Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Rebecca's "Dear Katrina"

For members who feel that Katrina vanden Heuvel's Sunday post was gatekeeping, here's Rebecca's commentary (in full):

dear katrina

dear katrina,
what should i write about tonight?
i see you handed out home work sunday night.
well i don't blog on sundays.
where's the assignment for monday?
let me know what to do, will you?
rebecca winters.

i asked c.i. before i wrote about this. i had 2 things that really bothered me. katrina vanden heuvel's sunday night column and naral. c.i. said the common ills was late in going up with the democracy now post because there were 6 paragraphs on this that c.i. finally deleted. c.i. likes katrina, i do as well. c.i.'s comment, for the record, was 'any 1 can make a really bad mistake and, in retrospect, i think she'd agree that was a really bad mistake.'

so katrina made a really bad mistake. c.i. gave me a piece of advice that i did follow, 'becky, take a nap before you write anything. we're all upset about the senate, if you're going to write about this, make sure you're writing about this and not using kvh to get back at the lazy senate.'

so i did. i put on otis, billie holiday and eartha kitt and took a long, long, long nap while they sang lullabyes to me.

i'm calmer.

so here are my problems with katrina's column.

where's alito?

you suggest 4 topics. the day before the vote in the senate.

in fact, where is anything you've written on abortion?

(no, the piece that got you an award from planned parenthood in the 80s doesn't count. i mean in terms of alito. a piece where you focused on abortion for the entire piece.)

not where was katha's? katha was there. katha's always there. katha can be counted on.

have i missed my checks from the nation?

no 1 needs a check less than me, so that's not a plea for money. i'm not hurting, i'm never going to be hurting. (that said, don't hit me up for money, not after that post.) but did you mistake the bloggers for your paid staff who work under you?

i don't work for you. i'll write about whatever i want.

i thought you were a free speech advocate. i assumed, when i heard of your assistant trashing alexander cockburn, that you were okay with that on the basis of 'free speech.'

when your assistant stopped whining semi-privately and took a public shot at cockburn, there was not a word from you on the matter.

if you're going to call out an entire portion of the web on what they say, where's your post calling out your assistant?

do you think your magazine has done anything to promote blogs?

are there any women even listed at the puny resource the magazine's website offers?

it's not just women who aren't listed. bill scher, whom you know from the majority report, can't even catch a break. now you'll link to pretend bloggers like the gawker and wonkette, but for the 'nobody owns the nation' there's no real effort to support any independent blogs. it's almost as bad as cjr daily.

(and wonkette didn't count. she never counted because 'she' didn't run the site.)

having done nothing for blogs, why do you think any blogger should care what you think of their focus?

yes, let's do get real here.

you write: 'let's get real here. 1. it doesn't really matter who gives the reply, since no one listens and it's an impossible task. 2. this is slightly less important than whether house minority leader nancy pelosi chooses to wear blue or red to listen to the speech. . . .'

in terms of #2, that would be your magazine that focuses on what women wear. specificially on geena davis, in that moronic show, and her lipstick color.

in terms of #1, if that's true, why did you even waste your time on the topic to begin with?

who is tim kaine that he can rouse you enough to write a sunday blog? katrina, you write sunday entries about as often as i do. and any 1 who doesn't write on sunday that decided to write, i would assume, would be weighing in on the issue of abortion since the alito vote was taking place monday. but you didn't write about alito.

so do i need to worry? are you the new gatekeeper? cokie got a little long on the tooth and now the keys to the gate will be handed to you?


i've noted already that this hasn't been an issue you've chosen to write about at length. i've noted that in the 80s, you were happy to have an award from planned parenthood. you want to talk about tim kaine but what about where he fits in, something you don't bother to address.

before media matters has a heart attack, tim kaine is for legal abortion. he just feels the need to speak of his faith-based opposition to it. so it fits in with the party's overall stepping away from strong support for reproductive rights. just like running little casey junior for the senate, just like making harry reid the minority leader in the senate.

let's remember kaine's 1 of the people who thinks 'just say no to sex, kids' is a workable program, 1 that deserves funding. now last time i checked, katha and patricia could call that for what it is: bulls**it.

but we're supposed to take comfort, according to you, in the fact that he's 'a proponent of racial justice.' a proponet! what a brave stand. if this were the 50s. i don't think that even rates a mention today, quite frankly. that, to me, is akin to writing 'and he believes in oxygen and breathing!' i kind of expect that any elected leader in the democratic party, would support racial justice at this late date.

you also point out that republicans, when he was running for governor, called him "the most liberal candidate who's ever run for governor in the commonwealth of virginia's history." yeah, and they also call hillary clinton a liberal. doesn't make it so. since when are smear cries from the opposition supposed to pass for facts? and since when does the nation make their arguments based on political attacks from republicans?

tim kaine is a bad speaker.

that was arianna's beef with him. i didn't write about him. i had things more important to me to focus on. that was alito and abortion. that's not putting down any blogger who chose to write about him. as c.i. says over and over, people should write about whatever they want. why? because that's being true and that's being independent.

considering that the nation promotes it's slogan of 'nobody owns the nation' i'm confused as to why you think you own or can direct what bloggers write about.

since you've made tim kaine an issue, here's my 2 cents. he has no chin. the man has no chin. he's not telegenic, he can't speak, so why was he chosen?

you offer nonsense about it's an off-year election and blah blah blah states need to put forward this and that and we need to have this in place and blah blah blah. this really is the most boring part of your post. you start off like ann coulter tossing a bomb at the left and then you seem to lose your train of thought.

but you said it doesn't matter who delivers the speech. maybe you should have stopped your post there?

i'll write about whatever i want to write about. i haven't needed your suggestions and, lord knows, i haven't had any support from the nation. they've never sent me a check, nor have they ever linked to me. i've made it on my own by being part of an independent community and by speaking my own mind.

you haven't been there for the blogs and now you want to show up and tell every blogger on the left what we should and shouldn't write about?

c.i. thinks you realize the post was a mistake. i hope you do.

it was a huge mistake.

bloggers do not exist for you to harness them. they do not await your direction or your orders. you promoted some conference the week before last. as laura flanders pointed out, women were hardly represented at that conference. did i miss your post on that?

i don't think i did. i don't think you said 1 word to criticize the conference. laura flanders did.

now you usually go for that inspiring talk so it didn't surprise me that you would write a 'the glass is half full' type post. but if your new role, as you see it, is calling out and providing direction, why don't you start with that conference?

or is that a problem? is it a problem for you to address any issue that effects women because, as a female editor, you don't want to be seen as a 'female editor'? if that's the case, let me break it to you bluntly, you still have to sit down to pee. you're still like every other woman whether you want to play the asexual card or not.

i hope this is not true of you, but there are a number of women who break that glass ceiling and immediately turn their backs on women. 'i can't do that, i can't write that, i'm' whatever position they have reached 'now and i have to write for every 1.' which usually means they write for men. they'll turn in some dopey nascar piece or some other crap and they'll maintain that it's gender neutral while never being there for women.

it doesn't cut it.

i hope that's not where you're coming from.

i wasn't able to work with the third estate sunday review this weekend but they made a good point (was that what so enraged you) which was if the party had any guts, they'd have al gore deliver the rebuttal to the state of the union. here's what they wrote:

If the Democrats had any guts, they'd have Al Gore deliver the rebuttal to the State of the Union speech Tuesday. But instead they're still stuck in the myth that "values voters" decided the election (and loathe to address the realities of the Ohio vote). The fact of the matter is that the votes (counted) didn't provide Bully Boy with a "mandate" (unless, possibly, Bully Boy meant some evening plans he had with Jeff Gannon).

i don't see tim kaine's name mentioned in it. that's the most any 1 in this community has written about the rebuttal to the state of the union. i'd guess, i could be wrong, that's pretty much true of the left bloggers because tim kaine's not really an issue to the left. now democratic bloggers (not bloggers who are democrats, but bloggers who blog from a democratic perspective) probably have written more. but some of us on the left had other things to focus on.