well i thought i'd get online, read a few e-mails and then write a post. i've been online for some time now. i had no idea c.i. was going to note my birthday at the common ills. but what sweet e-mails and e-cards you all sent. that was really thoughtful of every 1 so thank you all.
sherry noted in her greeting that i shared stevie nicks' birthday. that i knew and have always fround it a secret thrill to share a birthday with the priestess of rock. sherry asked what my favorite song by stevie nicks and i wish i had 1 answer.
it might have been when we were all working on the third estate sunday review 1 weekend, but that question actually popped up then. c.i. and jess both knew their answer right away 'sara.'
ava picked 'landslide.' dona picked 'gypsy.' ty went with 'dreams' and 'stand back' (he really loves prince and prince plays on 'stand back'). jim said 'gold dust woman.' kat thought and thought and i was feeling good because she didn't have an answer right away because betty did.
betty said 'leather and lace.' kat finally picked 'edge of 17.'
stevie nicks is 1 of my favorites and i'm not sure to this day how i could pick just 1. but i can tell you my favorite album, it would be wild heart. that was actually my sister's but she didn't want it. i can listen to that album all the way through over and over. i'm not sure whether my favorite song on the album is 'wild heart' or 'beauty and the beast' but i love it all.
'you were gone, you were gone from me, when i remember someone i remember their dreams, in those dreams that no 1 knows of, my destiny says that i'm destined to run.'
that's from 'enchanted' which is another song on wild heart that i just love. there are very few albums i know all the words too but wild heart would be 1 of the few that i do.
in terms of more political topics, i saw this on democracy now:
Nightline To Read Names Of Dead
And, more than a year after a firestorm of controversy surrounded Ted Koppel's reading of the names of more than 800 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq, ''Nightline'' plans a Memorial Day broadcast where they will read the names of the 900 who have died since then.
i had a whole thing i planned to write today about the democrats blocking john bolton's nomination but then i read all those nice e-mails and just wanted to say thank you. i'll do an entry this weekend (probably tomorrow night) and not be so marshmallow centered. but i am touched by the all the e-mails and want to say thank you.
5/27/2005
5/25/2005
the compromise that leaves us all compromised and what's on deck for tomorrow
common ills community member isaiah has done another wonderful cartoon. this 1 is on the compromise re: the filibuster. folding star also has a strong editorial on the same topic at a winding road so please check that out.
my own thoughts on the compromise is that it is not only shameful, it's self-defeating. this was a game of chess and the democrats have been outmanuevered. they made a lousy move but worse than that they failed to anticipate the next move.
on the radio, i keep hearing people talking about the bright side of the compromise and saying that when the bully boy tries to break the agreement, democrats will waive the piece of paper, the compromise memo, and say 'he broke the agreement.'
question: when would they waive that agreement?
at the same time bully boy is saying they aren't holding up their end? so when that day rolls around, and we all know it will, how do you think it will play out?
is our big brave going to tell the truth?
like they've done all along?
if that's what we're counting on, we're really sad.
more importantly, bully boy didn't sign this agreement. hearing people on the radio say it would make him look bad is really stretching. that's akin to saying because jennifer garner walks off the set of alias, dyan cannon is going to look bad.
it's senseless.
and now we have priscialla owens on the bench.
anybody want to tell me what we won?
bueller? ferris bueller?
anyone?
no responses?
because we didn't win shit.
this was yet another cowardly move and we're all in danger more than we know if this is what passes for a strong opposition party in this country.
and we're in a hell of a lot more trouble than we know.
tomorrow they address the patriot act. have you weighed in yet? i know most of you have but it doesn't hurt to contact your reps 1 more time.
for those who e-mailed wondering why there wasn't a post yesterday, it wasn't my plan.
blogger went crazy and i wonder when they'll get their bugs fixed out. it is as frustrating for you as it is for me.
to make it up for you, i'll let you in on a little secret: ava and c.i. have a hilarious review for this coming sunday's third estate sunday review. i heard a rough draft over the phone and couldn't stop laughing.
my own thoughts on the compromise is that it is not only shameful, it's self-defeating. this was a game of chess and the democrats have been outmanuevered. they made a lousy move but worse than that they failed to anticipate the next move.
on the radio, i keep hearing people talking about the bright side of the compromise and saying that when the bully boy tries to break the agreement, democrats will waive the piece of paper, the compromise memo, and say 'he broke the agreement.'
question: when would they waive that agreement?
at the same time bully boy is saying they aren't holding up their end? so when that day rolls around, and we all know it will, how do you think it will play out?
is our big brave going to tell the truth?
like they've done all along?
if that's what we're counting on, we're really sad.
more importantly, bully boy didn't sign this agreement. hearing people on the radio say it would make him look bad is really stretching. that's akin to saying because jennifer garner walks off the set of alias, dyan cannon is going to look bad.
it's senseless.
and now we have priscialla owens on the bench.
anybody want to tell me what we won?
bueller? ferris bueller?
anyone?
no responses?
because we didn't win shit.
this was yet another cowardly move and we're all in danger more than we know if this is what passes for a strong opposition party in this country.
and we're in a hell of a lot more trouble than we know.
tomorrow they address the patriot act. have you weighed in yet? i know most of you have but it doesn't hurt to contact your reps 1 more time.
for those who e-mailed wondering why there wasn't a post yesterday, it wasn't my plan.
blogger went crazy and i wonder when they'll get their bugs fixed out. it is as frustrating for you as it is for me.
to make it up for you, i'll let you in on a little secret: ava and c.i. have a hilarious review for this coming sunday's third estate sunday review. i heard a rough draft over the phone and couldn't stop laughing.
5/23/2005
on dahr, c.i., democracy now, the new york times & the common ills
as most of you know, each sunday evening at the common ills, c.i. does a kind of round up from press in other parts of the world.
if you've ever caught any of that, you know there's a great deal that's never reported in this country outside of democracy now and a few other sources, a tiny few, still doing actual news. forget 'the world in brief' or 'world briefs' or whatever they call that tiny column in the new york times. that tiny space rarely gets at some of the most important stories that are out there.
i got on late last night to do an entry and then ended up reading all three of the world reports at the common ills. i was reading all the excerpts and clicking on the links to stories that especially interested me. it honestly took a little over 2 hours.
the information in there was just so much and so intense. i was tired, i'd posted on saturday, i felt like i needed to think about it some before posting on it and i wanted to see what this morning's new york times covered.
on the last part, the new york times covered very, very little.
i want to highlight 1 of the 3 entires tonight.
it's the iraq entry: "As with the seige of Fallujah six months back, U.S. claims over the seige of the Iraqi town Al Qa'im are being challenged ... by independent sources"
the title comes from an ips article by dahr jamail entitled 'U.S. Claims Over Siege Challenged.'
before thanksgiving when i started going to the common ills, i'd never heard of dahr jamail. now his name is 1 i constant reference in conversations. (sexual and otherwise - my heart still goes back and forth between dahr and christian parenti.)
dahr went to iraq as an unembedded reporter. what that means is not only was he an independent reporter, he wasn't running around playing war games with the troops. he was there to do what a reporter is supposed to do: report what's actually happens. 1 of the reasons the new york times reporting on iraq is so disgusting is because it's 'white americans in iraq.' that's the focus at every turn. iraq becomes an amusement park and the citizens become staff at the amusement park. it's all about us in the new york times. or all about the u.s.
dahr went there and told stories that others didn't want to report on. he should be celebrated and praised. his name should be universally known. 1 thing you can do is make sure you tell 1 person this week about dahr jamail. it doesn't even have to be some 1 who's never heard of him before. you can talk about him to some 1 who already knows him. that's good because you're strengthening both of your knowledge about dahr and because you're discussing some 1 who has made a difference.
dahr's talked about what really happened in falluja. in the roundtable for the third estate sunday review this weekend, i was really surprised to find that it was so controversial to some that c.i. had stated dexter filkins reporting was embarrassing & 1 sided. filkins is winning a lot of awards for that bad reporting. that doesn't make it good reporting. i agree with c.i. completely on the issue of filkins, history will slap its ruler on his wrist. history will note he didn't do his job and much, much worse.
and if it that's controversial to some, if saying that is shocking, it's only because reporters, actual real reporters like dahr, aren't widely known of in this country.
falluja was a slaughter and a massacre and dexy filk wants you to think it was a john wayne movie. dexy filth should be ashamed.
in the entry at the common ills, you'll learn about the bombings, the assassinations and so much more. here's c.i. commenting on the news that rebuilding in iraq is once again 'delayed:'
Where are those Operation Happy Talkers? Hmm? Guess they're going to start bragging about a few schools getting ceiling fans again? (And weren't they supposed to get air conditioning? Wasn't that what US taxpayer monies were supposed to be purchasing?)
In other reality based news, from The Guardian, note Michael Howard's "US military to build four giant new bases in Iraq:"
US military commanders are planning to pull back their troops from Iraq's towns and cities and redeploy them in four giant bases in a strategy they say is a prelude to eventual withdrawal.
The plan, details of which emerged at the weekend, also foresees a transfer to Iraqi command of more than 100 bases that have been occupied by US-led multinational forces since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
However, the decision to in vest in the bases, which will require the construction of more permanent structures such as blast-proof barracks and offices, is seen by some as a sign that the US expects to keep a permanent presence in Iraq.Politicians opposed to a long-term US presence on Iraqi soil questioned the plan.
"They appear to settling in a for the long run, and that will only give fuel for the terrorists," said a spokesman for the mainstream Sunni Iraqi Islamic party.
c.i. pointed out after the roundtable that there is criticism that iraq is ignored at the common ills because the new york times reporters in iraq are not linked to. several visitors a week complain that 'sunday is just not enough.' i wish c.i. had brought that up during the roundtable because there are a few things i'd like to say on that.
1) reporters for the times in iraq have done a really poor job of conveying reality. both in terms of what is going on and in terms of the fact that people actually inhabit that country. actual people with their own hopes and dreams and fears. but they become extras as the times rush to act as though we're columbus discovering an empty world.
2) iraq is not just mentioned once a week. c.i. provides links to democracy now and democracy now is covering it.
3) visitors griping are visitors who aren't going to the site each day. tom hayden is highlighted there during the week along with articles from the nation and other sources.
i told c.i. i thought these visitors were just new york times groupies. they ignore a story from the bbc or elsewhere and just seem to want to know what's in the new york times.
i think it was very smart of c.i. to step away from covering what the times says about iraq. each link they get increases their profile and makes them appear to be a reputable source for iraq coverage. they are not that. which is why you won't find me linking to dexter or john burns or any 1 else in iraq that's reporting for the times.
c.i. has noted that if the times actually reported on iraq, they would be noted, their stories linked to. c.i. just didn't have a stomach for lies, that was the basis for the decision. myself, i'm boycotting linking to any new york times story coming out of iraq.
if you've ever caught any of that, you know there's a great deal that's never reported in this country outside of democracy now and a few other sources, a tiny few, still doing actual news. forget 'the world in brief' or 'world briefs' or whatever they call that tiny column in the new york times. that tiny space rarely gets at some of the most important stories that are out there.
i got on late last night to do an entry and then ended up reading all three of the world reports at the common ills. i was reading all the excerpts and clicking on the links to stories that especially interested me. it honestly took a little over 2 hours.
the information in there was just so much and so intense. i was tired, i'd posted on saturday, i felt like i needed to think about it some before posting on it and i wanted to see what this morning's new york times covered.
on the last part, the new york times covered very, very little.
i want to highlight 1 of the 3 entires tonight.
it's the iraq entry: "As with the seige of Fallujah six months back, U.S. claims over the seige of the Iraqi town Al Qa'im are being challenged ... by independent sources"
the title comes from an ips article by dahr jamail entitled 'U.S. Claims Over Siege Challenged.'
before thanksgiving when i started going to the common ills, i'd never heard of dahr jamail. now his name is 1 i constant reference in conversations. (sexual and otherwise - my heart still goes back and forth between dahr and christian parenti.)
dahr went to iraq as an unembedded reporter. what that means is not only was he an independent reporter, he wasn't running around playing war games with the troops. he was there to do what a reporter is supposed to do: report what's actually happens. 1 of the reasons the new york times reporting on iraq is so disgusting is because it's 'white americans in iraq.' that's the focus at every turn. iraq becomes an amusement park and the citizens become staff at the amusement park. it's all about us in the new york times. or all about the u.s.
dahr went there and told stories that others didn't want to report on. he should be celebrated and praised. his name should be universally known. 1 thing you can do is make sure you tell 1 person this week about dahr jamail. it doesn't even have to be some 1 who's never heard of him before. you can talk about him to some 1 who already knows him. that's good because you're strengthening both of your knowledge about dahr and because you're discussing some 1 who has made a difference.
dahr's talked about what really happened in falluja. in the roundtable for the third estate sunday review this weekend, i was really surprised to find that it was so controversial to some that c.i. had stated dexter filkins reporting was embarrassing & 1 sided. filkins is winning a lot of awards for that bad reporting. that doesn't make it good reporting. i agree with c.i. completely on the issue of filkins, history will slap its ruler on his wrist. history will note he didn't do his job and much, much worse.
and if it that's controversial to some, if saying that is shocking, it's only because reporters, actual real reporters like dahr, aren't widely known of in this country.
falluja was a slaughter and a massacre and dexy filk wants you to think it was a john wayne movie. dexy filth should be ashamed.
in the entry at the common ills, you'll learn about the bombings, the assassinations and so much more. here's c.i. commenting on the news that rebuilding in iraq is once again 'delayed:'
Where are those Operation Happy Talkers? Hmm? Guess they're going to start bragging about a few schools getting ceiling fans again? (And weren't they supposed to get air conditioning? Wasn't that what US taxpayer monies were supposed to be purchasing?)
In other reality based news, from The Guardian, note Michael Howard's "US military to build four giant new bases in Iraq:"
US military commanders are planning to pull back their troops from Iraq's towns and cities and redeploy them in four giant bases in a strategy they say is a prelude to eventual withdrawal.
The plan, details of which emerged at the weekend, also foresees a transfer to Iraqi command of more than 100 bases that have been occupied by US-led multinational forces since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
However, the decision to in vest in the bases, which will require the construction of more permanent structures such as blast-proof barracks and offices, is seen by some as a sign that the US expects to keep a permanent presence in Iraq.Politicians opposed to a long-term US presence on Iraqi soil questioned the plan.
"They appear to settling in a for the long run, and that will only give fuel for the terrorists," said a spokesman for the mainstream Sunni Iraqi Islamic party.
c.i. pointed out after the roundtable that there is criticism that iraq is ignored at the common ills because the new york times reporters in iraq are not linked to. several visitors a week complain that 'sunday is just not enough.' i wish c.i. had brought that up during the roundtable because there are a few things i'd like to say on that.
1) reporters for the times in iraq have done a really poor job of conveying reality. both in terms of what is going on and in terms of the fact that people actually inhabit that country. actual people with their own hopes and dreams and fears. but they become extras as the times rush to act as though we're columbus discovering an empty world.
2) iraq is not just mentioned once a week. c.i. provides links to democracy now and democracy now is covering it.
3) visitors griping are visitors who aren't going to the site each day. tom hayden is highlighted there during the week along with articles from the nation and other sources.
i told c.i. i thought these visitors were just new york times groupies. they ignore a story from the bbc or elsewhere and just seem to want to know what's in the new york times.
i think it was very smart of c.i. to step away from covering what the times says about iraq. each link they get increases their profile and makes them appear to be a reputable source for iraq coverage. they are not that. which is why you won't find me linking to dexter or john burns or any 1 else in iraq that's reporting for the times.
c.i. has noted that if the times actually reported on iraq, they would be noted, their stories linked to. c.i. just didn't have a stomach for lies, that was the basis for the decision. myself, i'm boycotting linking to any new york times story coming out of iraq.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)