July 17th 2009 - Friday

under-the-radar-1imagesHour One: "Brunch With Bernie" Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) spends the hour with Thom discussing the issues and answering listener questions www.sanders.senate.gov

Hour Two: "News Under The Radar" Christy Harvey of the Center for American Progress stops by www.americanprogress.org

Comments

Mark (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#1

The other evening Randi Rhodes was expressing incomprehension why senators like John Cornyn repeatedly asked Sonia Sotomayor where in the Constitution did it say that international law could be used to interpret constitutional law, outside of international treaties. The implication was that she had done so, but Sotomayor just as repeatedly denied that she had any view of that sort, and in fact agreed with Justices Scalia and Thomas that international laws outside of treaties had no bearing on the Constitution, and had never made a ruling that implied otherwise. Afterwards, the Republican senators still had “doubts” about Sotomayor’s position on this.

I think it is perfectly understandable why Republicans chose to follow this seemingly pointless line: for the sake of their racist constituency, they were playing to their belief that Sotomayor wasn’t “one of us”—she was a “foreigner,” like those “Mexicans.” The very idea of a Hispanic on the Supreme Court implied an “alien” presence. The Republicans have played racial low-ball all week, and this is just an example of how low into the gutter they will go.

At any rate, Sotomayor is certainly more worthy than that “renegade” Time magazine put on its cover again; Time might be infatuated with Sarah Palin, but most of the rest of us have long since grown tired of her self-obsessed shtick. Renegade? How about plain old-fashioned screwball?

B Roll (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#2

I got some ‘splainin’ to do!

I gotta ‘splain why the dust-up over Sen. Tom Coburn, R-OK, is silly at best and harmful at worst.

Many have claimed that it was racist when Coburn responded to Sonia Sotomayor’s hypothetical by quipping, “You have lots of ‘splainin’ to do.” Thom Hartmann said it was “very racist”. Marjorie Cohn (president of the National Lawyers Guild, a progressive counter to the American Bar Association) brought it up on the show yesterday, but fortunately guest host Nicole Sandler ended that by saying it was just a bad joke and Cohn didn’t press the point. Left-wing journalist David Corn brought it up on GRITtv yesterday and it’s been hotly debated across the blagojevich.

I say, “Come on.” Coburn made that joke at a time in the hearing when he, Judge Sotomayor and many people in the hearing room were laughing about a hypothetical that Sotomayor was using to explain a point in response to Coburn’s question about the right to self-defense. There wasn’t a hushed silence after Coburn made the joke. People, including Sotomayor and Coburn laughed.

If it could be shown that Coburn was mocking Sotomayor, the joke could be seen as racists, and I think some people think that is exactly what happened, but they can only back it up with opinion, not facts. I look at the joke in the context in which it was made and I say, “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.”

“You got some ‘splainin’ to do” is a joke going back to the 1950s TV show “I Love Lucy”. My guess is that the line is used by many people every day of the year. Part of the reason people find it funny is that it’s so familiar, just like the line “where’s the beef”. It’s part of the American culture and sense of humor. I’ve heard people from all kinds of backgrounds use the line with no hint of racial animus.

If you want to criticize racial stereotyping or insensitivity, how about Judge Sotomayor offering a hypothetical, in which she (a Latina) goes home, gets a gun, comes back to the hearing room and shoots Coburn. But it would be just as silly to interpret her hypothetical in that way.

What was racist was the constant and repeated questioning of Sotomayor about her “wise Latina” remark. Even more racists was the way many Republican senators talked down to and lectured Judge Sotomayor about her “temperament” and the importance of her use of language, judgment and impartiality. They need that lecture far more than she does.

My first thought when I heard the claim that Coburn’s quip was racists was it’s another example of the left making itself look thin skinned and foolish and holding us up to ridicule. But then I thought that right wingers ridicule us even when they have to make things up (i.e., lie).

What really bothers me is that when opinion leaders go off half-cocked with opinions like this, it encourages us little people out here to engage in shallow simple minded thinking rather than really trying to understand situations. We don’t need to be encouraged to do that. You hear such ill considered opinions all the time from callers and even on blogs like this.

Thom justifies his constant debates with right-wingers by saying that he’s “modeling” proper political discussions. He’s giving us an example of how to do it right. Well this time, the model’s makeup is smeared, he put his clothes on backwards and he slipped and fell off the runway. It will show up in his blooper reel.

P.S.: I think it’s fair to point out, as I have many times before, that although Thom Hartmann is an advocate for diversity on the Supreme Court and in fire departments, “people of color” rarely are guests on his radio program. That’s no joke.

DRichards (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#3

Vice President Joe Biden told the AARP today:

We’re going to go bankrupt as a nation. Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’ The answer is yes, that’s what I’m telling you.

Richard Adlof (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#4

Bernie!

Can you give Senator Max Baucus (D-Health Insurance Industry) my thanks for squelching single-payer insurance cuz 62% of bankruptcies due to healthcare is not enough.

Remind Senator Mary L. Landrieu (D-Wal-Mart) that forcing people choosing to buy bread to attempt to culture penicillin to treat infections is an adequate healthcare plan.

And congratulate the entire Blue Dog Caucus for recognizing that a for-profit corporation denying my medically necessary procedures so the company can annually pay their corporate officers more than the GNP of 30% of the nations on the face of the planet, rather than just having the government pay for the procedure, is good for me and our nation.

Richard Adlof (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#5

Why can the minimum wage pegged to a percentage of Senator or Representative pay?

DRichards (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#6

NEW YORK – Goldman Sachs is emerging as the king of post-meltdown Wall Street.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090714/ap_on_bi_ge/us_earns_goldman_sachs

Gee, it makes one wonder if the meltdown wasn't planned in order to wipe out the competition.

Wendy Yohe (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#7

Thom, you are absolutely right! We do indeed need a Senate full of Bernie Sanders'!!

Senator Sanders, thank you ever so much for your service. You are the only reason I know what's truly going on in the Senate and it gives me hope to know that there's at least one senator that has my best interests at heart - I don't live in Vermont and can't vote for you but please know I am grateful for your service to our country. You ARE America's senator!

Loretta (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#8

Please tell Senator Sanders that even if the health care package is not the single-payer coverage we have all wanted and needed, his diligent, brave, hard work is still going to make sure that millions of Americans who couldn't afford to go to the doctor may soon be able to and that includes me! You have taught us over and over how important it is that we participate in our government and that our voice truly is heard. Together, with all of our voices joined, we are stronger than the corporations who wish to keep us unhealthy and weak in spirit so we can't make these changes!

Avilyn (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#9

Governerships full of Bernie Sanders would be great too. We're stuck between a rock and a hard place in NJ - our choices for Governor this year are between an ex-Goldman Sachs Executive (Corzine) or a George W. Attorney General who kept his job (Christie). What's a liberal to do?

B Roll (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#10

Is Howard Dean the new Dick Clark?

Has anyone seen him lately. He doesn't seem to be aging.

Loretta (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#11

Here's the latest from Healthcare Now:

Mark your calendars for July 25th

Join the Private Health Insurance Must Go! Coalition, Healthcare-NOW!
http://www.phimg.org/V2/ and Physicians for a National Health Program NY Metro ( http://pnhp.org/pnhp-ny/ ) for a Teach-In on organizing for single-payer national health care.

Can't make it? Watch the teach-in live right here.

http://www.healthcare-now.org/campaigns/single-payer-teach-in/

Covered will be messaging single-payer, how the public option compares to single-payer, and the latest from Washington. There will be discussion on direct action, civil disobedience, and other useful campaign tools.

Featured presenters include:
Dr. Mary O'Brien, Physicians for a National Health Program, co-editor of 10 Excellent Reasons for National Health Care
Dr. Len Rodberg, Research Director of the New York Metro Chapter of Physicians National Health Program
Katie Robbins, Healthcare-NOW!
Ajamu Sankofa, Private Health Insurance Must Go!
John Riley, ACT UP

All welcome! This program will be of value to newcomers as well as those familiar with the issue. Free of charge. Light refreshments provided. RSVP appreciated: jeanmaryfox@yahoo.com or 212-865-6027.

When: Saturday, July 25, 1:00 5:00 pm
Where: 25 West 43rd Street, 18th floor, New York, NY

brian a. hayes (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#12

a peoples historyof the united states should be used in the public schools

Richard Adlof (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#13

But Notso-Nimble Norm Coleman can pay for his FBI issue with campaign contributions . . . Including gifted wardrobe from this guy he knows, you know . . .

DRichards (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#14

Senator will claim he was clergyman to avoid ethics probe

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) will not cooperate with investigators who investigate Sen. John Ensign’s extramarital affair with the wife of a former top aide—even with the Senate’s own Ethics Committee.

Coburn told Roll Call: “I was counseling him as a physician and as an ordained deacon. That is a privileged communication that I will never reveal to anybody. Not to the (Senate) Ethics Committee, not to a court of law, not to anybody.”

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/07/17/senator-says-hell-claim-he-was-cl...

Loretta (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#15

Healthcare Now is having a teach in on single payer health care on July 25th in New York.

When: Saturday, July 25, 1:00 5:00 pm
Where: 25 West 43rd Street, 18th floor, New York, NY

If you can't afford to fly to New York:-) they have a web option here:
http://www.healthcare-now.org/campaigns/single-payer-teach-in/

"Covered will be messaging single-payer, how the public option compares to single-payer, and the latest from Washington. There will be discussion on direct action, civil disobedience, and other useful campaign tools.

Featured presenters include:
Dr. Mary O'Brien, Physicians for a National Health Program, co-editor of 10 Excellent Reasons for National Health Care
Dr. Len Rodberg, Research Director of the New York Metro Chapter of Physicians National Health Program
Katie Robbins, Healthcare-NOW!
Ajamu Sankofa, Private Health Insurance Must Go!
John Riley, ACT UP
All welcome! This program will be of value to newcomers as well as those familiar with the issue. Free of charge. Light refreshments provided. RSVP appreciated: jeanmaryfox@yahoo.com or 212-865-6027."

Richard Adlof (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#16

Grrr . . . I have changed my e-mail several times . . . Logged in and out BUT the old keeps coming back. Sigh.

B Roll (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#17

Richard Adlof

Try clearing your cache and see if that helps.

B Roll (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#18

Richard Adlof

I should have added that if that doesn't work, you might want to delete your cookies. If you do delete your cookies, any site that recognizes you won't, so you'll have to sign in to them again.

AZAFVET (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#19

This is in response to the Gentleman that called asking why we can't buy drugs from Canada, we can! I buy two different prescription drugs from a Canadian Pharmacy and it is shipped directly to my house. I save a lot of money doing so.

Quark (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#20

B Roll,

On the other hand, have you seen Bay Buchanan lately? She was on MSNBC this a.m. and neither her face lift nor her makeover could cover up her ugly, racist interior!

B Roll (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#21

Quark,

When Bay looks in the mirror she sees her brother. The resemblance is uncanny.

Quark (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#22

B Roll,

LOL...I think it's inescapable --- when you age, your true nature shows up on your face.

Quark (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#23

Here's an interesting idea: peer-to-peer lending, similar to how people connect and exchange goods/services for payment. The thinking behind this type of banking is that it cuts out the greedy financial industry and keeps middleman costs to a minimum:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/31963079#31963079

Quark (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#24

s.b.:

Here’s an interesting idea: online peer-to-peer lending, similar to how people on eBay connect and exchange goods/services for payment. The thinking behind this type of banking is that it cuts out the greedy financial industry and keeps middleman costs to a minimum:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/31963079#31963079

B Roll (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#25

Quark,

Thanks for solving a mystery for me. Over the last several years I've notice that my mouth has moved from being horizontal to being perpendicular to my eyes and it seems my mouth has a tendency to pucker. People have also been complaining about my breath lately. Now I think I understand. My true nature is showing up.

Quark (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#26

B Roll,

Either that, or you're a long-lost brother of Lela on "Futurama!"

Quark (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#27
B Roll (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#28

Quark,

I think I'm better looking.

As for being a long lost relative, a guy on the message board got very upset with me when I asked him if he was my long lost cousin T Roll. Apparently he found a picture of me because he called me Butt Face.

Quark (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#29

B Roll,

He must have recognized something in himself. (We call that "projection." LOL)

DRichards (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#30

AMA endorses House Democrats' health care bill
The American Medical Association on Thursday endorsed a liberal health overhaul bill that includes a public insurance option, a bold step for a traditionally conservative group with a checkered past on health reforms.

In its strongest action yet signaling support for President Barack Obama's vow to reform health care, the nation's largest doctors' group sent letters to three House committees behind the bill.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D99FR64O0.htm

Hmmmm, now why would the AMA endorse a liberal health bill? Could it be because it does nothing about the exorbitant price of health care?

Quark (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#31

B Roll,

RE: "He must have recognized something in himself. (We call that “projection.” LOL)"

I hope that came out the right way. I meant to say that he THOUGHT he saw something that he recognized in himself.

Please forgive me if that meaning didn't come across.

B Roll (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#32

Quark,

I understood exactly what you meant. There's nothing to forgive. Unfortunately the guy recognized almost nothing in himself, but he was constantly projecting his characteristics onto others. He accused people of acting exactly the way he acted.

Loretta (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#33

Dear B Roll,

I don't want to be too harsh, but misogyny is still misogyny even when it is directed at a woman whose views you oppose. Since we don't criticize righty men on the basis of their looks nearly as often as we make mention of the appearance of women whose views we oppose, I would like folks to realize that this sort of criticism regarding face lifts and other things like that is extremely harmful, especially to our young, vulnerable women who are trying to create strong self-esteems in a very crazy world.

Imagine you were trying to build your daughter's self-image while speaking to her about politics, Would you criticize Bay Buchanan with the same sort of language that emphasizes her appearance rather than her wrong-headed ideas?

I think we all need to work on this a little.

thank you,
Loretta

B Roll (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#34

Loretta,

Sorry for the slow response. I really wasn’t expecting your post. I hope you check back and see this.

I don’t think your comments are harsh at all and if I express my ideas in public I open myself to criticism. However, I don’t understand why you directed this comment to me. If you see this post, maybe you could explain.

Looking over the exchange between Quark and myself, I don’t see any instance when I commented on anyone’s physical appearance other than noting that Howard Dean seems not to be aging. I saw him on Democracy Now this morning. I think my post about my mouth changing from being horizontal to perpendicular in relations to my eyes is clearly not serious.

My comment about Bay Buchanan was a metaphorical reference that when she looks in the mirror, she’s sees her brother. Her brother is Pat Buchanan and both Bay and Pat Buchanan are right-wing ideologues and racists (among other things). I was referring to her character and ideology not her physical appearance. It’s like when on person accuses another of being arrogant and the other person say, “Take a look in the mirror.

You mentioned face lifts. That term doesn’t appear in my posts. I didn’t even allude to face lifts. My only mention of Bay Buchanan was is response to Quark’s post to me about Buchanan. The meaning of my reply was that when Bay Buchanan looks in the mirror she sees someone very much like her right-wing brother.

If you see this and feel I’m missing something, please let me know.

Thanks

Quark (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#35

Loretta,

I guess I started any conversation you might think sounds mysogynist. I made a reference to Bay Buchanan's changed appearance (after B Roll mentioned that Gov. Dean's appearance didn't seem to change.) I only meant that there isn't enough so-called "beauty" that a person like Bay Buchanan could apply to cover all the ugliness in her heart.

'Sorry for not being clearer. (Sometimes I speak in "shorthand" and forget that not everyone else is thinking the same thing...)

Loretta (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#36

you guys are right. I misunderstood your points and we're on the same side, here, but don't you think that it's true that when criticizing right wing women, the comments are much more often directed at her appearance in one way or another than they are at men who are right wing? And this effects young women both on the right and the left, in hugely negative, complicated ways that I really wish they didn't have to deal with.

Ageist, sexist comments were continually directed at Hillary Clinton for example along with Sarah Palin by both men and women and I don't think the folks doing it necessarily realized the effect this has on young girls and women who are creating identities for themselves about strengths, talents and attributes that should be emphasized and valued .

That's my larger point that I took out on you guys, sorry.

Loretta (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#37

I really mis-read your points that's for sure:-) It's so hot in Portland today with such high humidity--it's making me kind of loopy. Time for a beer and a Fassbinder movie from the library. Have a great weekend.

Quark (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#38

Loretta,

I guess I was thinking about something my mother always said, that true beauty comes from within and, that people one might think of as otherwise plain or even unattractive become beautiful to us when the beautiful PERSON that they are shines out from WITHIN. Then, what does it matter what the OUTSIDE looks like?

As long as people judge each other by outside appearance (which goes back thru the eons to somehow guessing which person is genetically healthier and, therefore, a better mate, humans will always (subconsciously or not) look for the "most attractive" mate. I'm saying that true attractiveness shines through and that, no matter how much someone tries to hide that inner self, it also will eventually show.

I think that is a good message for young women --- AND for young men!

I notice women more because I am one.

Quark (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#39

Loretta,

I'd bring over a beer and a movie if there weren't so many miles between us!

btw, I think you're right; young women are being told so many false criteria that they supposedly must live up to in order to be "successful" in our culture. It's always inspiring to look to people like Judge Sotomayor and others, who have succeeded despite what "society" might say. "Society" is full of (poop) and I wish everyone would acknowledge that and get on with the REAL issues of life.

Quark (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#40

Loretta,

Thanks so much for this conversation. I really value it.

B Roll (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#41

Loretta and Quark,

Sorry to be late again; it’s the weekend. I hope you check back and find this before they clear this week’s blog for the new week’s activity.

I’m glad to see we’re past the misunderstanding; however I have a question and then a few thoughts. The question is for Loretta. Please don’t interpret this as any kind of anger or annoyance. I’m very interested in the way our minds work and how we perceive things.

After Quark and I replied to your comment, you said that you misunderstood our points. Let me repeat that. You said that you misunderstood OUR points. But your criticism (which wasn’t harsh at all) was only addressed to me and not to Quark. You even specifically referenced “face lifts” which Quark mentioned but I never did. Quark also used the word “ugly” although she wasn’t referring to Bay Buchanan’s physical appearance. But somehow, those comments became associated with me in your mind rather than with Quark.

Question: Do you have any insight into how the ideas you found offensive became associated with me (who didn’t make them) and not with Quark (who made them)?

I have a few thoughts, any of which may or may not be valid.

1) You may have associated the comments with me because I’m a man and Quark is a woman and this is a male dominated culture.

2) Unlike most people who post on this blog and almost revere Thom, I challenge and critique his ideas and positions. Sometime I’m blunt, sometimes a little rude and /or sarcastic. Could it be that you resent the nature of my posts here?

3) Most of the posts on this blog are very serious. However, I sometimes just post things that pop into my mind that I find funny. Is it possible that you find my jokes annoying and think I’m not serious enough?

So if you get back to this blog before they clear it and you have the time to think about it, I’d love to hear if you have any incite on why you only addressed your comment to me.

By the way, the reason I criticize Thom is because I do take this all very seriously. As for the joke, I just have thoughts I think are funny all the time.

I’ll post my thoughts separately.

Quark (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#42

B Roll,

Yes, I wondered about the same things, i.e., why YOU received the criticism when you didn't even say the things for which you were criticized. I felt bad about that. It makes me feel that I can't really "talk" on this blog. YOU knew what I meant, but apparently Loretta didn't (even tho my post was not addressed to Loretta.)

I don't know that just labelling my posts "To B Roll Only," would solve any problems. Besides, this is a public forum. Is there another place (blog, etc.) where we could "talk", seriously or not? Maybe I should try the message board...

Quark (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#43

B Roll,

Maybe you'd rather not "talk" with me after that last "go-round." If not, I'll just have to be content to admire your wit and widsom from afar. (Yes, I'm teasing, but I'm also serious.)

Loretta (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#44

Dear Quark and B-Roll,

I wish you could both have come over for a beer and the Fassbinder trilogy. Boy could we have had a discussion about this subject after watching the trilogy. But it is so very very good!

I want to deeply apologize for my criticisms. After I re-read your comment, after I had literally cooled down, I realized they had no basis in the comments you were making to each other, so B-RolI --challenging Thom's ideas is very very good, and being funny is very good too. It seems that he likes challenges. I think you both were making funny points about inner and outer beauty and how one reflects the other and what happens to our bodies. WHen you re-read the conversation, what I wrote was totally off-the-wall so don't think of it for another moment.

I am not supposed to be out in the hot sun for a long time because of this crazy medicine I take and I had been riding my bike around in 95 degree heat in high humidity and then I came back and wrote that goofy post. I am very sorry about that. It was Quark who made the comment about face-lifts not intending any of things I mentioned, so I didn't even read the posts properly enough to see who wrote what. .

This was my bad as they say, although I appreciate you separating out the reasonable points I made.

Would you be able to watch the Fassbinder trilogy? It would be fun to have a discussion about women, appearance and sexism after watching his trilogy because there is so much to talk about. I loved Lola which is the classic professional man rescuing the prostitute story but so amazing and subtle and tender. It's very beautiful. The marriage of Maria Braun is devastating too. Veronica Voss is a strange story about fame and addiction that is interesting.

Thank you too for the interesting discussion. I love this site so very much!

warm wishes,
Loretta

Quark (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#45

B Roll,

You may have thoughts you think are funny all the time, but your non sequiturs sometimes strike me as set-ups waiting for a (read that "my") punchline. Sometimes I think we're just cats playing with metaphoric string. 'Just too tempting to resist!

B Roll (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#46

I just had a sign from God (or whoever), I turned on the Dodgers game. The Dodgers are leading 2-0 in the 1st inning with what looks like 2 men on base and 1 out. A Dodger batter fouled a ball off, He stepped out of the batter's box and when he turned around to step back in the name on the back of his jersey was Loretta. As far as I know, there's no Quark on either team.

The best thing about this is that the each of us cares enough about the discussion and the fact the we all do to keep coming back to see if anything new has been added.

I'm not upset or offended at all by anything that was said at all. People often misunderstand what they see, read and hear. I recall that I've been very upset by something I'd heard on a show. So I downloaded the show so I could have the exact words to point out to the host. When I listened to it a second time, I thought "what was I so upset about He/she didn't say what I thought I heard."

Different people are more interested and sensitive to different issues. Sometimes that causes them to misinterpret things because of their expectations.

As for Quark's joke about not wanting to talk to you, forget it. I missed you until you posted your first message. It was like I was at the park all alone waiting to see you come my way. It would be nice if there was more communication between members here. Now I have two friends to look forward to talking with.

Quark (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#47

'Good thing you weren't watching basketball. We'd think it was a sign from Sarah Palin! (See, I just couldn't resist.)

I've had the same experiences regarding what I think I've heard. With every job I've had, communications have been the most important part of the process. It is so easy to screw things up (things we humans can do so easily, as you can tell from my frequent cx. Fortunately, I usually caught my errors BEFORE things got into print, or whatever.)

Yes, I care about our friendships, too, and wait for you to "come out to play."

B Roll (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#48

re: the Fassbinder trillogy

I just looked it up... The three films are like over 5-and-a-half hours long. I rarely watch anything that long unless it has something to do with large men jumping over other large men to throw a brown ball through a rim or people in shorts hitting a small yellow ball over a net. Maybe if I could watch it in FassForward.

I rarely take the time to read or watch fiction. I love music and I rarely get a chance to listen to any. Are they still using guitars.

But I'm always willing give my uninformed opinions on a number of subjects.

Now I'm going to try to finish my comments about beauty and sexism in less than book form.

P.S.: Quark, feel free to add any punchline you wish as long as it has nothing to do with robotic pigeons,

Quark (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#49
Loretta (not verified) 13 years 28 weeks ago
#50

I didn't watch them all in one sitting. They are three different movies. But it's neat to watch them close together. I'm a fiction writer finishing an MFA degree so I'm studying film to learn scene development and dialogue.

Instead of writing a book on sexism, you could both use your talents together to invent a robotic mocking bird!

Thom's Blog Is On the Move

Hello All

Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.

Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.

From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom is a national treasure. Read him, embrace him, learn from him, and follow him as we all work for social change."
Robert Greenwald, political activist and founder and president of Brave New Films
From Unequal Protection, 2nd Edition:
"Beneath the success and rise of American enterprise is an untold history that is antithetical to every value Americans hold dear. This is a seminal work, a godsend really, a clear message to every citizen about the need to reform our country, laws, and companies."
Paul Hawken, coauthor of Natural Capitalism and author of The Ecology of Commerce
From Screwed:
"If we are going to live in a Democracy, we need to have a healthy middle class. Thom Hartmann shows us how the ‘cons’ have wronged this country, and tells us what needs to be done to reclaim what it is to be American."
Eric Utne, Founder, Utne magazine