Post by the Scribe on Dec 9, 2020 5:55:33 GMT
AOL Journals 1st Old Hickory's Weblog
bruce-miller.blogspot.com/2004/07/hooray-for-linda-ronstadt.html
Monday, July 19, 2004
Hooray for Linda Ronstadt!
The Clear Channel Syndrome is alive and well. That would be as in the Clear Channel that dropped the Dixie Chicks from their play lists when they made a mild implied criticism of Bush the Magnificent in early 2003 before the invasion of Iraq.
Vegas Casino Boots Singer Linda Ronstadt Associated Press 07/19/04
LAS VEGAS - Singer Linda Ronstadt not only got booed, she got the boot after lauding filmmaker Michael Moore and his new movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" during a performance at the Aladdin hotel-casino.
Before singing "Desperado" for an encore Saturday night, the 58-year-old rocker called Moore a "great American patriot" and "someone who is spreading the truth." She also encouraged everybody to see the documentary about President Bush.
Ronstadt's comments drew loud boos and some of the 4,500 people in attendance stormed out of the theater. People also tore down concert posters and tossed cocktails into the air. ...
Aladdin President Bill Timmins ... decided Ronstadt had to go — for good. Timmins said he didn't allow Ronstadt back in her luxury suite and she was escorted off the property.
If Timmins banned any of the Bush Fedayeen that caused the disruption from the hotel or had them "escorted" off the property by security guards, I haven't seen it mentioned in the news items I've seen.
Timmins is obviously a jerk, and gave the predictable excuses. The Las Vegas Sun (Aladdin expels Ronstadt after political remarks 07/19/04) quotes him as saying:
"Whether you are politically on the left or on the right is not the point. She went up in front of the stage and just let it out. This was not the correct forum for that." ...
"If she wants to talk about her views to a newspaper or in a magazine article, she is free to do so. But in a stage in front of four and a half thousand people is not the place for it."
Oh, and of course is Toby Keith had been there and said how much he admired Bush the Magnificent, Liberator of Peoples, Timmins would have had the security people kick him out without even letting him go back to his room. All for the good of the customers, of course.
Anyone who believes that, send me $50 and I'll explain to you the Real Story of where them there Iraqi WMDs are hiding. (Hint: it has to do with leprechauns and magic dust.)
The Sun also says that it's "debatable" how much Timmins' vow to never let her perform there again as long as he's there really means, "since the bankrupt Aladdin is in the process of being sold to a group headed by Planet Hollywood International Inc. Chairman and Chief Executive Robert Earl."
In other words, he's a bad businessman as well as a rightwing jerk.
How dumb is this?
This kind of thing gives me the creeps. Although, I also have to think, what a bunch of dummies. I mean, if I went to hear that fool Chuckie (CHARLIE DANIELS) play, I would be surprised if he didn't make some Moron-American type remarks. (If someone wants to tell me I'm being unfair to morons by associating them with Chuckie, I can't really argue with that.)
I can even picture myself getting annoyed and walking out. But throwing drinks into the air and into the artist posters? Ripping the posters off the wall? And for what? The Chuckie equivalent of what she said would be something like, "Read Rush Limbaugh's new book. Rush is a fine patriotic pill-popping bigot American, and his Oxycontin-induced insights represent a higher form of political consciousness." I mean, it's not even worth a regular old bar fight, much less trying to trash a Vegas hotel.
I love it, too, when people sniff about how it's just so inappropriate to mix "politics" with "entertainment." Tell that to the political reporters who have been covering Arnold Schwartzenegger as "Conan the Republican" and such like. I mean, even ole Rush, Mr. Oxycontin himself, calls himself an "entertainer."
Women as targets of jingoism
It is kind of interesting, though, that the superpatriots who "support our troops" by ripping down singers' posters in Las Vegas and generally acting like drunken idiots always seem to find female scapegoats who they get way more worked up about than the Shawn Penns of the world. Jane Fonda, the Dixie Chicks, Linda Ronstadt for that one concert, anyway. What's up with that?
I've quoted before from the book The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory and the Legacy of Vietnam (1998) by Vietnam War veteran Jerry Lembcke, whose title is taken from the mythical story of the Vietnam veterans who were spit on by antiwar protesters, a favorite tale among the blowhard superpatriot crowd. He has a whole chapter called, "Women, Wetness, and Warrior Dreams" in which he analyzes the sexual symbolism of that particular piece of folklore.
He makes his point in part by recalling the famous photo from V-J day by photographer Afgred Eisenstaedt of a sailor in uniform killing a nurse, which became "the most widely recognized representation of how World War II-era GIs came home from the war."
The contrast between Eisenstaedt's photograph and the image of soldiers being spat upon when they came home from Vietnam is instructive. The use of women in both images suggests that the structure of our memory about wars is closely related to the structure of our gender relations. The memory of America's victory in World War II is encoded in Eisenstaedt's photograph. The soldier is in a decidedly dominant position with one arm around the nurse's waist, his hand pressing into the small of her back. His other arm is around her shoulders, bending her backward. The nurse appears to have gone limp, with her left arm dangling loosely and her right foot extended behind her for balance. This image of the aggressively affectionate World War II soldier, very much in control of his own homecoming experience, stands in sharp contrast to the image of GIs returning from the lost war in Vietnam. Encoded in the image of the spat-upon veteran are the country's collective "memories" of Vietnam returnees being assaulted by aggressive anti-war females and effeminate males. The loss of war is represented in the image as emasculation, the loss of manhood. The Vietnam veteran is victim, not victor.
More revealing still is the fact that the homecoming of World War II Tvictors is remembered through a photograph, while that of the Vietnam victim-veterans is remembered through a conjured up image. A photograph is a form of documentary evidence. It shows that an event really did happen. But there is no photographic or other documentation of soldiers returning from Vietnam and being spat upon. The icon of homefront betrayal, the spat-upon veteran, is a figment of the imagination that has been popularized through storytelling. Recall the similarity in the stories. The spitting occurs at an airport, usually in San Francisco, and the spitter is a girl or male "longhair" who calls the soldier a murderer or baby killer. The stories have been repeated so often that, if asked to do so, thousands of Americans could probably draw pictures of Vietnam veterans coming home to such scenes. Although it is a picture that thousands of people have in their minds, it simply does not exist outside of their minds. In my research for this book, involving the search of newspaper reports about anti-war rallies and peace marches, the viewing of almost 150 films, and conversations and correspondence with dozens of individuals, I found only one material representation of the spat-upon veteran image—in a "GI Joe" comic book panel from the mid-1980s.
How are we going to blame the women for the Iraq War and the disaster it's become? Well, of course, ole Rush has already shown us how. It was the women in Abu Ghuraib who were behind all the torture! Not manly men like Rummy or Dick Cheney or Bush himself. Yeah, that's it. And the Dixie Chicks. And Linda Ronstadt saying something nice about Michael Moore at a concert. Yeah, it's the dames' fault, all right. It all makes sense, once you get into that Oxycontin frame of mind.
[07/20/04 update: Michael Moore is taking up the issue: Open Letter to Bill Timmins, President Aladdin Casino and Hotel. Via Thorn Papers blog.]
Posted by Bruce Miller at 4:45 PM
8 comments:
Anonymous said...
Thanks, now I know where NOT to stay the next time I'm in Vegas. The Aladdin is an awfully conceived hotel, anyway. It's always been tacky even by sin city standards even after its renovation. This whole incident is a prime example of how bullies get their way by raising a ruckus, and you're right Timmins is enough of a jerk to go along with it.
July 19, 2004 at 10:58 PM
Anonymous said...
How do you define an "implied criticism?" The Dixie Chicks' Natalie Maines told the London crowd "We're ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas." I think their criticism was quite clear.
I don't understand the belief that celebrities should have every right to say anything they want, but that no one else has any right to react to it. Linda Rondstadt had every right to say whatever she wanted to say. The crowd had the right to respond, though trashing the place was ridiculous. The owner of the hotel had the right to throw her out if he felt she behaved inappropriately in his business. And you have wasted no time taking advantage of your right to freedom of speech to talk about what a "jerk" he is.
For everything we do, there are consequences. Anyone with any common sense knows that people are split over Bush, and certainly split over Moore's depiction of Bush. Is it fair that such a political statement might cost her in some way? Maybe, maybe not. But do you honestly believe that given previous examples you cited, this outcome wouldn't have occurred to her?
She decided to stand up and speak her mind anyway. Good for her. But she can't whine about having to pay the price for it. With freedom comes responsibility. Will she be hurt by this? I doubt it; she will likely benefit from extra publicity. Will the hotel be hurt? For every diehard Democrat who vows never to go there, a diehard Republican will probably make additional efforts to patronize the place. In either case, the majority won't remember it ever even happened by this time next year. Last time I checked, the Dixie Chicks were still doing quite well and are even back on the air.
Patrick
July 20, 2004 at 1:45 AM
Anonymous said...
Musenla, you're right, this is a prime example of bullies getting their way. Aside from any political dimension, it shows incredibly bad judgment to react to thuggish behavior by rowdy drunks at a concert by ... kicking the performer out of the hotel. And making a point of doing it in a humiliating way, i.e., not even allowing her to return to her room.
I'm trying to imagine a football stadium responding to rowdy fans in the stands by kicking the football teams out of the stadium. My "home team" is the Oakland Raiders, so we know something about rowdy fans around here! Someone once said, "I went to an Oakland Raiders game once. It was like dropping in on a prison riot." - Bruce
July 20, 2004 at 8:24 AM
Anonymous said...
Patrick, I'm not worried about Linda's career being affected. And she's been involved in political issues to some extent before, so she's not likely to be thrown for a loop like Natalie Maines was initially. (But Natalie recovered well and quickly adjusted to telling her pseudopatriotic detractors they could stick it.) Linda was Jerry Brown's girlfriend while he was governor of California and running for president in 1979-80.
"She decided to stand up and speak her mind anyway. Good for her. But she can't whine about having to pay the price for it. With freedom comes responsibility." The perfect definition of a "company town" mentality. Like Tennessee Ernie Ford sang in his most famous song, "16 Tons": "St. Peter, don'cha call me 'cause I cain't go/I owe my soul to the company store."
As for boycotts, your comment "implies" that boycotts aimed at performers who distinguish themselves as war lovers or Bush zealots would be ineffective. Maybe. Maybe not. Liberals are probably less comfortable with the idea of boycotting singers who incidentally have rightwing political sentiments than pro-Bush drunks are with ripping up posters at a Las Vegas concert.
But the reason Bush lost the 2000 election was that 500 thousand more people voted for Al Gore than for Bush. If the Bush fans insist on making partisan politics a criteria for artists, some of their partisans in the entertainment world might now like the market results of that approach in the end. - Bruce
July 20, 2004 at 8:36 AM
Anonymous said...
See also the added note about Michael Moore's response. - Bruce
July 20, 2004 at 9:29 AM
Anonymous said...
So an entertainer should be able to speak their minds without anyone else having the freedom to respond? A perfect definition of a selectively-oppressive society that gives a few -- only those who agree with you -- the freedoms you celebrate Rondstadt for having exercised.
Would it have made a difference if Timmins knew in advance that she wanted to make such a statement? Would it have made a difference if Rondstadt's concert publicity had included mention of a "special tribute" to Michael Moore? It definitely would have in the make-up of her audience. Perhaps she didn't want to rock the boat until after her audience had paid admission?
It's funny that the natural tendency seems to be to only question what could have been done differently BEFORE the fact when we're talking about a Republican.
"But the reason Bush lost the 2000 election was that 500 thousand more people voted for Al Gore than for Bush."
I suppose when we run out of arguments, we just revert to an old favorite. If Gore was the clear, reasonable choice, why did the election depend so heavily on a single state? There should have been a Gore landslide that would have rendered Florida's outcome ineffective anyway, right?
I'd love to know what those who STILL haven't gotten over the fact that the Electoral College elects the president -- something most of us learned in sixth grade -- did before or since the 2000 Election to get that system changed. Didn't you already know this was the way things worked? It is a mathematical impossibility that this system, sooner or later, couldn't elect a candidate who DIDN'T win the POPULAR vote.
Patrick
July 20, 2004 at 11:01 AM
Anonymous said...
Musenla, it seems you're not the only one who had the idea of boycotting the Aladdin:
www.patridiots.com/000519.html
- Bruce
July 20, 2004 at 11:54 PM
Anonymous said...
yeah bruce, GREAT entry. i commented a little, only a little, in TheBiblioPhiles, on this event. interesting analysis on the attack on women here. who can be left in America today who doesn't know that politics IS entertainment?
i've gotta get caught up on reading your many past entries. i was on vacation, then working on my own journal after i got back. i hope you'll come visit thewindmills from time to time, i miss you!
i'm working hard with my local democrats, registering voters, researching information on different issues to make flyers for handouts at local summer events. right now i'm working on Latino issues, in Spanish, for next month's Hispanic Festival. if you know any useful links, i'd appreciate them.
July 21, 2004 at 9:20 AM
bruce-miller.blogspot.com/2004/07/hooray-for-linda-ronstadt.html
Monday, July 19, 2004
Hooray for Linda Ronstadt!
The Clear Channel Syndrome is alive and well. That would be as in the Clear Channel that dropped the Dixie Chicks from their play lists when they made a mild implied criticism of Bush the Magnificent in early 2003 before the invasion of Iraq.
Vegas Casino Boots Singer Linda Ronstadt Associated Press 07/19/04
LAS VEGAS - Singer Linda Ronstadt not only got booed, she got the boot after lauding filmmaker Michael Moore and his new movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" during a performance at the Aladdin hotel-casino.
Before singing "Desperado" for an encore Saturday night, the 58-year-old rocker called Moore a "great American patriot" and "someone who is spreading the truth." She also encouraged everybody to see the documentary about President Bush.
Ronstadt's comments drew loud boos and some of the 4,500 people in attendance stormed out of the theater. People also tore down concert posters and tossed cocktails into the air. ...
Aladdin President Bill Timmins ... decided Ronstadt had to go — for good. Timmins said he didn't allow Ronstadt back in her luxury suite and she was escorted off the property.
If Timmins banned any of the Bush Fedayeen that caused the disruption from the hotel or had them "escorted" off the property by security guards, I haven't seen it mentioned in the news items I've seen.
Timmins is obviously a jerk, and gave the predictable excuses. The Las Vegas Sun (Aladdin expels Ronstadt after political remarks 07/19/04) quotes him as saying:
"Whether you are politically on the left or on the right is not the point. She went up in front of the stage and just let it out. This was not the correct forum for that." ...
"If she wants to talk about her views to a newspaper or in a magazine article, she is free to do so. But in a stage in front of four and a half thousand people is not the place for it."
Oh, and of course is Toby Keith had been there and said how much he admired Bush the Magnificent, Liberator of Peoples, Timmins would have had the security people kick him out without even letting him go back to his room. All for the good of the customers, of course.
Anyone who believes that, send me $50 and I'll explain to you the Real Story of where them there Iraqi WMDs are hiding. (Hint: it has to do with leprechauns and magic dust.)
The Sun also says that it's "debatable" how much Timmins' vow to never let her perform there again as long as he's there really means, "since the bankrupt Aladdin is in the process of being sold to a group headed by Planet Hollywood International Inc. Chairman and Chief Executive Robert Earl."
In other words, he's a bad businessman as well as a rightwing jerk.
How dumb is this?
This kind of thing gives me the creeps. Although, I also have to think, what a bunch of dummies. I mean, if I went to hear that fool Chuckie (CHARLIE DANIELS) play, I would be surprised if he didn't make some Moron-American type remarks. (If someone wants to tell me I'm being unfair to morons by associating them with Chuckie, I can't really argue with that.)
I can even picture myself getting annoyed and walking out. But throwing drinks into the air and into the artist posters? Ripping the posters off the wall? And for what? The Chuckie equivalent of what she said would be something like, "Read Rush Limbaugh's new book. Rush is a fine patriotic pill-popping bigot American, and his Oxycontin-induced insights represent a higher form of political consciousness." I mean, it's not even worth a regular old bar fight, much less trying to trash a Vegas hotel.
I love it, too, when people sniff about how it's just so inappropriate to mix "politics" with "entertainment." Tell that to the political reporters who have been covering Arnold Schwartzenegger as "Conan the Republican" and such like. I mean, even ole Rush, Mr. Oxycontin himself, calls himself an "entertainer."
Women as targets of jingoism
It is kind of interesting, though, that the superpatriots who "support our troops" by ripping down singers' posters in Las Vegas and generally acting like drunken idiots always seem to find female scapegoats who they get way more worked up about than the Shawn Penns of the world. Jane Fonda, the Dixie Chicks, Linda Ronstadt for that one concert, anyway. What's up with that?
I've quoted before from the book The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory and the Legacy of Vietnam (1998) by Vietnam War veteran Jerry Lembcke, whose title is taken from the mythical story of the Vietnam veterans who were spit on by antiwar protesters, a favorite tale among the blowhard superpatriot crowd. He has a whole chapter called, "Women, Wetness, and Warrior Dreams" in which he analyzes the sexual symbolism of that particular piece of folklore.
He makes his point in part by recalling the famous photo from V-J day by photographer Afgred Eisenstaedt of a sailor in uniform killing a nurse, which became "the most widely recognized representation of how World War II-era GIs came home from the war."
The contrast between Eisenstaedt's photograph and the image of soldiers being spat upon when they came home from Vietnam is instructive. The use of women in both images suggests that the structure of our memory about wars is closely related to the structure of our gender relations. The memory of America's victory in World War II is encoded in Eisenstaedt's photograph. The soldier is in a decidedly dominant position with one arm around the nurse's waist, his hand pressing into the small of her back. His other arm is around her shoulders, bending her backward. The nurse appears to have gone limp, with her left arm dangling loosely and her right foot extended behind her for balance. This image of the aggressively affectionate World War II soldier, very much in control of his own homecoming experience, stands in sharp contrast to the image of GIs returning from the lost war in Vietnam. Encoded in the image of the spat-upon veteran are the country's collective "memories" of Vietnam returnees being assaulted by aggressive anti-war females and effeminate males. The loss of war is represented in the image as emasculation, the loss of manhood. The Vietnam veteran is victim, not victor.
More revealing still is the fact that the homecoming of World War II Tvictors is remembered through a photograph, while that of the Vietnam victim-veterans is remembered through a conjured up image. A photograph is a form of documentary evidence. It shows that an event really did happen. But there is no photographic or other documentation of soldiers returning from Vietnam and being spat upon. The icon of homefront betrayal, the spat-upon veteran, is a figment of the imagination that has been popularized through storytelling. Recall the similarity in the stories. The spitting occurs at an airport, usually in San Francisco, and the spitter is a girl or male "longhair" who calls the soldier a murderer or baby killer. The stories have been repeated so often that, if asked to do so, thousands of Americans could probably draw pictures of Vietnam veterans coming home to such scenes. Although it is a picture that thousands of people have in their minds, it simply does not exist outside of their minds. In my research for this book, involving the search of newspaper reports about anti-war rallies and peace marches, the viewing of almost 150 films, and conversations and correspondence with dozens of individuals, I found only one material representation of the spat-upon veteran image—in a "GI Joe" comic book panel from the mid-1980s.
How are we going to blame the women for the Iraq War and the disaster it's become? Well, of course, ole Rush has already shown us how. It was the women in Abu Ghuraib who were behind all the torture! Not manly men like Rummy or Dick Cheney or Bush himself. Yeah, that's it. And the Dixie Chicks. And Linda Ronstadt saying something nice about Michael Moore at a concert. Yeah, it's the dames' fault, all right. It all makes sense, once you get into that Oxycontin frame of mind.
[07/20/04 update: Michael Moore is taking up the issue: Open Letter to Bill Timmins, President Aladdin Casino and Hotel. Via Thorn Papers blog.]
Posted by Bruce Miller at 4:45 PM
8 comments:
Anonymous said...
Thanks, now I know where NOT to stay the next time I'm in Vegas. The Aladdin is an awfully conceived hotel, anyway. It's always been tacky even by sin city standards even after its renovation. This whole incident is a prime example of how bullies get their way by raising a ruckus, and you're right Timmins is enough of a jerk to go along with it.
July 19, 2004 at 10:58 PM
Anonymous said...
How do you define an "implied criticism?" The Dixie Chicks' Natalie Maines told the London crowd "We're ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas." I think their criticism was quite clear.
I don't understand the belief that celebrities should have every right to say anything they want, but that no one else has any right to react to it. Linda Rondstadt had every right to say whatever she wanted to say. The crowd had the right to respond, though trashing the place was ridiculous. The owner of the hotel had the right to throw her out if he felt she behaved inappropriately in his business. And you have wasted no time taking advantage of your right to freedom of speech to talk about what a "jerk" he is.
For everything we do, there are consequences. Anyone with any common sense knows that people are split over Bush, and certainly split over Moore's depiction of Bush. Is it fair that such a political statement might cost her in some way? Maybe, maybe not. But do you honestly believe that given previous examples you cited, this outcome wouldn't have occurred to her?
She decided to stand up and speak her mind anyway. Good for her. But she can't whine about having to pay the price for it. With freedom comes responsibility. Will she be hurt by this? I doubt it; she will likely benefit from extra publicity. Will the hotel be hurt? For every diehard Democrat who vows never to go there, a diehard Republican will probably make additional efforts to patronize the place. In either case, the majority won't remember it ever even happened by this time next year. Last time I checked, the Dixie Chicks were still doing quite well and are even back on the air.
Patrick
July 20, 2004 at 1:45 AM
Anonymous said...
Musenla, you're right, this is a prime example of bullies getting their way. Aside from any political dimension, it shows incredibly bad judgment to react to thuggish behavior by rowdy drunks at a concert by ... kicking the performer out of the hotel. And making a point of doing it in a humiliating way, i.e., not even allowing her to return to her room.
I'm trying to imagine a football stadium responding to rowdy fans in the stands by kicking the football teams out of the stadium. My "home team" is the Oakland Raiders, so we know something about rowdy fans around here! Someone once said, "I went to an Oakland Raiders game once. It was like dropping in on a prison riot." - Bruce
July 20, 2004 at 8:24 AM
Anonymous said...
Patrick, I'm not worried about Linda's career being affected. And she's been involved in political issues to some extent before, so she's not likely to be thrown for a loop like Natalie Maines was initially. (But Natalie recovered well and quickly adjusted to telling her pseudopatriotic detractors they could stick it.) Linda was Jerry Brown's girlfriend while he was governor of California and running for president in 1979-80.
"She decided to stand up and speak her mind anyway. Good for her. But she can't whine about having to pay the price for it. With freedom comes responsibility." The perfect definition of a "company town" mentality. Like Tennessee Ernie Ford sang in his most famous song, "16 Tons": "St. Peter, don'cha call me 'cause I cain't go/I owe my soul to the company store."
As for boycotts, your comment "implies" that boycotts aimed at performers who distinguish themselves as war lovers or Bush zealots would be ineffective. Maybe. Maybe not. Liberals are probably less comfortable with the idea of boycotting singers who incidentally have rightwing political sentiments than pro-Bush drunks are with ripping up posters at a Las Vegas concert.
But the reason Bush lost the 2000 election was that 500 thousand more people voted for Al Gore than for Bush. If the Bush fans insist on making partisan politics a criteria for artists, some of their partisans in the entertainment world might now like the market results of that approach in the end. - Bruce
July 20, 2004 at 8:36 AM
Anonymous said...
See also the added note about Michael Moore's response. - Bruce
July 20, 2004 at 9:29 AM
Anonymous said...
So an entertainer should be able to speak their minds without anyone else having the freedom to respond? A perfect definition of a selectively-oppressive society that gives a few -- only those who agree with you -- the freedoms you celebrate Rondstadt for having exercised.
Would it have made a difference if Timmins knew in advance that she wanted to make such a statement? Would it have made a difference if Rondstadt's concert publicity had included mention of a "special tribute" to Michael Moore? It definitely would have in the make-up of her audience. Perhaps she didn't want to rock the boat until after her audience had paid admission?
It's funny that the natural tendency seems to be to only question what could have been done differently BEFORE the fact when we're talking about a Republican.
"But the reason Bush lost the 2000 election was that 500 thousand more people voted for Al Gore than for Bush."
I suppose when we run out of arguments, we just revert to an old favorite. If Gore was the clear, reasonable choice, why did the election depend so heavily on a single state? There should have been a Gore landslide that would have rendered Florida's outcome ineffective anyway, right?
I'd love to know what those who STILL haven't gotten over the fact that the Electoral College elects the president -- something most of us learned in sixth grade -- did before or since the 2000 Election to get that system changed. Didn't you already know this was the way things worked? It is a mathematical impossibility that this system, sooner or later, couldn't elect a candidate who DIDN'T win the POPULAR vote.
Patrick
July 20, 2004 at 11:01 AM
Anonymous said...
Musenla, it seems you're not the only one who had the idea of boycotting the Aladdin:
www.patridiots.com/000519.html
- Bruce
July 20, 2004 at 11:54 PM
Anonymous said...
yeah bruce, GREAT entry. i commented a little, only a little, in TheBiblioPhiles, on this event. interesting analysis on the attack on women here. who can be left in America today who doesn't know that politics IS entertainment?
i've gotta get caught up on reading your many past entries. i was on vacation, then working on my own journal after i got back. i hope you'll come visit thewindmills from time to time, i miss you!
i'm working hard with my local democrats, registering voters, researching information on different issues to make flyers for handouts at local summer events. right now i'm working on Latino issues, in Spanish, for next month's Hispanic Festival. if you know any useful links, i'd appreciate them.
July 21, 2004 at 9:20 AM
