooms. From way back to the current day, the line against us was and is drawn based upon our skin color.
Like it or not, we are in this together. And as a race, we have collective power. The Republicans attempts to divide us and turn us against one another is just another attempt to co-opt elements and dilute our power.
When we talk to brothers and sisters who are skittish (or worse) about sexuality, the first thing we usually ask is, "Who in your congregation has died of AIDS?" The awful disease has made gay men more visible (in death) but what you find is that a church that hasn't attempted to have a dialogue about this issue is a church that goes out of its way to erase the contributions of a deacon or a choir director, you name it.Brother Ray that you were always so happy to see dies of AIDS and suddenly it's as though Brother Ray never existed. That's not right.
And the only way this changes is when we start getting honest. Gays and lesbians have always been in the Black chuches. You might not have known it at the time, but they were there. They were there on Sunday wanting so much to take part and they were there contributing to the church in spirit and with tithes. They are us and we are them.
It shocks us that our proud race which can rally when we see a brother or sister demonized, even if they may very well be guilty of a crime (including murder or child molestation) wants to turn against our own brothers and sisters.
In unity we have power and strength. In unity we are one and able to help one another. Though some churches do have sports team, it's not a requirement that you shower with your congregation so the silly notion of "What if we were in the locker room together?" is even sillier.
God made each of us. But for some reason we want to kick some of our brothers and sisters out of the boat and instead break bread with a Bully Boy who's declared an illegal war and attacked a people but expected us to fight his war in large numbers seems far from the teachings of Jesus Christ. To be there for our brothers and sisters, all of our brothers and sisters, who are attempting to struggle on their own paths to spirituality seems very much in keeping with the teachings of Christ.
At a time when so many Uncle Toms and Aunt Tomisinas are willing to turn their backs on race to enrich themselves, we don't think it makes sense to turn our backs on those who want to stand with us.We also think that this turning is the sort of thing Jesus counseled his disciples against.
We have relatives who are gay and lesbian so we saw a long time ago that they're not the "other." They are our family members and they bring much to our families. African-Americans/Blacks who have not been uprooted repeatedly due to the economy and other factors usually not only have a strong sense of family but are also close to many of their kin.
We don't think any large family gathering takes place without at least one gay or lesbian family member attending. You may not realize that or you may go out of your way to deny it. But they truly are us and we truly are them.
The article makes the point that in the 19th century scripture was used against us to justify slavery. Jesus and his teachings rejected that argument. We believe that this is true with regards to sexuality as well.
The article notes that "Blacks often bridle at comparisons made between the civil rights stuggle of African-Americans and the campaign by gay men and lesbians for equal protection under the law." We think that's a mistake and have addressed this before.
The civil rights movement is something we look to with great pride. We'd love to see it taught as something that not only brought African-Americans/Blacks closer to equality but that provided a framework and sense of justice to inspire people of all walks of life. We're quite aware that we work and work to create something (blues, soul, rap) and then a White person comes along and rides it to popularity while our own work is often ignored.
But with regards to the civil rights movement, it seems to us that nothing could be a better legacy than for people of each generation to learn of it and honor it by utilizing it to make their own strides towards equality. It's our legacy and we'd like to see it be a living legacy that continues to inspire.
That could remove it from something that's only noted one month a year (Black History Month) and instead becomes something all value. An activist, of any color, gender or orientation, a hundred years in the future turning to the civil rights movement for inspiration speaks to how important that movement was. We also believe that this attention can only provide a renewal in interest of the objectives we are still striving for.
The Rev. Al Sharpton is noted in the article and we'll note that we remember in the recent Democratic primaries, he was one of the few voices that could speak out for all. He didn't shy from the issue of gay rights and we think that's because, due to our own struggles, we are inclined to grasp anyone's struggle. We have had to overcome so much and we can identify with others who are also struggling for equality.
This is our better nature. We are more than track stars and basketball players, rap stars and comedians. We are the ones who shook off the shackles of extreme discrimination (and still live under discrimination often in less overt forms). We are leaders. Our struggles have made us that.
Our gay brothers and sisters shouldn't have to hide in closets from us or risk scorn if they come out. We shouldn't return to a past that rewarded those who could pass or gave preferential treatment to those among us who were lighter skinned. We are a race, a powerful race, and unless someone's working to hold us back, they are in our boat. We need to welcome them and we need to reach out to them.
We sincerely pray that we will have the strength as a race to welcome all who want to continue the fight for equality. As so many of us continue to live in poverty and below the poverty line, we need strength. The only line drawn should be the one that asks, "Are you for us or against us?"
feminist wire
alito
supreme court
the new york times
neela banerjee
the common ills
mikey likes it
like maria said paz
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
the third estate sunday review
cedrics big mix
thomas friedman is a great man
the daily jot
And:
"TV Review: Four Kings? They're bluffing"
NBC returned to a two hour line up of sitcoms on Thursday night. Based on the first week's ratings, the country did take notice. NBC, as noted by Kate Aurthur in Saturday's New York Times, found itself number one "among adults 18 to 49." The whole nation is not interested in endless questions about dead bodies with glimpses of "naughty" sex tossed in. (Is bondage the only sex Jerry Bruckheimer is familar with? Watching the original CSI viewers can be forgiven for wondering.)
Will & Grace remains on Thurday nights though now it leads (Joey's been benched). It's joined by The Office and My Name is Earl, transplanted from other nights, as well as the new show Four Kings. Four Kings?
They're bluffing. There may be three kings, time will tell on that, but there is one card that is a two. Yes, ace can be the lowest number in the deck, it can also be the highest. For that reason, we would never claim that Seth Green is the "ace." He is two with no suprises in store for anyone.
If an action can be conveyed by pointing, Green will convey it by stomping his feet, bulging his eyes, waving his arms and then pointing. His attempts at acting will exhaust you when they don't annoy you.
The new millenium has discovered it Squiggy, all hail Sonny Bono of 2006. Laverne & Shirley never resulted in a spin-off for Squiggy. A wise decision on the part of everyone involved. When Cher ended it with Sonny, ABC did attempt to provide a weekly hour of Sonny Bono. The nation has only recently begun the recovery process from that ordeal.
The show runners would be well advised to grasp that, despite all the inflated claims of Seth Green's popularity (it's non-existant at the box office), Green goes down best in small slices. The scenes of Barry (Green's character) without the other three men fell flat. Green's success, such as it is, on the big screen has revolved around playing a very minor character in the Austin Powers films. He is not a lead. Writing him as a lead is a path to failure.
Green was funny. Or rather, he was in funny scenes. Wearing heavy make up and hair clips was funny. Not because of anything Green said or did. (In fact when Barry became aware that two juvenile females had made him up in his sleep, the laughs stopped.) It was funny to watch the reactions of the other three leads.The other three leads are Josh Cooke, Todd Grinnell and Shane McRae. Cooke plays Ben who's the tent pole for the show. All the reactions and actions revolve around Ben the way they revolved around Mary on The Mary Tyler Moore Show; however, Mary would have worn a better bathrobe than Cooke did in the most recently aired episode.
We'll also note that Cooke has an interesting hair style (we'll touch on this next week as well) that apparently is attempting a come back. Other than that, what can we say?
Cooke, Grinnel and McRae have talent an chemistry. They work very well together. Green remains the guest star on. Last Thursday, he was playing Phoebe's boyfriend who didn't wear underwear. In the hands (or pants?) of any of the other three actors, it might have been funny. (Rebecca swears it would have been sexy if they'd given the bit to Cooke or Grinnell.) With Green, it was just disgusting.
That's the thing about Four Kings currently. It's a funny show. It's still finding its legs but it's funny. (Disclosure, we know people working on the show.) However, you can't share the good things about the show because you keep coming back to how awful Seth Green is. He's Jerry Van Dyke and we don't have thirty years to wait for Green to find a Coach. Does the show have many more episodes it can last with Green as a member of the cast?
Absolutely. Provided that they realize he is color to be added in a dash or a sprinkle. He is not a full meal. On Seinfeld, had he been lucky enough to have a significant role on Seinfeld, he would have played the Newman type character. Four Kings is Newman sharing an apartment with Seinfeld and it's not working.
He disrupts the natural flow everytime he opens his mouth. There are laugh getters and there are laugh stoppers.
Possibly Barry could move out and they could provide a "Fourth King" by crossover promotion with The Book of Daniel?
Something needs to be done. And it needs to be done quickly because as a "lead," he pulls the show down. Attempts to "humanize" him (via sad and touching moments) will not address the basic issue because the problem has nothing to do with the character of Barry, it has to do with that presentation of Green (we won't call it acting, it's there in every comic role and it's also his own irritating personality in real life).
Someone has convinced him that he is sexy, funny and unbeatable. Someone lied.
His fussy presentation and attempts at scene stealing mar every scene he's in. You never believe you're watching four friends interact; however, you do feel that Shecky Greene's desperate to get one last round of yucks. When asked to tone it down in other roles, Green's been either unable or unwilling to do so. He honestly thinks he's the funniest thing in America.
(Again, someone must have lied to him.)
In the early days of Ellen (when it was still These Friends of Mine), Audrey was a guest. Viewers familiar with only later shows may not grasp why Ellen characterized Audrey as "the most life endangering force on the face of planet." For those who know the character only after became a regular and the character was radically altered, we'd suggest they study Green's Barry.
Barry was conceived as Ben's nemisis. (Again, the show revolves around Cooke's character.) A nemisis doesn't dominate the show. The scripts aren't written to provide Green with the opportunity to dominate this ensemble. But Green's so damn sure he's America's gift to comedy that he pulls out all stops to "enhance" the proceedings. That's going to bury the show.
We called around to friends who'd been show runners on other sitcoms (the paper of record would call that research -- no, we never tire of that joke). Five weighed in with opinions. One said recast Barry quickly. Another said write Green off the show. Three offered that there had to be a way to work with Green as part of the show since it was already airing. The one with the longest running sitcom to his credit (all five were males) said that they need to get Barry out of the shared apartment immediately. He spoke of an actor he was stuck with (due to a network insisting upon the actor) and how, in small doses, they were able to turn the actor into a semi-popular part of the show. (When the actor later attempted to play the same type of character in other shows, but as the lead, the actor quickly discovered how fleeting fame can be.)
That would require moving Barry out of the apartment, limiting him to a few scenes each episode and getting the point across that the other three, like the audience, did not care for Barry.
Unless that's done (or something similar) prepare to alternate laughter with flinching. All five spoke of "the damage" Green does to each episode. The laughs are flowing and then, if the target of the laughs isn't Green and he opens his mouth, the laughs stop. Immediately. The other three are seen as "likeable" by the five but that won't continue if a character the audience finds repulsive is seen as their equals. ("They'll be tainted by association," said one.)
Every now and then someone comes along intent upon breaking the sitcom "mold." (My Name Is Earl breaks nothing, but we're not referring to that show.) They'll try to make the lead a hated character and call that a "twist." If it is a twist, audiences have consistently demonstrated that they prefer their sitcoms served without a twist -- which is to say likeable lead characters. When you're expected to tune in each week for thirty minutes, you need to feel that you're watching people who reflect you. Archie Bunker was popular (the character) with some audience members who felt he was dead right in everything he said and did. Others could watch the show because, if Archie annoyed them, they could count on Gloria and Mike to call him on it.
Barry annoys, but he's not really called on it. (And Green's no Carol O'Connor.) Most people confronted with a Barry would either avoid him or tell him (loudly) to shut up. That the other three (Ben, Bobby and Jason) don't could turn the audience against them.
Which is too bad. The show trotted out an old, old plot for Thursday's episode. The bar scene. They called it one night stands but, in other times, it's also been the swinging singles episode (as when Penny Marshall made her first appearance on The Mary Tyler Moore Show). Ben had to "score" a one night stand. That's not really in the character's make up and what followed could have been cloying and so touching that you threw up. Cooke managed to provide enough tension to keep it funny. He's a lead. It was a smart decision to cast him as Ben. McRae is a strong physical comedian and no one seems to have noticed that yet. It's as though an anchor is weighing him down (the anchor that should be around Green's neck?) and he's being prevented from cutting loose. The only worry regarding Grinnell is that his timing has been so strong, from the start, that he may find himself with too many weak lines in each script and be told, "You can make it funny!" instead of everyone working to figure out what's wrong with the lines.
Thursday night, the three leads demonstrated at the bar why they were all alone. Bobby just knew "vibe" talk followed by silent staring was the way to interest the opposite sex. Jason felt his technique was the way to make a woman interested in him: offer a slight compliment followed by an insult. Both went home without bed mates. Ben did land one but, as is the character's nature, immediately attempted to turn the one night stand into a long term romance.
Meeting her parents, going away for the weekend and other things were immediately planned before the morning coffee. In a scene that we'd love to see a network air with women involved (but we'll settle for men since most shows tries to convince you that unmarried equals death), Jason and Bobby explained why Ben would be making a mistake to rush from one long term releationship back into another one.
If Ross was "divorce guy" on Friends, Ben is "relationship guy" on Four Kings. A few years ago, or on CBS at any given moment, the argument would have been based on women destroying fun or weighing you down or some other crap. Instead the argument was based upon taking the time to get to know yourself. (Again, we'd love to see the networks feature a scene like that among women.)
Three Kings are three guys trying to figure out where they fit in the world today. (Not only does Barry not fit, his routines are so outdated that Larry from Three's Company comes off as modern by comparison.) This is a show that men and women can enjoy. You're not going to feel like you've just been disrespected if a man's laughing at Charlie Sheen's latest asault on women, for instance.
posted by Third Estate Sunday Review @ Sunday, January 15, 2006
"Alito and Inclusion"
Noting this from the Feminist Wire:
Judiciary Committee Votes Tomorrow on Alito; Filibuster Possible, Says Durbin
Tomorrow, two days after the 33rd anniversary of Roe v Wade, the Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on Samuel Alito, a Supreme Court nominee who in 1985 wrote that the Constitution does not protect a woman's right to an abortion. Women's rights leaders and activists rallied last night at the Supreme Court in support of the landmark Supreme Court ruling.
"Since we last gathered to commemorate Roe v. Wade, two seats have opened up on the Supreme Court, and George W. Bush has used both opportunities to nominate judges whose records show a disdain for privacy rights and individual liberties," said Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women. "The Senate is poised to vote on confirming Samuel Alito, who would replace Sandra Day O'Connor, a justice whose vote has upheld women's rights for nearly 25 years. How quickly the fate of women's reproductive rights could turn in this nation."
Already, at least nine Senators have come out publicly and strongly against Alito's confirmation, including four who voted in favor of confirming John Roberts as chief justice. In an interview with the Chicago Sun-Times, Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL), the Democratic Whip, said that a filibuster was possible.
"A week ago, I would have told you it's not likely to happen," Durbin said. "As of [Wednesday], I just can't rule it out. I was surprised by the intensity of feeling of some of my colleagues. It's a matter of counting. We have 45 Democrats, counting [Vermont independent] Jim Jeffords, on our side. We could sustain a filibuster if 41 Senators ... are willing to stand and fight."
GET THE INSIDE SCOOP with The Smeal Report and the New Leif blogs at MsMagazine.com
TAKE ACTION Call your Senators and urge them to oppose Alito
DONATE Make an emergency contribution to the Feminist Majority’s Save Roe Campaign. We must be a strong voice in this crucial fight to save Roe and the Supreme Court for women’s rights.
Media Resources: Feminist Majority; NOW statement 1/22/06; Chicago Sun-Times 1/20/06
It's the last lap in the home stretch. We can pull it out, we can dig deep and grab onto those last bits of energy.
Now we just got done with a roundtable for the gina & krista round-robin and you can consider what follows to be the writing of Betty and Cedric. If there's something we feel differently on or want to make our own point on, we'll indicate it, but this is our joint entry.
Every Saturday when we get together to work with The Third Estate Sunday Review gang (the gang is Ava, Jess, Ty, Dona, Jim and C.I; we are Rebecca, Wally, Mike, Elaine, Kat, Betty and Cedric) there are any number of items that are proposed for a feature. Some ideas are shot down because they're too big to undertake (unless they can be repitched as something easier in scope) and some are shot down because there's not enough interest in them from enough people. On something like that, if it's not just an idea you had but something that is really important to you, you can state that and everyone's willing to include it. But each edition there are ideas that we never end up having time to get to.
Everyone usually tosses out interesting ideas even if they are too large in scope. One idea that came from C.I. this weekend was about an article in the New York Times. It was on a topic that we hit on a lot in roundtables there. Ty usually has something to say on the issue as well. We made a point not to invite Ty to help on this entry because we know he would have said "yes" or felt guilty. As you'll see in the round-robin tomorrow, Ty's got a major exam first thing in the morning.
We left Ty out of this trying to make sure he was able to focus on studying. Had we not known of the exam, we would have brought him on board. We are the three Black voices of the community in terms of doing sites.
The article C.I. brought to the table was Neela Banerjee's "Black Churches' Attitudes Toward Gay Parishioners Are Discussed at Conference" and it ran in Saturday's New York Times on page A10. We'll note that Betty is from the Atlanta area and she does know of Dr. Kenneth L. Samuel of the Victory Church.
The article addresses a meeting last Friday between Black clergy and and the National Black Justice Coalition and the issue discussed was prejudice against gay men and lesbians. We have spoken repeatedly in roundtables about what has happened in our churches and how our congregations have had to face up to the fact that many of our brothers and sisters include those who are gay.
Betty: Cedric's church dealt with it way before mine did.
Cedric: The AIDS epidemic led to my church addressing it long before I was an adult.
Betty: Dr. Samuel is well thought of and respected by many in the Atlanta area for his work on this issue. Banerjee has no control over where the article appears or the length the paper decides to go with but this really should have been an article in the paper's Sunday magazine. Had there been more room, I'm guessing Banerjee would have noted that Dr. Samuel not only has critics but he has support from outside his own church. He, rightly, has made a name for himself by taking the gospels to heart.
The article details how Bully Boy and the Republicans were able to lure some Black churches into their tent by making gay marriage a wedge issue. African-Americans/Blacks should have known better than to throw in our lot with someone who stands in direct opposition to our own advancement as a people.
Whether you are an integrationist or an isolationist, the last thing we need to be doing is dividing our collective power by drawing a line between those of us who are straight and those of us who are gay. When our ancestors were working on plantations, masa' wasn't concerned about who were fantasizing about, just about squeezing every bit of life out of us he could. When the civil rights movement fought for integration, the racists standing in our way didn't care if the brother or sister sitting at the counter or going to the school dreamed about the opposite or same gender. When we were disenfranchised in Florida in 2000 and in Ohio in 2004, no one was concerned about what was or wasn't going on in our bedrooms. From way back to the current day, the line against us was and is drawn based upon our skin color.
Like it or not, we are in this together. And as a race, we have collective power. The Republicans attempts to divide us and turn us against one another is just another attempt to co-opt elements and dilute our power.
When we talk to brothers and sisters who are skittish (or worse) about sexuality, the first thing we usually ask is, "Who in your congregation has died of AIDS?" The awful disease has made gay men more visible (in death) but what you find is that a church that hasn't attempted to have a dialogue about this issue is a church that goes out of its way to erase the contributions of a deacon or a choir director, you name it.Brother Ray that you were always so happy to see dies of AIDS and suddenly it's as though Brother Ray never existed. That's not right.
And the only way this changes is when we start getting honest. Gays and lesbians have always been in the Black chuches. You might not have known it at the time, but they were there. They were there on Sunday wanting so much to take part and they were there contributing to the church in spirit and with tithes. They are us and we are them.
It shocks us that our proud race which can rally when we see a brother or sister demonized, even if they may very well be guilty of a crime (including murder or child molestation) wants to turn against our own brothers and sisters.
In unity we have power and strength. In unity we are one and able to help one another. Though some churches do have sports team, it's not a requirement that you shower with your congregation so the silly notion of "What if we were in the locker room together?" is even sillier.
God made each of us. But for some reason we want to kick some of our brothers and sisters out of the boat and instead break bread with a Bully Boy who's declared an illegal war and attacked a people but expected us to fight his war in large numbers seems far from the teachings of Jesus Christ. To be there for our brothers and sisters, all of our brothers and sisters, who are attempting to struggle on their own paths to spirituality seems very much in keeping with the teachings of Christ.
At a time when so many Uncle Toms and Aunt Tomisinas are willing to turn their backs on race to enrich themselves, we don't think it makes sense to turn our backs on those who want to stand with us.We also think that this turning is the sort of thing Jesus counseled his disciples against.
We have relatives who are gay and lesbian so we saw a long time ago that they're not the "other." They are our family members and they bring much to our families. African-Americans/Blacks who have not been uprooted repeatedly due to the economy and other factors usually not only have a strong sense of family but are also close to many of their kin.
We don't think any large family gathering takes place without at least one gay or lesbian family member attending. You may not realize that or you may go out of your way to deny it. But they truly are us and we truly are them.
The article makes the point that in the 19th century scripture was used against us to justify slavery. Jesus and his teachings rejected that argument. We believe that this is true with regards to sexuality as well.
The article notes that "Blacks often bridle at comparisons made between the civil rights stuggle of African-Americans and the campaign by gay men and lesbians for equal protection under the law." We think that's a mistake and have addressed this before.
The civil rights movement is something we look to with great pride. We'd love to see it taught as something that not only brought African-Americans/Blacks closer to equality but that provided a framework and sense of justice to inspire people of all walks of life. We're quite aware that we work and work to create something (blues, soul, rap) and then a White person comes along and rides it to popularity while our own work is often ignored.
But with regards to the civil rights movement, it seems to us that nothing could be a better legacy than for people of each generation to learn of it and honor it by utilizing it to make their own strides towards equality. It's our legacy and we'd like to see it be a living legacy that continues to inspire.
That could remove it from something that's only noted one month a year (Black History Month) and instead becomes something all value. An activist, of any color, gender or orientation, a hundred years in the future turning to the civil rights movement for inspiration speaks to how important that movement was. We also believe that this attention can only provide a renewal in interest of the objectives we are still striving for.
The Rev. Al Sharpton is noted in the article and we'll note that we remember in the recent Democratic primaries, he was one of the few voices that could speak out for all. He didn't shy from the issue of gay rights and we think that's because, due to our own struggles, we are inclined to grasp anyone's struggle. We have had to overcome so much and we can identify with others who are also struggling for equality.
This is our better nature. We are more than track stars and basketball players, rap stars and comedians. We are the ones who shook off the shackles of extreme discrimination (and still live under discrimination often in less overt forms). We are leaders. Our struggles have made us that.
Our gay brothers and sisters shouldn't have to hide in closets from us or risk scorn if they come out. We shouldn't return to a past that rewarded those who could pass or gave preferential treatment to those among us who were lighter skinned. We are a race, a powerful race, and unless someone's working to hold us back, they are in our boat. We need to welcome them and we need to reach out to them.
We sincerely pray that we will have the strength as a race to welcome all who want to continue the fight for equality. As so many of us continue to live in poverty and below the poverty line, we need strength. The only line drawn should be the one that asks, "Are you for us or against us?"
feminist wire
alito
supreme court
the new york times
neela banerjee
the common ills
mikey likes it
like maria said paz
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
the third estate sunday review
cedrics big mix
thomas friedman is a great man
the daily jot
And:
"TV Review: Four Kings? They're bluffing"
NBC returned to a two hour line up of sitcoms on Thursday night. Based on the first week's ratings, the country did take notice. NBC, as noted by Kate Aurthur in Saturday's New York Times, found itself number one "among adults 18 to 49." The whole nation is not interested in endless questions about dead bodies with glimpses of "naughty" sex tossed in. (Is bondage the only sex Jerry Bruckheimer is familar with? Watching the original CSI viewers can be forgiven for wondering.)
Will & Grace remains on Thurday nights though now it leads (Joey's been benched). It's joined by The Office and My Name is Earl, transplanted from other nights, as well as the new show Four Kings. Four Kings?
They're bluffing. There may be three kings, time will tell on that, but there is one card that is a two. Yes, ace can be the lowest number in the deck, it can also be the highest. For that reason, we would never claim that Seth Green is the "ace." He is two with no suprises in store for anyone.
If an action can be conveyed by pointing, Green will convey it by stomping his feet, bulging his eyes, waving his arms and then pointing. His attempts at acting will exhaust you when they don't annoy you.
The new millenium has discovered it Squiggy, all hail Sonny Bono of 2006. Laverne & Shirley never resulted in a spin-off for Squiggy. A wise decision on the part of everyone involved. When Cher ended it with Sonny, ABC did attempt to provide a weekly hour of Sonny Bono. The nation has only recently begun the recovery process from that ordeal.
The show runners would be well advised to grasp that, despite all the inflated claims of Seth Green's popularity (it's non-existant at the box office), Green goes down best in small slices. The scenes of Barry (Green's character) without the other three men fell flat. Green's success, such as it is, on the big screen has revolved around playing a very minor character in the Austin Powers films. He is not a lead. Writing him as a lead is a path to failure.
Green was funny. Or rather, he was in funny scenes. Wearing heavy make up and hair clips was funny. Not because of anything Green said or did. (In fact when Barry became aware that two juvenile females had made him up in his sleep, the laughs stopped.) It was funny to watch the reactions of the other three leads.The other three leads are Josh Cooke, Todd Grinnell and Shane McRae. Cooke plays Ben who's the tent pole for the show. All the reactions and actions revolve around Ben the way they revolved around Mary on The Mary Tyler Moore Show; however, Mary would have worn a better bathrobe than Cooke did in the most recently aired episode.
We'll also note that Cooke has an interesting hair style (we'll touch on this next week as well) that apparently is attempting a come back. Other than that, what can we say?
Cooke, Grinnel and McRae have talent an chemistry. They work very well together. Green remains the guest star on. Last Thursday, he was playing Phoebe's boyfriend who didn't wear underwear. In the hands (or pants?) of any of the other three actors, it might have been funny. (Rebecca swears it would have been sexy if they'd given the bit to Cooke or Grinnell.) With Green, it was just disgusting.
That's the thing about Four Kings currently. It's a funny show. It's still finding its legs but it's funny. (Disclosure, we know people working on the show.) However, you can't share the good things about the show because you keep coming back to how awful Seth Green is. He's Jerry Van Dyke and we don't have thirty years to wait for Green to find a Coach. Does the show have many more episodes it can last with Green as a member of the cast?
Absolutely. Provided that they realize he is color to be added in a dash or a sprinkle. He is not a full meal. On Seinfeld, had he been lucky enough to have a significant role on Seinfeld, he would have played the Newman type character. Four Kings is Newman sharing an apartment with Seinfeld and it's not working.
He disrupts the natural flow everytime he opens his mouth. There are laugh getters and there are laugh stoppers.
Possibly Barry could move out and they could provide a "Fourth King" by crossover promotion with The Book of Daniel?
Something needs to be done. And it needs to be done quickly because as a "lead," he pulls the show down. Attempts to "humanize" him (via sad and touching moments) will not address the basic issue because the problem has nothing to do with the character of Barry, it has to do with that presentation of Green (we won't call it acting, it's there in every comic role and it's also his own irritating personality in real life).
Someone has convinced him that he is sexy, funny and unbeatable. Someone lied.
His fussy presentation and attempts at scene stealing mar every scene he's in. You never believe you're watching four friends interact; however, you do feel that Shecky Greene's desperate to get one last round of yucks. When asked to tone it down in other roles, Green's been either unable or unwilling to do so. He honestly thinks he's the funniest thing in America.
(Again, someone must have lied to him.)
In the early days of Ellen (when it was still These Friends of Mine), Audrey was a guest. Viewers familiar with only later shows may not grasp why Ellen characterized Audrey as "the most life endangering force on the face of planet." For those who know the character only after became a regular and the character was radically altered, we'd suggest they study Green's Barry.
Barry was conceived as Ben's nemisis. (Again, the show revolves around Cooke's character.) A nemisis doesn't dominate the show. The scripts aren't written to provide Green with the opportunity to dominate this ensemble. But Green's so damn sure he's America's gift to comedy that he pulls out all stops to "enhance" the proceedings. That's going to bury the show.
We called around to friends who'd been show runners on other sitcoms (the paper of record would call that research -- no, we never tire of that joke). Five weighed in with opinions. One said recast Barry quickly. Another said write Green off the show. Three offered that there had to be a way to work with Green as part of the show since it was already airing. The one with the longest running sitcom to his credit (all five were males) said that they need to get Barry out of the shared apartment immediately. He spoke of an actor he was stuck with (due to a network insisting upon the actor) and how, in small doses, they were able to turn the actor into a semi-popular part of the show. (When the actor later attempted to play the same type of character in other shows, but as the lead, the actor quickly discovered how fleeting fame can be.)
That would require moving Barry out of the apartment, limiting him to a few scenes each episode and getting the point across that the other three, like the audience, did not care for Barry.
Unless that's done (or something similar) prepare to alternate laughter with flinching. All five spoke of "the damage" Green does to each episode. The laughs are flowing and then, if the target of the laughs isn't Green and he opens his mouth, the laughs stop. Immediately. The other three are seen as "likeable" by the five but that won't continue if a character the audience finds repulsive is seen as their equals. ("They'll be tainted by association," said one.)
Every now and then someone comes along intent upon breaking the sitcom "mold." (My Name Is Earl breaks nothing, but we're not referring to that show.) They'll try to make the lead a hated character and call that a "twist." If it is a twist, audiences have consistently demonstrated that they prefer their sitcoms served without a twist -- which is to say likeable lead characters. When you're expected to tune in each week for thirty minutes, you need to feel that you're watching people who reflect you. Archie Bunker was popular (the character) with some audience members who felt he was dead right in everything he said and did. Others could watch the show because, if Archie annoyed them, they could count on Gloria and Mike to call him on it.
Barry annoys, but he's not really called on it. (And Green's no Carol O'Connor.) Most people confronted with a Barry would either avoid him or tell him (loudly) to shut up. That the other three (Ben, Bobby and Jason) don't could turn the audience against them.
Which is too bad. The show trotted out an old, old plot for Thursday's episode. The bar scene. They called it one night stands but, in other times, it's also been the swinging singles episode (as when Penny Marshall made her first appearance on The Mary Tyler Moore Show). Ben had to "score" a one night stand. That's not really in the character's make up and what followed could have been cloying and so touching that you threw up. Cooke managed to provide enough tension to keep it funny. He's a lead. It was a smart decision to cast him as Ben. McRae is a strong physical comedian and no one seems to have noticed that yet. It's as though an anchor is weighing him down (the anchor that should be around Green's neck?) and he's being prevented from cutting loose. The only worry regarding Grinnell is that his timing has been so strong, from the start, that he may find himself with too many weak lines in each script and be told, "You can make it funny!" instead of everyone working to figure out what's wrong with the lines.
Thursday night, the three leads demonstrated at the bar why they were all alone. Bobby just knew "vibe" talk followed by silent staring was the way to interest the opposite sex. Jason felt his technique was the way to make a woman interested in him: offer a slight compliment followed by an insult. Both went home without bed mates. Ben did land one but, as is the character's nature, immediately attempted to turn the one night stand into a long term romance.
Meeting her parents, going away for the weekend and other things were immediately planned before the morning coffee. In a scene that we'd love to see a network air with women involved (but we'll settle for men since most shows tries to convince you that unmarried equals death), Jason and Bobby explained why Ben would be making a mistake to rush from one long term releationship back into another one.
If Ross was "divorce guy" on Friends, Ben is "relationship guy" on Four Kings. A few years ago, or on CBS at any given moment, the argument would have been based on women destroying fun or weighing you down or some other crap. Instead the argument was based upon taking the time to get to know yourself. (Again, we'd love to see the networks feature a scene like that among women.)
Three Kings are three guys trying to figure out where they fit in the world today. (Not only does Barry not fit, his routines are so outdated that Larry from Three's Company comes off as modern by comparison.) This is a show that men and women can enjoy. You're not going to feel like you've just been disrespected if a man's laughing at Charlie Sheen's latest asault on women, for instance.
posted by Third Estate Sunday Review @ Sunday, January 15, 2006
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Thomas Friedman tries to get his war on wagging
Thomas Friedman is frustrated.
It's bad enough that Gail Collins regularly puts him in check mate. He's had a grudge against her and then some, after all, since she pulled his column from Sundays.
But there's so much more going on. He can no longer walk freely on the streets. For over a year, he's spoken of "drawing the sort of mobs that gathered around Marilyn" Monroe. He wishes. That's never been the case as I've seen it. One or two elderly women would usually approach to accost him and attack them with their handbags. As the Marilyn Monroe of the 21st century, his "sassy" highlights not withstanding, Thomas Friedman had been something of a bust. Even his book tour was a disappointment.
However, crowds have begun to form in the last few months. To boo and hiss. That has to do with a general cry from the universe: THOMAS FRIEDMAN, SHUT UP!
The universe speaks and Thomas Friedman doesn't listen.
Having tarnished so much of his already questionable reputation cheerleading the war in Iraq, Thomas Friedman's now signed up to serve his Bully Boy in the pursuit of another war. He's fretting over nukes. So some would be forgiven if they assumed Thomas Friedman had suddenly become interested in exactly what the government of Israel is doing in the Middle East but Thomas Friedman has, to put it very generously, a blind spot when it comes to Israel.
No, he's on yet another bash Muslims kick.
Last Friday, he declared that Iran must be stopped. Their stated intent, minus a CNN mistranslation, is to utilize more nuclear power for their energy industry. But Thomas Friedman knows best and claims to have a pipeline, a Daneil Pipes-line?, into the hearts and minds of a people he's never shown affinity for or understanding of, and he knows, just knows, they're going to "go nuclear" -- meaning bombs.
He is heckled where ever we go now. His cheerleading of yet another war appears to have reminded everyone that Judith Miller didn't "do op-eds" but Thomas Friedman certainly did and he's yet to explain his own questionable "reporting" in the lead up to war with Iraq.
Maybe he should before he cheers this country into another war based solely on his hatred of the Arab world?
"The Axis of Order" saw him cobbling together bits and pieces of everything he could get his grubby little hands on. Remember his insultng remarks to Liang that got us barred from that establishment? His "In your country they would just call this 'food' but here we call it 'Chinese food'" that led her to remark, "In China they would call you 'American bore' but in this country you are just a 'bore'"? (Liang thinks Thomas Friedman ripped off a December 2005 article that appeared in China's Xinhua.)
He works his insult in with a mythical reaction to a speech he wasn't present for. That the speech was given by Robert Zoellick, Depucty Secretary of State, tells you a great deal about where Thomas Friedman gets his "information." Possibly another Enron refugee hiding out in the Bully Boy adminstration is the last thing even Thomas Friedman should cheerlead?
So after his insulting, cheap laughs at another country's culture and language (China), our bwana, immediately begins hectoring China on what they need to do. Because surely every person in China must devotedly follow each and every dribble that flows out of the corners of Thomas Friedman's mouth, right?
He thinks so. Just as he assumes that Russie and India do as well. Possibly the boos and hisses he gets while walking through the streets of NYC are the reason for that? He's taken to explaining to me, while I pretend not to know him to avoid the rotten fruit that some frequently hurl at him, "What has happened is that I have become an international star. No doubt Carlo Ponti will soon want to cast me in an updated version of Two Women."
Personally, I could see him in a remake of Heller in Pink Tights (and he wouldn't even have to forgoe his blonde streaks!) but Thomas Friedman is convinced that "I belong to the world now" while the world seems convinced upon figuring out how to sell him, quickly, to a second hand store.
People ask me what makes Thomas Friedman feel that anyone gives a damn what he thinks now that even American regularly ignore him? (There's a reason Gail Collins pulled him from Sundays, normally thought of as "the day of peace.")
I think it has to do with his inability to face how ineffectual and unwanted he's become. He's overcompensating.
Since I started sneaking the "vitamins" he used to force me to take, sneaking them into his food, getting his war on is about the only "on" he can produce. And since seeing Davy Brooks in the "sock," he's become almost as obsessed as Gail Collins. Long gone are the days when he'd dress up as Judith Miller for sex play because sex play has become a distant memory for Thomas Friedman.
He likes to tell people that he holds the entire world's fate in his hands but from my vantage point, the only thing he's holding in his hand is an embarrassment of manhood. And, as with the world, he can't get a reaction from it.
Even in the best of times, Thomas Friedman was "underdeveloped," these days he's lifeless.
Impotency reaches the op-ed pages of the New York Times finally in all its nonglory and Thomas Friedman overcompensates to avoid being dubbed the only title he's truly earned "the non sex symbol."
Friends ask how can I live with the Friedman and I always explain to them that most days it's easy. While he rants and raves around the apartment in his shorty robe, I focus on issues that really matter.
Or when my friends and I gather to stop the occupation of Iraq, I remind myself that Thomas Friedman is footing the bill, much to his displeasure. He stomps his feet and sulks anytime that Elaine, Jess and I begin singing one of our new favorite songs by Melanie:
For sometimes when I am feeling as big as the land
With the velvet hill in the small of my back
And my hands are playing the sand
And my feet are swimming in all of the waters
All of the rivers are givers to the ocean
According to plan, according to man
Well sometimes when I am feeling so grand
And I become the world
And the world becomes a man
And my song becomes a part of the river
I cry out to keep me just the way I am
According to plan
According to man, according to plan
According to man, according to plan
Oh there's a chance peace will come
In your life, please buy one
Oh there's a chance peace will come
In your life, please buy one
It's all about trade offs and, for now, I call it "marriage."
thomas friedman
the new york times
gail collins
david brooks
melanie
peace will come according to plan
the common ills
like maria said paz
the third estate sunday review
It's bad enough that Gail Collins regularly puts him in check mate. He's had a grudge against her and then some, after all, since she pulled his column from Sundays.
But there's so much more going on. He can no longer walk freely on the streets. For over a year, he's spoken of "drawing the sort of mobs that gathered around Marilyn" Monroe. He wishes. That's never been the case as I've seen it. One or two elderly women would usually approach to accost him and attack them with their handbags. As the Marilyn Monroe of the 21st century, his "sassy" highlights not withstanding, Thomas Friedman had been something of a bust. Even his book tour was a disappointment.
However, crowds have begun to form in the last few months. To boo and hiss. That has to do with a general cry from the universe: THOMAS FRIEDMAN, SHUT UP!
The universe speaks and Thomas Friedman doesn't listen.
Having tarnished so much of his already questionable reputation cheerleading the war in Iraq, Thomas Friedman's now signed up to serve his Bully Boy in the pursuit of another war. He's fretting over nukes. So some would be forgiven if they assumed Thomas Friedman had suddenly become interested in exactly what the government of Israel is doing in the Middle East but Thomas Friedman has, to put it very generously, a blind spot when it comes to Israel.
No, he's on yet another bash Muslims kick.
Last Friday, he declared that Iran must be stopped. Their stated intent, minus a CNN mistranslation, is to utilize more nuclear power for their energy industry. But Thomas Friedman knows best and claims to have a pipeline, a Daneil Pipes-line?, into the hearts and minds of a people he's never shown affinity for or understanding of, and he knows, just knows, they're going to "go nuclear" -- meaning bombs.
He is heckled where ever we go now. His cheerleading of yet another war appears to have reminded everyone that Judith Miller didn't "do op-eds" but Thomas Friedman certainly did and he's yet to explain his own questionable "reporting" in the lead up to war with Iraq.
Maybe he should before he cheers this country into another war based solely on his hatred of the Arab world?
"The Axis of Order" saw him cobbling together bits and pieces of everything he could get his grubby little hands on. Remember his insultng remarks to Liang that got us barred from that establishment? His "In your country they would just call this 'food' but here we call it 'Chinese food'" that led her to remark, "In China they would call you 'American bore' but in this country you are just a 'bore'"? (Liang thinks Thomas Friedman ripped off a December 2005 article that appeared in China's Xinhua.)
He works his insult in with a mythical reaction to a speech he wasn't present for. That the speech was given by Robert Zoellick, Depucty Secretary of State, tells you a great deal about where Thomas Friedman gets his "information." Possibly another Enron refugee hiding out in the Bully Boy adminstration is the last thing even Thomas Friedman should cheerlead?
So after his insulting, cheap laughs at another country's culture and language (China), our bwana, immediately begins hectoring China on what they need to do. Because surely every person in China must devotedly follow each and every dribble that flows out of the corners of Thomas Friedman's mouth, right?
He thinks so. Just as he assumes that Russie and India do as well. Possibly the boos and hisses he gets while walking through the streets of NYC are the reason for that? He's taken to explaining to me, while I pretend not to know him to avoid the rotten fruit that some frequently hurl at him, "What has happened is that I have become an international star. No doubt Carlo Ponti will soon want to cast me in an updated version of Two Women."
Personally, I could see him in a remake of Heller in Pink Tights (and he wouldn't even have to forgoe his blonde streaks!) but Thomas Friedman is convinced that "I belong to the world now" while the world seems convinced upon figuring out how to sell him, quickly, to a second hand store.
People ask me what makes Thomas Friedman feel that anyone gives a damn what he thinks now that even American regularly ignore him? (There's a reason Gail Collins pulled him from Sundays, normally thought of as "the day of peace.")
I think it has to do with his inability to face how ineffectual and unwanted he's become. He's overcompensating.
Since I started sneaking the "vitamins" he used to force me to take, sneaking them into his food, getting his war on is about the only "on" he can produce. And since seeing Davy Brooks in the "sock," he's become almost as obsessed as Gail Collins. Long gone are the days when he'd dress up as Judith Miller for sex play because sex play has become a distant memory for Thomas Friedman.
He likes to tell people that he holds the entire world's fate in his hands but from my vantage point, the only thing he's holding in his hand is an embarrassment of manhood. And, as with the world, he can't get a reaction from it.
Even in the best of times, Thomas Friedman was "underdeveloped," these days he's lifeless.
Impotency reaches the op-ed pages of the New York Times finally in all its nonglory and Thomas Friedman overcompensates to avoid being dubbed the only title he's truly earned "the non sex symbol."
Friends ask how can I live with the Friedman and I always explain to them that most days it's easy. While he rants and raves around the apartment in his shorty robe, I focus on issues that really matter.
Or when my friends and I gather to stop the occupation of Iraq, I remind myself that Thomas Friedman is footing the bill, much to his displeasure. He stomps his feet and sulks anytime that Elaine, Jess and I begin singing one of our new favorite songs by Melanie:
For sometimes when I am feeling as big as the land
With the velvet hill in the small of my back
And my hands are playing the sand
And my feet are swimming in all of the waters
All of the rivers are givers to the ocean
According to plan, according to man
Well sometimes when I am feeling so grand
And I become the world
And the world becomes a man
And my song becomes a part of the river
I cry out to keep me just the way I am
According to plan
According to man, according to plan
According to man, according to plan
Oh there's a chance peace will come
In your life, please buy one
Oh there's a chance peace will come
In your life, please buy one
It's all about trade offs and, for now, I call it "marriage."
thomas friedman
the new york times
gail collins
david brooks
melanie
peace will come according to plan
the common ills
like maria said paz
the third estate sunday review
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
The tough talking Thomas Friedman
Elaine was the first to call. "Is Thomas Friedman beating you?"
She'd read his last three columns. I offered my sympathies. But no, he's not beating me. He is talking tough these days or, as like to think of it, Mr. Meek Gets More Mouthy.
Here's what happened.
About four times a month, sometimes less, Thomas Friedman actually goes into the office. He'd just finished the enforced vacation Gail Collins put him on. He was "back, baby!"
So he wanted to go in the next day and work on his column there.
No problem with me.
But then he starts "ordering" lunch for tomorrow. Now he's done that before and it always ticks me off. He comes home for lunch on the few days I actually don't have him underfoot.
So this time, I was thinking, "Now wait just a minute. You should take me out to lunch."
Only I said it.
Thomas Friedman hit the roof.
"We have Ritz crackers and canned cheese here!"
Yes, we do. And Thomas Friedman is kind enough to allow me to fix them for him and watch him eat them.
"Thomas Friedman," I said, "you are the one always talking about outsourcing! Why are you so cheap! Why do you want to hurt the econmy!"
Oh that made him mad. He may think the world is flat but his ego is oversize and lumpy.
I didn't like his attitude.
So the next day, I staged my own little protest.
I showed up at the Times carrying my sign that read "THOMAS FRIEDMAN DOESN'T SUPPORT PRIVATIZATION!"
He hit the roof.
"Betinna," he screeched, "you will get me fired! I am the world's disciple when it comes to privatization! How dare you smear my good reputation!"
I wasn't budging.
"Privatize! Privatize! Stop Thomas Friedman lies!" I chanted mainly to mess with him because it was funny watching him sneak glances around the office trying to see who was watching.
He caved. The way he always does when you humiliate him.
So he was going into his office when my New Year's was ruined.
Gail Collins comes rushing up all giddy and flushed while eating a muffin.
"Betinna," she panted between bites, "Davy has spilled Diet Coke on his shirt. He's headed to his office to take it off!"
Someone had just tipped her off, she explained but I got the feeling she'd paid someone to spill Diet Coke on Davy Brook's shirt.
"Well that's great, Gail."
"Great! Oh, I'm so heady with excitement! I hope I don't say something stupid! I hope I don't pass out! I hope I don't get pregnant!"
From a shirt being taken off? Gail's spent a lot of time on the prarie but apparently she's missed the animals mating. I was about to bring that up when I noticed the blue berry stain on her front tooth.
"Wait, Gail, your teeth," I said pointing.
"What?"
I moved in close.
"You've got a stain from your blue berry muffin."
"It's a bran muffin," Gail informed me.
Of course it is. She's so regular.
I took my fingernail to her tooth and scraped.
"Oh, never mind. It's apparently a natural stain."
"What?" Gail asked looking cross as though her teeth were my fault and, at that minute, Thomas Friedman came charging out of his office cussing under his breath.
Not watching where he was going, he pushed into me and I pushed into Gail. Somehow the stained tooth ended up out of her mouth and lying on the carpet.
"My tooth!" Gail howled.
I tried to reassure her that they could put it back in if she hurried to a dentist, though I did wonder why anyone would want to put a discolored tooth back in their mouth, but she was too busy trying to stop the bleeding.
In the long drawn out thing that followed, she missed Brooks changing shirts. And she can be a vengful thing. Since she couldn't do much to me, I believe I'm her only friend, she went after Thomas Friedman and tore him a new one. Shouting, screaming and spitting blood, she told him it was all his fault and that he was back on a one week suspension.
"Collins! You can't do this to me!" Thomas Friedman snapped.
"Gail, if he goes back on vacation, he'll drive me insane," I insisted.
Gail looked at me for a few moments and then smiled thinly.
"I'm sure you'll manage," she smirked.
Suddenly, I wasn't feeling so bad that she'd lost a tooth.
"My fans! My many, many fans! How will they make it through without me!" Thomas Friedman howled.
"I'm sure they'll both be fine," Gail said sauntering off.
Score one for Miss Mouse.
So another week of hell. And on New Year's Eve.
I can't imagine that even in my village I ever had such a dreary New Year's Eve. Thomas Friedman wanted snacks. Ritz crackers and canned cheese, of course. He wanted to watch Dick Clark but then screamed there was something wrong with the TV because he couldn't find Dick Clark. I tried to point out that it was barely six o'clock and I doubted the countdown would start for a few hours. But Thomas Friedman was convinced that the TV was screwed up and that it was all due to that "pushy woman" Gail Collins.
After pretending to listen to him whine for a half hour, I figured I cut my losses and turn in.
I say all that not just to get it out in my computer journal but also because it explains Thomas Friedman's new attitude which is far, far from Patti LaBelle's.
He's furious still with Gail Collins. I really don't understand why he's furious. He got to wear his shorty robe a few more days and eat grape jelly out of the jar in front of the TV the way he likes.
But he's been obsessing over the "wimp factor." It's like living with Poppy Bush only I'm younger and far nicer than Big Babs. Also, unlike Big Babs, no one's ever confused me with the family pet Millie.
He had two resolutions for the New Year: sit ups and "No more Mr. Nice Guy."
He's managed to keep the latter one. Probably helps that he wasn't all that nice to begin with.
His return to the op-ed pages Januaray 4th found him uwing a new tool to bash Arabs with, oil.
Face it, if Thomas Friedman couldn't bash Arabs, half the time, he'd have nothing to say. Which is another argument for Arab-Americans to complain to the paper in large numbers. But I thought Gail managed to work in a little trick to welcome Thomas Friedman back to the paper. She offers non-denials when I ask if she called in a favor, but judge for yourself, I say.
The day he returned, the lower left-hand corner of the front page declared "Cheese and More Cheese." Seemed like an appropriate warning to the unsuspecting who picked up the paper.
Having started the new year bashing Arabs, Thomas Friedman followed up by calling Bully Boy and Dick Cheney wimps. He still managed to bash Arabs. He's convinced that he's found a new topic that will allow him to bash them all year round: oil. It also allowed him to bash Hugo Chavez. Today he ridiculed the right of return for Palestinians and praised Ariel Sharon who will be remembered for many things but "peaceful" won't be one of them.
I actually support the concept of the wall. Not for Israel, but around our home. I was thinking how much nicer each day would be if I could build a wall to keep Thomas Friedman outside the living room. Then I thought, "I'll keep him out of the kitchen as well!" And of course the bedroom. Then I remembered how he refuses to flush the toilet so I pictured walling him off from that as well. But then I realized that no matter what I think of Thomas Friedman, it's not fair to grab terroritory and enforce misery.
Thomas Friedman obviously doens't agree or he would have surrended his op-ed space long ago.
But when I wonder how someone can have so much hate towards an entire people, I just remind myself that Thomas Friedman is convinced he's correct and that God sends him messages.
Like when I was listening to the 10,000 Maniacs the other day while scrubbing the kitchen floor. He came in and asked me to play "that pretty song again." Which one?
"The pro-Israel song."
"Thomas Friedman," I said, "I do not think there's a song like that on Our Time In Eden."
He insisted there was.
"It's the song about the peaceful Israeli."
I told him there was no such song.
"Yes, there is!" he said stomping his feet. "The song about the peaceful Israeli. The Arab breaks into the home and destroys everything."
"Jezebel?"
"What?"
I sing this to him:
You lie there an innocent baby
I feel like the thief who is raiding your home
Entering and breaking and taking in every room
I know your feelings are tender
And that inside you the embers still glow.
But I'm a shadow,
I'm only a bed of blackened coal.
Call myself Jezebel for wanting to leave.
"That's it!" he cries. "But you got the words wrong. It's not 'innocent baby,' it's 'peaceful Israeli.'"
I played the song for him. He was nodding his head excitedly until Natalie Merchant sang "an innocent baby."
He insisted that I'd pulled a fast one on him, switched cassette tapes, and pointed out that he "surfs now!" so he knows "a few things" like how Alan Cowell breathlessly wrote of someone calling for Tony Blair's impeachment Tuesday when, in fact, they'd called it for it days earlier.
I'm glad Thomas Friedman knows how to do more than look at online porn, he still swears he doesn't know how that fake nude of Screech from Saved By The Bell ended up as our screensaver, but Natalie Merchant sings "innocent baby."
Still it explains why he can continue to write the most hateful things about Arabs. He really thinks that everyone thinks like he does. He imagines he hears that sort of talk everywhere.
Some nights, when he's on my last nerves, I toy with pretending I'm Arab just to set him off.
I think if he ever thought he was face to face with one, he'd have a stroke.
Which would leave me with the apartment. Something any New Yorker has to keep in mind at all times.
thomas friedman
gail collins
david brooks
the new york times
the common ills
10000 maniacs
like maria said paz
10,000 maniacs
natalie merchant
our time in eden
She'd read his last three columns. I offered my sympathies. But no, he's not beating me. He is talking tough these days or, as like to think of it, Mr. Meek Gets More Mouthy.
Here's what happened.
About four times a month, sometimes less, Thomas Friedman actually goes into the office. He'd just finished the enforced vacation Gail Collins put him on. He was "back, baby!"
So he wanted to go in the next day and work on his column there.
No problem with me.
But then he starts "ordering" lunch for tomorrow. Now he's done that before and it always ticks me off. He comes home for lunch on the few days I actually don't have him underfoot.
So this time, I was thinking, "Now wait just a minute. You should take me out to lunch."
Only I said it.
Thomas Friedman hit the roof.
"We have Ritz crackers and canned cheese here!"
Yes, we do. And Thomas Friedman is kind enough to allow me to fix them for him and watch him eat them.
"Thomas Friedman," I said, "you are the one always talking about outsourcing! Why are you so cheap! Why do you want to hurt the econmy!"
Oh that made him mad. He may think the world is flat but his ego is oversize and lumpy.
I didn't like his attitude.
So the next day, I staged my own little protest.
I showed up at the Times carrying my sign that read "THOMAS FRIEDMAN DOESN'T SUPPORT PRIVATIZATION!"
He hit the roof.
"Betinna," he screeched, "you will get me fired! I am the world's disciple when it comes to privatization! How dare you smear my good reputation!"
I wasn't budging.
"Privatize! Privatize! Stop Thomas Friedman lies!" I chanted mainly to mess with him because it was funny watching him sneak glances around the office trying to see who was watching.
He caved. The way he always does when you humiliate him.
So he was going into his office when my New Year's was ruined.
Gail Collins comes rushing up all giddy and flushed while eating a muffin.
"Betinna," she panted between bites, "Davy has spilled Diet Coke on his shirt. He's headed to his office to take it off!"
Someone had just tipped her off, she explained but I got the feeling she'd paid someone to spill Diet Coke on Davy Brook's shirt.
"Well that's great, Gail."
"Great! Oh, I'm so heady with excitement! I hope I don't say something stupid! I hope I don't pass out! I hope I don't get pregnant!"
From a shirt being taken off? Gail's spent a lot of time on the prarie but apparently she's missed the animals mating. I was about to bring that up when I noticed the blue berry stain on her front tooth.
"Wait, Gail, your teeth," I said pointing.
"What?"
I moved in close.
"You've got a stain from your blue berry muffin."
"It's a bran muffin," Gail informed me.
Of course it is. She's so regular.
I took my fingernail to her tooth and scraped.
"Oh, never mind. It's apparently a natural stain."
"What?" Gail asked looking cross as though her teeth were my fault and, at that minute, Thomas Friedman came charging out of his office cussing under his breath.
Not watching where he was going, he pushed into me and I pushed into Gail. Somehow the stained tooth ended up out of her mouth and lying on the carpet.
"My tooth!" Gail howled.
I tried to reassure her that they could put it back in if she hurried to a dentist, though I did wonder why anyone would want to put a discolored tooth back in their mouth, but she was too busy trying to stop the bleeding.
In the long drawn out thing that followed, she missed Brooks changing shirts. And she can be a vengful thing. Since she couldn't do much to me, I believe I'm her only friend, she went after Thomas Friedman and tore him a new one. Shouting, screaming and spitting blood, she told him it was all his fault and that he was back on a one week suspension.
"Collins! You can't do this to me!" Thomas Friedman snapped.
"Gail, if he goes back on vacation, he'll drive me insane," I insisted.
Gail looked at me for a few moments and then smiled thinly.
"I'm sure you'll manage," she smirked.
Suddenly, I wasn't feeling so bad that she'd lost a tooth.
"My fans! My many, many fans! How will they make it through without me!" Thomas Friedman howled.
"I'm sure they'll both be fine," Gail said sauntering off.
Score one for Miss Mouse.
So another week of hell. And on New Year's Eve.
I can't imagine that even in my village I ever had such a dreary New Year's Eve. Thomas Friedman wanted snacks. Ritz crackers and canned cheese, of course. He wanted to watch Dick Clark but then screamed there was something wrong with the TV because he couldn't find Dick Clark. I tried to point out that it was barely six o'clock and I doubted the countdown would start for a few hours. But Thomas Friedman was convinced that the TV was screwed up and that it was all due to that "pushy woman" Gail Collins.
After pretending to listen to him whine for a half hour, I figured I cut my losses and turn in.
I say all that not just to get it out in my computer journal but also because it explains Thomas Friedman's new attitude which is far, far from Patti LaBelle's.
He's furious still with Gail Collins. I really don't understand why he's furious. He got to wear his shorty robe a few more days and eat grape jelly out of the jar in front of the TV the way he likes.
But he's been obsessing over the "wimp factor." It's like living with Poppy Bush only I'm younger and far nicer than Big Babs. Also, unlike Big Babs, no one's ever confused me with the family pet Millie.
He had two resolutions for the New Year: sit ups and "No more Mr. Nice Guy."
He's managed to keep the latter one. Probably helps that he wasn't all that nice to begin with.
His return to the op-ed pages Januaray 4th found him uwing a new tool to bash Arabs with, oil.
Face it, if Thomas Friedman couldn't bash Arabs, half the time, he'd have nothing to say. Which is another argument for Arab-Americans to complain to the paper in large numbers. But I thought Gail managed to work in a little trick to welcome Thomas Friedman back to the paper. She offers non-denials when I ask if she called in a favor, but judge for yourself, I say.
The day he returned, the lower left-hand corner of the front page declared "Cheese and More Cheese." Seemed like an appropriate warning to the unsuspecting who picked up the paper.
Having started the new year bashing Arabs, Thomas Friedman followed up by calling Bully Boy and Dick Cheney wimps. He still managed to bash Arabs. He's convinced that he's found a new topic that will allow him to bash them all year round: oil. It also allowed him to bash Hugo Chavez. Today he ridiculed the right of return for Palestinians and praised Ariel Sharon who will be remembered for many things but "peaceful" won't be one of them.
I actually support the concept of the wall. Not for Israel, but around our home. I was thinking how much nicer each day would be if I could build a wall to keep Thomas Friedman outside the living room. Then I thought, "I'll keep him out of the kitchen as well!" And of course the bedroom. Then I remembered how he refuses to flush the toilet so I pictured walling him off from that as well. But then I realized that no matter what I think of Thomas Friedman, it's not fair to grab terroritory and enforce misery.
Thomas Friedman obviously doens't agree or he would have surrended his op-ed space long ago.
But when I wonder how someone can have so much hate towards an entire people, I just remind myself that Thomas Friedman is convinced he's correct and that God sends him messages.
Like when I was listening to the 10,000 Maniacs the other day while scrubbing the kitchen floor. He came in and asked me to play "that pretty song again." Which one?
"The pro-Israel song."
"Thomas Friedman," I said, "I do not think there's a song like that on Our Time In Eden."
He insisted there was.
"It's the song about the peaceful Israeli."
I told him there was no such song.
"Yes, there is!" he said stomping his feet. "The song about the peaceful Israeli. The Arab breaks into the home and destroys everything."
"Jezebel?"
"What?"
I sing this to him:
You lie there an innocent baby
I feel like the thief who is raiding your home
Entering and breaking and taking in every room
I know your feelings are tender
And that inside you the embers still glow.
But I'm a shadow,
I'm only a bed of blackened coal.
Call myself Jezebel for wanting to leave.
"That's it!" he cries. "But you got the words wrong. It's not 'innocent baby,' it's 'peaceful Israeli.'"
I played the song for him. He was nodding his head excitedly until Natalie Merchant sang "an innocent baby."
He insisted that I'd pulled a fast one on him, switched cassette tapes, and pointed out that he "surfs now!" so he knows "a few things" like how Alan Cowell breathlessly wrote of someone calling for Tony Blair's impeachment Tuesday when, in fact, they'd called it for it days earlier.
I'm glad Thomas Friedman knows how to do more than look at online porn, he still swears he doesn't know how that fake nude of Screech from Saved By The Bell ended up as our screensaver, but Natalie Merchant sings "innocent baby."
Still it explains why he can continue to write the most hateful things about Arabs. He really thinks that everyone thinks like he does. He imagines he hears that sort of talk everywhere.
Some nights, when he's on my last nerves, I toy with pretending I'm Arab just to set him off.
I think if he ever thought he was face to face with one, he'd have a stroke.
Which would leave me with the apartment. Something any New Yorker has to keep in mind at all times.
thomas friedman
gail collins
david brooks
the new york times
the common ills
10000 maniacs
like maria said paz
10,000 maniacs
natalie merchant
our time in eden
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
The Prig of Paxil
The world's loss is my gain.
After six weeks with the Prig of Paxil, aka my husband Thomas Friedman, I felt like I was zipping down the exit ramp to Edge of Sanity Blvd. with him.
You know how he's the urban blight of the op-ed pages, how he drags down everyone around him?
Well Thomas Friedman in person isn't all that different from Thomas Friedman in print.
And you know how you feel like from Wednesday to Friday, you can't get a handle on his writing? That's exactly like Thomas Friedman the man.
He's bi-polar, which most people would probably figure out rather quickly, and nothing helps.
He's supposed to take his Paxil. But he's rationing them out to one a week because he frets over his co-pay. Which, with his plan, is kind of like Lovey and the Millionaire debating a half hour on whether or not to biggie size an order of fries.
He's convinced it's all "one big scam." And that instead of monthly refills, he can make a bottle last for a full year.
Which explains why, last Wednesday, he can sound like Hillary Clinton not sure what to say on the war so instead using rhetoric about our duties and then, on Friday, sound like the internationalist version of Trent Lott as he mocks "turbans" (among other things.)
As if the caterpillar he has sprouting beneath his nose strikes anyone as "fashionable."
Thomas Friedman is struggling to scale Mount Humanity while lacking all the basic equipment and skills. Once you understand that, you understand the Prig of Paxil.
The six weeks is over, the enforced vacation, and I really hate that he returned in time to spoil the world's holiday. But when I think of the number of people whose Wednesday he ruined last week or the number of people whose Friday he ruined, I think of how, day after day, 'til the clouds roll by, he ruined six weeks of my life that I'll never get back. Balancing Thomas Friedman inflicting his ill will, Arab stereotypes and bad tidings on the world, as opposed to just hurling them in my face, I find that, selfish or not, I prefer it that way.
He came upon a midnight clear and stunk up the whole world. If there's to be any hope in 2006, it depends upon the fence sitters like Thomas Friedman waking up to the reality that is Iraq. Don't place any bets.
thomas friedman
the new york times
the common ills
thomas friedman is a great man
the third estate sunday review
iraq
After six weeks with the Prig of Paxil, aka my husband Thomas Friedman, I felt like I was zipping down the exit ramp to Edge of Sanity Blvd. with him.
You know how he's the urban blight of the op-ed pages, how he drags down everyone around him?
Well Thomas Friedman in person isn't all that different from Thomas Friedman in print.
And you know how you feel like from Wednesday to Friday, you can't get a handle on his writing? That's exactly like Thomas Friedman the man.
He's bi-polar, which most people would probably figure out rather quickly, and nothing helps.
He's supposed to take his Paxil. But he's rationing them out to one a week because he frets over his co-pay. Which, with his plan, is kind of like Lovey and the Millionaire debating a half hour on whether or not to biggie size an order of fries.
He's convinced it's all "one big scam." And that instead of monthly refills, he can make a bottle last for a full year.
Which explains why, last Wednesday, he can sound like Hillary Clinton not sure what to say on the war so instead using rhetoric about our duties and then, on Friday, sound like the internationalist version of Trent Lott as he mocks "turbans" (among other things.)
As if the caterpillar he has sprouting beneath his nose strikes anyone as "fashionable."
Thomas Friedman is struggling to scale Mount Humanity while lacking all the basic equipment and skills. Once you understand that, you understand the Prig of Paxil.
The six weeks is over, the enforced vacation, and I really hate that he returned in time to spoil the world's holiday. But when I think of the number of people whose Wednesday he ruined last week or the number of people whose Friday he ruined, I think of how, day after day, 'til the clouds roll by, he ruined six weeks of my life that I'll never get back. Balancing Thomas Friedman inflicting his ill will, Arab stereotypes and bad tidings on the world, as opposed to just hurling them in my face, I find that, selfish or not, I prefer it that way.
He came upon a midnight clear and stunk up the whole world. If there's to be any hope in 2006, it depends upon the fence sitters like Thomas Friedman waking up to the reality that is Iraq. Don't place any bets.
thomas friedman
the new york times
the common ills
thomas friedman is a great man
the third estate sunday review
iraq
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)