Thursday, September 22, 2005

Molly Yard

C.I. has an entry at The Common Ills that I want to cross-post here because I think it's important. It's on Molly Yard and she should be noted. She fought the good fight and gave it her all. Jennifer e-mailed asking me to note it writing, "It may not be mudflaps, but it's worth noting." I'm not sure what that means Jennifer, but I agree Molly Yard was someone who made the world a lot better by standing up. Here's C.I.'s entry:

"Molly Yard: 1912-2005"
Molly Yard, an indefatigable advocate for women's rights, passed away last night in her sleep in Pittsburgh at the age of 93. Molly had suffered a major stroke in 1991, but kept working until the late 1990s at the Feminist Majority. Throughout her long life, Yard worked for women's rights, civil rights, workers' rights, and social justice.
Yard served as the political director and a leader of the campaign to pass the Equal Rights Amendment for the
National Organization for Women in the late 1970s and 1980s, and was the president of NOW from 1987 until 1992. Yard led the March for Women's Lives to keep abortion and birth control safe and legal in 1989 (click here for a great picture on the Washington Post website). She was also active in Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) and the Democratic Party, leading George McGovern's presidential campaign in Pennsylvania in 1972. One of her first jobs out of college was special assistant to Eleanor Roosevelt.
She was a brilliant strategist and a tireless organizer for campaigns for social justice who could always rally the troops. She was a leader in winning equal representation for women within the Democratic Party at all levels. She worked for countless women's candidacies and made sure that NOW and the Feminist Majority kept equal representation for women and the winning of elected office for women high on the agenda of the women's movement.

The above is from Eleanor Smeal's "Feminist Leader Molly Yard Dies" (The Smeal Report).
I just heard the news and don't really know what to say. I'm dictating this over the phone and I was just reminded that other than picking the section from Smeal's report (sent in by Susan), I've just been silent.

Molly Yard didn't take any crap.

That's what Molly Yard stood for: fighting for what you believed in and for what mattered. She was a strong fighter who scared the right people that needed to be scared. Such as the ones who thought they could punish women because Mondale lost to Reagan in 1984. So as the next presidential cycle rolled around, she spoke out against sell outs and spinners.

She was a fighter and she will be missed. Which isn't a "Oh the state of feminism! What will we do! Who will save us all!" There are many strong warriors and Kim Gandy is certainly one. Gandy is, of course, the current president of NOW and, during the gina & krista round-robins last week, you heard a lot of strong praise from everyone participating in the roundtables for Gandy who deserves that praise. Gandy's strength is needed and we're lucky to have it (along with other strong leaders).

But at another time, with another Bush in the White House, when we needed strong leaders, Molly Yard was there. Let's note "In Memoriam: Molly Yard: Honoring an Indomitable NOW President and Civil Rights Pioneer" (NOW):

Shaped by a childhood in China, where women had such second-class status, Yard worked tirelessly during her life to achieve equality for all people. Yard's activism began when she was a student at Swarthmore College and led the fight to abolish the fraternity system, which discriminated against some minority students. She later worked with Dr. Dorothy Height to integrate the YWCA. While at Swarthmore, Yard wrote to President Franklin Roosevelt and First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt about an issue that had angered many students. Eleanor Roosevelt invited Yard to meet with her, and Yard became a regular advisor to the First Lady.
"Her life was so extraordinary," said NOW President Kim Gandy, who was elected to NOW office as part of Yard's team in 1987.
Yard was a regional campaign manager for John F. Kennedy's 1960 presidential run and the Western Pennsylvania coordinator for Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" march in 1963.
"When Molly Yard spoke, everybody stopped and listened," Gandy recalled. "She carried enormous moral authority." Yard was heavily involved in the civil rights movement until 1974, when she joined Pittsburgh NOW and later became NOW's national political director, devoting nearly all her time to the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment until 1982.
"She saw that the movement for women's rights was indeed a civil rights movement," Gandy said.

Yard was strong and a measure of how strong was the strength of the attacks against her. (Wash Post: "MOLLY YARD NEEDS TO SHUT UP!" -- that's from my memory. At some point, we'll note the exact wording. I think we've noted it here when we've noted the Times editorial slam against NOW endorsing Carol Moseley Braun's presidential run. SEE NOTE ADDED TO THIS POST AT BOTTOM.)

Let's move to Democracy Now! which is "always worth watching" as Marcia says.

Headlines for September 22, 2005
- More Than a Million Flee as Rita Bears Down on US
- Oil Prices Resume Rise
- LA Governor Calls for Independent Investigation of Katrina
- Senator Frist: Insider Trader?
- GAO: Pentagon Has No Idea How Much War Costs
- Mexico's Top law Official Killed in Crash
- Harvard Lets Military recruiters back on Campus
- NY Times to Lay-Off Hundreds of Workers

St. Patrick's Four Trial: Civilian Resisters Face Federal Conspiracy Charges
We speak with anti-war activist Peter De Mott, who is on trial as one of the St. Patrick's Four facing federal charges for protesting at a military recruiting center. Lawyer Bill Quigley, legal advisor for the activists, joins the discussion on the trial and also talks about his recent experience in New Orleans in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. [includes rush transcript]

Governor Bill Richardson on Hurricanes, Immigration, Iraq, Wen Ho Lee and More
We are joined by the Governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson. He has served seven terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, ambassador to the United Nations, Secretary of Energy under Bill Clinton and, last year, first Hispanic chairman of a national Democratic Convention. Many see him as one of the main contenders for a presidential run in 2008.

1) Brenda asked if we could note Not In Our Name as one of the organizers for the protests this weekend. We can, we will:

All out for Sept. 24 in Washington DC!
Also: Denver, Seattle, SF, LA, and Birmingham

2) Jess asked that we note Gold Star Families for Peace:

American Military Deaths in Iraq

Since 5/1/2003:
1772 (Total)
1413 (In combat)
Since war began:
1909 (Total)
1521 (In combat)
Total wounded:

3) We'll also note Military Families Speak Out at Gina's request:

March in Washington on September 24th
Click here for specific information about the events in Washington DC that MFSO will be participating in this week.
Click here for overall information about the upcoming march in Washington, DC -Support the Troops,Bring Them Home NOW!

Elaine is "amazing" as Wally notes regarding her post "What America needs now is some realism" (Like Maria Said Paz):

Can they define fix?
There are no goals here, certainly no realistic ones.
But I'm guessing "fix" means imposing our "order" on the country. We're fixing it so great now, aren't we? Forget the Iraqis who are dying. Forget that potable water is a dream. Forget the unemployment and our attacks on the oil union. Is that when we know we've "fixed" it -- when we've destroyed the oil workers union?
Or maybe we'll have fixed it when women have no rights at all? That's our "success" so far. The new Constitution will give women less rights than they had.
The arrogance involved in thinking we can "fix" something is, honestly, disgusting.
We've created a huge mess. We've brought terrorism to Iraq. (Which the Bully Boy is quite proud of although I doubt the average Iraqi is.)
How stupid and arrogant does someone have to be to honestly believe that the Bully Boy is bringing anything of value to Iraq?
The idea that we can "fix" it militarily is an ignorant one. Military "democracies" aren't democracies. Democracies come from the people. Not the United States handing a "democracy" to a people but from the people making their own.
The idea that they need us to "fix" things is so arrogant and insists that we know better, that the Iraqis are child-like and need us to motivate them or mold them.

This isn't much of an entry. I'm sorry. I'm just really saddened by Yard's death. Susan e-mailed Eleanor Smeal's piece that's quoted at the top of this post.

NOW's a part of the rallies this weekend. As has been noted many times, peace is a feminist issue. We've noted their events here already this week, but let's note it again:

Stop the War NOW - Women Join Voices and Speak Out!
Women are marching for peace September 24 in Washington, D.C. and around the country. NOW urges the U.S. government to end our military occupation of Iraq and invest proportionate financial resources in Iraq rebuilding, humanitarian relief and personal safety of the Iraqi people.
Take Action
Women Losing Equality Rights in Iraq

This is one of those times where you hope insight will come but obviously insight (and wisdom) are in short supply as I pace around the airport. This obviously wasn't a planned entry and sorry to be more than a little stunned by the news. Later, much later, today, we'll do an entry based on various items catching members' attention.

You can check Christine's Ms. Musing later today. There's nothing up yet (and she may feel that The Smeal Report's said it as well as anyone can which is certainly understandable). Right now, at Ms. magazine proper, there's a photo from the 1989 march. Here's the caption for the photo:

Six hundred thousand feminists marched in Washington, DC for abortion rights on April 9, 1989. Joining the March for Women's Lives were a number of celebrities and women's leaders (front row l-r): Robin Tyler, Morgan Fairchild, Glenn Close, Jane Fonda, Bella Abzug, Molly Yard, Marlo Thomas, Whoopi Goldberg, Cybill Shepherd, Kim Gandy; (second row): Patricia Ireland (behind Close), Judy Collins (behind Yard), Eleanor Smeal (behind Thomas). Photo by Reuters Newmedia Inc./Corbis

Molly Yard was a fighter. If you want to carry on her spirit, be a fighter and get active this weekend. Go the extra mile to make our voices heard.

We'll close with the Democracy Now! Headline on Yard's passing:

Former President of NOW Dies
The former President of the National Organization for Women, Molly Yard, has died at the age of 93. She led NOW during the fight over the nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. Yard was elected president of NOW in 1987 after working for nearly a decade on its national staff. She stepped down in late 1991, after suffering a stroke earlier that year. NOW's membership grew by more than 100,000 during Yard's tenure as president.

The e-mail address for this site is
Do You Yahoo!?
NOTE: This is added to the post and not part of it originally. I'm now in another time zone (D.C.) and members know me and math so we'll just say "added hours later." Once in D.C., I stopped at a bookstore to grab Susan Faludi's Backlash -- great book -- because I knew she dealt with the attacks on Molly Yard in that and I don't know when I'll have time to to hunt down the quotes myself. From page 277 of Backlash:

The press, which generally ignored NOW conventions, exploded with outrage, anger and derision. "Not NOW -- It's Time for Consensus, not Conflict," ordered the Washington Post's Outlook editor Jodie Allen in an opinion piece. "Somebody has to say it, Molly Yard [NOW president], shut up." As for the rest of the NOW leadership, the editor ordered, "[R]ework your act or bow off the stage." The dozens of other editorial temper tantrums were little different. Some sample headlines: "NOW Puts Her Worst Foot Foward," "NOW's Fantasy," and "NOW's Flirtation With Suicide." Newsweek warned that "the shrill voices of NOW" could destroy the pro-choice movement and quoted an anonymous attendee of the conference, who supposedly said, "I wish we could take out a contract on Molly Yard." (Given that the conference gave unanimous support to the third-party proposal, this dissenter's identity is something of a mystery.)

What had Molly Yard done? Been president of NOW. The media, as Faludi documents, ran with myths -- big surprise. Grass-roots activists had proposed an exploratory committee to determine whether NOW should start its own party. This was the "flirtation with suicide." A committee to explore pros and cons. This is why Jodie Allen, of the Washington Post, felt "Somebody has to say it, Molly Yard, shut up." Of course, somebody should say it, Jodie Allen, "Do you work. Know what the events before you write about them."

The gender quake was on the horizon (already at state and local levels). Instead of addressing it, some "brains" in the Democratic Party wanted to blame Mondale's defeat (1984) on Ferraro being a woman. As is too often the case for the beltway brains with their brains below their belts, the answer was to pull away from "soft issues" (e.g. anything to do with women). The "brains" took over the Kerry campaign and you saw what happened there. But Molly Yard didn't step down as president of NOW in the face of the baseless attacks. She was a fighter. She will be missed.

Wednesday, September 21, 2005

More on Batgirl & Iraq

Don't even start in with the e-mails. I tried to post last night and couldn't log in.

I was going to give up on tonight as well because Blogger had a down for maintance note but Elaine called and our laughing helped my mood.

First, I'll toss this out from "The Third Estate Sunday Review News Review:"

C.I.: Thank, you Ava. For those needing further information on Haiti, Democracy Now! has covered the region repeatedly and a starting point there would be the interview Amy Goodman conducted with Jean-Bertrand Aristide where he spoke of his ouster as a kidnapping backed by the US. We now go to Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills) for a report
Kat: Music critic and BuzzFlash Gop Hypocrite of the Week award winner Laura Bush declares Kayne West's statements disgusting. Don't think anyone died from Kanye's words so Laura might want to look closer to home when doling out disgust. As Elaine pointed out, Stepford Wife Laura Bush's charm offensive is apparently intended to humanize her Bully Boy, which might be an impossible talk. Listening to her go on about "the president" does remind one of something out of Maoist China. Send in the fembot? Oh, look, she's here.
Meanwhile, Kanye West continued to hold on to the number one spot this week with Late Registration, sugesting that, unlike Laura Bush, music fans are neither offended nor disgusted. Laura Bush, get thee to a hoe down.November 8th, Spin reports, will see the release of The Body Acoustic. What is The Body Acoustic? Cyndi Lauper's latest album which will be acoustic recordings of her previous hits and will feature Sarah McLachlan, Shaggy, and Ani DiFranco.The last week in September, PBS's American Masters will air Martin Scorcese's No Direction Home: Bob Dylan, a look at the career of Dylan featuring concert footage and recollections by Joan Baez among others.
C.I.: And that concludes this week's news review. Thanks to Dallas for hunting down links. To Dona and Jim for working behind the scenes to keep everything running, Dona and Jim of The Third Estate Sunday Review, and to Jess' parents for help tracking down stories.

If you can't wait next week to see No Direction Home: Bob Dylan, it is on sale at music outlets currently on DVD. Check your local PBS' schedule to find out when the program airs next week.
You can also purchase the soundtrack if you're interested.

Now let's put it all on pause a moment because I did a thing earlier this week and ended up with a buttload of e-mails. I'd written about the Catwoman and Batgirl dolls my cousin Mary (now "Louise") had. One guy wrote in to say they were Hasbro. Then he went on for seven paragraphs about them being "action figures" and not "dolls."

Relax, man, you say you've got them in their original boxes so no one's going to think you play with dolls. Just that you collect them.

Most of the other e-mail was about the dolls and if I liked any of the other ones?

The Robin one was pretty cool. I didn't care for the Batman but I did like the Batcave which had this huge pole. (I think it was brown or yellow or orange.) It also had a Batsignal. That was a yellow stand with a blue casing around the bulb -- yeah, it actually worked.

I don't remember the Supergirl doll much except that I thought her red skirt was lame -- stuck out too far and was too long. Wonder Woman looked nothing like Wonder Woman to me (but I had the 12 inch one that had a lasso so the little 7 incher wasn't anything impressive).

Who was my favorite character? I think I probably like Batgirl the most. Barbara Gordon was cool on the TV show, played by Yvonne Craig. She had the motorcycle, the wall that folded down for her to ride out on it. I loved the little make up table/room where she would become Batgirl. But when they went to London, I remember her becoming Batgirl behind a bush.

The comic book Batgirl was erratic. She didn't have the TV show's sense of humor and they never knew what she was. (If I remember right, at one point she was in Congress.)

In the TV show, Batman always struck me as old and paunchy. He was also a wet blanket. My favorite episodes were the ones with Batgirl in them and I especially enjoyed it when the scenes were about Robin and Batgirl. I remember thinking Burt Ward (played Robin) was cute.

Of the Catwomen on the show, Eartha Kitt was my favorite. Julie Newmar was always too in love with Batman. Kitt was more of a villain and she was on the episodes with Yvonne Craig's Batgirl. I think Michelle Pfeiffer took the character to new levels in Batman Returns.

I wanted to note this thing by C.I. yesterday but couldn't log into the website. It's called "NYT Narrows the Frame and Events:"

And when you read the coverage from outside the New York Timid, you get a different view.
Which is why Gareth asks if this is how they honour the journalist who died? On the same day as they note his death, they're also printing a narrow, limited scope of the events that relies on select "official sources" and seems unable to find any eye witnesses at all.
That's the New York Timid. And that's the problem with the Iraq coverage. This isn't an isolated incident that just flared up (Basra) and if the Times wants to report reality, they're going to have to work a great deal harder. I'm saying the Times because we don't know what was in the original draft of this article and what was removed from it. (Note to ____, I did read your e-mail. We've noted that before but thanks for the reminder.)
Does the paper of record set out to censor the news for fear of offending Americans? Or is this part of the problem it has with covering Iraq (which combines their love of "official sources" -- even when not named -- with 'reported live from the Green Zone')?
Whatever the problem is, Basra reported in the Times today is reported differently outside the Times. In England, this is a huge issue. In the Times, it's one article, one very weak article that leaves out key points and only finds "happy talkers" to quote. Even the anonymous ones are part of Operation Happy Talk.
Is the Times? If so, the article on Fakher Haider was a waste of time this morning. Don't tell us of the realities in Basra in one story and, in another, deny basic reality reported elsewhere (all over the place -- "reported all over the place" might be the better way to put that).
There are quotes in the Times article that aren't presented as having been told to the Times one on one. Which is probably good because those quotes pop up in most of the other reporting. What doesn't pop up in the Times is the non-Happy Talkers. Other news sources report "Happy Talker said this and ___ said this." The Times gives you one view of the events and one view of the impact. Both are limited and both fail to allow readers to grasp what actually happened and what it's impact has been.

Elaine and I were talking tonight about how some of the lefty blogs can't seem to decide where they stand from one moment to the next. I think Operation Happy Talk confuses them. To bad they lack principles because that's the one thing Operation Happy Talk can't combat.

Monday, September 19, 2005

Iraq, Batgirl and Catwoman

Got an e-mail from Cedric where he says we should have made something one of our spotlight entries Saturday at The Third Estate Sunday Review. I agree with him. I also know that C.I. thinks those spotlights should be used for the other sites. But Cedric posted the section in full today at his site and asked me if I'd pull a paragraph or anything from it.
For Cedric and because it's so good (and dare I say groovey) here's C.I. on Iraq from within Saturday's "Other Items" post (at the end I'll explain "Other Items" because it has a groovey background):

I'll note Richard A. Oppel Jr., Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker's "Baghdad Bombings Raise Anew Questions About U.S. Strategy in Iraq" (which is credited with this note: "This article was reported and written by Richard A. Oppel Jr., Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker."):
Although the attacks in Baghdad suggest that there may be cells of insurgents there, or at least that they can sneak into the city to plant bombs, senior officials at the Pentagon and in Iraq say they believe that Mr. Zarqawi and the insurgency's "center of gravity" is now in the bends and towns of the Euphrates River valley near the Syrian border.
Commanders say they plan to squeeze the Zarqawi leadership and Iraqi insurgents in those areas. Throughout the spring and summer marines and Army forces staged raids into those same towns, confiscating weapons and killing scores of insurgents. But many fighters melted into the countryside, and there were not enough coalition troops to keep a sufficient presence in the villages.
Commanders say new offensives in Anbar Province in coming weeks will be modeled on the siege of Tal Afar, which used 8,500 American and Iraqi troops.
"You will see the same thing down along the Euphrates Valley to push back out and restore Iraqi control to the area around Qaim," Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top American commander in Iraq, said in an interview in Baghdad. General Casey said the Iraqi forces had little control of the country's border with Syria on either side of Qaim, a desolate town on the Euphrates.
Why am I noting it? I think we should remember what "commanders" say in this piece for a future date. Also we've dropped to the figure "8,500" (the one Elaine noted was consistent with other reporting but inconsistent with the Times' claim on Sunday [11,000]). And because "you will see the same thing." Not what's reported in the Times, but the same actions in Tal Afar that you saw in Falluja will be repeated elsewhere. Unlike the optimists quoted in the report, this will not be the end of it (even with death squads) but fuel for more rage.
Hopefully, Christian Parenti was correct and the Times reporters (at least Dexter Filkins) are aware that there is reality and then there is the spin that's characterized too many reports from the paper. We're told, by commanders who lead in the story, that Iraqis are cooperating to halt the insurgency (they're supposedly outraged by the violence). We've heard that claim before. We heard that claim, in fact, before we invaded.
It's offered as new and developing as though we've all acquired early senility and forgotten all that's come before. And we're also supposed to believe not only that in choosing between their own citizens and the occupiers, Iraqis are siding with the Operation Enduring Falsehood "coalition," but that they're ratting them out.
"Secretarian" wasn't a word that popped up much in the limited Tal Afar coverage in the Times. But it's worth noting the term. No doubt many sects are turning on each other (some believe that has been the US plan). But the idea that a country of people embraces an invader over their own people goes against history and political theory. Today commanders present it as fact.
Here are the facts. Violence rages still. Violence has not been "subdued." It is unlikely that it will be "subdued" with these actions. We could let Negroponte unleash all the death squads his heart may desire but everyone that's killed will be replaced with friends and family. That's how a resistance breeds. That's historical.
There is no "subduing." This isn't a state in the United States (though certain policies seem to attempt to make it that). This is a foreign country. And to the citizens the US is a foreign force.
They will argue and fight amongst themselves and we may prove momentarily effective at playing them off one another but not in the long term. In the long term, they want us out and they will not be "subdued" or "channeled." This isn't an issue of "Give us ___!" whatever service. This is an issue of autonomy and it won't go away while we're there.Our presence only adds to the problems. "Fine tuners" will no doubt trumpet today's claims by commanders with choruses of "See!" I'm not sure what they think they're seeing (possibly the happy talk the Times portrays and gives far too much weight to -- though give the paper credit for clearly identifying who reported what), but it's an ahisotrical approach (and, bluntly, an ignorant one) to think that this is a turning point in the favor of Operation Enduring Falsehood.
"Winning" defined by the terms of the administration will mean more massive killings and they may delay certain attacks, maybe planned ones in the works, but this is how a resistance breeds.If you and I argue over the tree in the middle of both of our properties, I may kill you and claim the tree. Before I claim victory, I better be prepared to kill everyone close to you and everyone who's not pleased that I moved into the neighborhood.
We're talking a Biblical slaughter (term used intentionally). No baby Moses better be floated down a river.
If I don't kill everyone then they will be there to tell what happened, to stroke the outrage and to encourage it.
There is no turned corner here. Suggesting there is requires a denial of history and a denial of how a resistance operates. That a nation (the US) supposedly so consumed with the Bible can't grasp the basics suggests that maybe they might need to read a little more closely. Otherwise, cries of "Let my people go" may come as a shock to them.
These are points that are raised later in the article, after the happy talk:
But independent analysts suggest that the strategy of driving the insurgents from urban centers and trying to capture or kill as many as possible, aiming especially at leaders, may be flawed. The violence in Baghdad is only one problem. Another is that the fighting may work against the search for political consensus among Iraqis.
Whether it was an editorial decision or one on the part of the journalists, pushing reality down into the article, as opposed to leading with it, was a mistake.
In terms of past reporting, however, I'll give the writers (and the paper) credit for noting reality somewhere in the article. You lead with the most important information, however, and happy talk isn't important to anyone but the people spinning. Readers need reality from the start.
If I reassemble the article on my own, there are few quarrels I have with it. (As always with the paper, the reliance on "official sources" would be a quarrel I have with the article.) For a Times piece it's a strong one. But as assembled, weighted with happy talk at the start, it's not as strong as it should be.
A daily paper wants to provide you with a sense of "This just happened!" so possibly it's a problem with the form itself? However, I'd suggest that the opening paragraph could have been written in such a way that we'd have both history and what the military is spinning today.

"Other Items." That's one of the two morning entries most mornings at The Common Ills. C.I. started it for mornings when the paper was especially devoid of reality so that stories from elsewhere could be spotlighted. Get it? No?

"Other Items" was originally intended to be what should be in the Times. Still lost?

Follow me here:

. . . .


. . .


Now do you get it?

It's the alternate Times. The one from a perfect universe. The minute new stuff started going into "Other Items" members started sending in stuff for the first entry, the non "Other Items"
entry. So now the two usually bleed over. But in the original conception, "Other Items" was supposed to provide "Other Times" e.g. stories that should be in the Times.

Weirdest dream Sunday "night" (Sunday morning, after we all finally finished with The Third Estate Sunday Review and The Common Ills). I was at a bookstore in the dream (no jokes) and they had this fenced display really low (about six inches off the floor). Maggie was in the dream, we were looking for some book for her (probably something new age-ish since Maggie's in the dream). So she sees the display (which was intended for children -- so no surprise . . . .) and squeals with delight. It's got the new Ginger and Mary Ann dolls. (Don't get excited doll collectors. I think these dolls only exist in my dream.) So she's jumping up and down and has to have them right then but can't reach them and is wearing heels to high to be stepping in the midst of a display. I'm looking around for Toni, Dak-Ho or Sumner but apparently in the dream it's just me and Maggie. So I say, "Fine, calm down, I'll get them" because I'm wearing sandles.
So I step over the little fence and go in to grab a boxed Mary Ann and a boxed Ginger (these are Gilligan's Island characters in case anyone's more lost than usual in one of my posts) and I'm handing them to Maggie when I see Catwoman and Batgirl.
Longish story as short as possible. My cousin Mary had these on display when I was a kid. She was probably 17 at the time and I was probably 8. I'd go over and she had them on little stands in her bedroom. I'd always want to play with them but they were for "display." Mary really got on my nerves.
(She goes by Louise now, her middle name. If I've ever mentioned Louise in anything I've written, or ever do, that's her. And she still gets on my nerves.)
These were little seven inch dolls of various super heroes. She also had Aquaman, Robin, Batman, Superman, Supergirl, and some more.
But I always just wanted to play with Catwoman and Batgirl. Catwoman's mask was painted on her face in red. (See, I really wanted to play with them, I can remember everything about those dolls I could only look at.)
She had short, black hair. Not "short" in reality. It was probably down to the back of her head all over, the hair was one length all over, but another cousin had just had her long, long hair cut into a bob and everyone in the family was freaking out over her "short hair."
Her Catwoman suit was purple and where it wasn't, it was fleshtone on the arms and I think white to indicate stockings on the legs. The knee high boots were purple.
I don't know who they used to get that Catwoman.
But the Batgirl was supposed to be Yvonne Craig's Batgirl. She had red hair. Her mask was blue plastic and it came off. She had the cape and the yellow boots and everything you expect from Craig's Batgirl.
I used to hope Mary would leave her room when we visited so I could have Catwoman take over the Batcave (she also had that on display) and I could bring Batgirl in to save the day.
Never happened. Never got to play with either.
So in the dream, I'm on the display, standing inside of it, and there are boxes with Catwoman and Batgirl dolls of that sort. So I grab them for myself.
Then I step out of the display. We pay. I end up back at my place, so excited. I open the Catwoman box, so excited. She looks just like I remember. I open the Batgirl box . . .
And it's Green Arrow. Only he's got a skull instead of a face. No idea why and he was never one of my favorites characters as a kid.
I was so bummed out. I woke up sulking. No idea what the dream meant.