
(guest blog by Taylor Marsh)
I don't know about you, but when I was a kid, the person who dragged me out of bed for church every Sunday was my mother.
Frankly, I suspect that if you took a poll around this country, women would be the impetus for at least 50% of the homes getting religion on Sunday. That's why it really burns me when every time religion, abortion, and "family values" are discussed we are either under represented or not included at all. When it comes to matters of state, war and peace, national security and keeping America safe, fughettaboutit.
If you're up early on Sunday mornings in Washington, you can observe a weekly ritual. Around 9am, a string of chauffeured town cars and SUVs pulls up outside the NBC studio on Nebraska Avenue in Northwest Washington where "Meet the Press" is recorded, and out tumble government officials and politicians, reporters, and pundits. They scan the weekend papers over coffee in the green room, catch up with the women who apply their make-up, and wait for their chance to spin or pontificate. One thing you might notice about these select individuals—other than the fact that there are very few women—is that lately they are mostly conservative.
Which leads to another Sunday morning ritual: American liberals yelling at their televisions.
No, liberals, it's not your imagination. "Meet the Press" and the other Sunday political talk shows really have leaned more to the right in recent years. At Media Matters for America, we looked at every one of the 7,000 guests who appeared on the three major Sunday shows from 1997 through 2005—Bill Clinton's second term, George W. Bush's first term, and the last year. We found that the left has of late found itself outnumbered, in some ways substantially, on the television shows that define the Washington conventional wisdom. Liberals are already a disturbingly rare species among what Calvin Trillin refers to as the "Sabbath Gasbags." And in some debates—the war in Iraq, for example—they are in danger of becoming extinct. ... ...
John Fund Again? - by Paul Waldman (emphasis added)
It's not your imagination—the Sunday shows really do lean right.
The Sunday shows reach around 10 million people, according to Waldman. As he states in his article, Sunday morning shows are the ticket to respectability and pundit power, which extends to politicians who participate. The Sunday shows divvy up the debating points between the serious players, which often follows into the Monday morning newspapers.
It's amazing that women who have opinions and can debate the facts are still considered, well, bitches.
If women aren't part of the dialogue on the Sunday shows, we won't be part of the solutions and power structure that makes those decisions. This matters, especially as women are at least half of the population.
So why aren't women equally represented on the Sunday morning talk shows?
Got me.
Habit? Nobody cares? Nobody is paying attention? Nonsense. The public has to demand it, expect it and rely on hearing women's voices on Sunday morning. Given the importance of women in the family's faith, you'd think the panels would at least make an effort to invite some mothers on.
We won't even start talking about Democratic or liberals and progressive women, because conservatives were 58% of the Sunday political talk show guests in 2005; 56% in 2004; 57% in 2003; 59% in 2002; 59% in 2001, according to Media Matters study, If It's Sunday, It's Conservative.
But getting back to women, we certainly aren't being represented because there aren't talented women out there who can speak authoritatively on a wide range of topics, whether it's faith, abortion, "family values," or matters of foreign policy and national security.
To find out that female producers behind the scenes aren't helping make women part of the conversation, however, is down right infuriating.
First, the most exasperating. Tim Russert has three producers, all of whom are women. So will someone please tell me why they are always booking men? This is especially true when the subject is faith, abortion, and "family values." It's an outrage. Guests today include "a Catholic priest and nun; a Jewish rabbi, a Protestant minister, an Islamic scholar and a noted historian about the intersection of faith, morality and politics." Fine, but the bottom line also reads, one woman and five men, plus a clip of Billy Graham.
On George Stephanopolous' "This Week," Donna Brazile is the only woman scheduled, but only for the panel discussion, with four men as guests, as well as more men as part of the panel. But women are rarely allowed as featured speakers on matters of state or world affairs.
There aren't any women scheduled on Fox "News" Sunday, though Mara Liasson was included in the panel segment, however, Brit Hume seems irritated every time she speaks.
Bob Schieffer's "Face the Nation," has no women scheduled. And again, Schieffer's producer is a woman.
Wolf Blitzer has Senator Diane Feinstein, the token chick. For Easter religiosity, Wolf is offering up Rev. Jerry Falwell. Again, women evidently aren't qualified to talk about faith on TV.
Look, I love men, absolutely love 'em. But it takes two genders to make the world go around. It's also way past time that women got a chance to run things, or at least talk about how to run things, especially on the Sunday morning political talk show circuit. It's doubtful we can do a worse job.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
fitz ‘em all - let God sort ‘em out
Fitzzz! Stop the madness and the wars!
It takes two sexes to make the world go round. Gender is a technical term from grammar. Please stop kowtowing to that repressed and repressive bunch of anti-life numbskulls.
Got all Norske there for a sec - sort of a lower-case homage.
Most likely explanation- viewer demographics..
America is marketing gone mad!
Here’s a link to a bizarre story in the WP about how demographers approach housing development. They polled the potential buyers and built several different neighborhoods within a master development to appeal to various “values” groups..
So ya got cher conspicuous consumption community over here- with Hummer parking- and yer “environmentally and socially responsible” group over there. In the middle ya got cher fundie Christian community where every house looks like a country church.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....01087.html
Oops-forgot the link- here it is:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....01087.html
Nice link, rwcole. Here’s a snapshot, capturing just a couple of the opening paragraphs…
“Please check the box that comes closest to how you feel most of the time,” it began, and asked people to rate how strongly they agreed with various statements.
“We need to treat the planet as a living system,” read one. “Abortions should not be legal unless there’s a threat to life,” read another. And, “I have been born again in Jesus Christ.” There were questions about corporate greed, divorce, the merits of foreign travel.
Brig Gen Marks - turned down the promotion interview with SecDef - upset at how McKiernan and Shinsecki were treated, in case of current leadership in SecDef’s office, these exceptional men were not treated well” and this led to Marks refusing a promotion opportunity and resigning.
Wolfie is giving a lot of credit to the generals who have been speaking out - surprising as he is playing a lot of their footage and asking questions that suggest approval of their criticisms.
Grange is very nervous about criticizing Rummy but keeps saying the ret gens have a lot of credibility.
jayt–pretty good likeness of the Norske.
Happy Easter to all who celebrate it!
Taylor - thank you again for raising misogyny. VG had interesting things to add last night and your point about the lack of women as strategists or pundits is important.
In all these areas - racism, sexism - there’s an accepted assumption that these problems are solved while the oppression has simply moved in polite circles to code talk rather than outright bigotry.
Just another reason the MSM is being buried by the blogosphere.
Bad as teevee is, print media sucks badly also on this score - the disgusting WaPo op-ed page is so utterly and relentlessly male-lopsided it could be the freakin College of Cardinals.
I suppose the main, glaring point is that there aren’t many women in power in our political system. Or not enough. The thinking on these shows must subconsciously be, if voters (our audience) don’t care enough about women to vote for them, then who will watch them on TV?
Sad, but true.
Oh, and Solzhenitsyn (sp?) made the exact same observation about women as the ones most likely to push for religion and its observation, way back when, in Gulag Archipelago. The part about women pushing religion on their loved ones which always sickens me is that women do this, usually for faiths that don’t give a damn about them, really.
Did the Christian Conservative community have a launch pad for “rapture”?
-GSD
My wife used to keep a sign on her office door that read “51% Lady, 49% Bitch: Don’t Push It.”
:)
http://www.bgladd.com/Easter_2006.jpg
back to the generals for a second -
In the face of the ‘there’s hundreds of generals’ meme, Gilliard points out that 3 of the 6 had Iraq commands, so STFU!
hope everyone is reading his Iraq/Iran/Military Posts - whenever I want to hear authentic military voices speak on issues, I go there and to Taylor’s place (although I spent much of this last week hiding under the bed)
This has driven me crazy for years. but it’s particularly bad today because we’re in the 21st century.
The one thing that really rattles my cage is the religious exclusion of women in the conversation, as well as when these Sunday panels talk about abortion and “family values.” You usually get Richard Land, Jerry Falwell and even Al Sharpton, without a woman involved anywhere. I’ve written about this many times before, but nothing seems to change, so I relished the opportunity to give a shout out on FDL on the subject, because of the power Jane and Christy have to get eyes on the page.
Some good news from The Scotsman:
Blair refuses to back Iran strike
BRIAN BRADY WESTMINSTER EDITOR
TONY Blair has told George Bush that Britain cannot offer military support to any strike on Iran, regardless of whether the move wins the backing of the international community, government sources claimed yesterday.
Amid increasing tension over Tehran’s attempts to develop a military nuclear capacity, the Prime Minister has laid bare the limits of his support for President Bush, who is believed to be considering an assault on Iran, Foreign Office sources revealed…
“Blair refuses to back Iran strike” as it would be put in the British rags.
“Poodle Pees on Shrub.”
-GSD
Bad news from Billmon — the Iran War has already begun:
This is Not a Drill
http://billmon.org/archives/002389.html
BTW- Talking about nominal “women” pundits -
Skanky Screech Woman Manly mAnn Coulter is on the front page of my paper’s OpEd section today.
D.C. producers seem to have a “stable” of folks that they re-cycle and just keep foisting upon the nation. It’s apparently a small club - meant to damn well stay that way. From right here, we could offer Christy, Taylor, and Jane (?)(c’mon Jane). Katrina V. has been great on This Week.
Why would these producers not want fresh attractive faces with new and thought-provoking points of view?
Eeeeeew, BobbyG. Not a nice thing to wake up on any day!
Is this our religious version of a burhka?
I think the answer is absurdly simple: in general, boys don’t like listening to girls.
It’s wrong, of course, both for obvious reasons and also for Gloria Steinem-esque reasons. But I think it’s absolutely true.
After getting McCain and Falwell all cozy together in Tevee Land, Blitzer asks Falwell if there is any chance that the democrats will pick off some family values voters. Falwell says, slim chance - as long as the dems are pro choice, pro gay marriage and do not support the war. Go Republican Jesus! Killin’ in the name of Jesus is good stuff.
I think it would be fun to have Sheila Jackson Lee on some of these shows. Of course, the problem with her is that she makes conservative men feel like their testicles are crawling into their livers, although, to me, that’s a GOOD effect to have on those wussies.
Going Nuclear
The Pentagon Preps for Iran
By William M. Arkin
Washington Post, Sunday, April 16, 2006; Page B01
Does the United States have a war plan for stopping Iran in its pursuit of nuclear weapons?
Last week, President Bush dismissed news reports that his administration has been working on contingency plans for war — particularly talk of the possibility of using tactical nuclear weapons against Tehran — as “wild speculation.” Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld chimed in, calling it “fantasyland.” He declared to reporters that “it just isn’t useful” to talk about contingency planning.
But the secretary is wrong.
It’s important to talk about war planning that’s real. And it is for Iran. In early 2003, even as U.S. forces were on the brink of war with Iraq, the Army had already begun conducting an analysis for a full-scale war with Iran. The analysis, called TIRANNT, for “theater Iran near term,” was coupled with a mock scenario for a Marine Corps invasion and a simulation of the Iranian missile force. U.S. and British planners conducted a Caspian Sea war game around the same time. And Bush directed the U.S. Strategic Command to draw up a global strike war plan for an attack against Iranian weapons of mass de struction. All of this will ultimately feed into a new war plan for “major combat operations” against Iran that military sources confirm now exists in draft form.
None of this activity has been disclosed by the U.S. military, and when I wrote about Iran contingency planning last week on The Washington Post Web site, the Pentagon stuck to its dogged position that “we don’t discuss war plans.” But it should.
The diplomatic effort directed at Iran would be mightily enhanced if that country understood that the United States is so serious about deterring the Iranian quest for nuclear weapons that it would be willing to go to war to stop that quest from reaching fruition…
[snip]
…Iran needs to know that the administration is dead serious. But we all need to know that even absent an Iranian nuke or an Iranian attack of any kind, there is still another catastrophic scenario that could lead to war.
In a world of ready war plans and post-9/11 jitters, there is an ever greater demand for intelligence on the enemy. That means ever greater risks taken in collecting that intelligence. Meanwhile, war plans demand that forces be ready in certain places and on alert, while the potential for WMD necessitates shorter and shorter lead times for strikes against an enemy. So the greater danger now is of an inadvertent conflict, caused by something like the shooting down of a U.S. spy plane, by the capturing of a Special Operations or CIA team, or by nervous U.S. and Iranian forces coming into contact and starting to shoot at one another.
The war planning process is hardly neutral. It has subtle effects. As militaries stage mock attacks, potential adversaries become presumed enemies. Over time, contingency planning transforms yesterday’s question marks into today’s seeming certainty.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....01907.html
Scary stuff.
Hard to tell whether or not GW Clusterfuck actually intends to attack Iran. There is every reason to ACT as if he is planning an attack whether he is or isn’t- so the evidence is likely to be ambiguous- and the pundits don’t want to be responsible for unmasking him if he’s just threatening.
As long as this fucker is in the White House, though, the risk of him doing something stupid is an everyday risk.
cdj says:
April 16th, 2006 at 10:05 am
I think the answer is absurdly simple: in general, boys don’t like listening to girls.
—
Yeah. I don’t get it. Y’know, some of the very BEST profs I had in college were women. And, my wife is the smartest, most composed woman I ever met. As Director of Quality for The Shaw Group Environmental & Infrastructure Division, she has to routinely rein in a lot of Big Swingin’ Dick engineers and construction hard hats who don’t cotton to taking orders from a Skirt. She pulls it off. My widdle Jimmy Carter Liberal squeeze of 32 years. Sweet Southern Belle. You just don’t wanna fuck with her.
The Sunday shows are just another form of male display behavior, aka a pissing contest, where men compete with each other to see who is the biggest and most important . . . gasbag, in this case. Having women participate is an annoyance. Women are supposed to be the spectators, not competitors. And, truth be told, I don’t think serious female thinkers particularly enjoy this form of ritualized combat, and most are too polite to be really good at it.
This is, ultimately, why so few women are booked, why the ones that are are conservative harpies like Ann Coulter or Laura Ingraham, on because they are oddities who won’t spoil the fight.
“Blow them all away in the name of the Lord”
-Jerry Falwell
That is the caliber of cleric that holds sway in this nation.
Your wife is one of the heroes, BobbyG. And as far as boys not liking to listen to girls, though I realize it was meant in the general sense. As for Sunday shows, we don’t even know if that’s true. We haven’t had a chance to prove ourselves on Sunday morning. I think it’s laziness, as well as access of the few powerful, which still are men. But when female producers aren’t even trying to book women…
Does anyone think Katie Couric being the news anchor on CBS will help change this reality?
“It’s amazing that women who have opinions and can debate the facts are still considered, well, bitches.”
There’s a double standard here–the airwaves are full of angry and belligerent Republican women like Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin who are allowed to rant to their heart’s content. It’s opinionated liberal women who are considered “bitches” or written off as being “too angry.”
Taylor Marsh 33
It will only reinforce it.
Anyone know the demographics of the viewers for the sunday talk shows? That will probably tell the tale.
As for men/women talking heads- part of THAT issue is certainly that there are fewer female elected officials- and fewer female “big name” pundits. Don’t know why that is- Peggy Noonan gets a lot of face time- but who else is out there?
Molly Ivins has a following (including ME), but there aren’t too many nationally sydicated female political columnists.
Look at the disconnect that exists between the prevalence of infidelity in men and the predominance of men in positions of religious authority. It’s not difficult to observe the frequency of indiscretions and infidelities amongst primarily male cleric and clergy. The fact that numerous scandals involve men in positions of political authority and religious deference is not by accident. Regardless, these men remain in charge of both institutions despite consistent demonstrations of failed stewardship. The objective and the spoils of politics and religion are thus synonymous…unchallenged male authority couched in moral platitudes and obtuse rhetoric.
The marriage of George and Laura Bush exemplifies this assertion. George Bush, with low popularity, serves as the leader of the country. He’s an avowed evangelical with a dubious self-confessed ‘moral’ past but he routinely promotes the notion of a conventional family which includes his clear opposition to gay marriage and abortion. His wife, Laura, highly popular, with an arguably preferential moral history, who favors choice, sits seemingly powerless and secondary to the political positions her husband champions. In essence, her husband seeks authority to determine what defines a marriage and what his wife does with her body.
If you pursue this argument, it begins to unravel the societal dilemma that remains the silent ‘gorilla in the room’. Spoken in unmitigated terminology, a misogynistic hierarchy is still alive and well.
more observations here:
www.thoughttheater.com
“Does anyone think Katie Couric being the news anchor on CBS will help change this reality?” (33)
The knives are already out for her en masse. OpEd cartoon in my paper today Mocks a Martha Stewart-ized male ABC new anchor being prepped for puff.
Laura has a better moral history than GW Clusterfuck? Well I guess so- she only killed the one guy that we know of.
Right Marysz, Another example is Katy Couric. IMHO, she is just another corporate hack, a mainstream poseur and a warmongering winger.
Therefore, she gets promoted.
Still curious about who watches the sunday morning talk shows. Guess it isn’t the religious right- they are in church- aren’t they?
Not the football fans–Not golfers- Not people with young kids- they have ta take the kids ta the park or something.
Maybe NO ONE watches the damned things. They’re just there to show that the networks are aware of the world of politics.
Where are the pressure points in this equation? Are there bookers for these shows who need to be told that we’re tired of listening to men gas about issues that matter to all of us? Or should the hosts be contacted directly?
PS Taylor, are you sure there’s only two genders (or sexes) making the world go ’round? Just wondering….
Good morning and happy bunniness to all!
Exclusive! A special Easter Edition on faith & politics with Sister Joan Chittister, Rabbi Michael Lerner, author Jon Meacham, Professor Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Rev. Richard Neuhaus, and Pastor Joel Osteen. Plus, a Meet the Press Minute with Rev. Billy Graham
Press the meat’s idea of an Easter show.
Taylor Marsh -
It was my understanding that it was because of the boys-don’t-like-listening-to-girls phenomenon that when a station had to put a woman on, they typically do so in a way that men will still watch. Enter the gams, bubbleheadedness-aka-perkiness, etc.
So no - I don’t see Couric helping this issue - I see her as entrenching it deeper.
I could be wrong of course - that’s just my impression.
I dont think they want to engage in rational conversation…a womans veiwpoint can skewer a conversation between testytone-driven men fastest than anythng eles I can think of.Like a cat moveing around adults.The veiwpoint of a woman has the ability to confound men,They have to THINK,instead of growling.
Without even getting into the fact that women are rarely, if ever, guests, on the Sunday morning shows, what bothers me is how women who aren’t on the shows are treated if they happen to be political figures.
For instance, just when did the Junior Senator from New York get rid of her last name, let alone her title? I never hear anyone on these shows (and, of course, Tweety all the time) refer to her as anything but ‘Hilary’. No title, no last name, just ‘Hilary’. It drives me fucking nuts!!!!
And, lest you think that I am strictly partisan on this matter, I put the following to you. Just when did the Secretary of State lose HER last name AND decide to go by her nickname when being discussed by people who supposedly respect her judgment (I don’t but that’s another whole topic). With the exception of Dowd you NEVER hear a journalist refer to Rumsfeld as Rummy or Donnie, or the Treasury Sec. referred to as Johnny. Why is our Sec. of State constantly referred to as Condi?
I have one Easter wish. that would be that these two women TOGETHER show up on This Week or MTP unannounced and ask Steph or Timmeh “When did we give you permission to refer to us like this?”
They’d shit their pretty little pants.
Good point, cdj, looks are big for women, though ignored for men. See “60 Minutes” for evidence of that one.
RWcole, Timmeh’s show was unwatchable for me, so I TiVo’d it and will try later.
Great comment, dratty. You’re right. I’m absolutely guilty: I call her “Condi the Incompetent.” I have reason for it and do it for affect, but you are absolutely right.
Intelligent, articulate women are the pinnacle of evolution. If some of them - irrespective of political persuasion - were featured on the Sunday gasbag shows, I’d be very tempted to watch. As it is, I’d rather read the blogs. There are plenty of women with interesting POVs, and I don’t have to abdicate selection to network producers.
Just sayin’.
As there was no Sunday morning bird blogging today, my own version of the above is dragging me off to go view some up-close-and-personal. Later.
Taylor- it sounded pretty grim- I don’t watch those shows- never have. I’d rather read the Sunday paper and dunk toast into my coffee.
There isn’t much on teevee that’s worth a shit about ANYTHING- if you happen to be actually INTERESTED in that thing.
Interested in History? The History channel will give you a bunch of made up bullshit about wars-
Interested in sports? TeeVee will give ya a couple of ex jocks trading insults.
The stuff on politics is probably among the BEST stuff they do when you think about it- and maybe cooking.
A joyous Festival of Oestre to you all. May the fecund Goddess bless your creativity and may your projects prosper. Let her fertility symbols of eggs and bunnies remind you that now is the time to plant your seeds of ideas and political activism, that we may reap the harvest we desire in the fall. So mote it be. Bright Blessings.
I think Wolfie is the one who calls Condoleeezzza “Dr. Rice” but I could be mistaken.
Off-topic, but Bush has hit 39% for the first time in the Rasmussen poll. Rasmussen throws out undecided’s (or something like that) which causes the approval rating to always be significantly higher than the other polls. It comes out daily and Bush has vacillated between 40% and 45% for months. 39% is the lowest ever. Could be “statistical noise”, but hopefully it’s the latest leak stuff being factored in. The results are, I think, about 3 days behind the actual polling.
http://www.rasmussenreports.co.....proval.htm
By the way- even the stuff on religion is total bullshit on teevee. When’s the last time ya saw a couple of REAL theologians debating the trinity for example?
rwcole, Sister Joan Chittester has a no-nonsense way of writing that I like–here’s a link to her latest column. (I’m not Catholic, by the way.) If they had to have all clerical people, they at least had her on, and that’s better than their usual fare.
http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/fwis/
Actually, Taylor, I wasn’t even referring to people like us, who might refer to her as ‘Condi’ for the sarcasm involved, but to those journalists who will refer to her that way while giving a straight news story such as “When Condi discussed this matter with Jack Straw…”.
Religion and Politics was on Blitzkrieg, too, with Falwell. God bless you, he said to Wolfie, when he signed off. Meantime, he’d said he was a big Bush supporter, father and son, now he’s ok with McCain. Big on conservative, small on compassion, big on political pandering. Then there was the pope, who made a public spectacle with Kerry and communion. Had nothing to say about pro choice rethugs. Pope Ratz. had a clandestine meeting with extra crooked Kneel Bush.
The Amercian public needs to be reeducated in order to understand that our country was founded on the separation of Church and State.
And the reason why.
The “Faith Based Initiative” is vote buying. Government giving money to the churches undermines our democracy.
Religion needs to be a personal matter. It cannot be imposed on free people.
Obsessed:
Rasmussen is total horseshit.
He was showing 45% approval just a couple of DAYS ago. He uses an “automated data capture system” which means, I think, that only people who are willing to listen to a computer voice ask em a long stream of questions and respond by hitting a number on the telephone ever get polled. He usually runs Job Approval numbers 6 points above the real polls. Not sure exactly why- but I suppose it is the “anchors” he uses in framing the responses- that’s the usual culprit.
Ya have ta love Pope Benny–he’s dedicated to killing the catholic church by stickin to his guns on contraception and divorce…and he’s got a bug up his ass about gays.
Hell of a guy.
Yawn…
If’n you don’t like the news go out and make some.
TV is for the moron class and the Fundie whackjobs.
Women will get more exposure and power when they take those things from men. That’s the only thing the testosterone poisoned shitheels will ever understand.
This was something well understood in the late 60s and 70s. Seems folks have forgotten this since then.
The real question here is why did women forget this?
Or better yet….why have we allowed the fascist theocrats to seize power?
Here are Scottie Rasmussen’s “anchors” for the job approval question. By giving people the option “somewhat approve”- he allows the goopers who are on the borderline with Clusterfuck to give an affirmative response:
Eastern Bush Job Approval
Strongly Approve 20%
Somewhat Approve 20%
Somewhat Disapprove 17%
Strongly Disapprove 43%
The most dependable polls ask : “Do you approve of President Bush’s job performance or do you disapprove?”
Sister Joan Chitteste
One of the things she’s talking about there is that a lot of kids, and I’m talking about prepubertal children, are now either street prostitutes or are being lured abroad ot their mothers are told they’re bieng adopted into a good home of course what happen is that they go straight into the sex trade.
I saw it in Lebanon. The same thing happened in Yugoslavia. The same thing is going on Afghanistan. It happened in the former USSR. It’s one of the more horrific things that happen when a society collapses either through war or by political/economic collapse.
On my gorillasguides blog I’ve been asked about it from time to time
Aromatic, Joyful, Singing
We’d Rather Kill ‘Em Off By Peaceful Means
On both those postings I’ve listed charities in Iraq.
I haven’t been to Church in years. I went to communion last night, the priest held the cracker and said, “This is the body of Christ”. I just stood there, saying nothing, waiting for him to hand me the cracker. He hesitated, and then asked, “Are you Catholic?” “Yes”, I said. He said, “Say, Amen.” So I did. He gave me the cracker. I’d held up the procession for a few seconds.
I guess they can’t give communion to non-Catholics. If I’d said no, would I have been cast aside like a rejected assembly line part? I’m from the Northeast. I was born into Catholicism, but I had given it up.
A senior Republican Congressional adviser who was granted anonymity for the same reason said of the war: “There needs to be signals sent — major signals — that some things are going to be different. That could, or should, mean that changes must be made. If not, and things go exactly the way they are, our candidates will pay a dear price.”
Representative Christopher Shays, a Connecticut Republican whose campaign opponent has made Mr. Shays’s support for the war an issue, said Saturday that he believed his prospects would be brighter if Mr. Rumsfeld were to go, though he has not called for his resignation.
“Do I think someone else would do a better job, and if someone else would do a better job, does it help me?” said Mr. Shays, who has previously criticized the conduct of the war. “Of course it would.”
Mr. Rumsfeld still enjoys support in many Republican circles. Senator John Cornyn of Texas, a Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said his resignation would be a mistake.
“If this were to happen,” Mr. Cornyn said, “it would encourage demands for other members of the cabinet or other people close to the president to resign.” Echoing administration officials, he said some good news out of Iraq could go a long way toward quieting critics.
(NYT)
So it would be a mistake for Rummy to resign- as this would lead to other liars and incompetents being pressed to resign..give em an inch and…….
Poot I forgot the link limit so my comment is now in the queue if a moderator is in the house???? The comment in question is about the situation of children in a civil war.
Hackworth
I’m not a catholic- but I don’t think yer supposed ta call the body of Christ a cracker.
OT - Someone who gets religion about as much as I do is James Wolcott. I think though, even the Christians among us will find his thoughts on Good Friday hysterical. If you need a teaser, the keywords are “Mr. Hanky”, and “Bill Donohue”.
(Laughin my ass off about the “cracker” comment- for some reason it just strikes me as funny as hell)—”Yeah I’m a catholic- give me the damned cracker!”
Men don’t like listening to OUTSPOKEN women. It makes them nervous. The most ferocious comment Laura Bush can muster up is to say something is “ridiculous,” which is why she is well-loved.
Which is all the more reason Roe v Wade should stand. Men have no business making decisions about a very personal matter for every woman, especially when these men sit in a state house, a court house, or the local church.
In a fit of religious sentiment, Bill Frist announced that he will be bringing the “Flag Burning” amendment up for a vote this summer. Here’s something for YOU Jesus!
Jesus- who spoke at length about faith, hope, and Charity- apparently had NOTHING at all to say about gay marriage or abortion- or flag burning. Strange isn’t it?
The Laura Bush styled women of America, who can only muster the courage to call something “ridiculous”, are the ones whose inactions are instruments in the withering away of their rights.
So glad you brought this up Taylor as it drives me nuts about the lack of a female perspective that is sorely needed.
Case in point: the Yearly Kos convention coming up. I was over on their page the other day checking it out reading about the panels scheduled. Why are they made up of all men? The only one on the convention’s main page (showing at the time) that did include any women was the panel that Jane and Redd will be on.
Anyone notice this little problem of lopsided panels there besides me? I instinctively rolled my eyes and didn’t bother checking into the next page because of it and clicked out, dejected and very disappointed.
How many panels for the Kos convention DO have women scheduled?
OT, but does anyone know what happened to Jane’s post at HuffPo? Her Howell & Hiatt Fact Free post was there earlier this morning but now it seems to be gone from the front page.
ah…how quickly we forget! recall the Monica Coup d’Etat : there we all too regulary saw Barbara Comstock, Lucianne Goldberg, Barbara Olsen, Vicky Toensing, Katie OBeirne, Ann Coulter and Lynne Cheney.
Had enough?
If that’s the best Frist can do (flag burning ammendment), he must be in bad shape. If only another Shiavo type case would come up.
hackworth and rwcole,
Chuckling about the Cracker Comment. Priest: “Say amen.” Response: “Amen, let’s get on with it already.” (comically extends tongue for convenient cracker placement)
In high school during football season I took communion every week; I wasn’t Catholic, of course, but Father John didn’t seem to quibble over such distinctions. We were football players, after all, and what harm was an errant cracker here or there? On the contrary they were meant to help us out on our quest for a state championship. Like Nabisco marketing its higher-end offerings, I think that Father John may have referred to the communion crackers as “wafers.”
This is what is not on the summer agenda– for shame!
‘Not on the Senate’s schedule, however, is a bill allowing taxpayers to underwrite human embryonic stem cell research, a science still in its infancy that could lead to cures for many diseases.
Social conservatives, including Bush, say that the process by which the cells are derived is morally akin to abortion because the fertilized egg is destroyed.
Frist, a surgeon who enraged many in the GOP base last year when he supported a House-passed bill to fund the process, had planned a Senate vote on the matter by Easter. Congress adjourned for the holiday this month without such a debate anywhere on the Senate’s calendar.’
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITI.....llpolitics
Janet @ 11:19 am (#68) - I don’t like listening to loudmouthed men, either. There’s a difference between being loudmouthed and outspoken. If you’re the former, I’ll find you annoying. If you’re the latter, I’ll probably be interested if you have something worth saying.
If you want a counter-example to your hyphothesis - consider Anne Coulter or Kate O’Beirn. Conservative men seem to listen to them. Both are louder and bitchier than Hillary Clinton on her worst day. They found Hillary annoying, at least in part, because they didn’t agree with her. They don’t like men who don’t agree with them, either. Such men are spineless, wimpy, and hate America, remember?.
Until someone does a proper double-blind study that confirms your hyphothesis, I’ll assume that most men feel the way I do.
angie @ 11:36 am (#78) - Oh, good. A few more month’s head start for the rest of the world.
On Topic for Once:
Just to prove I can do it…even more disturbing than the paucity of women in the talking head process, the whole political process, is the fact that apparently the ones who get onto the tube have to compensate for any human feelings they might have which might be construed as “feminine.” In short, the context demands that they act as “men.”
Erich Fromm may not have specifically predicted Ann Coulter (who could have?), but he did say in the 1950s that future generations would mistakenly attempt to enforce gender equality via the elimination of gender differences. Has anyone had a peek at Ms. Coulter’s fundament lately?
Disgusting.
Especially since we were the only ones present at the original Easter. This should be our day. While the male disciples were busy crying in their beer, it was the women who stirred themselves and went out to find the empty tomb with the stone rolled away.
I see that while I was away, I missed the Great North American War that my comment touched off between *ilson and cleter.
This seems a good thread on which to say hello, since I’m one of those know-it-all bitches who thinks she knows what she’s talking about.
I’ve been lurking for a while and particularly like the Traitorgate analysis by Jane and Christy. Seems like a congenial group of commenters, too.
I like to think I know a bit about science and strategy. I’ll stop by and leave some tidbits from time to time that might be informative or useful, but I probably won’t be able to join in the detailed repartee.
Great post, Taylor. I’ve thought about that “mom getting everyone up for church on Sunday” thing. That’s the way it was in my family when I was a kid. We went to a fairly liberal Lutheran church south of Seattle. On Sundays, you could tell which families were there because of mom, which ones because of dad, and which ones were totally into the doctrine.
I stopped being a Christian when I was in the army during the Vietnam War. I can’t accept concepts of G*d which subordinate the female to the male or define the concept of spirituality in anthropomorphic terms.
Rabbi Mike Lerner, the Easter Rabbi on Meet the Press this morning is the opposite of Falwell. He’s one of my favorite religious figures.
We celebrate the spring moveable feast by sending our daughter in college an easter basket, making one for our teenage son, cooking a leg of lamb, and planting basil.
rwcole @ 10:59 am (#61) - This is why the only changes in poll numbers I take seriously are between like polls. Assuming the methodology is the same, this will at least give an idea of the relative change from one poll to the next. I suspect most journalists aren’t interested in such distinctions, though.
Of course, that doesn’t answer the question of which absolute numbers are correct …
Thank you to whichever moderator it was who approved my comment No:62
Spring- rebirth–the ancients feared every year that it would not come- when it DID- there was cause for much celebration.
Christmas was the DARK time- the time that the sun would have to decide yet again whether to reverse it’s course and begin to move higher in the sky- Easter was the celebration that the sun had co-operated.
Christianity put Jesus squarely in the role of the sun God.
Spring- rebirth–the ancients feared every year that it would not come- when it DID- there was cause for much celebration.
Christmas was the DARK time- the time that the sun would have to decide yet again whether to reverse it’s course and begin to move higher in the sky- Easter was the celebration that the sun had co-operated.
Christianity put Jesus squarely in the role of the sun God.
ET– I commented in the earlier thread how much I like Michael Lerner of Tikkun– clever you, Easter Rabbi. teehee– and you know he would laugh right along. He is a sane man.
OfT: Editor and Publish hammers Debbie Howell for defending “A Good Leak.”
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp.....1002344807
Cujo–No- that question has no answer. What matters most is change in direction and velocity. It appears that the polling just now is stuck at a very low level.
Ed*ard Teller @ 11:42 am (#84) Rarely did the church thing as a child, thankfully. Still, my observation has been that religion, at least as practiced in America, seems to largely consist of men preaching to a crowd of attentive women and restless or sleepy men and children.
ps - I wasn’t referring to Ann Coulter’s fundament when I said “disgusting,” but to the original post. It does work both ways, though, doesn’t it?
New thread from Taylor.
angie,
I met him in 1971 when he was on trial in Seattle. We were interviewing him and Chip Marshall on KRAB radio. I was sort of shaken and inspired at how much resolve he showed in regard to the immorality of the Vietnam War.
Thanks for the short tale, Ed*ard Teller. I can totally relate to everything you said.
An OT thought about the Iran war.
Iran wants Bush to attack. They will have the sympathy of the World, the USA will be a pariah, and the attack will test the blast resistance of the Iranian underground structures.
Iran wins the PR battle, and can continue their pursuit of the bomb — the USA loses prestige, leverage, and moral authority.
George W Bush — screwing up everything he touches.
ck,
yes, Iran wants the US to bomb it so they can unleash their plan to take Iraq and cripple the US economy. Our troops and oil facilities in Iraq are what they would attack, and the Iranians would win. All we could do is bomb.
“Iran wants Bush to attack.”
Wrong.
I like when Lara Logan is on the Sunday morning news program. The woman knows what she is talking about and she gets under those Republicans talking heads’ skins. Too bad she is in Iraq or Afghanistan so much covering the wars….CBS better not lose Lara, some people wished that Lara could have had Couric’s job but Lara would not be happy at that because she is the real deal unlike fake Couric.
I’m just going to go to CBS’s website to catch Lara’s reports now…Couric makes my stomach churn stumping for BushCons.
For my part, I hope Delay will stand before a “know-it all woman” judge. Mwahaha.
I always considered Condi, Cokie Roberts, Ann Coulter, &Ole Grit to be token women along the lines of Project 21. Especially AnnCoulter and Kate O’Bierne. Who else would say Slavery is “o.k;” Feminists are “feminazis,” women should stay in the house etc.? There’s no end to the insult of the avg. viewer’s intelligience on television.
Turn off & tune out MSM and turn on Democracy Now, C-Span Book Notes, fdl, huff, etc. et al, if indeed, one seeks fair and balanced news & analysis in this bleak Age of Corporate Corruption of American MSM, sans the GOBS - good ole boys - and GOGs - with few cable exceptions - i.e., Moyers, Obermann & Jon Stewart, etc., et al.
Trust me for it has sure worked wonders for this old media brat.
RBG says:
April 16th, 2006 at 11:30 am
what happened to Jane’s post at HuffPo?
Click on “The Blog” on the top navigation bar of page one. Jane’s posting is listed there and the permanent link is here.
You write, “So why aren’t women equally represented