weltatem

Read my Lips

2006-02-03T15:31:00.000-05:00

Q: How do you know Bush is lying?
A: His lips are moving.

American dependence on foreign oil is probably the single-most important threat to global security, human rights, and the environment. Everybody knows this who spends even 10 minutes thinking seriously about it.

Our Dear Leader in the State of the Union address called for a 75% decrease in oil imports by 2025, and investing in alternative energy sources like - wait for it - switch grass. Yep, you heard right, switch grass.

Of course, it turns out, the 75% decrease wasn't meant to be "taken literally". I guess it was some kind of lovely poetic license.

And switch grass? Turns out, Bush's 2006 budget called for a decrease in clean energy programs: "an 18 percent cut in the Biomass/Biofuels program ($88,099 to $72,164); and a 90 percent cut in the Hydropower program ($4,862 to $500).

Madness. Utter madness. Do we just not care any more if presidents lie to us? Do we automatically dismiss policy iniatives as mere rhetorical devices, and assume backroom deals are the best we can expect? To say I'm discouraged about the "State of the Union" would be understatement. What's after anger - despair?

Second-Graders Wow Audience With School Production Of Equus

2006-01-25T23:03:00.000-05:00

Funniest thing I've read in a long time. Oh, c'mon. You know you love the twisty stuff too!

The Onion
Second-Graders Wow Audience With School Production Of Equus
January 25, 2006 | Issue 42•04

NEWPORT NEWS, VA—Second-grade students at Franklin Elementary School impressed parents, teachers, and fellow students with their recent production of Peter Shaffer's Equus Friday.

The avant-garde play, described by audience members as "adorable," was originally produced in London in 1973. The story revolves around troubled 17-year-old Alan Strang, played by Kyle Keever, 7, and his encounters with his psychiatrist after he blinds six horses with a metal spike. The play focuses on the causes underlying a seemingly senseless act of violence, and forces characters and audience members alike to confront questions of responsibility and ultimate meaning.

"The kids loved it," teacher and director Michael Komarek said. "Once they stopped screaming about horses getting their eyes gouged out and realized that it was just a launching point for more complex ideas about alienation from the modern world, they rolled up their sleeves and dug right in."

Read the rest

Molly Ivins Not. Backing. Hillary.

2006-01-24T14:48:00.000-05:00

Molly Ivins has a great piece on the Democratic leadership black hole, in her usual inimitable style. Gotta love it.

Molly Ivins
01.20.06

Not. Backing. Hillary.
Equivocation in Democratic party has gone on far too long -- time for real leadership

AUSTIN, Texas — I'd like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president.
Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone. This is not a Dick Morris election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges.

Read the rest here.

And here's what Arianna has to say, calling Molly's piece a "bodyslam" to Hillary. Heh. Hillary in '08? NFW, or so they say.

Joni Mitchell: Woman of Heart and Mind

2006-01-19T21:42:00.000-05:00

After a unexpectedly long and eventful hiatus from blogging, I'm ready to jump back into it.

What has inspired me this time is a DVD I watched recently: Joni Mitchell: Woman of Heart and Mind.

I hesitated for a long while before posting about it here, because the experience was so intensely personal. Was it appropriate to share about in a blog? Why would I want to? I still don't know, exactly, except some things must be said, whether or not we are able to say them directly, or as we would wish.

My birthmother, upon first meeting me when I was 21, gave several tapes she had made of the music that meant the most to her in her life. I fully understood the importance of the gesture - music has always functioned in that way for me as well - as carrier-wave of all that is inexpressible and vital in the evolution of the inner life. But I didn't understand the music itself: Joni Mitchell and Bob Dylan, especially. My musical and political world at the time was in a different solar system entirely, and as much as I wanted to reach hers, I couldn't then. That failure has haunted until the day I watched this DVD. Suddenly, I got it. Completely. I wish I could tell her somehow.

I hesitate to recap the experience of watching this DVD for you - probably less is more when it comes to this kind of intensity. But rarely has something reached me on so many levels at once: musical, visual, philosophical, emotional, poetic.

So, some snapshots that are indelible.

First, I had to listen with new ears to get past my Joni Mitchell=folk singer prejudice. What I heard astonished me, as did how she describes it regarding I Had a King and Circle Game:

The chord are depictions of emotions - chords of inquiry. They have a question mark in them. There were so many unresolved things in me that those chords suited me.

I had been such an idiot. I could have written you an essay on how this works in Wagner or Beethoven or Schoenberg. But here is this direct, wise, sui generis woman telling me so simply how it is, if only I could hear.

Joni, whose "heart was breaking" because she missed Woodstock, sits down to write "a little song" that manages to capture the meaning of that entire cultural moment for everyone who was there, or wished they had been there. My mother missed Woodstock: it was all over 10 days before she gave birth to me. I became familiar with the song Woodstock from Eva Cassidy's cover of it, but I never made the connection to Woodstock itself . I was too lost in the metaphors like "back to the garden" and "we are stardust" to see the forest for the trees, much less catch on that it was a Joni Mitchell song. Understanding its history was like an electric shock going through me. David Crosby said "she contributed more towards people's understanding of that event than anybody that was there," and I just marveled.

I've never seen a documentary where the talking heads are so eloquent and unreserved in naming genius. Tom Manoff, a classical music critic for NPR got me right in the gut when he said:

"Throughout her work, there is an effort to make the music be sky bound, to relieve the body of temporality. And when she gets there, whoa. You know, it's almost a chant. This need for release and transcendence, to ride above the culture, to be in the sky, to reflect. To not be in it, but to look down upon it.

But Joni herself was best explicator of her work, expressing painful, complex things with such gentle honesty, directness, and clarity of heart and mind. The writing has been an exercise to face the clarity. Its very hard peeling off layers of your own onion. When you get to the truth - do you really want to say that in public? So you're really doing a tightrope walk to keep you heart alive, to keep you art alive, to keep it vital and useful to others - this is now useful because we have hit upon a human truth.

There is so much more to be said. Rent the DVD and you'll see what I mean.

The Madness of King George

2005-12-22T23:06:00.000-05:00

When I posted in November about the growing threat of fascistic power in America, I was worried I was indulging in a bit a rhetorical excess.

Check out this cogent and impecably reasoned blog entry today by Glen Greenwald.

Do Bush defenders place any limits on his "wartime" power?
Thursday, December 22, 2005

[excerpts below]

Virtually no serious Bush defenders claim any longer that the Administration's warrantless eavesdropping on American citizens was authorized by FISA. To the contrary, FISA expressly prohibited such surveillance. Thus, to defend George Bush they must literally claim that the President has the right during "wartime" to violate Congressional statutes which relate to national security. [...]

On its face, this theory that Bush as a "wartime" President has the right to break the law squarely contradicts their insistence that they are not advocating for monarchic rule. Once you advocate a theory that authorizes a President, even during times of an undeclared and endless war, to violate any Congressional laws he wants as long as he says -- with no judicial review possible --that doing so is for the sake of our security, what possible checks or limitations on Presidential power are left?

This debate is about the President's claimed wartime power to break the law, not his power to order surveillance. Put another way, for those who want to advocate this theory of unilateral executive power -- but who then also want to deny that they are foisting upon America the King it never wanted -- the question that must be answered is this:

Are there any limitations at all on what the President can do under the guise of national security and, if so, what are they? And, given this theory of the "wartime" President who can violate the laws of Congress and who can ignore the courts in areas of national security, what legal foundation could exist to argue for any such limitations? [...]

Once it is accepted that George Bush has the power to violate the laws of the United States (such as FISA) based on his status as a "wartime" President, there is no coherent way to claim that he is without the power to unilaterally impose still-greater intrusions. A theory that allows the President to violate Congressional statutes and which denies any role of judicial review is a theory which has no theoretical or legal ground for limiting the President’s conduct in any way during "wartime."

Mia, Guest Blogger

2005-12-22T15:49:00.000-05:00

This is my baby sister Sophie. She doesn't believe in Santa. I don't really like Santa because he comes down the chimney. I heard on TV Santa come down the chimney, and he said "help, help!" because he got stuck. On Christmas I want to go ice skating. With a chair, because I don't really know how to ice skate yet.

[and Mia and Sophie's moms wish you all very Happy Holidays! Yes, holidays.]

Update: Dems Gagged, not Self-Muzzled?

2005-12-21T18:21:00.000-05:00

Well, I should have read my dose of Daily Kos if I wanted to understand why Democrats didn't publicly object to NSA spying before now. But there still remains an important question: are the contracts signed by members of Congress who received intelligence briefings superseded by the Speech And Debate Clause of Article 1 of the US Constitution, which gives Members immunity for anything said from floor of the House or Senate? I found one CIA analysis that suggests Members are constitutionally protected, and therefore cannot be gagged. But does this mean they can voluntarily gag themselves, and give up their Constitutional right? That seems just plain wrong. How could a member have any meaningful "oversight" of intelligence if they have no constitutionally protected right to debate the issues? What would be the point of getting intelligence briefings at all? I guess I'm still very confused. Where is a constitutional law scholar when you need one?

Rockefeller and Pelosi COULDN'T Release Their Letters
by DHinMI
Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 12:30:34 PM PDT

It appears that one of the GOP talking points on the domestic spying scandal is to denigrate and eve ridicule Jay Rockefeller's and Nancy Pelosi's letters to the White House protesting the spying policy divulged to them in classified meetings. This morning on NPR I heard GOPRepresentative Peter Hokestra claim that if Senator Rockefeller was really concerned about the domestic spying program revealed last week by the NYT, then he could have done more than write a letter.

Bullshit.

Well, let me clarify that. Rockefeller could have publicized the existence and actions of the program, but if he or any of the other members of Congress briefed on the program went public with their opposition, they would have been breaking the law. To fail to acknowledge that anyone briefed on this program essentially had no way to oppose or publicize the existence of the program without breaking the law is bullshit.

Here's a response to DHinMI clarifying what agreement members sign:

Before being briefed, each of them signed an agreement not to disclose the information until it is declassified or for 70 years, whichever comes first. Signing is voluntary and no one can be punished for refusal to sign unless their job specifically requires it. In the case of being a member of the House and Senate Intelligence committees it is required for membership on the committee but not for membership in the House or Senate. If you don't want to sign, don't joint the committee. Once they assumed one of the "big 4" leadership positions they signed a further agreement and in most cases you sign one for any specialized single topic briefing (like the one in question). Their only option was to not sign and not be briefed. I have seen that done. Once they signed and were briefed they were bound by the agreement which carries stiff penalties
(jail, money). This is exactly what people are facing in the Wilson leak case and will be used as a hammer to get pleas to lesser offenses. Once the President spoke of it they had the ability to ask for a classification ruling which is exactly what Rockefeller and Pelosi did. They still need that release even if it has already been spoken of openly else ware because the agreement/contract is
individual.
by ksuwildkat on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 04:07:44 PM PDT

However, there is an counter-argument that I haven't seen adequately addressed.

the Speech and Debate Clause would have given Rockefeller or Pelosi absolute immunity from prosecution had they chosen to reveal the existence of this illegality to their colleagues. Of course, the prudent thing would have been to do so in closed session, probably of an Intel committee. But even if they had gotten up on the floor of their respective houses and spilled the beans, they were completely immune from prosecution. Not necessarily immune from the political fallout, including the possibility (however slim) of censure, expulsion, etc. But of course taking political risks for the good of the country is kind of like, you know, their fucking jobs.
A good case on the Speech & Debate clause, involving the Pentagon Papers, is Gravel
v. United States. The "Gravel" was Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska. Here's a good quote from the Court on the purpose and scope of the Clause: "Rather, [Gravel's]insistence is that the Speech or Debate Clause, at the very least, protects him from criminal or civil liability and from questioning elsewhere than in the Senate, with respect to the events occurring at the subcommittee hearing at which the Pentagon Papers were introduced into the public record. To us this claim is incontrovertible. The Speech or Debate Clause was designed to assure a co-equal branch of the government wide freedom of speech, debate, and deliberation without intimidation or threats from the Executive Branch. It thus protects Members against prosecutions that directly impinge upon or threaten the legislative process. We have no doubt that Senator Gravel may not be made to answer either in terms of questions or in terms of defending himself from prosecution -- for the events that occurred at the subcommittee meeting."
Now, I think that, given the fact that the Bush administration tried to keep this secret by classifying the material, they and their wingnut proxies are in no position to criticize Rockefeller and Pelosi for abiding by that determination. I, on the other hand, am under no such disability, and I am extremely disappointed that they did not take steps to bring this to light when
they found out about it. Writing a pathetic CYA letter doesn't cut it when our country's very foundational values are at stake.
by Glenn in NYC on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 03:53:25 PM PDT

Democrats Agreed to Roll Over and Play Dead

2005-12-21T17:34:00.000-05:00

Latest on the Domestic Spying Scandal:

Spy Court Judge Quits In Protest
Jurist Concerned Bush Order Tainted Work of Secret Panel

By Carol D. Leonnig and Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 21, 2005; Page A01

A federal judge has resigned from the court that oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program, according to two sources. U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, sent a letter to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. late Monday notifying him of his resignation without providing an explanation.

Two associates familiar with his decision said yesterday that Robertson privately expressed deep concern that the warrantless surveillance program authorized by the president in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the FISA court's work.

Okay, here's what I completely fail to understand. Why did the Democrats in the House and Senate wait until the story broke in the New York Times - a year late and after the 2004 elections - to go public with their concerns about illegality? Senator John McCain rather cravenly made this same point in the Post article:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) suggested that [Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) ] should have done more if he was seriously concerned. "If I thought someone was breaking the law, I don't care if it was classified or unclassified, I would stand up and say 'the law's being broken here.' "

But Rockefeller said the secrecy surrounding the briefings left him with no other choice. "I made my concerns known to the vice president and to others who were briefed," Rockefeller said. "The White House never addressed my concerns."

Somebody help me out here. Why did the Democrats muzzle themselves on this one? What would the Administration have to do to actually get them to act - bomb Canada? Declare Bush King? I.just.don't.get.it.

Hamilton, The Federalist Society, and Violation of Public Trust

2005-12-20T22:39:00.000-05:00

The conservative legal scholar Norm Ornstein said yesterday regarding Bush's authorization of NSA spying without a warrant: "I think if we’re going to be intellectually honest here, this really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed."

Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist, no. 65:

"A well constituted court for the trial of impeachments, is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties, more or less friendly or inimical, to the accused. In many cases, it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will inlist all their animosities, partialities, influence and interest on one side, or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger, that the decision will be regulated more by the comparitive strength of parties than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt."

Interesting construction there by Ornstein: "intellectually honest." It begs the question of exactly how members of the much-vaunted Federalist Society view the issue of impeaching Bush for authorizing illegal wiretaps, given their hero Alexander Hamilton's clear position above. Whatever Democrats think of the political strategy of drafting articles of impeachment, it's clear the founders had this kind of situation in mind when they made provision for impeachment.

Posted today at Think Progress:

Conservative Scholars Argue Bush’s Wiretapping Is An Impeachable Offense

Conservative scholars Bruce Fein and Norm Ornstein argued yesterday on The Diane Rehm show that, should Bush remain defiant in defending his constitutionally-abusive wire-tapping of Americans (as he has indicated he will), Congress should consider impeaching him.

QUESTION: Is spying on the American people as impeachable an offense as lying about having sex with an intern?
BRUCE FEIN, constitutional scholar and former deputy attorney general in the Reagan Administration: I think the answer requires at least in part considering what the occupant of the presidency says in the aftermath of wrongdoing or rectification. On its face, if President Bush is totally unapologetic and says I continue to maintain that as a war-time President I can do anything I want – I don’t need to consult any other branches – that is an impeachable offense. It’s more dangerous than Clinton’s lying under oath because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would set a precedent that … would lie around like a loaded gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant.
NORM ORNSTEIN, AEI scholar: I think if we’re going to be intellectually honest here, this really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed.
(Listen to The Diane Rehm show here. The segment above begins at 33:40)

UPDATE:
More from Knight-Ridder:
[Bush’s] explanation fueled more anger over the domestic spying, and some legal experts asserted that Bush broke the law on a scale that could warrant his impeachment.
“The president’s dead wrong. It’s not a close question. Federal law is clear,” said Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University and a specialist in surveillance law. “When the president admits that he violated federal law, that raises serious constitutional questions of high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Today from Roll Call:

Boxer Raises Impeachment

Democrat Asks ‘Full Airing’ of Spying Issue

On the seventh anniversary of the House’s decision to impeach then-President Bill Clinton, a pair of leading Congressional Democrats raised the specter of impeachment regarding President Bush’s authorization of domestic spying by the National Security Agency.

Best American Essays 2005: Susan Orlean

2005-12-15T18:57:00.000-05:00

Let's start at the very beginning, a very good place to start... [channelling my inner Maria]

There's something incredibly appealing and enticing about Susan Orlean's Introduction to The Best American Essays 2005. Which is entirely fitting - it's what a good introduction ought to do - entice the reader. How does she accomplish this? I think in a very womanly way: by asserting with clever wit that what we most want is to know each other and to be known, that "our voices matter to each other."

She gets a lot of whimsical mileage out of the metaphor of The Visible Cow. It's as if we can see her, contemplating it her office, and imagine that we might do something similar - she lets us in on the joke. She draws us in with her belief that if we pay attention to each other, we can see through to the heart of things. She calls essays, with their "elasticity" of form, "the most intimate of reading experiences," wherein we are "invited deep inside someone's mind." Seductive stuff, that. What's not to love?

As we read the essays, I think we would do well to keep in mind Orlean's idea of what an essay is, but more importantly, what it is for, in "taking a small notion and finding a universe inside it," and thereby revealing something soulful and true about human nature and experience. She likens the essay form to an "idiosyncratic conversation," but one whose purpose is to only connect. She values the subjective voice in that conversation, a voice that is able to articulate "one writer's jouney" with intelligence, grace, and honesty.

But as we read the essays with Orlean's vision of the essay form in mind, we can also look for some of the darker shades in the lovely picture she paints. She herself suggests some with her Visible Cow. What can be seen in her cow, so spectacularly transparent, is after all, only a cartoon cow. What can be seen are only its "most popular organs," only a vague representation of what someone thought were its important structural components. It is merely "a marvelous construction," not a cow. Think about another Visible Cow, one represented by a its profile on the periodic table of elements, or the Visible Cow as seen as a collection of commodities derived from it. Think about the cow that Picasso might have seen. Think about Ernie and Bert's cow.

If we are discover some bit of truth about human nature in these essays, some insight into intimate truths about each other, we can't imagine that what is advertised as "visible" is all there is to see. It's our pleasure as readers to look more deeply than that, to look for other structures and methods and stories that aren't immediately apparent. Without doing so, we run the risk of consuming a mere cartoon version of our desire for connection and understanding, and we impoverish the possibilities that stories have to offer.

Barack Obama and the Survival of the Fittest

2005-12-13T21:35:00.000-05:00

In sparing with Toggle Switch about the better political system to maximize individual liberty and freedom, I've been looking for a voice more eloquent than mine to articulate my views. I think I've found it in Barack Obama and his 2005 commencement address at Knox College. Listen to his withering critique of the "ownership society," be inspired by the progressive alternative his so passionately lays out. Arianna Huffington believes the middle class wants to elect candidates who care most about national security. But I find it hard to believe Obama's message isn't exactly what the middle class needs and wants to hear. If not, then I just don't fundamentally undertand how middle class white people envision us moving forward and facing the challenges of the future.

Obama address excerpts:

"Like so much of the American story, once again, we face a choice. Once again, there are those who believe that there isn’t much we can do about this as a nation. That the best idea is to give everyone one big refund on their government—divvy it up by individual portions, in the form of tax breaks, hand it out, and encourage everyone to use their share to go buy their own health care, their own retirement plan, their own child care, their own education, and so on.

In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society. But in our past there has been another term for it—Social Darwinism—every man or woman for him or herself. It’s a tempting idea, because it doesn’t require much thought or ingenuity. It allows us to say that those whose health care or tuition may rise faster than they can afford—tough luck. It allows us to say to the Maytag workers who have lost their job—life isn’t fair. It let’s us say to the child who was born into poverty—pull yourself up by your bootstraps. And it is especially tempting because each of us believes we will always be the winner in life’s lottery, that we’re the one who will be the next Donald Trump, or at least we won’t be the chump who Donald Trump says: “You’re fired!”

But there is a problem. It won’t work. It ignores our history. It ignores the fact that it’s been government research and investment that made the railways possible and the internet possible. It’s been the creation of a massive middle class, through decent wages and benefits and public schools that allowed us all to prosper. Our economic dependence depended on individual initiative. It depended on a belief in the free market; but it has also depended on our sense of mutual regard for each other, the idea that everybody has a stake in the country, that we’re all in it together and everybody’s got a shot at opportunity. That’s what’s produced our unrivaled political stability.

And so if we do nothing in the face of globalization, more people will continue to lose their health care. Fewer kids will be able to afford the diploma you’re about to receive.

Right now, all across America, there are amazing discoveries being made. If we supported these discoveries on a national level, if we committed ourselves to investing in these possibilities, just imagine what it could do for a town like Galesburg. Ten or twenty years down the road, that old Maytag plant could re-open its doors as an Ethanol refinery that turned corn into fuel. Down the street, a biotechnology research lab could open up on the cusp of discovering a cure for cancer. And across the way, a new auto company could be busy churning out electric cars. The new jobs created would be filled by American workers trained with new skills and a world-class education.

All of that is possible but none of it will come easy. Every one of us is going to have to work more, read more, train more, think more. We will have to slough off some bad habits—like driving gas guzzlers that weaken our economy and feed our enemies abroad. Our children will have to turn off the TV set once in a while and put away the video games and start hitting the books. We’ll have to reform institutions, like our public schools, that were designed for an earlier time. Republicans will have to recognize our collective responsibilities, even as Democrats recognize that we have to do more than just defend old programs.

It won’t be easy, but it can be done. It can be our future. We have the talent and the resources and brainpower. But now we need the political will. We need a national commitment.

And we need each of you.

Now, no one can force you to meet these challenges. If you want, it will be pretty easy for you to leave here today and not give another thought to towns like Galesburg and the challenges they face. There is no community service requirement in the real world; no one is forcing you to care. You can take your diploma, walk off this stage, and go chasing after the big house, and the nice suits, and all the other things that our money culture says that you should want, that you should aspire to, that you can buy.

But I hope you don’t walk away from the challenge. Focusing your life solely on making a buck shows a certain poverty of ambition. It asks too little of yourself. You need to take up the challenges that we face as a nation and make them your own. Not because you have a debt to those who helped you get here, although you do have that debt. Not because you have an obligation to those who are less fortunate than you, although I do think you do have that obligation. It’s primarily because you have an obligation to yourself. Because individual salvation has always depended on collective salvation. Because it’s only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you realize your true potential."

"Take Off Your Emotional Clothes and Sing"

2005-12-12T18:14:00.000-05:00

There are a number of blogs circling the landing field in my mind, but this is the one that really wanted to approach today. There I am, quietly reading the Sunday paper in my favorite little quirky coffee shop, and suddenly the tears come. Impossible to stop. This is the article I was reading, excerpted below (if you're not registered, let me know, and I'll email it to you). The stage is set when Barbara Cook, one of my favorite performers, enters a Julliard performance space to give a master class to young singers.

"Take Off Your Emotional Clothes and Sing"

By Charles Isherwood

Published: December 11, 2005

Ms. Cook, who gives several master classes a year around the country, opened the session with a brief, informal speech emphasizing that the key to good singing is making a real investment of feeling in each note. "Your own humanity," she said, "is your pathway to artistry."

Using a vivid metaphor that acknowledged the scariness of the enterprise, she explained, "We have to find the courage to take off our emotional clothes." Ms. Cook elaborated on that danger in speaking of the essential fear that crawls around in most performers' hearts, an anxiety that in a curious way may also be a motivating factor in the desire to become a performer: "We feel that we're not enough, that the world doesn't want us."

The students were hiding inside the music, inside their technique, and Ms. Cook set about dragging them out and making them lay bare their own truths, even if it meant awkwardness, embarrassment and some blunt criticism - leavened, in all cases, by sincerely delivered hugs and kisses. She put forth a telling paradox: "The place that seems most dangerous is exactly where safety lies." In other words, self-exposure and the abandonment of technical propriety, scary as it was, was the surest, the best, maybe the only way to communicate with an audience.

But the most arresting moment came when a svelte redhead named Ariana Wyatt came onstage. Radiating charm and confidence, she began to sing a little-known Gershwin song called "In the Mandarin's Orchard Garden," about a misfit flower. Ms. Cook clearly wanted to find the woman behind the poise. She tried the same techniques she'd used on the others, but still Ms. Wyatt seemed intent on delivering a perfectly manicured performance that was just what Ms. Cook didn't want to hear.

As frustration mounted on both sides, Ms. Cook finally turned to face her student and said, with real sincerity: "You are a beautiful young woman. You have a beautiful voice. You don't have to prove it to anyone." Ms. Wyatt nodded, and a couple of tears ran down her cheeks.

I'm afraid those words are paraphrased. The pen stopped moving when the heart stood still. Although it was not part of a performance, the moment may well linger as one of the most moving things I've witnessed in a theater. Ms. Cook dabbed the tears away, then watched a little dumbstruck as her student insisted on leaving the stage for a moment to gather herself. "This is a first," she said a little sheepishly.

And what had happened? It's hard to say. Maybe, in the unlikeliest of contexts - on a public stage - two people made a brief but meaningful connection. Certainly, an established artist gave a small gift of assurance - of love, even - to an unformed one. The serenity of age looked back at the insecurity of youth, which marshals technique and posturing to defend itself, and said, try to let it go. You don't need it. You are enough.
Ms. Wyatt returned to the stage, determined, and sat down, and sang. She was still riven with emotion, maybe a little too much. Ms. Cook asked her how it went. It was harder to sing this way, Ms. Wyatt confessed. Ms. Cook said it would get easier. The audience applauded her enthusiastically, wanting to honor both the progress she'd made and the discomfort she'd endured to get there.

When performers first step onstage, they may be looking for validation, for approbation in the form of nourishing applause. But the lesson Ms. Cook came to teach was that artists achieve their peak when they learn to stop proving themselves and simply, to borrow the Shakespearean phrase, let be. It's their humanity we respond to in the end, their ability to strip away the self-consciousness that locks us inside ourselves, and reveal the stuff that really boils in our souls.

The G Word in Darfur

2005-12-07T19:42:00.000-05:00

It's been over two months since I returned from Yad Vashem, inspired to do something about the genocide in Darfur. But I have a written my congressmen? No.

This terrific blog posting woke me up again. Improbably, Jane Wells wittily manages to use gallows humor to talk about the "g" word, when the rest of us would rather be discussing the "g spot."

Last week in The New York Times Nicholas Kristof urged “ordinary readers to push for moves to end this genocide” reminding us that Senator Paul Simon said that if only 100 people had written to their Congressional district about the Rwandan genocide we might have stopped it.

Last weekend former Cpt. Steidle, speaking about this genocide at Harvard asked for only ONE member of the audience to write to their Congressman, imploring that one person CAN make a difference.

Last summer one mother took a stand on Iraq in Crawford Texas and got he whole world to notice.I had been thinking I must stop banging on about the genocide in Darfur, and get on with ‘real’ work. Hearing former Cpt. Steidle, and reflecting on what one marine, one mother, one voice, one more letter, one vote can do, I decided to keep on blogging, at least until this genocide is over and there are as many Google links to the greatest crime against humanity as there are to female sexual pleasure (and believe me I am all for that!)

Well, there's a challenge. Perhaps a simple phone call is easier than writing a letter. Here's how to make the call. Let me know if you do, and how it went. It will keep me accountable.

Check out the i-ACT blog and daily webcasts of 21-day direct visibility project from Darfur. The project has 4 days to go.

Just Overheard on the I-40

2005-12-07T15:47:00.000-05:00

Area Cherokee In Violation Of Indian Removal Act Of 1830
The Onion, December 7, 2005

"When I told my wife that, under American federal law, we were going to have to leave everything behind and start over in Oklahoma, she was furious," Silvers said. "I blame myself: I totally blanked on the Indian Removal Act of 1830 when looking for a place to live." [...]

"We just ordered a new couch from Ikea," Silvers said. "Who's going to get that? The new white family? Maybe I can cancel the order."

I'd like a Neo Neo, Please

2005-12-03T02:17:00.000-05:00

Yet another reason I like Thivai: who wouldn't want to hang with Jack Sparrow?

On the other hand, I'd like to register a small complaint. I think Neo is himself a bit of a simulacrum. Just. . . no. I'm not Neo, just because I like to dig around in Cartesian rationality. Please. I don't even own a cool pair of sunglasses, for pete's sake. I live in Boston! That should say it all! There's something wrong with being rated on a scale in which one does not even recogize all the superheroes. Maximus?

Now, whadda I hafta to do to up my Lara Croft score? Or just score Lara Croft? Oh dear. I must be bored, too! Strike that.

You scored as Neo, the "One". Neo is the computer hacker-turned-Messiah of the Matrix. He leads a small group of human rebels against the technology that controls them. Neo doubts his ability to lead but doesn't want to disappoint his friends. His goal is for a world where all men know the Truth and are free from the bonds of the Matrix.

Which Action Hero Would You Be? v. 2.0
created with QuizFarm.com

Neo, the "One"

79%

James Bond, Agent 007

67%

Batman, the Dark Knight

63%

Captain Jack Sparrow

63%

Lara Croft

58%

The Amazing Spider-Man

54%

William Wallace

50%

Indiana Jones

50%

The Terminator

46%

El Zorro

46%

Maximus

38%

Which Action Hero Would You Be? v. 2.0
created with QuizFarm.com

Book Club by Blog: Best American Essays 2005

2005-12-01T22:23:00.000-05:00

I'm proposing an experiment here in the transcranial wasteland - Book Club by Blog. I'm sure it's been done before elsewhere, but what the heck, let's try it here. There's a method in my madness - I've begun reading the The Best American Essays 2005, and there are so many extraordinary essays I'm itching to talk about with someone! What I propose is that we take and essay a week and discuss it here. I'll get the ball rolling each week with a short reaction to an essay, given in the order they appear in the collection. I'll start next week to give you all a chance to pick up a copy. Wanna play?

Bush's Bunker Mentality

2005-11-30T19:37:00.000-05:00

I recently saw the German film The Downfall, which portrays the final days of Hitler and his entourage in the underground bunker in Berlin. Critical reception of the movie has been mixed, and I myself was left a little cold by it. Perhaps it was too faithful in portraying the "banality of evil," although I would not have wanted to be entertained by a ginned-up, bathetic version of the story. That would merely be grotesque. Whatever the shortcomings of the film, it has struck a chord with me regarding the insularity and irrationality of political leaders who feel empowered by a messianic purpose, and those who allow such leaders to lead us all into destruction and death. Roger Ebert came away from the film with this warning:

What I also felt, however, was the reality of the Nazi sickness, which has been distanced and diluted by so many movies with so many Nazi villains that it has become more like a plot device than a reality. As we regard this broken and pathetic Hitler, we realize that he did not alone create the Third Reich, but was the focus for a spontaneous uprising by many of the German people, fueled by racism, xenophobia, grandiosity and fear. He was skilled in the ways he exploited that feeling, and surrounded himself by gifted strategists and propagandists, but he was not a great man, simply one armed by fate to unleash unimaginable evil. It is useful to reflect that racism, xenophobia, grandiosity and fear are still with us, and the defeat of one of their manifestations does not inoculate us against others.

It would be misguided indeed - not to mention intellectually lazy - to compare George W. Bush with Adolf Hitler. But it is equally mistaken to believe in Nazi exceptionalism - that strains of the "Nazi sickness" do not continue to plague us today. I had that in my mind as I read today Seymour Hersh's latest reporting in the New Yorker on Iraq and the Bush's leadership of the war. (Something tells me Arianna will never call Hersh just another dumb blonde, as she did Wooward. Sy Hersh is the real deal, it would appear. Call him the T-Rex of journalists, however - I fear his species is extinct.)

I'm excerpting his article at some length here. It's too important to miss. I think because we have lived with a version of this reality for so long now, it's become nearly normalized. We're not really engaging with the staggering implications. We have allowed ourselves to become distracted, inoculated, appeased, indifferent, and blase - as if were believed present course were merely a pendulum swing to the right. This too shall pass. In other words, if our democracy was truly being threatened by fascistic leadership, we wouldn't really notice.

UP IN THE AIR
Where is the Iraq war headed next?
by SEYMOUR M. HERSHNew Yorker Issue of 2005-12-05
Posted 2005-11-28

[...]"Current and former military and intelligence officials have told me that the President remains convinced that it is his personal mission to bring democracy to Iraq, and that he is impervious to political pressure, even from fellow Republicans. They also say that he disparages any information that conflicts with his view of how the war is proceeding.

Bush's closest advisers have long been aware of the religious nature of his policy commitments. In recent interviews, one former senior official, who served in Bush's first term, spoke extensively about the connection between the President's religious faith and his view of the war in Iraq. After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the former official said, he was told that Bush felt that "God put me here" to deal with the war on terror. The President's belief was fortified by the Republican sweep in the 2002 congressional elections; Bush saw the victory as a purposeful message from God that "he's the man," the former official said. Publicly, Bush depicted his re-election as a referendum on the war; privately, he spoke of it as another manifestation of divine purpose.

The former senior official said that after the election he made a lengthy inspection visit to Iraq and reported his findings to Bush in the White House: "I said to the President, 'We're not winning the war.' And he asked, 'Are we losing?' I said, 'Not yet.'" The President, he said, "appeared displeased" with that answer. "I tried to tell him," the former senior official said. "And he couldn't hear it."

[...]

Many of the military's most senior generals are deeply frustrated, but they say nothing in public, because they don't want to jeopardize their careers. The Administration has "so terrified the generals that they know they won't go public," a former defense official said. A retired senior C.I.A. officer with knowledge of Iraq told me that one of his colleagues recently participated in a congressional tour there. The legislators were repeatedly told, in meetings with enlisted men, junior officers, and generals that "things were fucked up." But in a subsequent teleconference with Rumsfeld, he said, the generals kept those criticisms to themselves.

One person with whom the Pentagon's top commanders have shared their private views for decades is Representative John Murtha, of Pennsylvania, the senior Democrat on the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. The President and his key aides were enraged when, on November 17th, Murtha gave a speech in the House calling for a withdrawal of troops within six months. The speech was filled with devastating information. For example, Murtha reported that the number of attacks in Iraq has increased from a hundred and fifty a week to more than seven hundred a week in the past year. He said that an estimated fifty thousand American soldiers will suffer "from what I call battle fatigue" in the war, and he said that the Americans were seen as "the common enemy" in Iraq. He also took issue with one of the White House's claims - that foreign fighters were playing the major role in the insurgency. Murtha said that American soldiers "haven't captured any in this latest activity" - the continuing battle in western Anbar province, near the border with Syria. "So this idea that they're coming in from outside, we still think there's only seven per cent."

Murtha's call for a speedy American pullout only seemed to strengthen the White House's resolve. Administration officials "are beyond angry at him, because he is a serious threat to their policy - both on substance and politically," the former defense official said. Speaking at the Osan Air Force base, in South Korea, two days after Murtha's speech, Bush said, "The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity. . . . If they're not stopped, the terrorists will be able to advance their agenda to develop weapons of mass destruction, to destroy Israel, to intimidate Europe, and to break our will and blackmail our government into isolation. I'm going to make you this commitment: this is not going to happen on my watch."

"The President is more determined than ever to stay the course," the former defense official said. "He doesn't feel any pain. Bush is a believer in the adage 'People may suffer and die, but the Church advances.'" He said that the President had become more detached, leaving more issues to Karl Rove and Vice-President Cheney. "They keep him in the gray world of religious idealism, where he wants to be anyway," the former defense official said. Bush's public appearances, for example, are generally scheduled in front of friendly audiences, most often at military bases. Four decades ago, President Lyndon Johnson, who was also confronted with an increasingly unpopular war, was limited to similar public forums. "Johnson knew he was a prisoner in the White House," the former official said, "but Bush has no idea."

Mia, Guest Blogger

2005-11-18T22:48:00.000-05:00

Mia: Are we going to write something on the blog today?
Mom: Sure. Do you have anything you want to say?
Mia: mmmmmmm...
Mom: How about when we met the sea lion at the Aquarium last weekend?
Mia mmmmmm...
Mia: I know!
Mary: OK! Tell me. It could be anything.
Mia: I'm not going to tell you now. I'm going to wait until you're asleep. Then I'm going to whisper it in your ear, and then you'll dream about it. And then in the morning you'll know what to say.
Mary: [IloveyouIloveyouIloveyou]
Mary: That's a great idea!

The Fourth Estate now a Gated Community

2005-11-17T08:38:00.000-05:00

I recently asked why the mainstream media hasn't been more aggressive in exploring the apparent power struggle between the CIA's Counterproliferation Division (in which Valeria Plame was an operative) and Dick Cheney (whose former company, Halliburton, was doing business with an Iranian nuclear energy negotiator and diplomatic specialist.). I wondered, where is my generation's Bernstein and Woodward to expose the admininstrations's lies and stratagems?

Turns out, the actual Woodward is now so embedded with Cheney he hasn't changed the sheets since the first inaugural, and Bernstein is making clucking-hen type excuses for him.

Washing ton Post, November 17, 2005; 1:45 AM:

Bob Woodward apologized to The Washington Post yesterday for failing to reveal for more than two years that a senior Bush administration official had told him about CIA operative Valerie Plame, even as an investigation of who disclosed her identity mushroomed into a national scandal.
"I apologized because I should have told him about this much sooner," Woodward, who testified in the CIA leak investigation Monday, said in an interview. "I explained in detail that I was trying to protect my sources. That's job number one in a case like this. . . . "I hunkered down. I'm in the habit of keeping secrets. I didn't want anything out there that was going to get me subpoenaed."

Editor and Publisher, November 16:

Watergate legend Carl Bernstein warned critics to back off heir attacks on his former partner Bob Woodward following this week’s disclosures that Woodward had testified in the Valerie Plame case, and had failed to inform Washington Post editors for two years about a confidential
conversation he’d had with a White House official. “I think there is an awful lot of piling on,” Bernstein told E&P. “It’s outrageous to question Bob’s integrity as some seem to be doing. Anyone who looks at the record knows that it is the most distinguished journalistic record of our time.”

In Memoriam

2005-11-17T07:50:00.000-05:00

Priscilla, 1991-2005.
Rest easy, my sweet kitty.

Arianna & Ahmad: The Movie

2005-11-15T12:55:00.000-05:00

Here's a movie pitch I would love to make. Heck, it's a movie I would love to actually make!

Arianna Huffington grills Ahmad Chalabi on WMD over the remnants of sushi dinner. Think My Dinner with Andre meets IFC's Dinner for Five meets His Girl Friday.

If you don't think that would make for compelling cinema, just read Arianna's account at the Huffington Post. I love this:

"There is no way [Chalabi] is going to get Rumsfeld and Cheney, steeped in the neocon "you're either at the table or on the menu" ethos, to agree to limit the powers of the U.S. army."

[note to self: Netflix My Dinner with Andre again. Impossible to watch too many times]

Amber Davis Tourlentes: Queering the Family Portrait

2005-11-13T23:42:00.000-05:00

I'd like to introduce you to Amber Davis Tourlentes, an artist whose work I admire incredibly. Her smart, warm, and humorous photography plays with representations of changing family and social relations in the very traditional domain of family portraiture.

I'll let her artist's statement speak for itself:

"Through photography and representation I investigate the possibilities for contemporary families to construct gender, sexual and class identities beyond the postindustrial traditions of the nuclear family. For eight years I have placed my gay and straight-parented homes at the center of my inquiries into the familial gaze and modern representation of family in visual culture.

My parents are the product of the post 1960s sexual, feminist and gay movements and the 80’s AIDS epidemic - a web of cultural vantage points that have informed personal and political notions of sexual identity, family and community. This multiplicity of subjective locations informs my process of research and image-making. My work challenges the portraiture and documentary cannon and family photographic practices and traditions with a visual critique drawn from contested theories of gender, identity and class.
Six years ago I began photographing families parented by gay men who had been a part of Boston's South End community when I was being raised there by my gay father. Many of these couples have moved to suburban Boston communities, where they are now raising children. In the past five years this project has extended to include lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered-parented families, and a growing national community of adult children of gay parents. The photographs are made in the intimate space of homes, and during public LGBT gatherings at traditionally safe gay vacation destinations all over the country. These events are organized by parents and coalitions that represent the LGBT community.

These Coalitions I work with and photograph include FamilyPride, GLAD, HRC, Families Like Mine and COLAGE. The coalitions serve the LGBT community with educational programming, family networking and social services, fundraising for lobby work and legal process, and building alliances with private and corporate funders.

My interest in the photographic representation of gay family culture began specifically with same-sex parents raising children. The photographic project has extended to a curiosity about the reworking of not only gender but also ethnic, religious and class roles for family and community members. Unexpectedly, so far in this body of work, economic conditions such as class, more so than gender, have emerged as a defining family social structure. The representations of class in my work also reflects the increasingly commercialized space of LGBT family events. As LGBT families have become more visible, they have increasingly become the focus of targeted marketing as consumers. I'm interested in exploring how the burgeoning corporate sponsorship of LGBT community events influences and synergistically generates media images of certain kinds of gay families."

In Search of the Intelligent Designer

2005-11-11T04:38:00.000-05:00

Best blog of the day: Was the Universe "Intelligently Designed" ... by Satan?

Check out the comments for the great rebuttal: we all know the universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I feel like going to church today! Have any of you been touched by his noodly appendage?

Libera Elects the First Woman President in Africa: Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf

2005-11-10T23:13:00.000-05:00

Just in from the BBC: Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, known as the "Iron Lady", has claimed victory as the first woman to be elected president in Liberia, and Africa as a whole.

Read about this extraordinary woman's life at Women Waging Peace and at her campaign site.

Ellen on National Unity:
One of the reasons that Liberia is currently in turmoil is that we have permitted our differences, both ethnic and political, to divide us.

We believe that democracy and diversity are compatible. We believe that we do not have to be the same to co-exist. I believe that we can have differences of opinion without resorting to violence.

We will strive to respect and accept our history and I will promote a social and a political environment that unites all Liberians under the principle of “One People One Destiny.”

We will preach and practice national reconciliation and I will ensure that my government is one of inclusion, which reflects the diversity of the nation and grants equal rights and equal security to all.
Our goal is to lay a foundation for a new, strong and productive Liberia in which:

The government reflects the social religious and cultural diversity of our nation.

Every Liberian has a recognized role to play in national development.

Opportunities are made available to everybody who is prepared to work.

An extra effort is made to rehabilitate those who have lost hope and trust in their government and country, particularly our youth and ex-combatants, so long as they are truly committed to peace and development.

Those who have been internally and externally displaced from their communities are reintegrated into society.

There is an assurance for all Liberians within our borders of equal justice and protection under our laws.

To this end, we believe Liberia needs a successful program of disarmament, demobilization, reintegration and resettlement which will enable our children who had been forced into arms and who have been robbed of their childhood and youth, to return to the schools and training programs that will make them productive, constructive citizens. The same applies to the thousands of Liberians who have been made refugees and internally displaced.We believe that, together, we can make these things happen and that the future of Liberia depends upon our ability to work diligently toward these goals.

Bad Girls Recap: 1.1 "Them and Us"

2005-11-10T22:00:00.000-05:00

Who knew this recap thing was so hard? Warning: this thing turned into a real monster! There's too much dialogue, perhaps, but that's one of the most enjoyable elements of the show for me - the extremely vivid language.

For great taste of the episode visually, check out the Photo Love Story (icky name, good snark).

The season opens with a bang – women in flashy, trashy costumes sashaying in a “Staying Alive” dance number, like a bad karaoke night in a drag bar in Provincetown. The scene is anxiety provoking, interrupted by short cuts of a woman screaming in pain – apparently for some other reason than the dangerously camp disco. The lights go up on the dance show, and we se that we are in Larkhall women’s prison, at a rehearsal for a “fashion show.” In the short opening scene we are skillfully introduced to nearly all of the major characters, save one. The editing and acting somehow manages to establish each character with just a few lines or looks. The guards (known to the prisoners as “screws”) are Jim Fenner, Sylvia “Bodybag” Hollamby, Dominic McAllister, and Lorna Rose. The women of G Wing include Nikki Wade, Shell Dockley, Denny Blood, Rachel Hicks, and The Two Julies.

Jim Fenner (played by Jack Ellis, who was superb in Prime Suspect) oozes a kind of malevolent, smooth menace that makes one think of a high-school principal with a thing for 14-year-old girls. He is odious. We immediately see him swooping down on Rachel Hicks, offering her his concern and affection. This girl had got the world’s worst instincts – hasn’t she seen even one teen horror movie? She’s more vulnerable and clueless than an albino rabbit in a room full of make-up testers.

We meet Nikki Wade, wearing more lipstick than the entire cast of the L Word, but also sporting a killer red, tailored shirt. If I’d been the judge, I would have convicted her for sure – that shirt is far from innocent. It’s also faintly ridiculous in context, but hey – now we know that Nikki is our Byronic hero. Filled with noble concern for the welfare of the prisoners, she confronts Hollamby, a cynical, burned-out, ill-tempered guard, about Carol, whom we suspect may be the screaming woman in the cell. Hollamby, tells Nikki to butt out, and she retorts, “You’d gas us all in our cells, wouldn’t you.” We get the feeling Hollamby might, if only she didn’t have to clean up the mess afterwards. The women call her “Bodybag,” which is a great description of her face and demeanor.

At lockdown Carol asks Bodybag for a doctor – we see that she’s bleeding. Hollamby callously refuses, accusing Carol of merely trying to get attention, or maybe sanitary pads, and locks down the wing for the night. We see that Carol begins to bleed profusely as though she were having a miscarriage.

It’s the next morning. We see a lovely young woman dressed in a dark suit over a red shirt (hmm – whose shirt does that remind me of? Is there some sort of – oh, I don’t know, connection being made here?), driving to work, obviously late, as she’s trying to apply her mascara at a stoplight.

Cut to the guards unlocking the cells for morning. Hollamby finds Carol unconscious in her cell, covered in blood.

The young woman in the suit arrives at Larkhall Prison, and after a strange look from a security guard, she sees that she’s rather comically misapplied her mascara. These quick scenes show us she’s a woman who has not quite got her act together; she’s pressured, and her masque is slipping a bit.

She’s the Wing Governor, Helen Stewart, who want to be called “Helen,” as she says to Fenner, who insolently calls her “ma’am.” “Please, I’m not the bloody queen, Jim,” she retorts. In an absolutely lovely Scottish burr that completely disarms me, I might add, but not Fenner, I suspect.

Fenner convinces Stewart to put Rachel on “enhanced” wing, where she’ll have her own room and more privileges. “She’s got victim written all over her, ” Fenner reasons. And yes, you might as well have tattooed it right on her ass, Fenner. Stewart doesn’t realize putting Rachel on enhanced is like staking her up alone in a room with a wolf.

Breakfast time. We see Carol being taken away by EMTs. The entire third tier is clumsily held in their cells while Hollamby orders the Julies clean up the blood. The women are yelling, demanding to know what’s happened. Nikki becomes increasingly concerned, and demands a guard tell her of Carol’s condition. Nikki is tough, unafraid, a natural leader. If they played women’s flag football in England, she would be the quarterback. Which they don’t. But I can’t make a soccer, or god help me, cricket, analogy that works. Just trust me, Nikki puts the bits in Alpha on G Wing.

Governor Stewart confronts Fenner and Hollamby in her office, but doesn’t seem to be buying their story that Carol didn’t ask for medical attention at lockdown. She tells them she’s decided have a meeting with the entire G Wing. Fenner thinks that’s a terrible idea – the women are too angry. Stewart replies, “We need to be seen to care right now.”

Hollamby and Fenner leave the office, and immediately start bitching about her – “typical graduate type,” and “a bit too much of the prisoners’ friend.” Battle lines are, as they say, drawn.

Fenner checks in on Rachel, who reveals to him her boyfriend is dead from an overdose. He silkily tells her, “From now on, I’m going to keep a very special eye on you, and that’s a promise.” OK Rachel, there’s naïve, and then there’s 19 going on 6. I can’t tell if her problem is that she’s been bubble-wrapped her entire life before getting busted for drugs, or if she ought to be bubble-wrapped until she’s, say, 60 or so. I vote for the second – she’s pissing me off.

The Two Julies are talking with Nikki on the wing. Both are middle-aged blondes, one short, and the other tall. They finish each other’s sentences and frequently talk in chorus. They’ve got comic relief written all over them. Julie S is wearing a “Hello Kitty” t-shirt - an inspired wardrobe choice. They are obviously concerned when they tell Nikki they heard Carol ask Bodybag for a doctor. Nikki vows to “take it to the top” if Hollamby is not held to account, and the two Julies say (together) that they’re calling “all us kitchen women out on strike.” Solidarity of the seriously ditzy – warms the heart of the hardest union buster!

We see Stewart striding onto the Wing, her face set and tough. She’s small in stature, but the energy is rolling off her in fierce waves.

The women are gathered all around on the three levels at the center of G Wing, making a terrible racket. It’s a very aurally and visually dynamic scene, unusually so by American TV standards.

Fenner yells to everyone to settle down, and Stewart begins to address them, trying to make herself heard over their voices. She tells them Carol has suffered a miscarriage in her cell wasn’t discovered until morning unlock. She says she’s very concerned, but after conducting a “through investigation,” has concluded what occurred was “a tragic set of circumstances,” using the exact phrase Fenner offered in her office in explanation. It’s an odd moment, and it doesn’t convince the women, or us.

Nikki Wade shouts down from an upper level, acting as spokeswoman for the prisoners. “A what? She nearly bled to death! You should all be sacked!”

Nikki comes barreling down the stairs to confront Helen on her own level. The Julies and others yell to Stewart that Hollamby knew Carol was bleeding, and did nothing. The women are getting extremely loud and restive. In my mind I’m starting to shout Riot! Riot! Riot!

But Fenner quiets them down again, as Stewart starts to explain that it was an accident. Nikki interrupts with an angry, impassioned speech about how none of the women are safe on G Wing, that they aren’t believed when it’s their word again a guard’s. Nikki points in Hollamby’s direction and says it was no accident - “that cow” let it happen.

Now the Greek chorus in my mind is shouting Moo! Moo! Moo! Good thing I’m not on G Wing – I’d be in segregation most of the time, I fear.

Nikki and Helen are starring at one another with ferocious intensity. Nikki tells Helen that if the women don’t get “respect from your screws,” they won’t help her by making her “look good in front of her VIP visitors,” to the fashion show. Nikki, getting really wound up, one-ups herself with “And you can shove your stupid fashion show up your arse!” The Greek chorus women erupt in cheers.

Helen approaches Nikki, stepping directly into her personal space. “Fine, consider it cancelled. This wing won’t be taking part.” Never taking her eyes off Nikki, jabbing a finger into her face, she barks, “You’re on a Rule 43.” We have no idea what Rule 43 might be, but Helen’s eyes are so angry and electrified, that we suspect it may include beheading.

Please, someone, I need a cigarette! There are some rocket fuels with less combustible chemistry than these two. On second thought, a “no smoking” policy around them is probably safest.

Fenner tells Stewart she’s making a mistake. “One thing you better learn about me, Jim, is that once I make a decision, I stick to it.” Wait a minute, I thought Nikki was the butch here? Stewart’s jaw is tougher than Washington’s on Mt. Rushmore.

Fenner insists that the women will become even angrier if she cancels the show. Helen is furious. “Do you think I believed all that shit from Sylvia? I had to face a near riot out there because of what she let happen, so don’t blame me for coming down heavy.” Great toss down there, Helen. Did they teach you this in management grad school?

The entire wing is being put on lockdown. Fenner locks up Shell Dockley, who is fuming that she’s “worked for weeks on her cosi,” and now can’t wear it. She threatens him that he’d better fix things “or else.” Ah so! Something is up between these two, and it’s clearly Shell that’s got Fenner in some sort of lockup.

We see what Rule 43 entails. Two guards are dragging a resisting Nikki to solitary confinement – “segregation.” Hollamby sneers “put her in strips, that will give her something to moan about.” When Nikki yells, “you vicious old bitch, I’ll…” she takes a hard one in the gut from one of the guards. Ooofff. I felt that.

Helen’s office. There’s a picture on the wall of a dove being cradled in nested hands. Ha! I love art with a subtle message. Helen receives a phone call in her office. It’s the “Number One.” “Can you pop up for 5 minutes, need to have a talk with you about the fashion show,” says a bureaucratic older man with posh accent. Helen, wearing an anxious expression, says she’s on her way. Oops. In trouble with the big daddy. We see “Number One,” Larkhall’s Governing Governor Simon Stebberfield, on his end of the line, speaking an aside to someone in his office, “Your name won’t be mentioned.” It’s Fenner. Office politics being played as a gender wars: it’s just so easy to hate these smug, self-satisfied men. OK, so TPTB are stacking the deck here, but I don’t care. It’s believable. It’s a scene being played out in some cigar smoke-filled room near you right this moment.

Stebberfield tells Stewart G Wing can’t be absent from the fashion show – there are too many VIPs attending, and it would look bad to have an entire Wing “banged up,” whatever her resolve and reputation for making decisions. “I assure you, this is about more than your personal pride.” Helen looks like she’s been spanked, which she has.

Helen asks Hollamby to see to a returning prisoner with a “particularly difficult hygiene problem.” “Not Smelly Nelly Snape!” Hollamby exclaims. “If you could check her top and tail for parasites – we certainly don’t want an infestation, do we?” Ah, revenge is – sweet. Hollamby knows Helen didn’t buy her story, but also knows she doesn’t have the political cards to play to do much about more about it. “Yes Ma’am,” she responds, knowing Helen hates to be called “ma’am.” This is more fun than watching monster trucks play tug-of-war.

Fenner is next. “So, you thought you’d go over my head, Jim – man to man, the way the prison system loves best.” Ha! An economical put-down – at once clever and snarky – why is that just so damned attractive in a woman, Helen in particular?

Helen asks Fenner what his problem is with her, “My age, my background, the fact that I’m a woman? Tell me to my face when you’ve got a problem with me.” Fenner takes the hit and smoothly responds, “I did tell you what I thought of your decision, and I still haven’t heard you admit that you made a mistake. Maybe we could meet and discuss it over a drink sometime.” He walks out on Helen. Trumped her.

“Bastard,” she mutters. That round goes to Fenner.

Touching scene with the two Julies. Julie J is upset over Carol’s miscarriage, and missing her children. She’s in tears, Julie S comforting her:

Julie S: You promised me you’d stay hopeful. You don’t have to say “I” anymore. Why? Julie J: Because we’re the Two Julies
Julie S: And who can come between us?
Julie J: Nobody, nothing, never.

Only two women as “nutty” as the Two Julies could get away with this. I love it.

They cheer themselves up by tearing up a sheet, filling it with sweets for Nikki, and swinging out the window to the next cell.

Fenner comes in and tell them their strike plan will only cause them to loose their privileges and get put on report. He expertly takes the wind right out of their strike solidarity sails. Fenner clearly has a gift – he missed his calling as a Republican House Whip.

We see Nikki in segregation, wrapped in a blanket. Shell, delivering dinner, taunts Nikki that the fashion show will be back on, that she’ll be wearing her dress while Nikki goes naked. She leaves without giving Nikki any food, but the prisoner assisting Shell slips Nikki the bag of goodies from the Two Julies.

Helen at home, fresh from her shower, drying her hair. In walks a floppy-haired, tall man – think of a soggy, pale version of Hugh Grant. “Hiya, baby,” she says with a smile. Ewww. I hate that! Baby! In one second flat I know I’m going to hate this relationship. I can already feel my lip starting to curl.

She walks into his arms, kisses him, looks into his eyes, and says, “let’s get pissed tonight.” A romantic, that Helen. I also like that in a woman. Pulling out a bottle of Stoli, she expects Sean to join her while she moans about work, but he says he brought home some work to finish. She’s annoyed. “What’s the point of being freelance if you can’t set your own hours,” she says as she begins to laugh. It’s an odd scene – it looks as though it should have been outtake. Why the heck is she laughing – shouldn’t Sean only be that ludicrous to me? “You sulky bitch,” he teases, “you need a damn good thrashing.” “Mmmm,” she smiles. Ewww again. These two are just – wrong.

Sean rubs her feet while Helen sips on red wine. She says “Oh well, it’s only a sodding job, who cares,” envying him for his job satisfaction, lack of stress, and autonomy – working with plants, not people. She’s obviously working very hard to pretend she doesn’t care. She’s just as obviously unsuccessful at setting aside her day, despite the puppy dog lapping at her feet.

Sean tells Helen a customer of his asked him what she does for a living, and responded “How very sexy” to his answer. Has she met Myra Hindley, the customer wants to know. “You ignorant tosser, is that all you think women’s prisons are about,” Sean rather improbably describes his response. Sean, Sean, Sean, this is not about what a sensitive guy you are. Please, put her foot down, back away, and consider what it would be like to treat her like an actual grown-up woman. Sheesh.

He kisses her big toe then moves on top of her. “Fancy a shag?” “No,” she says with a smile. I am not smiling. Just put him out in the back yard where he belongs, Helen. I’m sure there’s a doghouse out there somewhere.

Next we see Fenner and Shell snogging in Fenner’s office (see, I’m really getting into this – snogging!). She says, “Wait to see what I give out when I’m in my dress.” OK, so that’s how it is. It’s all depressingly, crystal clear.

Sean and Helen arguing the car the next morning. “So you think I made a mistake also,” she baits Sean regarding the fashion show. She looks pinched and stressed – not like a woman recently pleasantly engaged in drinking and shagging. Something – perhaps lots of things – just aren’t working for Helen Stewart.

Fenner lures Rachel into making a clumsy pass at him, then showily backs away. “Just calm down” he sooths her, with a predatory look in his eye that we see and she does not. His performance his masterful; Rachel is either so dense or so congenitally damaged that it’s mostly wasted on her. He had her from hello.

[A commercial for Jane Austin’s Pride and Prejudice has just popped up: all chiseled jaws, blowing hair, fireworks. “You have bewitched me, body and soul.” Have even the English gone Disneyland now? Is there nothing sacred? Well, what can you expect from an actress named Keira Knightley.]

Nikki in her empty cell, sitting cross-legged on the floor, wrapped in a blanket. She seems as implacable as the Buddha. Helen enters, and turns back enraged to the guard, shouting, “What the hell is she doing in strips!” The poor little guard looks abashed. “Well, go get her clothes here immediately.’ I love that – it sounds like immeGEEately – so authoritative.

She closes the door behind her. “I’m sorry, that should not have happened,” she says with serious concern and sincerity. The scene is nicely shot, over Helen’s shoulder from above, looking down on a vulnerable Nikki, who seems anything but.

Nikki is unbending. “Happens all the time, didn’t you know.” “Well, it won’t in the future.” “Why, you going to let us lot out and lock up your screws instead?”

Helen approaches Nikki, and sits on the bed, very near to Nikki on the floor. “Look, I intend to make a lot of changes here, but I need your cooperation.” “Co-op-eration,” Nikki sneers. “You’re right, I can’t run things here without your help,” Helen responds in earnest.

Nikki: I don’t even know how people like you sleep at night if you believe in a system that locks up pregnant women.
Helen: Well, you’re just going to have to trust me. I don’t.

Nikki gives Helen a very searching look.

Trust? So soon? Helen is asking for a great deal. Another quality I love in a woman.

Shell is practicing her spastic dance moves in front of a very appreciative Denny, who leans her against the wall and says “I’d love to see you in that dress again, Shell.” The whole thing has a sordid feel about it, as if Shell really wanted to be in a production of Sweeny Todd, and Denny will soon be on the menu.

Nikki’s cell, where she’s finishing dressing. Helen is still alone with her, her back turned as she faces the window, giving Nikki a bit of privacy. The scene is beautifully framed, Helen in the far corner, her face bathed in light, and in the foreground, Nikki listening and intent in her corner.

Helen speaks. “It’s up to you. Either we both climb down together and make something positive out of this, or we all lose out to the old boy’s network.”

They turn to look at one another. Nikki looks unsure, and uncomfortable for the first time.

Helen’s got her cards on the table, but Nikki has no way of knowing if Helen is playing her. What will Nikki do? OK, really, is there any doubt? There’s angst, and then there’s being recruited by Helen Stewart. If Nikki resists her, then God doesn’t make little green apples. Temptations indeed.

Later, we see Nikki return with Carol to dining hall, Stewart behind them. “What she doing out of seg already,” Fenner mutters. The women are excited to see Carol again, who is looking remarkably recovered.

Nikki takes the floor in the center of the dining hall and asks for the women’s attention for an important announcement. Helen is watching her, quiet and tense, from the corner of the room. She begins to pace a little.

Nikki, hands insouciantly in her pockets, says the fashion show is back on. “Seeings as how I helped get it cancelled, I personally guaranteed to Miss Stewart,” giving Helen a quick glance, “that if they let us back in, G Wing would give it our best.” Fenner gives Helen a baleful shake of the head and cruel little smile. Match point and game goes to Stewart. “So if that’s OK with you babes, go out and strut your stuff!” The women cheer, showing their support for Nikki and relief that the standoff is over. Helen quietly slips out as Fenner mutters, “canny bitch.”

Denny to Shell, “it’ll be you they clap for tomorrow night, Shell.”

Cut to fashion show, where they are indeed clapping for Shell who is rather inelegantly strutting her stuff, tasseled bra and fringed mini shaking like a Jell-O salad. Stebberfield, sitting next to Helen, looks pleased, but Helen is remote, until she gives a ironic half-smile to the onstage antics. As Stebberfield escorts his easily-impressed VIP guests out, Helen quickly catches up to Nikki, who is returning to the wing. Nikki looks like a million bucks, again in her perfectly tailored red shirt and matching red lipstick. It’s too much for my taste, and I still hate her haircut, probably because it’s how I imagine my haircut looks on a bad hair day. But these are quibbles. Nikki is all that.

Helen, hair flying, actually skips ahead to catch Nikki, who turns around when she hears Helen say “Nikki,” in a softer, gentler tone than we’ve heard her use the entire episode, “I just wanted to say, thanks again for helping me out.” Nikki’s not having it. “Don’t think I did anything for you, Miss,” she retorts cheekily, and continues on her way. Helen looks slightly abashed.

Lockup. We hear Shell threatening little Rachel – “deep down I’ve got a great big soft spot for you … and I can’t wait to gob it in your face.” Shell, you’re so amusing, in that schoolyard bully sort of way. Maybe you could watch South Park for insult inspiration.

The camera pans to Rachel in the next cell, whose hair is being pulled aside by sinister hands, her next exposed to a vampire-like approach. You guessed it, Fenner. Dum dum dum…

The camera moves outside the prison, looking at the windows, from which we hear the women’s goodnights to one another. It’s a wonderfully ironic and obscene homage to The Waltons. The women hurl expression of love through the bars, “I bloody love you,” “Carol, you’re gorgeous;” some exchange menacing threats for the following day. Nighty-night, you bad girls, you. See you next week.