Watch Out: Nellie Oelson is Back

-

nellie-oleson.jpg
Recently, a profile ran of me in the Washington gay newspaper, the Washington Blade, and in it I noted that Nellie’s Sports Bar was my favorite bar in DC.
The above ad is in part why. It’s just a cool place — and I love that a bar named Nellie’s went out and got the actress who played “Nellie Oleson” on Little House on the Prairie to do her book signing with lots of gay men.
Actress Alison Arngrim‘s deviously titled book is called Confessions of a Prairie Bitch.
This is brilliant marketing all around. Hope I can get there.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

10 comments on “Watch Out: Nellie Oelson is Back

  1. Paul Norheim says:

    Meanwhile, in Syria today:
    “On Thursday Assad unveiled a new government, which has little power in the one-party ruled country, and ordered
    the release of detainees, a move one human rights lawyer said represented a “drop in the ocean” compared to the
    thousands of political prisoners still held.
    But the concessions did not appear to satisfy protesters, who gathered in even larger numbers on the Muslim day of
    prayer.
    Rights activists reported protests in the city of Deir al-Zor near the Iraqi border, the restive coastal city of Banias and
    in the southern city of Deraa, where protesters first demonstrated against the detention of teenagers who had
    scrawled graffiti inspired by the uprisings in Tunisis and Egypt.
    “Demonstrations came out from every mosque in the city, including the Omari mosque… The number of people is
    above 10,000 protesters so far,” an activist said by phone from Deraa.
    The protest movement against Assad’s repressive rule has steadily gained momentum since it began four weeks ago.”
    More here:
    http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2011/04/15/world/middleeast/international-us-syria.html?hp

    Reply

  2. Paul Norheim says:

    Some excerpts from – as far as I can judge – a good general update on the Japanese nuclear crisis and its
    potential impact on global health, economy and politics:
    “Japan nuclear crisis goes global
    By Victor Kotsev
    Radiation is spreading around the world as a small nuclear wasteland grows near the heart of Japan. The
    desperate struggle to restart the crippled reactors’ own cooling systems in order to bring them under control is
    producing little to no results, and is shrouded in uncertainties.
    Powerful aftershocks of the level nine earthquake that triggered the crisis threaten to obliterate what little
    progress has been achieved. Economic and political shock waves are similarly difficult to predict, but will likely
    also be felt strongly around the globe.
    (…)
    Radiation measurements at the plant are inaccurate, because the instruments were damaged by the high levels
    of radioactivity, Japanese media reported [3]. Fears remain that the situation could get much worse. “The
    radiation leak has not stopped completely and our concern is that the amount of leakage could eventually reach
    that of Chernobyl or exceed it,” an official from the plant operator, Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO), told Japan
    Today on Tuesday.
    (…)
    In another update, radiation levels are rising around the world – or at least, so far, around the northern
    hemisphere. A French non-governmental organization monitoring radioactive contamination, CRIIRAD, cautioned
    in a report dated April 7 that radiation pollution from Fukushima in Europe was “no longer negligible”. It advised
    pregnant women and children to avoid consuming products such as milk and vegetables with large leaves, and
    to be careful when drinking water from reservoirs that collect rain water [5].
    Natural News warned that in the United States, where the fallout spread first, milk samples taken a few weeks
    ago had tested for contamination with radioactive iodine over 300% higher than the maximum allowed by the US
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [6].
    The independent network also cautioned that the EPA may be scrambling to increase its maximum allowable
    limits in order to cover up the crisis, and there is at least circumstantial evidence in support of these claims. (…)
    In general, while the authorities in most countries continue to insist that there is no risk from the radioactive
    fallout, reports to the contrary are coming in from an increasing number of sources.”
    For the possible economical and political impact, more here:
    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/MD16Dh01.html

    Reply

  3. Paul Norheim says:

    At the same time as three of the four authors of the Goldstone Report stated to the Guardian that “we firmly stand by the
    conclusions” in the report (see my comment above), the US Senate urged the UN to “redress the damage to Israel’s
    reputation”:
    “U.S. Senate urges UN to rescind Goldstone’s Gaza report
    Resolution 138 passes unanimously, calls on members of Human Rights Council to ‘reflect the author’s repudiation off the
    Goldstone report’s central findings’, and asks UN chief Ban to ‘do all in his power to redress the damage to Israel’s
    reputation’.
    By Natasha Mozgovaya
    The U.S. Senate unanimously passed a resolution on Thursday calling on the United Nations Human Rights Council to
    rescind the Goldstone Commission’s report on the Gaza war, in light of its author’s expressed regret for some of its claim.
    Resolution 138 urges council members “to reflect the author’s repudiation of the Goldstone report’s central findings,
    rescind the report and reconsider further Council actions with respect to the report’s findings.”
    More here:
    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/u-s-senate-urges-un-to-rescind-goldstone-s-gaza-report-1.356124
    But as everyone who read Goldstone’s article in the Washington Post knows, there were no substantial new facts supporting
    Goldstone’s sudden and unexpected “repudiation”.

    Reply

  4. Paul Norheim says:

    Off topic: The Guardian yesterday published an important letter from three of the four members of the UN mission
    that resulted in the Goldstone report, objecting against the confusion its chairman had created by his recent article
    in the Washington Post:
    “Goldstone report: Statement issued by members of UN mission on Gaza war
    Statement issued by members of the UN fact-finding mission to Gaza, May-September 2009
    Hina Jilani, Christine Chinkin and Desmond Travers
    Thursday 14 April 2011 08.17
    In recent days some articles and comments appearing in the press with respect to the report of the United Nations
    (UN) fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict of 2008-2009 have misrepresented facts in an attempt to
    delegitimise the findings of this report and to cast doubts on its credibility.
    The mission that comprised four members, including Justice Richard Goldstone as its chair, came to an end when
    it presented its report to the UN human rights council in September 2009. The report of the mission is now an
    official UN document and all actions taken pursuant to its findings and recommendations fall solely within the
    purview of the United Nations general assembly which, along with the human rights council, reviewed and
    endorsed it at the end of 2009.
    Aspersions cast on the findings of the report, nevertheless, cannot be left unchallenged. Members of the mission,
    signatories to this statement, find it necessary to dispel any impression that subsequent developments have
    rendered any part of the mission’s report unsubstantiated, erroneous or inaccurate.
    We concur in our view that there is no justification for any demand or expectation for reconsideration of the report
    as nothing of substance has appeared that would in any way change the context, findings or conclusions of that
    report with respect to any of the parties to the Gaza conflict. Indeed, there is no UN procedure or precedent to
    that effect.
    The report of the fact-finding mission contains the conclusions made after diligent, independent and objective
    consideration of the information related to the events within our mandate, and careful assessment of its reliability
    and credibility. We firmly stand by these conclusions.”
    More from the letter here:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/14/goldstone-report-statement-un-gaza
    Perhaps the last two paragraphs are the most important ones:
    “We consider that calls to reconsider or even retract the report, as well as attempts at misrepresenting its nature
    and purpose, disregard the right of victims, Palestinian and Israeli, to truth and justice. They also ignore the
    responsibility of the relevant parties under international law to conduct prompt, thorough, effective and
    independent investigations. We regret the personal attacks and the extraordinary pressure placed on members of
    the fact-finding mission since we began our work in May 2009. This campaign has been clearly aimed at
    undermining the integrity of the report and its authors. Had we given in to pressures from any quarter to sanitise
    our conclusions, we would be doing a serious injustice to the hundreds of innocent civilians killed during the Gaza
    conflict, the thousands injured, and the hundreds of thousands whose lives continue to be deeply affected by the
    conflict and the blockade.
    The report has triggered a process that is still under way and should continue until justice is done and respect for
    international human rights and humanitarian law by everyone is ensured.”
    And here is the Guardian’s comment on the letter:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/14/un-gaza-report-authors-goldstone

    Reply

  5. questions says:

    Regarding missing comments, this happened once before. One of the other posters noted that the front page was not synchronized with the full comments, so things were showing up on the front page and when you click to get at the full comments, the comments aren’t all there.
    There’s some techno fix for this problem.

    Reply

  6. Paul Norheim says:

    Several comments on the Hall monitor, Gordon Brown, and
    Dissident vs Mainstream threads show up on the main page, but
    are absent on the actual threads. Probably a technical issue.

    Reply

  7. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Steve, the “Hall monitor” thread shows comments on the “teaser box”, that don’t actually appear on the comment thread itself.

    Reply

  8. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Gosh. Does this mean I can use the word “bitch” when describing the nuclear industry “bitches” that are downplaying a nuclear crisis of unprecedented scale? All my posts that referred to them as “sluts” have been removed.
    Interesting, when googling events in Japan, one finds a myriad of so-called “experts” downplaying the event. Yet, digging deeper, one finds an equal number of “experts” that are sounding the klaxon of deep alarm.
    The common thread to the mainstream media’s pool of “experts” seems to be a conflict of interest. Often,, the media puts the statements out, without actually naming the “expert” allegedly quoted.
    The common thread to the other pool of experts, the one’s sounding the alarm, seems to be reputable credentials, a history of being involved in nuclear research and development, and a disassociation with our regulatory agencies, such as the EPA or the NRC, and the corporations seeking to profit from the expansion of nuclear energy facilities.
    I fail to see how the term “slut” is inappropriate when describing these industry bitches, who are will to whore themselves to an industry that is willing to risk the lives of millions in their pursuit of the almighty dollar.
    Would it be offensive to so label a male escort, knowing that he carries the HIV bug, but engages in unprotected sex with his clients on a regular basis? Would it offend the sensibilities to call such an individual a “slut”, or worse? How is it different, what these nuclear industry bitches are doing, on a far greater scale, with a potential to kill far more people?

    Reply

  9. Steve Clemons says:

    Thanks POA — not sure about the other comments you are referring to. I published, or had published by my assistant, anything that largely conformed to the standards. Other stuff deleted – but nothing designed to allow comments on some posts and not others. So, real answer is I don’t know — I had all the comments processed solely on the issue of tone and content. all best, steve

    Reply

  10. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Wow. She certainly ended up being gorgeous, didn’t she? I hope she gives the ‘ol heteros the tittilation of close proximity as well. I mean hey, we deserve an occassional nod too, ya know.
    Hey, uh, Steve? Whats up with the “Hall Monitor” thread, and the couple ones above it??? Are you blocking comments from appearing on them? I’m a bit curious as to the missing comments.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *