first off, ava's written a post called 'Ava's entry' at the common ills mirror site so don't miss that. she's running down the history of the third estate sunday review and she's also sharing her own opinions about the process that goes into each marathon session that turns out an edition. jim phoned me to give me a heads up to it. (he loves it.)
now funniest and most true lines of dialogue on tv this week? will & grace had them. (c.i. phoned me to remind me to watch for it.) grace hired a middle eastern woman. the woman was worse than karen when it came to working and grace didn't feel like she could fire her because the woman was middle eastern. however, grace found out that the woman was jewish and was thrilled because that meant that she, grace - who is jewish, could fire her. which she did.
with karen after, grace pinned her reluctance (before learning that the woman was jewish) on 'liberal guilt.' that's all the set up to grace's lines.
here it is:
sometimes i wish i were a republican. then i wouldn't have to worry about anyone's feelings; i'd just have to worry about being indicted.
by the way, i was asked what i thought about monday's peace concert that's gotten some raves and some crappy reviews. i think it was a good cause and have to wonder about the people crapping on the concert. (yes, new york times, i mean you.)
okay, let's do the news. rumsfeld won't make predictions regarding iraq according to the associated press. a policy that he should have implemented prior to the invasion when he was so gosh-it's-going-to-be-a-cakewalk-with-roses-strewn-in-our-path.
who spreads the rumors of 'liberal media'? it's not just the right wing. this was noted repeatedly at the third estate sunday review - how cjr daily (it has a new name now) would go over newsweek, time, and then drop in the national review as though that was balance (in their magazine reports). maybe they thought it was - they thought the new republican was 'left.'
kylie asked me what i thought of aol's 'rate the media' on iraq. i hadn't seen it (so thanks for the link.) through a series of 6 questions, you're asked to weigh in on the media and bully boy. which do you believe? nonsense like that.
if you're a conservative, you've got plenty of room to sound off in their six close-ended questions.
if you're liberal?
How would you rate the media's pre-war coverage?
Poor
36%
Fair
27%
Good
26%
Excellent
11%
Total Votes: 160,271
How do you rate the media's coverage of the war?
Poor
63%
Good
13%
Fair
13%
Excellent
11%
Total Votes: 162,173
now if i think the media does a poor job because they cover it and minimize (as many on the left believe), i'm giving props to bully boy's latest talking point that the media just won't report the good news. the whole poll's like that, see for yourself.
so, in the poll, you're either with the bully boy or the corporate press.
next 2 questions.
How would you rate the information you got from Bush before the war?
Good
35%
Poor
34%
Excellent
16%
Fair
15%
Total Votes: 105,855
How do you rate the information you get from Bush during the war?
Poor
35%
Good
33%
Excellent
18%
Fair
14%
Total Votes: 106,952
shocking that 35% are such dedicated kool-aid drinkers that they believe bully boy gave them good info in the lead up. note also that at least a thousand people who voted in question 4 chose to skip evaluating bully boy's info before the war.
last 2 questions:
How much does the media influence your opinion of the war?
Not at all
67%
A little
24%
A lot
10%
Total Votes: 104,261
How much does the Bush administration influence your opinion of the war?
Not at all
36%
A lot
36%
A little
29%
Total Votes: 105,206
see, it's set up as a battle between bully boy and the press. if you're a right winger, vote for bully boy. where is the left supposed to go? this is the sort of implied message the corporate media sends out all the time.
i don't think it's by accident. just like i don't think it's an accident that bean counters like james carville are presented on tv like they're lefties. (when they aren't.)
henry kissinger is back in the news. he's like the whore they've all slept with. but he's in the news over his time in the nixon white house. he was for building ties with iraq. the ambassador to iran wasn't for it: richard helms, later in charge of the cia and a liar to congress.
chalmers johnson on richard helms:
Richard Helms, the director of the CIA back in 1977, was convicted of a felony for lying to Congress. He said, no, we had nothing to do with the overthrow of [Chilean President] Salvador Allende when we had everything to do with it. He gets a suspended sentence, pays a small fine, walks into the CIA building at Langley, Virginia, and is met by a cheering crowd. Our hero! He's proudly maintained the principles of the secret intelligence service, which is the private army of the president and we have no idea what he's doing with it. Everything they do is secret. Every item in their budget is secret.
note this from the ap:
Faced with hundreds of claims by detainees at Guantanamo Bay, a federal appeals court pressed the Bush administration on Wednesday to say how much power judges will have to determine the legality of the detentions.
The three-judge panel is being asked to decide whether the Detainee Treatment Act, signed by
President Bush on Dec. 30, retroactively voids hundreds of lawsuits by abolishing a right to challenge detentions that has been part of U.S. legal principles since the nation's founding.
Judges David B. Sentelle and A. Raymond Randolph seemed willing to accept the administration's view that the act forces dismissal of more than 200 lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court here on behalf of over 300 detainees.
of course the hideous sentelle was willing to accept the administration's view - as long as it's republican, he'll walk around with a daisy up his crack if they ask him to. if you're not familiar with the hideous sentelle, read this by robert parry.
and note this by the center for constitutional rights:
On March 22 in New York a three-judge panel heard arguments from attorneys representing Guantánamo detainees in the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals (Al Odah v. United States of America and Boumediene v. Bush). They asked the panel to reject the Government's effort to have the cases dismissed. CCR won the Supreme Court case establishing the detainees' right to challenge their detention in U.S. court (Rasul v. Bush), and currently oversees more than 500 pro-bono attorneys representing the detainees.
Barbara Olshansky, CCR Deputy Legal Director who attended oral arguments today stated:
"Despite the government's effort to the contrary, I feel that the Court understood the great importance of preserving the writ of habeas corpus. Their questions about ensuring the Court's ability to consider factual evidence of innocence made clear that justice is their true concern."
Olshansky expects a ruling from the Court in the next few weeks. According to recent estimates, the government is currently detaining about 490 prisoners at the Guantánamo Bay prison camp. CCR is working around the clock to achieve their release to freedom or a fair trial.
now go check out cedric's 'Will Interview With The Vampire become the new Catcher in the Rye?'
