You are viewing cupofjane

Cup of Jane
dribbles from me
Recent Entries 
16 August 2006

Why Should Elizabeth Be Fired from the View?

This is the official website of The View. I sent in this email to their “Viewmaster” by clicking here and then on the highlighted word “Viewmaster” and then I put this in the response box.

Here is what I wrote:

Dear People in Charge of The View (the TV show not an actual view):

You must fire Elizabeth. You must fire her now.

She is awful, just awful and she is never going to get any better. I’ve given her every chance but she has never done well.

She is a terrible interviewer and her comments in the kibitzing during the beginning of the show are simply asinine. And they have been since she started; she hasn’t learned one goddamn thing. I’m sure she is a lovely person in real life and I wish her and her family nothing but the best, but if I have to listen to her try to talk to Barbara as though she is her equal one more time, I’ll have to slit my writs. I’m a work at home mom with two little kids in an isolated suburb; I have enough to be vexed about. The View is my one chance in the morning to think about things other than Barbie, The Backyardigans and finger paints.

There is no way she can be appealing to the demographic your advertisers are trying to reach. Please look very carefully at the harm I suspect she is doing to your ratings. If you must continue to have someone of more “traditional” values on your show (and must you? I’d be fine if you didn’t) isn’t there anyone else? Surely someone from country music television could fit the bill. There must be some morning newscaster or small market talk show host in the Midwest that is more…?….gracious? Intelligent? Has more common sense? Is less abrasive? Less irritating? I try to stand her at the beginning of the show but find myself wishing she’d just shut up nearly every day. Quite frankly I either turn the show off or fast forward through any segments she does herself. In however many years she has been on, I’ve not found her to say anything worth listening to. This is not just a case of disagreeing with her politics (though I do), she is bad at her job. I’d have no problem listening to the thoughts of a person I disagree with, as long as they are intelligently and respectfully submitted with some sense of humility (as all the other hosts do).

I am passionate about this subject. While I’ve not liked her for years and have toyed with the idea of starting a letter writing campaign, a recent post in
Feministing of a clip of her was the last straw. See this link on the 2nd for the straw that broke the camel’s back.

I’ll try to hold out for Rosie. Maybe she can show Elizabeth how to be a talk show host. If not, I’m starting “The Elizabeth Must Die!!! Campaign.”
16th-Aug-2006 02:41 pm - The Elizabeth Must Die!!! Campaign
16 August 2006

The Elizabeth Must Die!!! Campaign

Okay I don’t really mean die (she has a kid so she can live) but….

Elizabeth Must Be Cancelled! and Elizabeth Must Be Fired! just don’t have the same punch. Besides the “Must Die” phrasing more accurately expresses the depth and sincerity of my (and apparently many others) feeling.

How to begin? I’m not sure. (I’ve been completely preoccupied with the start of school for my little ones and have not had much time for blogging or anything else but buying school supplies and clothes.) If anyone has any suggestions or ideas I’d like to hear them.
2nd-Aug-2006 02:25 pm - Elizabeth Must Die!!!
2 August 2006

Elizabeth Must Die!!!

Comment posted at blog Feministing in response to finding out that Elizabeth from the View is an even bigger idiotic asshole than I thought.

I don’t like her either and that was before I saw this clip.
But I tell ya what. It’s enough for me to start a serious campaign to get rid of her. I want her off the fucking show and now.

Anyone interested in organizing a campaign to rid the show of her, email me at acupofjane gmail_dot_com

I’m serious. I’ve given her every chance but now I’ve had my fill of her. I’m a long time watcher of the View. Years in fact, I TiVo it often. I worship Barbara the way Oprah does. I want to be her and she happens to resemble my favorite aunt (whom I also worship) in looks, mind and heart. This aunt, whom I was very close to died around the time I started watching. Joy happens to resemble the attitude of by best friend in college. She was a sassy, feisty, funny, irreverent older woman who went back to get her degree after she raised her kids and I wanted to be her protégée. She died of breast cancer. And Meredith is very much like my mother and my other favorite aunt. So for me the show is extremely personal. I love these women and what they have to say. I even really liked Star Jones but now… (that’s another post) When Elizabeth first started on the show (yes I’ve been watching that long) I was thrilled that they kept I young person in the crowd. While she didn’t represent me exactly (she looks like a Barbie Doll, I look like Rosie, I was living with a guy I wasn’t sure I was going to marry while step parenting his special need kid though I had none of my own. She had a good job and a career and probably an education while I was schlepping at Subway and praying to get a class in a year) at least she was younger than the other women and they sort of seemed to have a genuine friendship.

Then she opened her mouth. And every day on every topic she has continued to be an embarrassment. To women in general, to my generation, to the previous generation and to feminists in general, and she is just rude. She doesn’t mean to be but this is not the job for her. She is bad at this job.

Help Liz Leave!!

Thank God Rosie’s coming! I can’t wait!!
30 June 2006

Beginning of a re to Robert (never finished or posted)
Drinking. Ah. That explains a great deal of my father.

I didn’t say good disciple. I said disciple. (Did you use powers of telepathy to find out I had originally written ‘devout’ disciple and then deleted it as I thought, “No, he didn’t say he was a **good** Catholic.”) What I mean is that if you accept that what Christ has asked his followers to do is to try to be less violent, to learn to be slower to judge and find others lacking, to be more understanding of the sins of others, even when they are greater than our own, and to spend most of our time and effort helping those who are less fortunate rather than deciding who should be punished and to go about punishing them.
30 June 2006
begun 28 June 2006

reply to blog comment on Alas, A Blog.
I’m backdating this from my computer to my online version of this journal and now I don’t remember if I ever finished this or even actually posted it to Alas.

Curious,

I simply do not think that adults should create the custody situation in the first place. It complicates the life of the child and that is highly unacceptable.


I ABSOLUTELY AGREE with this statement from you 100%. And I am thrilled to hear another person in a feminist, liberal blog say it. A great deal of our children’s woes do stem from the personal decisions their parents and new (often multiple new ) partners make. I say partner because a great deal of these relationships never involve an actual wedding nor often a divorce but they do just as much damage as the ones sanctioned by the state.

Decisions of parents too often stem from a need for some kind of elusive supposed “happiness” that rarely materializes from divorce rather than a genuine crisis. By genuine crisis I am referring to physical violence, drug and other addictions, chronic, uncontrolled reckless adultery. We can all, even many rabid conservatives, agree that those are legitimate reasons for people who created children to divorce. However, to my mind when a person breeds, that person whether married to the other breeding partner or not has formed a marriage like relationship. Unlike legal marriage this emotional marriage cannot be severed. It really is like the old fashioned vow, till we are parted by death. Sometimes the tie of parenthood lasts even beyond the grave. And what so many people who involve themselves with people with children from ex-partners do not realize is that by involving themselves, whether married or not, they too enter into an emotional marriage for life, not only with the children but with the ex-spouses/partners as well. There was a book published years ago by a second wife that coined the phrase “wife-in-law” for the ex-wife and mother of her new husband’s children.

I entered into just such a relationship, knowing all those things. My husband had married and bred with a crazy woman. Of course, I didn’t realize just how crazy until thousands of dollars, several court cases and years later. I chalked off his anger and refusal to accept her questionable choices as the bitterness of a love lost after a break-up. I told him flatly that if I was going to have to promise to care about the welfare of this woman and promise to ALWAYS remain civil to her for the next 15 years, as a believe is any persons’ ethical duty as an adult injecting themselves uninvited by the child, into the child’s life, he damn well better learn how to get along with her (his ex-wife) too. After personally having to deal with (and often pay for) all of his child’s problems (there are many) I told him that I could promise, without a doubt that when we had children, which we did eventually, we would be our fate. We would never be able to divorce. We’ve been that angry and unhappy with each other a couple of times, to the point of working out the details of how we would still live together, separately, but not divorce. Thank god we were able to work through those problems and our marriage is stronger for it. I did not bred until a felt that I had discovered the worst about the future father of my child and could live with it for 20 years.

I’ve taken responsibility for my stepdaughter as though she were born to me and it has been hell, sheer hell. Knowing what I know now, I do not think I would have married or bred with this man and I would advise anyone considering such a relationship to run the other way. I know of no one who does this (divorce with children) well. I know plenty of “intact” families that are just as toxic, though. Remaining in a marriage like relationship is no guarantee that a family will be healthy for a child. I believe the crux of the matter is much deeper than that. We, adults, have got to realize that when we create or begin an involved relationship with a person that includes a child, we have given up our superior right to do what we want. We must accept the responsibility to do what is in the best interest of the child, not to our determent but certainly to a grand level of sacrifice. The truth is that few of us are willing to make that kind of sacrifice.
You should move to a country that you would be happier in because you certainly have some big disagreements and problems with the organizing principal that forms the United States. You should move to a country where they not only allow but also insist on one or a few specific religious sects dictating civil law. Like Iran, maybe? You see in the United States we’ve decided to reject that idea. We’ve decided that religious conviction is a private matter and no one group of religious interpretations should be allowed to control civil law. We believe that while common moral values, like Honesty, Citizenship, Respect, Tolerance and Responsibility, are major important themes in most religions and in many cases run parallel to many religious philosophies, they should be the basis of how a society defines it’s legal mind rather than a particular religion. We have learned that to give one man’s particular religious interpretation control over the affairs of another man is a bad idea. In fact it leads to chaos and war and to an unstable regime that makes self-governance, another fundamental concept of the United States, impossible.
Have patience because it is complex and nuanced, but I believe the only wise view.

It is never a mistake to remove from power a clearly evil, megalomaniac dictator. In that sense, I strongly support Bush’s war.

Let me also make it absolutely 100% crystal clear that any time I, as a citizen of the US, ask people--and I did because all citizens did because we **are** the government--to sacrifice for our country’s defense, I believe it is my moral duty to give them my full support. So in that sense, I fully support the people Bush has asked to fight his war.

However, I believe that George W. Bush ejaculated prematurely. The price for his impatience has been the death of nearly 3,000 of our finest young men and women and the destruction of the lives of many thousands more. I disagree with war in general and this war in particular, but if our country does go to war, it should always be only for the right reasons and at the right time and with the right attitude. That is how we build the moral authority and creditability of the United States; we always take the moral high ground and defend it with vigor. Unlike his father, who I disagreed with about his war but in the end had to respect what turned out to be an arguably wise decision and execution, this President’s bad decision to prematurely enter this war with Iraq is not only a mistake but has absolutely made our country and it’s citizens ultimately less safe than before the attack and if we had never attacked. Here is why.

George Bush, when he attacked, opened the finest graduate school for terrorists imaginable, with no way to close it in sight. He has given any terrorist that wants it a seat in a series of classes of how to defeat an enemy; not just any enemy but one of the finest and best equipped Armies in the world, much better than the ragtag police force we have actually defending us at home.

President Bush began a recruitment campaign the likes of which radical Islamists believed only existed in heaven, and the President has added to and broadened the campaign to evangelize against America at nearly every step along the way.

FUBAR (Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition), Cluster-Fuck. Whatever course title you want to give it, that’s where our President has led us.

I would have had the President do things differently, but we can’t change the past. Speaking at a graduation ceremony, Secretary Rice challenged critics of the war to abandon their continued call to change the past, which is damaging the fragile nature of our republic, and come up with a better plan than the Bush Administration’s for something we can do something about, the future. She is right and I shall.

Frankly I have few ideas. Given all that I have written, I believe we must indeed, stay the course. I agree with Bush’s analysis (the word analysis gives him too much credit) shrill insistence that if we leave Iraq in the state of chaos that it is today, we endanger our own country even more. What I believe mid-level commanders on the ground, and experts on emerging political process, and Colin Powell in private would say would be to…

..VASTLY increase, yes increase, troop levels. That is the only way to stabilize the country immediately and the only way to form an exit plan for our troops. The two most important goals the Administration claims are guiding it. Then, promise that as soon as the streets are safe enough for people to walk to the market and walk to a mosque without the fear of being shot, and people have water and power (let them build their own schools and hospitals, we have need for them at home as well) and the oil supply is secure and productive and its enormous profits set aside in a super transparent trust fund for the Iraqi people for all the world to witness, and nothing else!!! We will exit 50% of our troops immediately and all of our troops within 90 days.

But you see there is only one way to even attempt such a thing. We would have to have a draft. We don’t have enough troops in existence to increase them in Iraq. And a draft, my friends, will never happen, not because President Bush said he wouldn’t. I think if he believed it would save his legacy he would (and it might so look out for it in December). But he has a real obstacle in his way. The desires of the Republican Party. The GOP only wants one thing, what all politicians want, to be reelected. And a draft would kill their chance of reelection. So the Repubs will never let it happen. After all winning the war, doing the right thing, keeping America safe, all those things are secondary considerations to the corrupt and powerful, keeping power beats those other things hands down.


Here’s what Kerry and the Democrats should have relentlessly droned out in response to the questions about their votes.

We fully support ridding the world of clearly evil and dangerous dictators by force when necessary,

We fully support troops we put in harms way, that is our duty as a country,

But we do not support and have desperately tried to do everything in our power to stop this president’s wildly reckless, truly unwise and incredibly dangerous decision to attack Iraq in the manner and at the time that he did. We have been desperate to stop it because we believe it put America at even greater risk than pre 9/11, in addition to killing and wounding thousands of Americans unnecessarily.

If you agree with our position, we’d like to know what you would have proposed. We did and will continue to do, what we can to uphold those ideals. We agree that balancing those equally important ideas, as a minority party, has been very hard and at times exasperating.
A comment I had to this post

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/06/28/on-the-firing-of-ward-churchill/

at Alas

http://amptoons.com/blog/

Fielder's Choice, what sort of speech do you think a professor should be allowed to say without risking his or her job? Controversial ideas? Disagreeable ideas? Factually incorrect ideas? Unpopular ideas? Spoken outside of class? At a dinner party? Does a school have the obligation to protect a teacher’s right to free speech? Does a teacher lose his right to speak about any idea he wishes because he is a teacher?

The question that must be asked to determine whether or not the school had the right to fire Kloeck is not what you think of a person questioning a Palestinian’s existence; it is what do you think about any sort of political speech.

Is political speech protected by the first amendment?

Strictly speaking, Kloeck was correct to say that Palestinians do not exist in the sense that there is, as of today, no nation called Palestine. In fact, that is one issue at the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict. There are a people, a nation if you will, that is without existence, without a homeland, that feel they richly deserve one. And this group of people feels that, whatever the name of the country was that they came from, it was dissolved beneath their feet without their consent.

A person’s opinion of this argument is irrelevant though. The question is does a professor have the right to participate in the discussion without the fear of being fired because he participated?

If you think that he does not, if you believe that the school was within its rights to fire him then I submit to you that you are not willing to defend the 1st amendment. This is PRECISELY the sort of speech it was intended to allow—without impediment—most assuredly without impediment by Congress and by extension a school. Controversial, unpopular political speech was the foremost type of speech the founders intended to protect, almost absolutely. We can argue whether or not a professor should be allowed to say a racial slur or a personal attack, we can argue that the school may have some say in determining what a teacher says as a part of his teaching in class, but we cannot argue whether a professor has the right to participate in a political discussion and still say that both of us believe that the Bill of Rights is worthy of defense.

You must choose. Either political speech, and the discussion of a country and who is a part of the country and where the country is and who has the right to make decisions about a country is inarguablely political, and therefore, worthy of protection or it is not. If you believe it is, then you must side with the professor.
29th-Jun-2006 02:01 am - Smart, nice crazy people.
This is a comment I left
here

Your statement about your politics begins with you are a “strong supporter” of the so-called war on terror. War is your first thought in describing your political philosophy and you don’t just support a highly controversial war but you’re a head cheerleader for it.

Your second thought about your political philosophy could be restated, as you believe that, pretty much, the US is always right. You mention nothing even hinting of compassion or tolerance and seem to imply that the **only** reason you are good is that you fear hell, many big time sinners do or so I’m told:>)

Further you believe that Jesus really WANTED to give the one who called himself Jesus’ enemy only one chance to get it right and then would have rather kicked the shit out of the guy to set him straight.

And yet you also claim to be a Catholic of ****honest**** conviction.

I,…I,…I.
…..

How can you possibly reconcile these principals without exploding???

If I take your statement about your spiritual belief at face value, and I do, you are sure in your belief and trust in the **Catholic** path, not merely the teachings of Jesus or Christianity in general but the Catholic church and believe it is not only the right way but the only true way to god, though you may not always practice so well what you believe. You lose no points in my book for lapses; we are all human.

Being a reverent student of Jesus myself (though not a Catholic and no more a Christian than a Hindi) I find it impossible for a person to logically, honestly, sincerely have the sort of political views that you do and still consider themselves to be a disciple of Christ.

I don’t get it on a massive scale. And I guess what I am asking is for you to tell me how you explain this to yourself.

You don’t have to, of course. I would understand if you would rather not discuss such private debates in public. I only ask because you’ve posted these comments in a very public forum and I am presuming that you are willing to discuss them or at least answer questions about them. If my assumption is wrong, please just tell me so and I will go away. I also realize that my earlier words could be quite offensive.

I almost wrote I don’t mean to be offensive but I suppose there may not be any other way to read what I wrote. All I can do is say that the tone I have attempted is to be incredulous and highly skeptical not mean spirited.

I am also assuming that you may be a person who might appreciate a wildly skeptical attitude from your description of your education and your interests in Atlantis. My interest in Atlantis is identical to yours and while I think it might be fun to make-up **fictional** stories about Atlantis from the other camp you describe, I have no other interest in hearing what they would have to say about historical Atlantis.

I apologize if I’ve intruded. I clicked on your name on a comment you made on Alas and that click eventually led me here. I can easily dismiss the idiotic or conflicting notions or rantings of many rabid, right-wing nutjobs (though I submit that I have not seen YOU either ranting or rabid but I think you can understand why I might put you in their camp) when I find that these same people are Mormons, have not completed high school, have only left their county once to go to church camp and are quite uncomfortable with the rigors of scientific method. I can see the ignorance and brain washing behind their remarks and feel, usually, only pit for them. But, when I find someone who holds these views and yet seem reasonable in all other aspects, I am baffled and too curious not to investigate.
Ouch. Awful position to be in for everyone involved really. I am in Texas so our state laws may be radically different but if your husband has a custody order from a judge granting him visitation, their should be no need to go back to court. You should be able to take the order to the police station a then show up at her house and leave with the child. A drastic step, I know but worth it in order to make sure your stepson has the time he needs with his father. Usually it only has to be done once so that the other parent is made aware how serious the non-custodial parent is about ensuring that the child spends the time he needs with both parents. Also I’ve found that once you’ve shown how serious you are about not allowing the custodial parent to deny you visitation, it’s rarely necessary again.

My husband’s old custody order changed the visitation the minute his child’s mother moved their daughter more than 150 miles away from 1st, 3rd, 5th and Wed to one weekend a month but a much longer time during the summer—42 days I think. Usually the weekend would coincide with holiday’s like Labor Day etc. so we would get a three or four day weekend. While it would be expensive to fly every month, every other month would not impossible to save for and when she is as close as 200 miles the drive is easy.

When M (my stepdaughter) was little and her mother was “disappearing” we started lining up private detectives. Thankfully we never had to hire one because we knew all the people she went to (her family members) and were able to keep tabs on her that way. Could he get in tough with any of her family and talk to them about the situation? Play up that you just want to see and talk with B. They maybe able at least to keep you informed of where the child is. When he starts school, it should be even easier. She won’t be able to move so much and your husband will have every right to get info from the school about him. We waited for the right time and basically “stole” custody. Not really but an attorney friend filed temporary emergency orders to get a new hearing when we knew M’s mother would be unable to come to it. (She only charged us $1500.) M’s mother wasn’t there and custody changed permanently to my husband. We’ve had custody for 7 years now.

If you don’t know where she is, find out and then hammer her constantly with certified letters for not keeping her address up to date with you and the court. Most people live “on the grid” and are a lot easier to track down if you are willing to spend a little money and time. Your husband should have her social security number from old tax returns or the custody order. Socials are another very hard thing to dodge. Also does he have any old credit card numbers she still may be using? I would bet you could find her for less than $500. Also is he paying child support? She has to have a compelling reason to keep her address secret (like prior abuse). It doesn’t cost anything to write a letter to the judge asking for the address the last check was paid to because she is refusing to notify you of the child’s whereabouts. You’d be surprised at how much you can get done with letters and phone calls. I’d also contact the county where the case is and find out what the rules on arbitration are. Often you can drag her to arbitration without an attorney, at little cost to you. Also it’s old advice everyone in these sorts of cases has heard before but keep records of everything. I would begin by getting your husband to try to stay in regular contact through mail and phone calls. Send cards RRR often. Even if some of them come back unopened, you’ll have a record of her denying you contact. Record disconnected numbers and phone calls. One of the best investments we made was a tape recorder to record phone calls. Send copies of the things you are doing to the court. Regular reports of an inability to stay in contact with the boy might move a judge to action without the need for you to hire a lawyer.

I have found that dealing with ex-spouses and mutual children is not only a part-time job but when hostile it’s more like a cold war. Strategy and one small battle at time is how to win a war. This is for B’s life. Most mental health professionals believe it is vitally important for children to have a strong relationship with both of their parents. It is your husband’s responsibility to everything in his power to increase the contact with his son. He son needs to know he is doing everything he can to be with him, especially as he gets older. Forget $20,000 and a custody battle. Keep the pressure up now so that when the boy gets a little older there is no battle. Be ready to file pro se if you have to when the boy is old enough to speak for himself—a mere 5 –7 years away. In Texas, a child who wants to live with a different parent has a great deal of sway with a judge.


Curious:
I’m a bit taken aback by your tone. Is your comment directed at me? I certainly DO NOT believe that children are anyone’s “property.”. In fact I have advocated for children’s rights for a long time (not only my own family’s) but through volunteer work for all children.

So that I can remember what I was replying too.

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/06/18/a-bunch-o-links-and-a-story/
This page was loaded Nov 27th 2014, 2:28 am GMT.