party hack david sirota, of all people, wrote about bill moyers' special that aired on many pbs stations yesterday. sherry e-mailed it to me and wondered 'how brazen can he be?'
good question. sirota's off on a tear and though there are some points i agree with him on, the larger issue is, as sherry pointed out, that he's got a lot of nerve presenting himself as a journalist.
a journalist? that's got to be the funniest claim of last week.
a jounalist does not send out memos to the democratic party. a journalist does not talk about 'we' when referring to congress. a journalist does not pick up 'journalism' only when he's not working on a campaign.
sirota is as guilty of being a part of the revolving door that has weakened journalism - the revolving door between political campaigns and 'journalism' - as any 1 else.
he saves the bulk of his ire for petey beinart (if that's not spelled correctly - i don't worry about spelling war hawks' names correctly) and sherry wondered why that was?
sherry (thank you, sherry) participated in a roundtable tonight and e-mailed earlier today saying 'if you don't have time to do gonzales tonight, grab anything you want to comment on from this.' for the roundtables, there were 7, see mike's '7 Roundtables and Jeremy Brcher & Brendan Smith' which explains how that happened. betty and i co-moderated 1 and that was a ton of fun, i won't lie. but it was not planned. (by either of us.) we were honored to be asked. but i am late tonight (in fact it is friday morning) so i'll skip the cess pool and focus on sherry's comments and questions. (and thank you, sherry!)
petey is young and may be younger than sirota so let's keep that in mind. back in the 80s, i date a guitarist briefly and he hit the roof when c.i. gave me dweezil zappa's solo album. he was furious because dweezil was younger than him. dweezil didn't make my kind of music but i could appreciate his talent. my ex-lover couldn't and could only focus on the fact that some 1 younger than him had a label, had a big push and had a young (and cute) face.
now petey's disgusting. and i'm sure that's the main reason sirota focuses on him; however, the issue of age and petey going to time magazine probably irks sirota as well.
petey was heading up the new republic(an) as the illegal war was being sold. it needs to be noted that not only did petey do stuff in his own writing, his magazine featured attacks (and he was in charge of the magazine) on those who spoke out and that his writers attacked in speeches every chance they got. so petey's pretty vile.
but the reality of the new republic(an) is that it's circulation was in the toilet and it's reach with the american people wasn't great. it did allow - as it had for many, many years - some to point and say, 'look even the new republic(an), a left magazine, supports this.' so that is a tiny power it had. but the weekly standard, for example, had more influence in congress. outside of their poster boy joe lieberman, i can't imagine too many in congress bothering to read the new republic(an).
i think bill moyers let petey off easier than any 1 else and wrote about that last night. so that may be another reason that sirota zooms in on petey - he might feel that petey's age allowed him to be treated with kid gloves.
but i do think there is professional jealosy as well because sirota and petey aren't all that different. they have different sets of beliefs but they operate pretty much the same.
sherry wondered how sirota could sit there slamming people who cover horse race politics? good question because that really does describe sirota.
he might beg to differ and argue that he shares experiences but we all know about how he bragged about a campaign lying to voters - tricking them - telling them that a non-conservative was conservative. of course, he forgot to mention that he worked on that campaign.
so there's not a great deal of difference between sirota and petey.
all that happened is they just left the baseball field to run off into the woods and show each other their 1st jocks and while petey was showing his waist band and how far out it goes, sirota got a look at what was inside and now has a case of envy.
the little boys are 2 peas in a pod.
sirota also takes joe klein to task. joe klein - like petey - is a joke. so is sirota but he seems to think every 1's going to forget that he wrote those slams and attacks on people telling the truth about the weak ass, non-binding congressional measures. now a real reporter not only wouldn't have done that, but a real journalist would have applauded others doing it.
instead, sirota started slamming people for actually telling the truth, started using terms like 'conspiracy' (as c.i. noted, lynne woolsey had stated herself, on democracy now, what sirota was calling conspiracy and lies). sirota lied and hissed and screamed.
he's a party boy and that's all he can offer. he wants to pretend he's a journalist but he's not. he's some 1 who types up words, strings together a few half-thoughts, when not hiring himself out to political campaigns. how is he any different from petey or joe?
not really all that much.
should petey have been the focus? i do think he got off easy. if sirota does (sirota never writes that), that would be reason to address petey.
but of course some 1 really interested in addressing the crap the new republic(an) pulled would have to note arundhati roy who was attacked and it was wished that she would be taken out by a bunker buster. not only does sirota not defend roy's good name, he doesn't even bring that up. arundhati may be a little too much democracy for sirota who is on record as a hugo chavez hater.
my take on sirota. he's one more sell out. he's in a differen time so where he's selling out from is a different place. but he's the joe klein of this age.
in the 70s, he would've been a democrat (i don't think sirota is right-wing, i'll say many things about him, but i don't think he's right-wing), in the 80s, in the 90s. and the only difference between him today and the party hacks of yore - joe klein, jimmy carville, go down the list - is that his 'beliefs' are different because they were all shaped by their time.
none really support democracy. they tend to have hissy fits when democracy actually rears its head. that's why he can brag about a campaign tricking voters like that is a good thing. (a campaign, to repeat, because he didn't note it, that he worked on.)
james carville only disgraced himself defending dom imus to those who were dumb enough to believe james carville was left. james carville isn't left. he grabbed some popular positions for soundbytes. sirota will have his own imus moment in the future.
they pick easy positions and argue those. they don't defend positions - even popular 1s - that might hurt them politically. that's why, when sirota ended up working for ned lamont's campaign (after lamont won the primary), suddenly ned couldn't talk about the illegal war. suddenly ned started going all mealy mouth.
like james carville doing his damage, sirota was there to weaken the message because some 1 who thinks it is good to win a campaign through trickery isn't really going to stand up for a message that the war has to end.
sherry said the biggest laugh in sirota's column was this: 'I went to journalism school because I thought journalism was about sifting through the B.S. in order to challenge power and hold the Establishment accountable.' that is pretty funny coming from a b.s. artist like sirota.
hold the establishment accountable? how he managed to type that without being struck by a bolt from the sky is a mystery. he didn't hold the democratic establishment accountable for refusing to call for an end to the war. in fact, he provided cover for them and attacked the people who were pointing out that the bill sirota was praising (one he lobbied congress for - some journalist) was toothless and non-binding.
he also stripped people of their own power during that stage and it was probably the ugliest moment he's had publicly thus far. the ugliest mainly because most people don't know much about him other than how he self-presents.
now don't think i'm saying i wasn't taken in. i was. he had me fooled for some time. at 1 point i remember talking him up to c.i. and c.i. was so not into the sirota. i said, 'but there was a link to him last week' and c.i. said, 'that was credited to a member. i link to voices that speak to members. every link is not endorsed by me.' i had already seen a few people linked to at the common ills in entries that i knew for a fact c.i. personally loathed. so i should have known that. but i was all, 'tell me about sirota.' and c.i. was like, 'no, you like him. you're entitled to.' blah blah blah. that's c.i. - make up your own mind. so i started paying attention and, thankfully, before sirota launched his attack on hugo chavez was able to see that sirota was the new d.l.c. they mask it in 'progressive' but it's not really about being progressive.
but a lot of people can be taken in by the self-presentation. and obviously, with this article, that's what sirota's hoping for. that people will read it and forget his attacks on the peace movement just last month, his attacks on people who were observing the realities of the bills he was schilling for. his attempt to tar and feather those pointing out reality by comparing them to conspiracy theorists and every thing he else he could think of.
the little boy had a temper tantrum in public and when he found that wasn't going to go over - and it didn't because howard zinn and others stepped up - then all the sudden he started trying to slink back in as your-friendly-progressive.
he is no friend to any 1 but the politicians whose campaigns he works on and has worked on.
sirota seems to think the difference between himself and petey is that petey read others' observations and sirota has 1st hand 1s. sirota does have 1st hand observations and he has those as a result of being hired to work on campaigns. that doesn't make him any better than petey. he is not independent and he is not a journalist.
he's 1 more poser going back and forth through the revolving door and that degrades journalism as well as politics.
sirota, posing, also writes, 'Moyers, channeling a fantastic piece by Jebediah Reed in Radar Magazine, notes that most of the people who regurgitated the Washington Establishment’s debunked case for war have actually been rewarded with even more prominent positions in the media.' who is jebidah reed? 1 more of the mutal reach around & stroke club. you'll find him cited by all the pretenders and posers. they'll pretend jebidah did something amazing.
moyers' does not 'channel' the little nothing that is reed. moyers is building on the work of norman solomon and fair - who called out this nonsense long before reed did. but part of the sirotas goal is to take out independent voices like solomon and replace them with their own party hacks. that's why bob somerby ignored solomon but rushes to praise reed. that's why sirota has to get in yet another shout out to his little buddy and act as though norman solomon and fair haven't already covered this topic at length and as though moyers hasn't publicly credited fair and solomon.
see, it takes a lot of lying to start your own non-revolution. you have to shut up the people and you have to build up 'independent' voices while ignoring reality. reality is that norman solomon covered this many, many times before. see jebidah endorses war, he just doesn't seem to care for this 1 because he's decided it's 'unwinnable.' the war is lost, c.i. noted that long ago. c.i. noted that over half a million iraqis were dead about 6 weeks before the lancet study came out. jebidiah plays catch up with popular opinion and can't call the war itself out, the 'reasons' for it, the premise it is built on. that's sirota's kind of boy.
if you must, you can read his article at common dreams. i'll link to common dreams, i won't link to his article. it's under thursday's offerings. you can read david swanson's response to sirota's babbling here and you can read the third estate sunday review's 'Sad Sirota ' (and yes, i helped with that).
here's c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Thursday, April 26, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, two high profile terrorists stalk the continental United States, US war resisters launch a tour, students REMAIN active (they always have been -- no matter what the old cranks say), and more.
Starting with news of war resisters. Courage to Resist reports that war resisters Camilo Mejia, Pablo Paredes, Agustin Aguayo and Robert Zabala will be speking out from May 9th through 17th in the San Francisco Bay Area. This will be Aguayo's first publicly speaking appearances since being released from the brig earlier this month (April 18th). The announced dates include:
Wednesday May 9 - Marin
7pm at College of Marin, Student Services Center, 835 College Ave, Kentfield. Featuring Agustin Aguayo, Pablo Paredes and David Solnit. Sponsored by Courage to Resist and Students for Social Responsibility.
Thursday May 10 - Sacramento
Details TBA
Friday May 11 - Stockton
6pm at the Mexican Community Center, 609 S Lincoln St, Stockton. Featuring Agustin Aguayo.
Saturday May 12 - Monterey
7pm at the Unitarian Universalist Church, 490 Aguajito Rd, Carmel. Featuring Agustin Aguayo and Camilo Mejia. Sponsored by Veterans for Peace Chp. 69, Hartnell Students for Peace, Salinas Action League, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom and Courage to Resist. More info: Kurt Brux 831-424-6447
Sunday May 13 - San Francisco 7pm at the Veterans War Memorial Bldg. (Room 223) , 401 Van Ness St, San Francisco. Featuring Agustin Aguayo, Camilo Mejia and Pablo Paredes. Sponsored by Courage to Resist, Veteran's for Peace Chp. 69 and SF Codepink. More info:
Monday May 14 - Watsonville
7pm at the United Presbyterian Church, 112 E. Beach, Watsonville. Featuring Agustin Aguayo, Camilo Mejia, Pablo Paredes and Robert Zabala. Sponsored by the GI Rights Hotline & Draft Alternatives program of the Resource Center for Nonviolence (RCNV), Santa Cruz Peace Coalition, Watsonville Women's International League for Peace & Freedom (WILPF), Watsonville Brown Berets, Courage to Resist and Santa Cruz Veterans for Peace Chp. 11. More info: Bob Fitch 831-722-3311
Tuesday May 15 - Palo Alto
7 PM at the First Presbyterian Church (Fellowship Hall), 1140 Cowper, Palo Alto. Featuring Camilo Mejia. Sponsored by Pennisula Peace and Justice Center. More info: Paul George 650-326-8837
Wednesday May 16 - Eureka
7pm at the Eureka Labor Temple, 840 E St. (@9th), Eureka. Featuring Camilo Mejia. More info: Becky Luening 707-826-9197
Thursday May 17 - Oakland
4pm youth event and 7pm program at the Humanist Hall, 411 28th St, Oakland. Featuring Camilo Mejia, Pablo Paredes and the Alternatives to War through Education (A.W.E.) Youth Action Team. Sponsored by Veteran's for Peace Chp. 69, Courage to Resist, Central Committee for Conscientious Objector's (CCCO) and AWE Youth Action Team.
Camilo Mejia's book Road from Ar Ramaid: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejia will be published by The New Press on May 1st. He is part of a movement of war resistance within the military that also includes Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Dean Walcott, Camilo Mejia, Linjamin Mull, Joshua Key, Augstin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Camilo Mejia, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder , Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Joshua Key, Mark Wilkerson, Camilo Mejia, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake 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. In addition, the documentary Sir! No Sir! traces the war resistance within the military during Vietnam and it will air at 9:00 pm (EST) on The Sundance Channel followed at 10:30 p.m. by The Ground Truth, a documentary that features
Turning to news of terrorism, two high profile terrorists have been issuing threats against Americans, America and the democratic process that is supposed to be the bedrock the United States exists upon. US joke and 2008 GOP presidential candidate Rudy Giuliana, speaking in New Hampshire on Tuesday, declared that Democrats will not remain on the offensive with terrorism and will wave a white flag as he attempted to subvert democracy in his desperate bid to win the GOP nomination. Not to be outdone, Crazy John McCain, also competing for the GOP 2008 presidential nomination, took The John McCain Showboat Express to South Carolina where he declared, "If we leave Iraq there will be chaos, there will be genocide, and they will follow us home."
Reality check for Senator Crazy: Iraq already has chaos, already has genocide. When the US leaves (and the US will leave at some point) there will be violence in Iraq. That's what can happen to puppet governments, when they have to stand on their own, the people may erupt in violence (mitigated somewhat when appointed puppets get the hell out of the country -- see Marcos and the Phillipines). To state that "they will follow us home" suggests that Senator Crazy may need to undergo a psych exam before continuing in the Senate. After the first Gulf War, the US left (much quicker) and violence did take place. It did not "follow us home." Senator Crazy is attempting to terrorize a nation to drum up some support -- a cheap and should-be illegal stunt. Rudy G? He continues to demonstrate that municipal politics and the national stage do not go hand in hand. The oft dubbed "America's Mayor" should probably focus on pot holes and leave the big subjects to those qualified to weigh in unless he's intent on joining the VOTE INSANE! VOTE JOHN MCCAIN! ticket. In the United States, anyone can run for president -- even nut cases.
Other than missing their morning meds, what could have the two so upset? McCain was responding to the votes today and yesterday, Rudy G was anticipating them. AP reports that today the Senate followed the House's vote (House voted last night) to pass a reconciliation of the measures that earlier passed both houses. The non-binding, toothless measure is now headed to the White House where it awaits a signature from the Bully Boy (in which case it becomes law) or a veto. If Bully Boy vetoes, it goes back to Congress where a two-thirds majority vote of each house is necessary to override the veto. (Bully Boy can also refuse to veto it, do nothing, and after 10 days it would become a law without his signature and without requiring another Congressional vote.) Bully Boy has stated he will veto the bill. AP quotes US Senator Robert Byrd declaring, "The president has failed in his mission to bring peace and stability to the people of Iraq. It's time to bring our troops home from Iraq." Such statements may confuse some people and lead them to believe the measure that has now passed both houses does that; however, it does not "bring our troops home from Iraq." It may allow some US service members to return to the US (or be deployed to Afghanistan); however, there are so many built in escape clauses for the Bully Boy that it's silly to promote the bill as "troops home now" or, for that matter, "troops home" in 2008. AFP observes, "The bill provides more cash than Bush sought to bankroll operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but says US troops are to start withdrawing from Iraq on October 1, with a non-binding target of completing the pullout by March 31, 2008."
Before the Senate vote today, Andrea Lewis spoke with Leigh Ann Caldwell (Free Speech Radio News) and Chris Toensing (Middle East Report) on KPFA's The Morning Show about Congress and Iraq.
Chris Toensing: Well, I have never been able to shake the suspicion all along that the Democrats are engaged in an elaborate show of political theater -- that they do not really intend, in the end, to pass, to insist, that Bush sign legislation which would contain a binding timetable of any sorts. And that they are willing to water down those provisions even further to the point where it's entirely at the president's discretion -- it already almost is. But they're willing, I think, to water it down even further in order to chip away some Republicans who will vote for something like that and then they can claim to the public that they're trying to tie Bush's hands and they're trying to assert their Constitutional oversight role in helping to end this disasterous war and yet not really have their finger prints on Iraq policy. And I've never been able to shake this suspicion that that's really the Democrats game and I'm not speaking about the Progressive Caucus or the Out of Iraq Caucus who have a much clearer goal in mind and a much sounder political strategy in mind but I'm talking about the big national Democrats, the Emanuels and Pelosis in the House, the Schumers and Levins and so on in the Senate. And I think the goal of this is - is to make sure that the war is solely Bush's albatross and solely the Republicans albatross rather than to bring the war to a speedy conclusion.
Did, Andrea Lewis wondered, Toensing think that US service members would be returning to the US in the fall of 2008?
Toensing: I think it's possible, and actually probably likely, that some troops will be withdrawn, some combat brigades -- as they say. What's not going to happen is an end to the US deployment writ large. There are still going to be, I think, combat brigades there. I think there are also going to be large "enduring bases" various kind of advisors and trainers and support personnel who will be working with the new Iraqi army. I think that the underlying strategic goals of the US are just simply not served by leaving Iraq in its current state. The only conditions under which I can see either a Republican or a Democratic administration withdrawing completely from Iraq would be either if Iraqis themselves unified across all kinds of sectarian and ethinic lines and faught a kind of Pan-Iraqi Infintada against the US that would be unmanageable so that would be one circumstance. The other would be if they were able to find some kind of Iraqi strongman who would be able to ensure that the government would be stable and pliable-- according to Washington's interests -- after the US withdrew all the troops. That's the, that's all along been the underlying strategic goal and I haven't seen too many national Democrats, the ones with presidential ambitions, speak to the heart of US policy in the Persian Gulf and as long as that's not changing I think the US is going to be in Iraq for a long time.
Lewis noted, "Except maybe Dennis Kucinich" which Toensling agree with Leiws on. Dennis Kucinich is a US House Rep and candidate for the 2008 Democratic nomination for president.
In Iraq, AFP reports, the non-binding "timetable for military withdrawal from Iraq brought mixed reviews from Iraqi members of parliament, some of whom doubted the government's ability to meet US demands for faster political reconciliation." The BBC notes Iraq's foreign minister and all around redundant loud mouth Hoshayr Zebari who is yet again screaming that the US cannot leave. If the tired, old song seems familiar, he's been singing it for years.
But when exiles and Kurds are made leaders, put in positions of power (put in by the US -- and Zebari is one of Bully Boy's favorites), it's not really surprising that they don't have the support of the average Iraqi and need a military force to protect them.
In Iraq today, many went without protection. Some of the violence.
Bombings?
Reuters notes a Khalis bombing that killed 10 Iraqi soldiers (15 wounded), a bombing in Jbela that killed a student and left six more wounded, Baghdad mortar attacks that killed 4 (wounded 11), a Baghdad car bombing that killed six (15 wounded) "near Baghdad University," Mosul bombings that killed 3 people (59 wounded), car bombings in southwestern Baghdad that killed 1 (three wounded), a roadside bomb in centeral Baghdad that killed 2 (10 wounded) and a mortar attack in Mahmudiya that "killed a woman and wounded three others".
Shootings?
Reuters reports a woman and her niece shot dead in Tikrit.
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 26 corpses were discovered in Baghdad.
Reuters notes one corpse discovered in Mahmudiya and three corpses were discovered in Kirkuk.
In student activism news, Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez (Democracy Now!) spoke with the University of Maryland's Sergio Espana about the five-day fast, Hungry For Peace, that kicks off Monday. Espana stated, "So we're having students and faculty having a fast and a sit-out for five days, protesting the illegal US occupation in Iraq. Every day of the fast will represent roughtly 100,000 of the more than 500,00 Iraqi civilians that have died as a direct consequence of this illegal occupation. We'll also have a lecture series. Now, across the nation, thanks in large part to the Student Peace Action Network, we've had universities from California to Vermont who will also be contributing. So these fasts are nationwide. For example, in Minnesota -- apart from the fast, there will also be rallies going into their Congressional representatives, turning in petitions, letting them know that the American public wants them to do the job that they were actually elected to do -- which is to, you know, support the American public, support the troops and to end this immoral and atrocious war." UMBC Solidarity Coaliton is asking more campuses to sign up -- this include merely wearing black arm bands next week, protesting, fasting, etc.
Also interviewed today was CODEPINK's Medea Benjamin. Excerpt:
AMY GOODMAN: Well, the founder of CODEPINK, Medea Benjamin, joins us now from Washington, D.C. She's a longtime peace activist and also co-founder of Global Exchange. Welcome, Medea, to Democracy Now! You are changing the face, in a sense, of lobbying in Washington. Explain what you're doing.
MEDEA BENJAMIN: Well, these hearings that are going on every day, Amy, they used to be very staid gatherings, where you'd have the K Street lobbyists and you'd have the staff aides and a maybe a sprinkling of tourists. Now, you have CODEPINK lining up early in the morning to get into each of the hearings and turning them into really public affairs. We try to participate in them. We certainly participate with our messages on our bodies. When we can get away with it, we participate with signs. And we often get carried away when we hear them saying things we don't like and get up and say something, sometimes get kicked out, sometimes get arrested, sometimes get tolerated. But we've really turned them into public gatherings, which I think they should be.
Yesterday, when General Petraeus tried -- well, he actually did a hearing behind closed doors, we were outside there yelling, "Let the public in! The public wants to hear!" And so, I think we're really changing the face of the way the proceedings are going on in Congress and demanding a lot more transparency.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Medea, given the number of times you've been ejected in recent months from Congress, you must be probably the best-known security question for the security guards there. Are they watching you and following you constantly?
MEDEA BENJAMIN: They've actually become our friends. We're on a first name basis. When we enter the Capitol buildings, they usually get on their walkie-talkie and say "OK, CODEPINK is here." They follow us around. They go to have lunch with us. They're really quite nice to us and quite sympathetic to our cause, as are a lot of the people that we find in these hearings. Things are really changing in Washington, and they're changing because groups like ours are keeping the pressure on.
And one thing I really want to say to your listening audience is that we need more of you here. We have rented a house, a CODEPINK house, with five bedrooms. We're encouraging people to come from all over the country, stay with us for a week or two weeks. There are people who have left their jobs and are really determined to be on the Hill during all of these discussions about supplemental money. So we need more people to come to Washington, get up in the morning with us, go out to these hearings, let them see that the people are determined to end the war in Iraq and not start another one in Iran.
Turning to media news, Rolling Stone magazine celebrates 40 years in their May 3-17, 2007 double issue. Online, it's not worth checking out. In print, Jane Fonda and Patti Smith are interviewed -- the only two women. There are no people of color. So on a diversity scale, it fails. They do find time for the token neo-con -- the aging (badly aging) boy wonder of the right wing, Tom Wolfe who apparently showed up for the interview after a drunken party at the Buckleys. Strong interviews can be found with Fonda, Smith, Michael Moore, Neil Young, Jackson Browne, Bill Moyers, Norman Mailer and Martin Scorsese. The strong interviews find the subjects reflecting on the last forty years and the changes they see in the country. We'll note Jane Fonda's response to "What indicates to you that young people are hopeful?"
Jane Fonda: Anger. Resistance. They're pissed off, as well they should be. Natalie Maines [of the Dixie Chicks] embodies that. It's that, "F--k it, man -- this not what I want this country to be." There's a lot of young people who feel that way. The young people I work with and who come to my events, they're beginning to feel their power in a very different way than in the Sixties and Seventies.
One young person, Mike (Mikey Likes It!) covered the case of Jake Kovco on Tuesday and I should have linked to it already.
Finally, Wednesday, May 2nd at 6:30 pm in The Great Hall, Cooper Union (NYC), Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove will be presenting readings from their Voices of a People's History of the United States featuring music performed by Allison Moorer and Steve Earle and readings and vocal performances by Ally Sheedy, Brian Jones, Danny Glover, Deepa Fernandes, Erin Cherry, Harris Yulin, Kathleen Chalfant, Kerry Washington, Opal Alladin, Staceyann Chin and Stanley Tucci. Zinn and Arnove will provide both the introduction and the narration.
