sherry and janet both e-mailed about the same thing: c.i.'s 'other items' today. i was already planning to write something on that so the three of us were on the same page.
c.i. called me because they had to get to the airport and c.i. was writing the section on the photos over and over and deleting it and starting again. i said it was fine. (it was.)
but sherry and janet wondered why any 1 would think that photos of hillary clinton would be bad photos?
good question.
months and months and months ago (i believe in 2005), c.i. referred, in passing, to a joke by rosie o'donnell about hillary clinton. c.i. didn't quote the joke. but it snow balled into this 'hillary is gay!' with republican visitors. c.i. responded to every 1 of those e-mails saying, 'rosie told no joke about hillary being gay. hillary is not gay. you've misunderstood.' that went on for about a month. so when 1 of them popped up in the e-mails last night and c.i. saw it this morning, c.i. just wanted to make it clear to any 1 who was hating hillary that if any photos were used, they wouldn't be bad 1s. c.i. has no bad 1s of hillary.
c.i. is much more private than i am (as any 1 who reads both our sites will know). and that's where the rejection of the photos going up online has come from. c.i.'s attitude is basically: 'those are my photos'.
when jim, dona, ava, ty and jess moved in, they went through the photo books. (i believe jess and ava had seen them already and, of course, ty moved out there 1st due to his summer intern job.) if you go through the photo albums (and thank kat for that because c.i. never has time for that. kat organized those at the end of 2005.) , it's not a problem. if you're a guest. but there's a difference between friends seeing things and sharing things online.
i've seen the photos (or most of them, i'm sure there are photos loose in some box or file cabinet) and they're nice photos, hillary looks good in them. people know i'm not a hillary lover. i really can't stand her.
if she looked bad, i'd laugh my ass off at them. but she actually looks better than in her newspaper photos and i think that's because she's not being yelled at (if only 'over here!') or having to be put on spot or maybe just a long day.
jim thought she looked better than in anything he'd seen. (he thinks her book cover photo is her best photo.) that's why he wanted to use some. c.i. said 'no.' jim doesn't take 'no' easy. (jim will admit to that, i'm not talking out of school.) there is 1 that is jim's favorite and c.i. said 'maybe' on that 1. that's a real 'maybe' - not a 'maybe' means 'no.'
but when the e-mail was read by c.i. today, the big concern was that there were people thinking (a) incriminating photos and (b) that it was going to snowball like all those dumb e-mails after the rosie reference.
on the (a) part, they aren't incriminating photos. the reason, again, c.i. doesn't want to post them is that they are c.i.'s photos. there's a big line between what is public and what is private with c.i. always has been. that's why they will never appear, except possibly that 1, at the third estate sunday review. the hold up was never about anything other than c.i.'s belief that you don't toss everything that has happened online.
i'm remembering some from 1992 and i think the most recent was 2003.
c.i.'s photos (and kat can tell you this) are huge. every now and then, when there's downtime (that has happened in years), c.i. will organize them in photo albums. but there are a tons of photos that would be wonderful online of many, many different people. the photo c.i. refers to (being used in an ava and c.i. tv review) is a photo that's a publicity shot of an actress. there's a show they plan on reviewing and jim was watching it and mentioned too bad they weren't going to use that 1 photo. c.i. said that was a publicity photo and it wouldn't be a problem if that was used. so the only hold up there is on when they have time to review the show.
there's another photo that jim really wants to use that won't be used because it's of an actor and actress in a semi-public place smoking and both are non-smokers publicly. jim didn't realize that they were non-smokers to the public. if it was the same photo without cigarettes, jim could probably talk c.i. into that due to the fact that it is a semi-public place. but with the cigarettes, you'll never see it up and you won't see any photos that weren't taken in a public places.
i doubt you'll even see any hillary photos that were public (speeches, etc.) because there's also the fact that a number of people love to morph her photos online and c.i. wouldn't want to be part of that - even in having just posted the original.
c.i.'s been upfront about being hugely disappointed in hillary on the war issue. but even with that disappointment, i know c.i. would be screaming 'why did i do that!' if a photo was taken from the third estate sunday review by some right-winger and morphed into something else.
i hope that explains it. as c.i. noted, 1 has run in the round-robin. but that's the same as sharing a photo album with friends. and if jim wanted to do something for the gina & krista round-robin or any of the community newsletters with those photos, i know c.i. wouldn't have a problem with that. but the newsletters are seen by a closed group. that's very different from someone grabbing a photo online and doing something with it.
sherry asked about the comic isaiah did of hillary and he did 2 of them. isaiah can draw whatever he wants. that's established. that's his space. c.i. has told him that over and over. isaiah can't use the f-word in dialogue for the comic because the common ills has to be work-safe due to the fact that a lot of members view it online at work. but other than language (and isaiah had bully boy flipping the bird and that was fine, just not writing in the f-word) there are no rules for isaiah. it's his space and c.i. has told him that and told ruth that and told kat that about their space. kat will tell you sometimes it is hard not to use the f-word or something else in 1 of her reviews. ruth really doesn't curse (kat and i must shock her with our word choices!) so she's never had any kind of problem other than worrying that she might have said something that c.i. didn't agree with. (that's not a problem if she had. i think she's finally beginning to realize that.)
flyboy just reminded me that i needed to link to elaine's 'John R. MacArthur, Student strike against the war.' we both enjoyed that very much - we usually do, of course, but we really enjoyed this 1.
that's it, i'm tired. here's c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
February 13, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq; will it expand into Iran?; a new poll finds most Americans aren't please with Bully Boy but Congress shouldn't breathe easy, and a war resister prepares for a court-martial next week.
Starting with news of war resistance, on August 31st of last year, at Camp Casey III, Mark Wilkerson turned himself in. Wilkerson had served in Iraq, applied for conscientious objector status, had the status denied and told that he could not appeal the decision until after he had served his second deployment in Iraq. While on leave before his second deployment, Wilkerson decided to self-check out of the military. He was gone for approximately a year and a half and then, on August 31st, held a press conference with Cindy Sheehan and others standing with him to announce he was turning himself in. Ryan (Indybay IMC) reports that Wilkerson will be court-martialed at Fort Hood (Texas) on February 22nd. Dick Foster (Rocky Mountain News) reports: "As part of his plea agreement with the Army, Wilkerson will serve not more than 10 months in prison. But he also faces a possible dishonorable or bad conduct discharge and a felony conviction on his record." Reflecting on his time serving in Iraq, Wilkerson wrote (last October): "Before I deployed to Iraq during OIF1, I was full of optimism for what we could do to help the people of Iraq. One of our missions, after all, was to 'win the hearts and the minds of the Iraqi people.' And in this reagard, we have failed miserably. In the year I was in Iraq, I saw kids waving American flags in the first month. Then they threw rocks. Then they planeted IEDs. Then they blew themselves and others up in city squares full of people. The only conclusion I can come up with as to why this has happened is the way the American troops have treated the Iraqi people as a whole. From random raids of whole city blocks, to checkpoints that interrupted the daily lives of the Iraqis, to incidents of torture and even massacres, a majority of Iraqis now feel as that the American soliders, once hailed as heroes and saviors, are now seen as conquerors. Civil was has erupted in the streets, and Americans are caught in the crossfire."
Turning to the topic of Ehren Watada whose court-martial at Fort Lewis last week ended with a mistrial, Ann Wright (retired col., retired State Dept., writing at Truthout) notes: "The US Army prosecution called only three witnesses to meet its burden of providing evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Lieutenant Watada had failed to deploy to Iraq and had committed conduct 'unbecoming an officer' for public statements about the war on Iraq he made in June and August 2006. Ironically, in my opinion, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses underscored Lieutenant Watada's professionalism, dedication to duty and respect for the chain of command as he attempted to resolve his ethical and moral concerns about the war. In effect, prosecution witnesses undercut the prosecution's own case against Watada before the jury panel of seven US Army officers." The prosecution bungled their case. Instead of allowing it to continue and risk the military losing, Judge Toilet (Lt. Col. John Head) declared a mistrial. Wright concludes: "As an old soldier with nearly three decades of service, I suggest that the 'good order and discipline' of the Army has not been negatively affected by Lieutenant Watada's actions. Until his unit deployed to Iraq on June 22, Watada had not disobeyed an order from his command. He did not go AWOL. After he was charged, he worked professionally and diligently everyday while awaiting his court-martial. I urge the Army to let the lieutenant, who has acted in good faith, with courtesy and respect for the military and responsibility for his oath to the military and to the country, resign." The Journal News reports that Vietnam war resister David Mitchell (Rockland Coalition for Peace and Justice) will speak Tuesday night at 7:00 pm about what he observed while attending Watada's court-martial last week. The location for the speech is the Fellowship of Reconciliation at 521 North Broadway in Upper Nyack.
Watada and Wilkerson are a part of a movement of resistance with the military that includes others such as Agustin Aguayo (whose court-martial is currently set to begin on March 6th), Kyle Snyder, Darrell Anderson, Ivan Brobeck, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Joshua Key, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman, Corey Glass, Patrick Hart, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
Bombings?
CBS and AP report: "A suicide truck bomber blew himself up near a college and a ration office in a mainly Shiite area of the capital Tuesday, killing at least 15 people, officials said, a day after car bombs devastated a Baghdad marketplace." Reuters reports the count of those dead rose to 18 and that 40 are wounded. CNN reports a car bombinb ("outside a bakery in southereatern Baghdad") that left four dead.
Corpses?
Qassim Abdul-Zahra (AP) reports that 28 corpses were discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes that three corpses were found in Mahmudiya.
And today, the US military announced: "A soldier assigned to Multi-National Force-West was killed Sunday while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar Province."
Meanwhile the crackdown gets a curfew -- another curfew. David Chazan, reporting for BBC News, noted the latest curfew announcement from Iraqi Lt. Gen Abboud Gambar: "A curfew on people and vehicles will be imposed at a day to be announced soon around Baghdad security zone. This curfew will be effective from 20:00 to 06:00 local time." Chazan: "The curfews have been tried before and they haven't freed the capital from sectarian violence. This time the borders with Iran and Syria will be closed for at least three days."
Turning to the subject of Iran, Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) reported that "Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said yesterday that he has no information indicating Iran's government is directly the supply of lethat weapons to Shiite insurgent groups in Iraq" -- Pace: "We know that the explosively formed projecticles are manufactured in Iran. What I would not say is that the Iranian government, per se, knows abou this. It is clear that Iranians are involved, and it's clear that materials from Iran are involved but I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit."
Various people in the administration and war pornographer Michael R. Gordon of the New York Times are pushing a link that has not been established as existing. Dennis Bernstein discussed this with Robert Parry and Larry Everest on KPFA's Flashpoints yesterday. Parry: "One has to remember some of the ludicrous stories that Judy Miller of the New York Times published -- including some on the front page of the New York Times which were, in retrospect, laughable. But they're not laughable because they led to the death of so many people." Parry also noted some of the phoney claims used to market the illegal war on Iraq such as: "remember he was going to spray us, he was supposed to have these model planes that were going to fly over the United States spraying us with poisonous gasses." Everest and Parry discussed the likelihood that Bully Boy will attempt to strike Iran, possibly in April, possibly by forcing them to make the first move or possibly after Israel initiates an attack.
John R. MacArthur (Harper's magazine) spoke with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! today noting the 'repoting' on Iran: "And the most damning ommission in the story, if you want to talk about overall perspective, is complete lack of perspective on who's fighting whom, who's shooting at whom in Iraq? Does the Iranian government really have an interest in destabilizing what's now a Shi'ite dominated government? Doesn't make any sense -- if it does make sense to the administration, that the Iranians want to destabilize a Shi'ite-dominated government, when they're a Shi'ite rule nation, then they should explain it. But there's no logic to it, and there's just this massive ommission."
Finally, Susan Page (USA Today) reports on the latest USA Today/Gallup Poll which found "six in 10 oppose President Bush's plan to use more troops" in Iraq and that "Seven of 10 say their representative's vote on the war will affect their vote in the next congressional election; more than four in 10 call it a major factor." Where is the New York Times poll on this topic? While other outlets have been providing their polling results for over two months now, the paper of record has been strangely silent.
