Elaine here while Rebecca's on vacation. I wouldn't be surprised if everyone was bored with me and thinking "enough already" but thank you to everyone who's written nice e-mails. I'll be as glad as everyone when Rebecca's back but the e-mails have really made it fun and encouraged me so thank you to everyone.
And for Mike, we'll make a point to make the first link to Democracy Now!
Cindy Sheehan Vigil Gains Support From Congress
Meanwhile, in Crawford, Texas Cindy Sheehan is continuing her vigil outside the ranch where President Bush is once again vacationing. And her campaign is gaining momentum and support. Sheehan, of course, grabbed headlines in recent days since she began camping near President Bush's ranch. She is the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq. As more military families arrived from several states to join Sheehan, 38 members of Congress signed a letter asking Bush to meet with her. On Saturday, National Security Advisor Steven Hadley and Deputy White House Chief of Staff Joe Hagin met with Sheehan briefly, but she called the exchange "pointless" and has said she will stay in Crawford until the president meets with her.
"Why for Mike?" Sherry asked in her e-mail. I'm not net savy. As I understand it, links add to popularity. So the point in linking to Democracy Now! is to provide a link that's worth linking to. The easiest way for me to picture it in my head is with citations but I think I can simplify it.
If you're listening to the radio and you hear a song, you may not buy the song. But the number of times the song gets played is calculated. So the number of times Democracy Now! gets a link is calculated as well. And I'd rather do my part to make Democracy Now! a heavily cited source than to offer up something from MSNBC or something similar.
So Cindy's still out there in the hot summer sun, out in Crawford. And Billie e-mailed this morning to say that she was on her way out there. What did you do for Cindy Sheehan today?
Did you find someone to discuss her vigil with? Did you manage to work her into the conversation?
Maybe you don't live nearby the way Billie does or maybe you can't take off from work but you can do something. You can raise awareness for starters.
There is so much excitement around the brave stand that Cindy Sheehan is taking. You can do your part to add to the excitement. This is how movements really get going.
You can also call your local paper and your local TV stations and ask that they cover Cindy Sheehan or that they cover her more if they are covering her.
I really just want to focus on Cindy Sheehan tonight because I think we're all very excited by her bravery and strength. We've seen little of that from our elected officials and to see real bravery like this inspires us and reminds us of what we can do.
Cindy Sheehan is there for her son Casey Sheehan and for all the other sons and daughters, for all the citizens here and in Iraq. What's so amazing to me is how many people are supporting her in whatever way they can. Supporting her is supporting all of us. It's saying our government is accountable and it's saying that we do make a difference, each of us.
It's empowering and truth and bravery usually are. When we see apathy all around us, it's easy to think, "Well what difference can I make?" By the same token, when we see someone lay it on the line, it can inspire us to be more than we would otherwise.
Cindy Sheehan's presenting us with a wonderful gift, bravery and truth. We need to support that and we need to make sure that we inform the people in our lives that we stand behind her. So keep getting the word out and keep the faith.
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center)
Let us plant dates even though those who plant them will never eat them. We must live by the love of what we will never see. This is the secret discipline. It is a refusal to let the creative act be dissolved away in immediate sense experience, and a stubborn commitment to the future of our grandchildren. Such disciplined love is what has given prophets, revolutionaries, and saints the courage to die for the future they envisaged. They make their own bodies the seed of their highest hope.
Ruben Alves, Tomorrow's Child
8/10/2005
Cindy Sheehan and Kevin Benderman
Elaine still filling in for Rebecca while she's on vacation. I've been trying to post closer to her time but that's not easy and tonight I had to go to a function for a colleague.
For Mike, I'll note Democracy Now!
More Military Families Join Cindy Sheehan in Texas (Democracy Now!)
In Texas, more military families are heading to Crawford to join Cindy Sheehan in an ongoing vigil in Crawford where President Bush is vacationing. Sheehan has threatened to stay in Crawford until the president agrees to meet with her. Sheehan's son Casey died last year in Iraq. He was 24 years old. Military families from Washington, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Alabama, Missouri, Georgia and Arkansas are expected to join Sheehan at the vigil site. "He doesn't have any children in harm's way. You know, if there are more soldiers and marines killed today, it's not going to worry him if one of them is his daughter," said Sheehan. "I mean, he's insulated. He's safe. Nobody in this administration has to worry about their children. And if I have to stay out here all month in this heat, it's nothing compared to what our soldiers are going through or what the people of Iraq are going through."
I hope everyone's paying attention to Cindy Sheehan. Tomorrow's the day she's been threatened with arrest. I asked Billie how hot it was in Texas and she said it's pretty hot. Over the weekend, and Billie's a little north of where Sheehan is, they did hit one hundred degrees. Billie says that's not at all uncommon for August in Texas. She said today was semi-cool for a few mid-day hours because there was a brief (less than twenty minutes) rain. Billie's planning on going there tomorrow to show her support for Sheehan. She's put in for a vacation day to do so.
That's not to make anyone else feel guilty. I'd love to be there but I can't drop my patients. What I can do is get the word out and call my local paper to ask why they aren't covering this. (Their response? They ran an article this weekend. Not good enough and I expressed that to them.) That's something we can all do. But we don't need to depend on the mainstream media to do our work for us which is why Mike has been saying (and C.I. as well) that we need to get the word out to everyone we know. (Kat also had a great thing on that.)
Movements do not happen overnight. This one has been a long time coming but the people are behind it. The questions Cindy Sheehan wants answered are questions that many are already asking. Her bravery means something to those of us who know what she's doing but don't assume that everyone already knows about it. Or that if they know about it, they've gotten the facts on what's happening. Cindy Sheehan is being attacked by the right wing echo chamber.
I don't think that honestly hurts. I think they're overplaying their hand the way that they did with the Terry Schiavo issue. People are recoiling from the attacks from, for instance, Bill O'Reilly.
But this is up to us. Don't count on the mainstream media. Even if they could grasp what's going on, that doesn't mean they'd push the story. I really don't think they grasp very much. I'm coming it at from my profession and it's rare that someone writes on my field in the mainstream press without making a major error. Reporters aren't trained in everything they cover. They are trained in how to cover and sometimes they forget what they were taught but even when they remember, they still make mistakes.
So don't count on them. If you believe in what Cindy Sheehan's doing, be the media and get the word out.
And we can do more than one thing at a time. So let's also try to pay attention to what's going on with Kevin Benderman. Sherry sent an article to C.I. for me. (Remember, if you want to e-mail, e-mail to common_ills@yahoo.com and C.I., Ava or Jess will forward it to me.)
"Homegrown Resistance" by Stan Goff (CounterPunch)
On July 29th, Sergeant Kevin Benderman was sent to prison for 15 months for filing a conscientious objector application with the Army. This did not come out in his court martial because the court ruled early on that not one word was to be spoken in his defense that relied on his moral objection to the war in Iraq and--for Benderman--all wars of aggression. Because the court could not convict Benderman directly for conscientious objection, a right guaranteed by federal law, they rejected his application without showing adequate cause and forced him to refuse--in accordance with his stated moral objection to the war--redeployment to Iraq. They then multiply charged him with preposterous accusations--including larceny and desertion--in an attempt to intimidate him with the possibility of seven years in prison. At the end of the day on July 29th, only one charge stuck--intentionally missing movement--for which they gave him a stiff 15 months at the Fort Lewis, Washington stockade. The missing movement charge itself had to be trumped up with a series of shifting statements from a senior NCO about the verbal content of a 45-minute meeting. Even the normally timid Amnesty International has publicly acknowledged that Kevin Benderman is "a prisoner of conscience."
Monica Benderman, Kevin's life-partner, has been an active and articulate political-partner throughout this drama--a drama that, despite the Pentagon's efforts to spin, conceal, and minimize, has only served to highlight the dignity of exercising real freedom from within a cell and the utter decadence of those who never cease talking about freedom as an abstraction while they try to bomb and imprison their way out of another resistance.
Neither the administration nor the Pentagon wants anyone to understand this paradox of freedom--real freedom, the existential kind, not that bombast flowing out of Rove's beleaguered office like an overflowing toilet.
Soldiers and soldier's families are constantly instructed on something called courage. People can only hear that word so many times before they begin to actually reflect on what it means; and the briefest reflection reveals something much deeper than the pumped-up physical bravado required to engage in gunfights with strangers.
Keep Kevin and Monica Benderman in your thoughts and try to follow what's happening with his appeal. I think "rail roaded" may be too mild a word for what was done to him. "Screwed" is more fitting.
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center)
The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed.
Steve Biko
For Mike, I'll note Democracy Now!
More Military Families Join Cindy Sheehan in Texas (Democracy Now!)
In Texas, more military families are heading to Crawford to join Cindy Sheehan in an ongoing vigil in Crawford where President Bush is vacationing. Sheehan has threatened to stay in Crawford until the president agrees to meet with her. Sheehan's son Casey died last year in Iraq. He was 24 years old. Military families from Washington, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Alabama, Missouri, Georgia and Arkansas are expected to join Sheehan at the vigil site. "He doesn't have any children in harm's way. You know, if there are more soldiers and marines killed today, it's not going to worry him if one of them is his daughter," said Sheehan. "I mean, he's insulated. He's safe. Nobody in this administration has to worry about their children. And if I have to stay out here all month in this heat, it's nothing compared to what our soldiers are going through or what the people of Iraq are going through."
I hope everyone's paying attention to Cindy Sheehan. Tomorrow's the day she's been threatened with arrest. I asked Billie how hot it was in Texas and she said it's pretty hot. Over the weekend, and Billie's a little north of where Sheehan is, they did hit one hundred degrees. Billie says that's not at all uncommon for August in Texas. She said today was semi-cool for a few mid-day hours because there was a brief (less than twenty minutes) rain. Billie's planning on going there tomorrow to show her support for Sheehan. She's put in for a vacation day to do so.
That's not to make anyone else feel guilty. I'd love to be there but I can't drop my patients. What I can do is get the word out and call my local paper to ask why they aren't covering this. (Their response? They ran an article this weekend. Not good enough and I expressed that to them.) That's something we can all do. But we don't need to depend on the mainstream media to do our work for us which is why Mike has been saying (and C.I. as well) that we need to get the word out to everyone we know. (Kat also had a great thing on that.)
Movements do not happen overnight. This one has been a long time coming but the people are behind it. The questions Cindy Sheehan wants answered are questions that many are already asking. Her bravery means something to those of us who know what she's doing but don't assume that everyone already knows about it. Or that if they know about it, they've gotten the facts on what's happening. Cindy Sheehan is being attacked by the right wing echo chamber.
I don't think that honestly hurts. I think they're overplaying their hand the way that they did with the Terry Schiavo issue. People are recoiling from the attacks from, for instance, Bill O'Reilly.
But this is up to us. Don't count on the mainstream media. Even if they could grasp what's going on, that doesn't mean they'd push the story. I really don't think they grasp very much. I'm coming it at from my profession and it's rare that someone writes on my field in the mainstream press without making a major error. Reporters aren't trained in everything they cover. They are trained in how to cover and sometimes they forget what they were taught but even when they remember, they still make mistakes.
So don't count on them. If you believe in what Cindy Sheehan's doing, be the media and get the word out.
And we can do more than one thing at a time. So let's also try to pay attention to what's going on with Kevin Benderman. Sherry sent an article to C.I. for me. (Remember, if you want to e-mail, e-mail to common_ills@yahoo.com and C.I., Ava or Jess will forward it to me.)
"Homegrown Resistance" by Stan Goff (CounterPunch)
On July 29th, Sergeant Kevin Benderman was sent to prison for 15 months for filing a conscientious objector application with the Army. This did not come out in his court martial because the court ruled early on that not one word was to be spoken in his defense that relied on his moral objection to the war in Iraq and--for Benderman--all wars of aggression. Because the court could not convict Benderman directly for conscientious objection, a right guaranteed by federal law, they rejected his application without showing adequate cause and forced him to refuse--in accordance with his stated moral objection to the war--redeployment to Iraq. They then multiply charged him with preposterous accusations--including larceny and desertion--in an attempt to intimidate him with the possibility of seven years in prison. At the end of the day on July 29th, only one charge stuck--intentionally missing movement--for which they gave him a stiff 15 months at the Fort Lewis, Washington stockade. The missing movement charge itself had to be trumped up with a series of shifting statements from a senior NCO about the verbal content of a 45-minute meeting. Even the normally timid Amnesty International has publicly acknowledged that Kevin Benderman is "a prisoner of conscience."
Monica Benderman, Kevin's life-partner, has been an active and articulate political-partner throughout this drama--a drama that, despite the Pentagon's efforts to spin, conceal, and minimize, has only served to highlight the dignity of exercising real freedom from within a cell and the utter decadence of those who never cease talking about freedom as an abstraction while they try to bomb and imprison their way out of another resistance.
Neither the administration nor the Pentagon wants anyone to understand this paradox of freedom--real freedom, the existential kind, not that bombast flowing out of Rove's beleaguered office like an overflowing toilet.
Soldiers and soldier's families are constantly instructed on something called courage. People can only hear that word so many times before they begin to actually reflect on what it means; and the briefest reflection reveals something much deeper than the pumped-up physical bravado required to engage in gunfights with strangers.
Keep Kevin and Monica Benderman in your thoughts and try to follow what's happening with his appeal. I think "rail roaded" may be too mild a word for what was done to him. "Screwed" is more fitting.
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center)
The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed.
Steve Biko
8/09/2005
Monica Benderman
Elaine here, still with you while Rebecca's on vacation. For those needing a Rebecca fix, she wrote a preface to a blog spotlight at Third Estate Sunday Review on something I wrote and on something C.I. wrote. In addition, she participated in the roundtable. So if you haven't already gotten your Rebecca fix, head over there quickly.
Iraqi Police Open Fire On Demonstrators
U.S. backed-Iraqi police offices opened fire on a crowd of Iraqis demonstrating in the town of Samawah. More than 1,000 people had taken to the streets to demand electricity, jobs and water. This marks the third summer that the residents of Iraq has suffered without regular electricity or water. Demonstrators threw stones at the governor's office and members of a Shiite militia were seen moving around the streets carrying grenade launchers. According to the Times of London, more than 50 people were wounded including 18 police officers. One demonstrator died.
I want to now move to Monica Benderman. She's the wife of Kevin Benderman and we've discussed him here. The military tried to railroad him with a larceny charge that got tossed out.
Today, Monica Benderman has her say.
Is Being a Conscientious Objector Now Criminal? (CounterPunch)
As I am certain you are all aware, my husband, Sgt. Kevin Benderman, was sentenced to 15 months confinement, loss of rank, forfeiture of pay and a dishonorable discharge last week, the charge being "Missing Movement" or failure to get on a plane. In actuality, the charge was "filing a Conscientious Objector packet against the recommendation of his commander, who had no intention of allowing my husband to follow his conscience, and therefore serving notice to the rest of our military that they should not follow suit."
I need to assure you that I do not make this statement out of anger, but rather by simply pointing to the facts. Not only did my husband's commander address this in a public comment to the media, the prosecutor used this in his closing statements, and the military representative was adamant about this in his public comments to the media immediately following my husband’s court martial.
I am not writing out of anger. I am writing to request the opportunity to meet with one of you to discuss my husband's case from our point of view, as this has not been allowed to this point. Even in my husband's court martial, he was not allowed to discuss his beliefs, his reasons, or the fact that he has given 10 years of honorable service to his country, including a combat tour in Iraq, for which he received two Army commendation medals for meritorious service.
My husband's case for Conscientious Objection was brushed aside and mishandled so that his entire career of service came down to a meeting with his Command Sgt. Major that lasted less than one hour. My husband's testimony regarding this meeting has remained unchanged, as has my witness to that meeting. The Command Sgt. Major's testimony was re-written and sworn to on at least 5 separate occasions, each testimony contradicting another, even as they were presented in my husband’s court martial.
In fairness to each of you, to the US Army, to the people of this country and mostly to my husband, who is paying the price for being falsely charged, I am respectfully requesting that the appeal process for his case be allowed to proceed without delay, and that he be given fair treatment not only in a re-presentation of the facts surrounding his court martial, but that he also be given the opportunity to have his application for Conscientious Objector status reconsidered as well.
You can find updates on Kevin Benderman at BendermanDefense.org. As Cindy Sheehan takes a stand that our senators seem to have trouble taking (there's a lot more bravery in the House, especially in the Black Caucus), maybe we can finally start to ask serious questions about this occupation/invasion. Not keep debating tactics, but get to the heart of the issue. Everyone's weary of the rising death toll.
The administration sold us a war built on lies and the press pushed it. Truth comes out though and it's coming out now. The idea that we can't have a national dialogue on this issue is a myth. We can have it and we need to have it.
I want to note Monica Benderman again.
Memorandum from Monica Benderman (BendermanDefense.org)
Taking a stand for what we believe, for a commitment to seeing that peace happens and that those who threaten this peace are neutralized does not have to involve weapons meant for killing. Animals on this earth were given their weapons; teeth, claws and a ravage tenacity to protect what is theirs and keep "enemies" at bay. Humanity was given something much different, a far more significant weapon. Humanity was given a mind. Somewhere along the way, we have forgotten the power of our mind and what it can be used for. It became easy to create weapons of destruction, far easier than to use our minds to think and create strong principles for preventing the use of these weapons. We believe that we should take pride in our abilities to use our mental strength. We believe that we should develop this asset and work with courage toward peace by drafting positive resolutions, knowing that while the implementation of these resolutions will result in some loss, it will be far less than the loss we face with weapons of destruction in our hands, no different than "the enemy" facing us.
That's where Monica Benderman is and where a number of us are. We can talk about the issues that our leaders don't want to and we can force the national discussion that should have taken place before the invasion. But that means we have to start the conversation and we have to keep it going.
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center)
You can't separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom.
Malcolm X
Iraqi Police Open Fire On Demonstrators
U.S. backed-Iraqi police offices opened fire on a crowd of Iraqis demonstrating in the town of Samawah. More than 1,000 people had taken to the streets to demand electricity, jobs and water. This marks the third summer that the residents of Iraq has suffered without regular electricity or water. Demonstrators threw stones at the governor's office and members of a Shiite militia were seen moving around the streets carrying grenade launchers. According to the Times of London, more than 50 people were wounded including 18 police officers. One demonstrator died.
I want to now move to Monica Benderman. She's the wife of Kevin Benderman and we've discussed him here. The military tried to railroad him with a larceny charge that got tossed out.
Today, Monica Benderman has her say.
Is Being a Conscientious Objector Now Criminal? (CounterPunch)
As I am certain you are all aware, my husband, Sgt. Kevin Benderman, was sentenced to 15 months confinement, loss of rank, forfeiture of pay and a dishonorable discharge last week, the charge being "Missing Movement" or failure to get on a plane. In actuality, the charge was "filing a Conscientious Objector packet against the recommendation of his commander, who had no intention of allowing my husband to follow his conscience, and therefore serving notice to the rest of our military that they should not follow suit."
I need to assure you that I do not make this statement out of anger, but rather by simply pointing to the facts. Not only did my husband's commander address this in a public comment to the media, the prosecutor used this in his closing statements, and the military representative was adamant about this in his public comments to the media immediately following my husband’s court martial.
I am not writing out of anger. I am writing to request the opportunity to meet with one of you to discuss my husband's case from our point of view, as this has not been allowed to this point. Even in my husband's court martial, he was not allowed to discuss his beliefs, his reasons, or the fact that he has given 10 years of honorable service to his country, including a combat tour in Iraq, for which he received two Army commendation medals for meritorious service.
My husband's case for Conscientious Objection was brushed aside and mishandled so that his entire career of service came down to a meeting with his Command Sgt. Major that lasted less than one hour. My husband's testimony regarding this meeting has remained unchanged, as has my witness to that meeting. The Command Sgt. Major's testimony was re-written and sworn to on at least 5 separate occasions, each testimony contradicting another, even as they were presented in my husband’s court martial.
In fairness to each of you, to the US Army, to the people of this country and mostly to my husband, who is paying the price for being falsely charged, I am respectfully requesting that the appeal process for his case be allowed to proceed without delay, and that he be given fair treatment not only in a re-presentation of the facts surrounding his court martial, but that he also be given the opportunity to have his application for Conscientious Objector status reconsidered as well.
You can find updates on Kevin Benderman at BendermanDefense.org. As Cindy Sheehan takes a stand that our senators seem to have trouble taking (there's a lot more bravery in the House, especially in the Black Caucus), maybe we can finally start to ask serious questions about this occupation/invasion. Not keep debating tactics, but get to the heart of the issue. Everyone's weary of the rising death toll.
The administration sold us a war built on lies and the press pushed it. Truth comes out though and it's coming out now. The idea that we can't have a national dialogue on this issue is a myth. We can have it and we need to have it.
I want to note Monica Benderman again.
Memorandum from Monica Benderman (BendermanDefense.org)
Taking a stand for what we believe, for a commitment to seeing that peace happens and that those who threaten this peace are neutralized does not have to involve weapons meant for killing. Animals on this earth were given their weapons; teeth, claws and a ravage tenacity to protect what is theirs and keep "enemies" at bay. Humanity was given something much different, a far more significant weapon. Humanity was given a mind. Somewhere along the way, we have forgotten the power of our mind and what it can be used for. It became easy to create weapons of destruction, far easier than to use our minds to think and create strong principles for preventing the use of these weapons. We believe that we should take pride in our abilities to use our mental strength. We believe that we should develop this asset and work with courage toward peace by drafting positive resolutions, knowing that while the implementation of these resolutions will result in some loss, it will be far less than the loss we face with weapons of destruction in our hands, no different than "the enemy" facing us.
That's where Monica Benderman is and where a number of us are. We can talk about the issues that our leaders don't want to and we can force the national discussion that should have taken place before the invasion. But that means we have to start the conversation and we have to keep it going.
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center)
You can't separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom.
Malcolm X
8/08/2005
Cindy Sheehan
For Mike, I'll start out by noting Democracy Now!
Mother of Soldier Killed in Iraq Protests Near Bush's Ranch (Democracy Now!)
In Texas a mother whose son was killed in Iraq has begun a month-long protest in Crawford in an attempt to meet with President Bush who is vacationing there at his ranch. Cindy Sheehan was joined on Saturday by 50 other anti-war activists. The Secret Service blocked the group from approaching the President's ranch and they were forced to gather four miles away from the site. Sheehan's son Casey was killed last year in Sadr City at the age of 24. She told reporters, "I want to ask George Bush: Why did my son die?"
Cindy Sheehan is taking a brave stand and you can learn more about it by visiting CODEPINK where they have a way for you to show support and a list of articles. Here's one you can find a link to.
"Letter from Cindy Sheehan, mother of killed Iraq Soldier" (U.S. Labor Against The War)
Dear Friends and Supporters,
George Bush said speaking about the dreadful loss of life in Iraq in August: (08/03/05): "We have to honor the sacrifices of the fallen by completing the mission." "The families of the fallen can be assured that they died for a noble cause." In reaction to these two assinine and hurtful statements, members of Gold Star Families for Peace (GSFP) are going to George's vacation home in Crawford, Tx this Saturday, August 6th at 11:00 am to confront him on these two statements. 1) We want our loved ones' sacrifices to be honored by bringing our nation's sons and daughters home from the travesty that is Iraq IMMEDIATELY, since this war is based on horrendous lies and deceptions. Just because our children are dead, why would we want any more families to suffer the same pain and devastation that we are? 2) We would like for him to explain this "noble cause" to us and ask him why Jenna and Barbara are not in harm's way, if the cause is so noble. 3) If George is not ready to send the twins, then he should bring our troops home immediately. We will demand a speedy withdrawal. GSFP will be joined by members of Veteran's for Peace (VFP), Military Families Speak Out (MFSO), Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW), Code Pink, and Crawford Peace House. We GSFP members will not leave until we get answers from George Bush. We deserve and expect him to welcome us with answers to as why our loved ones are dead. Every worker for peace, every worker for justice, every person who wants our country back are welcomed to join us on Saturday. Show George Bush that we mean business. Be there to support us family members who have already been through so much. We are fighting for our country, our world, especially the children. Crawford is about 2 hours from Dallas where the VFP Convention is being held this weekend. There will be car pools from the convention.
Yes, that was this past weekend, but since Bully Boy won't meet with her, Cindy Sheehan's brave vigil goes on.
If you checked out The Common Ills today, you know that there are rumors that Sheehan will be arrested Thursday, if she continues her vigil, as a "threat to national security." Threat to Bully Boy's ever drooping image is more like it.
I agree with C.I. that Bully Boy couldn't make a bigger mistake than arresting Sheehan. If he does, watch the international community come alive. Watch other countries we lecture out about democracy and human rights trumpet that free speech isn't allowed in the United States. Watch allies recoil in shock at the way we treat Sheehan.
Sheehan's brave. I doubt she'll back down. And it won't make for good press for the Bully Boy if she's arrested.
There's a great editorial by The Third Estate Sunday Review (posted at The Common Ills due to problems The Third Estate Sunday Review is having with their site) entitled "Editorial: Cindy Sheehan puts most of us to shame." She does put us to shame.
Mike was having time issues this evening so he asked me to note the other sites. So we're going to check in. I'll start with C.I. and I'll fall back to two things. "Did the 'Night Letter' cause the riots in Afghanistan? Have you heard of it?" is a favorite of mine because it deals with the Newsweek controversy and tells you, actually, the riots in Afghanistan were probably caused not by Newsweek but by a "Night Letter." Next, I'll note "Jane Mayer's 'The Experiment' (The New Yorker)" which addresses Mayer's article that wasn't available online. At The Third Estate Sunday Review, I'll recommend the latest roundtable (on sexism and racism). Kat's done some great things but I prefer the thing where she talks about music and how it matters to her, "Two new reviews today." Mike's done many amazing things as well but my favorite lately is "Learn to play defense." Betty never ceases to make me laugh and I'm still laughing at her "Thomas Friedman makes the party by not attending." Cedric hits hard and that bravery is inspiring and, of his pieces thus far, my favorite is "When we going to make it onscreen?" As for Rebecca, I can't pick one. So I'll go with Mike's favorite, Rebecca on The Common Ills.
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center)
In the name of peace
They waged the wars
ain't they got no shame
Nikki Giovanni, The Great Pax Whitie, 1979
Mother of Soldier Killed in Iraq Protests Near Bush's Ranch (Democracy Now!)
In Texas a mother whose son was killed in Iraq has begun a month-long protest in Crawford in an attempt to meet with President Bush who is vacationing there at his ranch. Cindy Sheehan was joined on Saturday by 50 other anti-war activists. The Secret Service blocked the group from approaching the President's ranch and they were forced to gather four miles away from the site. Sheehan's son Casey was killed last year in Sadr City at the age of 24. She told reporters, "I want to ask George Bush: Why did my son die?"
Cindy Sheehan is taking a brave stand and you can learn more about it by visiting CODEPINK where they have a way for you to show support and a list of articles. Here's one you can find a link to.
"Letter from Cindy Sheehan, mother of killed Iraq Soldier" (U.S. Labor Against The War)
Dear Friends and Supporters,
George Bush said speaking about the dreadful loss of life in Iraq in August: (08/03/05): "We have to honor the sacrifices of the fallen by completing the mission." "The families of the fallen can be assured that they died for a noble cause." In reaction to these two assinine and hurtful statements, members of Gold Star Families for Peace (GSFP) are going to George's vacation home in Crawford, Tx this Saturday, August 6th at 11:00 am to confront him on these two statements. 1) We want our loved ones' sacrifices to be honored by bringing our nation's sons and daughters home from the travesty that is Iraq IMMEDIATELY, since this war is based on horrendous lies and deceptions. Just because our children are dead, why would we want any more families to suffer the same pain and devastation that we are? 2) We would like for him to explain this "noble cause" to us and ask him why Jenna and Barbara are not in harm's way, if the cause is so noble. 3) If George is not ready to send the twins, then he should bring our troops home immediately. We will demand a speedy withdrawal. GSFP will be joined by members of Veteran's for Peace (VFP), Military Families Speak Out (MFSO), Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW), Code Pink, and Crawford Peace House. We GSFP members will not leave until we get answers from George Bush. We deserve and expect him to welcome us with answers to as why our loved ones are dead. Every worker for peace, every worker for justice, every person who wants our country back are welcomed to join us on Saturday. Show George Bush that we mean business. Be there to support us family members who have already been through so much. We are fighting for our country, our world, especially the children. Crawford is about 2 hours from Dallas where the VFP Convention is being held this weekend. There will be car pools from the convention.
Yes, that was this past weekend, but since Bully Boy won't meet with her, Cindy Sheehan's brave vigil goes on.
If you checked out The Common Ills today, you know that there are rumors that Sheehan will be arrested Thursday, if she continues her vigil, as a "threat to national security." Threat to Bully Boy's ever drooping image is more like it.
I agree with C.I. that Bully Boy couldn't make a bigger mistake than arresting Sheehan. If he does, watch the international community come alive. Watch other countries we lecture out about democracy and human rights trumpet that free speech isn't allowed in the United States. Watch allies recoil in shock at the way we treat Sheehan.
Sheehan's brave. I doubt she'll back down. And it won't make for good press for the Bully Boy if she's arrested.
There's a great editorial by The Third Estate Sunday Review (posted at The Common Ills due to problems The Third Estate Sunday Review is having with their site) entitled "Editorial: Cindy Sheehan puts most of us to shame." She does put us to shame.
Mike was having time issues this evening so he asked me to note the other sites. So we're going to check in. I'll start with C.I. and I'll fall back to two things. "Did the 'Night Letter' cause the riots in Afghanistan? Have you heard of it?" is a favorite of mine because it deals with the Newsweek controversy and tells you, actually, the riots in Afghanistan were probably caused not by Newsweek but by a "Night Letter." Next, I'll note "Jane Mayer's 'The Experiment' (The New Yorker)" which addresses Mayer's article that wasn't available online. At The Third Estate Sunday Review, I'll recommend the latest roundtable (on sexism and racism). Kat's done some great things but I prefer the thing where she talks about music and how it matters to her, "Two new reviews today." Mike's done many amazing things as well but my favorite lately is "Learn to play defense." Betty never ceases to make me laugh and I'm still laughing at her "Thomas Friedman makes the party by not attending." Cedric hits hard and that bravery is inspiring and, of his pieces thus far, my favorite is "When we going to make it onscreen?" As for Rebecca, I can't pick one. So I'll go with Mike's favorite, Rebecca on The Common Ills.
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center)
In the name of peace
They waged the wars
ain't they got no shame
Nikki Giovanni, The Great Pax Whitie, 1979
8/05/2005
Amy Goodman and David Goodman on the lies of the Times as well as Billie on the attacks from The Dallas Morning News
Elaine back with you again. I did speak to Rebecca today. She's going to try to help out The Third Estate Sunday Review tomorrow night but she said she's enjoying her break. She's needed a long break since last summer so I hope everyone understands that.
Today, Democracy Now! devoted the entire broadcast to our using nukes on Japan.
"Hiroshima Cover-up: Stripping the War Department's Timesman of His Pulitzer" (Democracy Now!)
Amy Goodman and her brother, fellow journalist David Goodman, have co-authored an opinion piece in the Baltimore Sun today called Hiroshima Cover-up, challenging the New York Times coverage of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 60 years ago.
They are filing an official request with the Pulitzer committee to strip New York Times correspondent William Laurence of the Pulitzer he was awarded for his reporting on the atomic bomb. Laurence was not just a reporter for the Times, he was also on the payroll of the US government. He wrote military press releases and statements for President Harry S. Truman and Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, all the while faithfully parroting the line of the US government in the pages of the New York Times. His reporting was crucial in launching a half century of silence about the deadly lingering effects of the bomb. It is high time, the Goodmans say, for the Pulitzer board to strip Hiroshima's apologist, William Laurence, and his newspaper, the New York Times of their undeserved prize.
[. . .]
DAVID GOODMAN: Sure. William Laurence was -- had immigrated to the United States from Lithuania in the 1930s, at a time when actually The New York Times was laying off reporters, due to the Great Depression. They asked Laurence to become both the newspaper's and the nation's first dedicated science reporter. Laurence was -- became fascinated with atomic power and atomic weapons and was an ardent supporter of atomic power in the articles that he wrote throughout the 1930s, and into the early 1940s. This is probably what caught the attention of the War Department.
In the spring of 1945, a remarkable meeting took place secretly at the headquarters of The New York Times in Times Square in New York City. General Leslie Groves, the director of the Manhattan Project, which was the name of the program that was developing atomic bombs for the U.S. military, came to Times Square to The New York Times and met secretly with Arthur Sulzberger, the publisher of The New York Times, the Editor-in-Chief of The New York Times, and William Laurence. At that meeting, he asked Laurence if he would become a paid publicist, essentially, for the Manhattan Project. So, while simultaneously working as a newspaper reporter for The New York Times, he would also be writing essentially propaganda for the War Department. Officially he was asked to put in layman's terms the benefits of atomic weapons and the development of atomic power. Other New York Times reporters were unaware of this arrangement, this dual arrangement where he was being paid by both the government and the newspaper and, in fact, were somewhat mystified when Laurence began taking long leaves of absence.
Well, the government's investment in Laurence paid off in spades because he was rewarded for his loyalty. He was also writing -- ended up writing statements for Secretary of War Stimson and for President Truman himself. He was rewarded by being given a seat in the squadron of planes that dropped the atomic bomb on Nagasaki. I'll read to you a little excerpt of Laurence's dispatch. In general, his writing -- well, these days journalists would call it purple prose, but it was often imbued with these messianic themes about the potential and power of atomic weapons.
Here's what he had to say in describing the bombing of Nagasaki. This bombing is thought to have taken about 70,000 to 100,000 lives. Laurence recounted, quote, "Being close to it and watching it as it was being fashioned," he's speaking here of the atomic bomb, "into a living thing so exquisitely shaped that any sculptor would be proud to have created it, one felt oneself in the presence of the supernatural."
Now, Laurence went on to write a series of ten articles about the development of the atomic bomb. This is -- this and his reporting about the Nagasaki bombing won him the 1946 Pulitzer Prize in reporting. He seems to have been completely unashamed and unrepentant of what was clearly an egregious conflict of interest by any of the most basic canons of journalism ethics. Laurence later wrote in his memoirs about his experience as a paid publicist for the War Department. He wrote, quote, "Mine has been the honor, unique in the history of journalism, of preparing the War Department's official press release for worldwide distribution. No greater honor could have come to any newspaperman, or anyone else for that matter."
That's not uncommon today. Like C.I., I despise the "award winning" reporting by Dexter Filkins (New York Times) on Falluja. A tragedy took place in November of 2004 but to read Filkins "award winning" reporting, was to gain a very simplified, very superficial report that made no effort to report on actual events and results, so determined was Filkins to stamp the whole thing with a smiley face.
I have never felt C.I. should "drop" the issue of Filkins and was surprised to read in a roundtable at The Third Estate Sunday Review that some thought the topic should be dropped. It turns out those were largely visitors.
But if anyone doesn't get why it's important, Billie wrote a lengthy e-mail after hearing Democracy Now! today. In her area, Filkin's "award winning" reporting, even after smarter minds should know better, still appears to carry weight.
Which is why Steve Blow (I'm not making that name up nor is Billie, I checked) can rave over Falluja last month and reveal himself to be a "bigger dope" (Billie's term) "than when he accused peace activists at a local gathering of being treasonous." Billie notes that Blow later did another column where he wondered if maybe treason wasn't a bit harsh.
The paper of record has a lot to answer for. I've not weighed in Judith Miller here and don't intend to because I think it's a complex issue that goes beyond my area and scope (of course if Miller had testified, we might know what happened). But as reports from the unit attest, Miller bullied those guys over in Iraq. She wasn't hiding out in the Green Zone. She was basically overriding the squad she was stationed with and bound and determined to find WMD. Of course she didn't. It didn't exist. But when you read remarks on her actions (a mild term) when she was commandeering the unit, it suggests to me that she honestly believed the "facts" that the administration was feeding her.
Dexter Filkins was in Falluja. He actually left the Green Zone to be there. With his own eyes, he saw what was going on. But it didn't make his article. His much delayed article, as C.I. has noted, which would suggest that either his obsession with nailing down every "fact" was so great that it took him days and days to write up his report or it suggests that before it made it into the paper, it had been cleared and approved by the military.
Billie has a hilarious e-mail. The reality is sad but she's got a great sense of humor. She explains how Blow and the other "local columnists" (who are supposed to cover the DFW area) never missed an opportunity to beat up on Michael Moore, the Dixie Chicks and assorted others. Billie says it's hard to believe the whole thing wasn't handed down by management (the paper is the Dallas Morning News) so "on message" was everyone. Including trashing Sheryl Crow in what was supposed to be a discussion of the Grammys. But it even infected the sports pages of the paper. Tim Cowlinshaw (again, I'm not making these names up) wrote a "sports" column in March of 2003 that Billie steered me to. I ended up reading several columns. It was interested to see Cowlinshaw condemn, among others, Steve Nash for speaking out against the war and using Thomas Friedman (of all people, no offense to Betty) who isn't, according to Cowlinshaw, "exactly" a tool of the right. (Cowlinshaw may be correct, but Friedman is certainly a tool.)
As for Nash and the other athletes who were voicing their opposition to the war, Cowlinshaw didn't feel they had that right since there wasn't a draft.
It's amazing how on target, from the "local" columnists (covering Michael Moore) to the sports page how "on message" the Dallas Morning News was. I really want to thank Billie for bringing the coverage to my attention because, a point C.I.'s made, one person didn't push this war in the press. There are a lot of guilty parties.
As for Jaqueline Floyd, I agree with you Billie, to have a hair style one must have some sense of style. I'm not sure if she suffers from dandruff, but I agree with you that it's a hideous photo.
Perhaps her attack on Moore and the Oscars was her way of saying she's not a "glamor gal." (Her hair conveys that message.) Obviously she's not a "freedom of speech gal" either.
And in the Democracy Now! story today, one thing to remember is that the reporter lying for the Times didn't just do that by himself. His Pulitzer should be stripped. But people chose to follow his reporting and echo it. He's far from the only guilty party.
With one paper in her area, Billie is able to pinpoint all the war cheerleaders who attacked people who spoke out against the war. I'm pretty sure many of you would find that in your own papers.
That's been the point C.I.'s made repeatedly about Judith Miller. She didn't anchor the news on a network (which has a larger audience than the New York Times). Hold her accountable, but don't do so in a way that lets others off the hook.
Floyd, Blow, Cowlinshaw and others should be held accountable by the readers of the Dallas Morning News. You can be sure that when lies about Hiroshima were being printed in the Times, all over the country fools elected to run with them. I hope the people Billie wrote about were fools. It seems like there's a pattern and that suggests that the topics and stances didn't "just happen." But I'll leave the second guessing to others. (Except with regard to Floyd's hair "style." It's hair. It's not style. And don't they get any sun in Texas?)
All across the country, events will be going on to raise awareness of what happened when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed and to stand for peace. If you're interested in participating an event, I'll provide the following.
"August 6-9: No Nukes! No Wars! Defend Democracy! National Days of Remembrance and Action 1945-2005 July 12th, 2005" (United For Peace and Justice)
August 6 and 9, 2005 mark the 60th anniversaries of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States. Join with tens of thousands of people at four central US nuclear weapons sites to call for an end to the development and production of nuclear bombs.
Join UFPJ member groups and the global majority to say NO! to militarism, war and oppression, and YES! to democracy nonviolence, justice and a more secure world for all. On May 1, 40,000 people marched to the United Nations to demand global disarmament. While the Bush Administration stymied global attempts to move toward nuclear disarmament, our voices reinforced the critical need for nuclear abolition to remain a part of the agenda.
In Iraq, they never found nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction, yet the daily reality of death and destruction continues, sparked by the Bush administration's invasion and fueled by the ongoing U.S. military occupation. A majority of people in this nation now oppose the war, but the White House and most members of Congress are resisting the only solution to the crisis: bring the troops home immediately.
This year, the 60th anniversaries of the US atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki also coincide with the 40th anniversary of the 1965 Voting Rights Act on August 3, 2005. Ensuring our basic voting and civil rights is at the heart of keeping our democracy alive and healthy. A vibrant democracy with open public debate is essential to keep US power in check. Given that US power is directly expressed and projected through its possession and threat to use nuclear weapons, the links between democracy, power and nuclear weapons becomes clear. Click here to read a statement drafted by US nuclear abolitions in February 1999 that addresses these crucial links.
Join UFPJ member groups as we send our message loud and clear to decision-makers and the public at large: End the war in Iraq; End the threat of nuclear annihilation; Ensure a democratic future for all!
We found the missing weapons of mass destruction. On August 6, we will take our voices to the active nuclear weapons sites across the country. We demand an end to US nuclear weapons development, production and testing. We demand an end to wars of empire and an end to nuclear excuses for war.
NO NUKES! NO WARS! DEFEND DEMOCRACY!*UFPJ Nuclear Disarmament Campaign*
I hope everyone has a great weekend.
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center)
The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.
Hannah Arendt, 20th-century German political philosopher and author
Today, Democracy Now! devoted the entire broadcast to our using nukes on Japan.
"Hiroshima Cover-up: Stripping the War Department's Timesman of His Pulitzer" (Democracy Now!)
Amy Goodman and her brother, fellow journalist David Goodman, have co-authored an opinion piece in the Baltimore Sun today called Hiroshima Cover-up, challenging the New York Times coverage of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 60 years ago.
They are filing an official request with the Pulitzer committee to strip New York Times correspondent William Laurence of the Pulitzer he was awarded for his reporting on the atomic bomb. Laurence was not just a reporter for the Times, he was also on the payroll of the US government. He wrote military press releases and statements for President Harry S. Truman and Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, all the while faithfully parroting the line of the US government in the pages of the New York Times. His reporting was crucial in launching a half century of silence about the deadly lingering effects of the bomb. It is high time, the Goodmans say, for the Pulitzer board to strip Hiroshima's apologist, William Laurence, and his newspaper, the New York Times of their undeserved prize.
[. . .]
DAVID GOODMAN: Sure. William Laurence was -- had immigrated to the United States from Lithuania in the 1930s, at a time when actually The New York Times was laying off reporters, due to the Great Depression. They asked Laurence to become both the newspaper's and the nation's first dedicated science reporter. Laurence was -- became fascinated with atomic power and atomic weapons and was an ardent supporter of atomic power in the articles that he wrote throughout the 1930s, and into the early 1940s. This is probably what caught the attention of the War Department.
In the spring of 1945, a remarkable meeting took place secretly at the headquarters of The New York Times in Times Square in New York City. General Leslie Groves, the director of the Manhattan Project, which was the name of the program that was developing atomic bombs for the U.S. military, came to Times Square to The New York Times and met secretly with Arthur Sulzberger, the publisher of The New York Times, the Editor-in-Chief of The New York Times, and William Laurence. At that meeting, he asked Laurence if he would become a paid publicist, essentially, for the Manhattan Project. So, while simultaneously working as a newspaper reporter for The New York Times, he would also be writing essentially propaganda for the War Department. Officially he was asked to put in layman's terms the benefits of atomic weapons and the development of atomic power. Other New York Times reporters were unaware of this arrangement, this dual arrangement where he was being paid by both the government and the newspaper and, in fact, were somewhat mystified when Laurence began taking long leaves of absence.
Well, the government's investment in Laurence paid off in spades because he was rewarded for his loyalty. He was also writing -- ended up writing statements for Secretary of War Stimson and for President Truman himself. He was rewarded by being given a seat in the squadron of planes that dropped the atomic bomb on Nagasaki. I'll read to you a little excerpt of Laurence's dispatch. In general, his writing -- well, these days journalists would call it purple prose, but it was often imbued with these messianic themes about the potential and power of atomic weapons.
Here's what he had to say in describing the bombing of Nagasaki. This bombing is thought to have taken about 70,000 to 100,000 lives. Laurence recounted, quote, "Being close to it and watching it as it was being fashioned," he's speaking here of the atomic bomb, "into a living thing so exquisitely shaped that any sculptor would be proud to have created it, one felt oneself in the presence of the supernatural."
Now, Laurence went on to write a series of ten articles about the development of the atomic bomb. This is -- this and his reporting about the Nagasaki bombing won him the 1946 Pulitzer Prize in reporting. He seems to have been completely unashamed and unrepentant of what was clearly an egregious conflict of interest by any of the most basic canons of journalism ethics. Laurence later wrote in his memoirs about his experience as a paid publicist for the War Department. He wrote, quote, "Mine has been the honor, unique in the history of journalism, of preparing the War Department's official press release for worldwide distribution. No greater honor could have come to any newspaperman, or anyone else for that matter."
That's not uncommon today. Like C.I., I despise the "award winning" reporting by Dexter Filkins (New York Times) on Falluja. A tragedy took place in November of 2004 but to read Filkins "award winning" reporting, was to gain a very simplified, very superficial report that made no effort to report on actual events and results, so determined was Filkins to stamp the whole thing with a smiley face.
I have never felt C.I. should "drop" the issue of Filkins and was surprised to read in a roundtable at The Third Estate Sunday Review that some thought the topic should be dropped. It turns out those were largely visitors.
But if anyone doesn't get why it's important, Billie wrote a lengthy e-mail after hearing Democracy Now! today. In her area, Filkin's "award winning" reporting, even after smarter minds should know better, still appears to carry weight.
Which is why Steve Blow (I'm not making that name up nor is Billie, I checked) can rave over Falluja last month and reveal himself to be a "bigger dope" (Billie's term) "than when he accused peace activists at a local gathering of being treasonous." Billie notes that Blow later did another column where he wondered if maybe treason wasn't a bit harsh.
The paper of record has a lot to answer for. I've not weighed in Judith Miller here and don't intend to because I think it's a complex issue that goes beyond my area and scope (of course if Miller had testified, we might know what happened). But as reports from the unit attest, Miller bullied those guys over in Iraq. She wasn't hiding out in the Green Zone. She was basically overriding the squad she was stationed with and bound and determined to find WMD. Of course she didn't. It didn't exist. But when you read remarks on her actions (a mild term) when she was commandeering the unit, it suggests to me that she honestly believed the "facts" that the administration was feeding her.
Dexter Filkins was in Falluja. He actually left the Green Zone to be there. With his own eyes, he saw what was going on. But it didn't make his article. His much delayed article, as C.I. has noted, which would suggest that either his obsession with nailing down every "fact" was so great that it took him days and days to write up his report or it suggests that before it made it into the paper, it had been cleared and approved by the military.
Billie has a hilarious e-mail. The reality is sad but she's got a great sense of humor. She explains how Blow and the other "local columnists" (who are supposed to cover the DFW area) never missed an opportunity to beat up on Michael Moore, the Dixie Chicks and assorted others. Billie says it's hard to believe the whole thing wasn't handed down by management (the paper is the Dallas Morning News) so "on message" was everyone. Including trashing Sheryl Crow in what was supposed to be a discussion of the Grammys. But it even infected the sports pages of the paper. Tim Cowlinshaw (again, I'm not making these names up) wrote a "sports" column in March of 2003 that Billie steered me to. I ended up reading several columns. It was interested to see Cowlinshaw condemn, among others, Steve Nash for speaking out against the war and using Thomas Friedman (of all people, no offense to Betty) who isn't, according to Cowlinshaw, "exactly" a tool of the right. (Cowlinshaw may be correct, but Friedman is certainly a tool.)
As for Nash and the other athletes who were voicing their opposition to the war, Cowlinshaw didn't feel they had that right since there wasn't a draft.
It's amazing how on target, from the "local" columnists (covering Michael Moore) to the sports page how "on message" the Dallas Morning News was. I really want to thank Billie for bringing the coverage to my attention because, a point C.I.'s made, one person didn't push this war in the press. There are a lot of guilty parties.
As for Jaqueline Floyd, I agree with you Billie, to have a hair style one must have some sense of style. I'm not sure if she suffers from dandruff, but I agree with you that it's a hideous photo.
Perhaps her attack on Moore and the Oscars was her way of saying she's not a "glamor gal." (Her hair conveys that message.) Obviously she's not a "freedom of speech gal" either.
And in the Democracy Now! story today, one thing to remember is that the reporter lying for the Times didn't just do that by himself. His Pulitzer should be stripped. But people chose to follow his reporting and echo it. He's far from the only guilty party.
With one paper in her area, Billie is able to pinpoint all the war cheerleaders who attacked people who spoke out against the war. I'm pretty sure many of you would find that in your own papers.
That's been the point C.I.'s made repeatedly about Judith Miller. She didn't anchor the news on a network (which has a larger audience than the New York Times). Hold her accountable, but don't do so in a way that lets others off the hook.
Floyd, Blow, Cowlinshaw and others should be held accountable by the readers of the Dallas Morning News. You can be sure that when lies about Hiroshima were being printed in the Times, all over the country fools elected to run with them. I hope the people Billie wrote about were fools. It seems like there's a pattern and that suggests that the topics and stances didn't "just happen." But I'll leave the second guessing to others. (Except with regard to Floyd's hair "style." It's hair. It's not style. And don't they get any sun in Texas?)
All across the country, events will be going on to raise awareness of what happened when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed and to stand for peace. If you're interested in participating an event, I'll provide the following.
"August 6-9: No Nukes! No Wars! Defend Democracy! National Days of Remembrance and Action 1945-2005 July 12th, 2005" (United For Peace and Justice)
August 6 and 9, 2005 mark the 60th anniversaries of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States. Join with tens of thousands of people at four central US nuclear weapons sites to call for an end to the development and production of nuclear bombs.
Join UFPJ member groups and the global majority to say NO! to militarism, war and oppression, and YES! to democracy nonviolence, justice and a more secure world for all. On May 1, 40,000 people marched to the United Nations to demand global disarmament. While the Bush Administration stymied global attempts to move toward nuclear disarmament, our voices reinforced the critical need for nuclear abolition to remain a part of the agenda.
In Iraq, they never found nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction, yet the daily reality of death and destruction continues, sparked by the Bush administration's invasion and fueled by the ongoing U.S. military occupation. A majority of people in this nation now oppose the war, but the White House and most members of Congress are resisting the only solution to the crisis: bring the troops home immediately.
This year, the 60th anniversaries of the US atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki also coincide with the 40th anniversary of the 1965 Voting Rights Act on August 3, 2005. Ensuring our basic voting and civil rights is at the heart of keeping our democracy alive and healthy. A vibrant democracy with open public debate is essential to keep US power in check. Given that US power is directly expressed and projected through its possession and threat to use nuclear weapons, the links between democracy, power and nuclear weapons becomes clear. Click here to read a statement drafted by US nuclear abolitions in February 1999 that addresses these crucial links.
Join UFPJ member groups as we send our message loud and clear to decision-makers and the public at large: End the war in Iraq; End the threat of nuclear annihilation; Ensure a democratic future for all!
We found the missing weapons of mass destruction. On August 6, we will take our voices to the active nuclear weapons sites across the country. We demand an end to US nuclear weapons development, production and testing. We demand an end to wars of empire and an end to nuclear excuses for war.
NO NUKES! NO WARS! DEFEND DEMOCRACY!*UFPJ Nuclear Disarmament Campaign*
I hope everyone has a great weekend.
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center)
The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.
Hannah Arendt, 20th-century German political philosopher and author
8/04/2005
14 Marines Killed in Deadliest Roadside Bombing of the War (Democracy Now!)
Elaine with you again while Rebecca's on vacation.
First, on a light hearted note, my friend Debbie phoned me a little while ago screaming, "Turn on the TV!" Thinking some breaking news was happening, I did and went to CNN. Debbie was saying, "NO THE WB!" So I flip over and a program's starting. Debbie and I watched and laughed throughout, it was Smallville. Debbie had Ava and C.I.'s review of this episode ("TV: Super Stripper or Super Chicken, we weigh in on Smallville") and she'd say, "Oh look this is where Daddy Lex checks out Clark's package!" Sure enough he did. A long look down the pants. I love Ava and C.I.'s reviews. They're funny, it's a feminist critique which means gender is an issue as are social issues (check out their review of CSI Miami for instance) but I read them as a non-TV watcher. When I'm home, I either have on the news (radio) or music. If you hit the eject button on my DVD player right now, you'd either find The Dreamers or Tout Va Bien. (I'm not sure which I watched last.)
So it was a real joy to watch a program that I'd read one of Ava and C.I.'s reviews of. I'd say that they nailed the episode perfectly. We were laughing so hard, Debbie and I, when Ma Kent says to the shirtless Clark that he's all dressed up. We were gasping for breath when he was pressing his body and face against her in the "standing lap dance" as Ava and C.I. called it. So thank you, Debbie, for calling and staying on the phone to laugh with me at the show.
And I'll say thank you to everyone who wrote with kind words about last night's post. I've read them all but still have a few to reply to. (Remember, I don't have Rebecca's password to the e-mail account, so if you want to contact me, e-mail care of common_ills@yahoo.com and C.I. will forward them to me. Or Jess or Ava will forward them.) Morey had a problem with the post and felt that I shouldn't say that Paul Hackett isn't eligable for office because he's served in the military. The thing is, Morey, I didn't say that. If you go back to the post, you'll see that I say that military service shouldn't be a requirement for running for office nor should it be a liability to running for office. And that's as close to a reply as Morey's getting.
Rebecca's commented here many times about the kind of threats that can come in and I was aware of them also from conversations with her. That still didn't prepare me for Morey's very specific threats. Jess had asked before forwarding if I wanted to see everything and I said "Sure." I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me and it doesn't bother me greatly if they do so strongly or in strong language. But for Morey and anyone else, I've advised Jess, Ava and C.I. that if they read over it and it's a threat just delete it.
I'm not interested in them.
It didn't scare me. I was in my office. I never thought, "Oh my God! What if he's here!" But I don't have time for that kind of nonsense. I also took it to mean that Morey was himself very threatened by the thought that we might actually address the issue of the war. Not how to fine tune it, but address whether we should have gone over or not.
There's a lot of talk, among pundits and politicians, that we're over there now so we don't need to address the issue. I deal with patients all day who are in the midst of something. That doesn't mean I don't explore the root cause with them.
This is a discussion we need to be having. When we refuse to have it, it takes pressure off our elected officials. They can focus on fine tuning and not deal with the reality of the damage the administration continues to do, the harm, the costs of the occupation. Not focusing allows us to make a sad face and shrug when we hear the horrible news that more have died. It also allows us to be unconcerned with the deaths of Iraqis because "we're there now." So we dismiss the death toll as "the costs of war."
We can, for instance, see this news on Democracy Now! and just shrug:
14 Marines Killed in Deadliest Roadside Bombing Of War
In Iraq, Pentagon officials have concluded it was a massive bomb that killed 14 Marines on Wednesday in the western city of Haditha. The Marines were driving in a 25-ton lightly-armored amphibious troop carrier that was not designed for coming under such attacks. It was the deadliest roadside bombing since the war began. In the past two weeks, at least 31 U.S. soldiers and Marines have died in roadside bombings. According to the Knight Ridder news agency, bombs killed more coalition troops in July than in any previous month of the war. U.S. officials admitted on Wednesday that troops are now being targeted with more powerful and more effective bombs. The 14 Marines were all members of the 3rd Battalion, 25th Marines, based in Brook Park, Ohio. Six more Marines from that Batallion died on Monday.
What can we do but shrug and make a sad face if we don't want to address the issue of the war?
Those fourteen died. Their deaths didn't just happen. They were sent over there. Asking why they were sent over there goes to the heart of democracy.
I think C.I. made excellent points in "Impunity leads to further silence" and I'm guessing that all of you coming here, or most of you, have already read that. But if you haven't, please make a point to read it.
It's continue to avoid the issues and walk around saying, "Well these things happen," or it's asking the tough questions. Avoidance doesn't address the problems.
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center)
Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of humans as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is not safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.
Helen Keller
First, on a light hearted note, my friend Debbie phoned me a little while ago screaming, "Turn on the TV!" Thinking some breaking news was happening, I did and went to CNN. Debbie was saying, "NO THE WB!" So I flip over and a program's starting. Debbie and I watched and laughed throughout, it was Smallville. Debbie had Ava and C.I.'s review of this episode ("TV: Super Stripper or Super Chicken, we weigh in on Smallville") and she'd say, "Oh look this is where Daddy Lex checks out Clark's package!" Sure enough he did. A long look down the pants. I love Ava and C.I.'s reviews. They're funny, it's a feminist critique which means gender is an issue as are social issues (check out their review of CSI Miami for instance) but I read them as a non-TV watcher. When I'm home, I either have on the news (radio) or music. If you hit the eject button on my DVD player right now, you'd either find The Dreamers or Tout Va Bien. (I'm not sure which I watched last.)
So it was a real joy to watch a program that I'd read one of Ava and C.I.'s reviews of. I'd say that they nailed the episode perfectly. We were laughing so hard, Debbie and I, when Ma Kent says to the shirtless Clark that he's all dressed up. We were gasping for breath when he was pressing his body and face against her in the "standing lap dance" as Ava and C.I. called it. So thank you, Debbie, for calling and staying on the phone to laugh with me at the show.
And I'll say thank you to everyone who wrote with kind words about last night's post. I've read them all but still have a few to reply to. (Remember, I don't have Rebecca's password to the e-mail account, so if you want to contact me, e-mail care of common_ills@yahoo.com and C.I. will forward them to me. Or Jess or Ava will forward them.) Morey had a problem with the post and felt that I shouldn't say that Paul Hackett isn't eligable for office because he's served in the military. The thing is, Morey, I didn't say that. If you go back to the post, you'll see that I say that military service shouldn't be a requirement for running for office nor should it be a liability to running for office. And that's as close to a reply as Morey's getting.
Rebecca's commented here many times about the kind of threats that can come in and I was aware of them also from conversations with her. That still didn't prepare me for Morey's very specific threats. Jess had asked before forwarding if I wanted to see everything and I said "Sure." I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me and it doesn't bother me greatly if they do so strongly or in strong language. But for Morey and anyone else, I've advised Jess, Ava and C.I. that if they read over it and it's a threat just delete it.
I'm not interested in them.
It didn't scare me. I was in my office. I never thought, "Oh my God! What if he's here!" But I don't have time for that kind of nonsense. I also took it to mean that Morey was himself very threatened by the thought that we might actually address the issue of the war. Not how to fine tune it, but address whether we should have gone over or not.
There's a lot of talk, among pundits and politicians, that we're over there now so we don't need to address the issue. I deal with patients all day who are in the midst of something. That doesn't mean I don't explore the root cause with them.
This is a discussion we need to be having. When we refuse to have it, it takes pressure off our elected officials. They can focus on fine tuning and not deal with the reality of the damage the administration continues to do, the harm, the costs of the occupation. Not focusing allows us to make a sad face and shrug when we hear the horrible news that more have died. It also allows us to be unconcerned with the deaths of Iraqis because "we're there now." So we dismiss the death toll as "the costs of war."
We can, for instance, see this news on Democracy Now! and just shrug:
14 Marines Killed in Deadliest Roadside Bombing Of War
In Iraq, Pentagon officials have concluded it was a massive bomb that killed 14 Marines on Wednesday in the western city of Haditha. The Marines were driving in a 25-ton lightly-armored amphibious troop carrier that was not designed for coming under such attacks. It was the deadliest roadside bombing since the war began. In the past two weeks, at least 31 U.S. soldiers and Marines have died in roadside bombings. According to the Knight Ridder news agency, bombs killed more coalition troops in July than in any previous month of the war. U.S. officials admitted on Wednesday that troops are now being targeted with more powerful and more effective bombs. The 14 Marines were all members of the 3rd Battalion, 25th Marines, based in Brook Park, Ohio. Six more Marines from that Batallion died on Monday.
What can we do but shrug and make a sad face if we don't want to address the issue of the war?
Those fourteen died. Their deaths didn't just happen. They were sent over there. Asking why they were sent over there goes to the heart of democracy.
I think C.I. made excellent points in "Impunity leads to further silence" and I'm guessing that all of you coming here, or most of you, have already read that. But if you haven't, please make a point to read it.
It's continue to avoid the issues and walk around saying, "Well these things happen," or it's asking the tough questions. Avoidance doesn't address the problems.
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center)
Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of humans as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is not safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.
Helen Keller
8/03/2005
Casualties continue to mount and the Democratic Party needs to find some ideas and a platform that's not "more of the same"
Elaine back again while Rebecca's on vacation. For those who missed it, there's a roundtable up at The Common Ills that's worth reading for a number of reasons but Rebecca participated in it so check it out.
Mike asked me to note this from Democracy Now!
21 Marines Die in Iraq Over Two-Day Period
Fourteen Marines and a civilian interpreter were killed early today in western Iraq making it one of the deadliest days for U.S. forces in months. Seven more Marines died on Monday.
I can remember when the invasion started in 2003. It was probably a week in and someone noted that it wasn't a "big deal," that it wasn't like the casualities in Vietnam. In that first month, 65 American soldiers died. One month of losses didn't seem to matter to this woman because it didn't compare with the years and years of the Vietnam conflict.
We're at 1822 right now. And we've got Donald Rumsfeld saying we could be over there for ten more years. You've got too many Democratics elected in Congress who don't want to address the problem and now Bully Boy's doing the Nixon dance of "I have a plan" as the next election cycle approaches. The plan is a Vietnam retread and it's not much of a plan.
So where does that leave us? Paul Hackett ran for Congress in a special election yesterday and he did pretty well. But there's something that bothered me about the way the election was pushed by Democrats.
Vote Hackett because he's a war hero. Vote him because he's been over there.
There were probably many reasons to vote for Hackett. And he did pretty well. He lost, but he did pretty well.
But the thing that bothered me was the fact that we're still trying to do the 2004 election. Hackett wasn't for bringing the troops home now. He was going to fight a smarter war. Does that sound familiar? He was a war hero.
At some point Democrats are going to have to be able to offer a true alternative.
Bully Boy received no mandate. (Lizz Winstead would say "Mandate my ass!") But when you tried to point out a) how high turnout was, b) how many votes Kerry got, the "thinkers" would dismiss that. They would say only the results matter.
Now the talk isn't that it only mattered who won.
I don't think winning is the only thing matters and I certainly don't believe that we only learn based on who's declared the winner. But it's interesting that we're operating under a different principle now.
I also think it's interesting that we're still not presenting alternatives.
As a people, we're in favor of bringing the troops home. It's only our elected officials, with few brave exceptions, that won't enter that dialogue.
What's more worrisome is that we seem to be resorting, repeatedly, to the idea that only war heroes are worthy of office. We need ideas from our leaders. And the Democratic Party needs to offer some.
Military service is not a requirement for public office. It shouldn't be a liability either.
But it's not a platform. Jingoistic cheerleading, and we heard that as Hackett was pushed, doesn't take the place of ideas.
The party needs to get it together between now and 2006. That means offering plans and being an alternative to more of the same.
Hackett didn't have a platform and if you have trouble accepting that, listen, watch or read his interview with Amy Goodman today:
AMY GOODMAN: Well, it's hard to say congratulations on your defeat, but it has astounded many. Can you talk about what happened and the platform that you ran on?
PAUL HACKETT: Well, I mean, I had first confessed that I did not sit around and (quote/unquote) "come up with a platform." There are many issues that I believe in, and believe very passionately in, and those issues, as they came up in the campaign, I shared with the citizens of the Second District. So, it's funny, when I hear the term "platform," I sort of think as though that there was a committee that sat around and said, 'Okay, this is what we believe on this.' I mean, I just felt that in this district there had not been a choice. There had not been an alternative, and that many like me were not being represented, our voices were not being represented regarding many issues in the U.S. government, foreign policy to name a big one that was certainly spoken a lot about in the election campaign, and so forth. And then many social issues, as well. I mean, I just -- I'm just not happy with the state of politics in southern Ohio and, frankly, across the nation.
He feels that the district hadn't had a choice. He didn't offer them any choices in terms of ideas or inspiration. He speaks of having no idea what a platform is. Now the anti-government faction might like that or some factions might see it as "keeping it real," but in terms of a strategy for the Democratic Party, a platform's pretty important.
Also from the interview, he speaks of the importance of dissent but then goes on to offer this:
And the only criticism that I have heard about my comments regarding this administration are usually of those who have never served in the military. And a very, very small percentage of people have come up to me and said, "I was in the military. That wasn't right." And usually then, when I then ask them, "Have you ever been in combat?" the answer is "no." I have yet, and, you know, I am not asking -- this is not an invitation, but I have yet to have somebody say, "Hey, you know, I was in combat, and what you said was wrong." That I have not heard. Almost unanimously the word from the veterans that have contacted me by email, by telephone, and come to work with us in person have been overwhelmingly supportive, and so --
Those who disagreed hadn't served in the military. So Hackett doesn't value their opinion. Is that a Democratic message? More importantly, as he did throughout the campaign, he then goes further. Not seconds later, he's saying that actually some did serve and their opinion doesn't matter because they didn't see combat.
The message behind those statements was never examined. No one can disagree with Hackett if they didn't serve and if they didn't serve in a combat zone. Statements like that came out of his mouth constantly. I didn't note it because I didn't want to blow his chances.
But the election's over now. And people need to look at what went down because he didn't have a platform and his public statements often contradicted statements made moments before.
But what's really bothersome is the fact that there's this attitude that was pushed by others and by him which is only those who served in the military can weigh in. That's not democracy.
Back to the interview:
AMY GOODMAN: So, you would return to fight a war that you think is unjust?
PAUL HACKETT: Well, I've not said it's unjust. I have said that it's been mismanaged by the administration. I have said it was a poor use of our military. I'm not quite sure the implication of the label of unjust, so I'm uncomfortable using that. I have been critical of it up and down, but to me, that's not inconsistent with my desire to want to serve and my desire to want to lead marines and be with them in the field.
He's not sure whether it's a just war or an unjust war. He ran for office. He ran on his military record. But he can't weigh in on a very obvious question, one raised by the Pope in 2003. Amy Goodman wasn't bringing up an obscure theory and the election was over. But we can't get an answer on that question from him.
He has "no empathy or sympathy" for Camilo Mejia and that's bothersome. Mejia made a moral choice. And Hackett doesn't want do the work to determine whether the war is just or unjust.
But he's perfectly happy to talk about consequences. Whose consquences?
Mejia has to take consequences for his actions, according to Hackett, but he won't weigh in on the consequences of the war itself.
What is Hackett's plan?
From the interview:
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think that the U.S. should get out of Iraq?
PAUL HACKETT: I'm not there yet. I think that -- let me step back and say, when you say, 'Should the U.S. get out of Iraq?' Yes. Eventually, yes. The question is, are we going to do it tomorrow, or are we going to accomplish the bare minimum and allow the Iraqis to survive within their defined government and social structure? And right now, I don't think that any form of security force in Iraq is capable of providing that for the people. And, while it may seem difficult to comprehend on this side of the world, at this point, I believe that Iraq will spiral out of control. And even though it's in a terrible condition today as a result of the insurgency phasing into civil war, perhaps, I don't think it's currently today as bad as it will be if we were to pull out tomorrow. I think that the administration has got to permit the American military over there to fight that fight and train the I.S.F., the Iraqi Security Forces, in a manner acceptable to our military, which I argue they're not -- the administration is not allowing that, so that the I.S.F. can be up to speed and we can get out of there. I think that, as a citizen of the United States, setting aside, you know, my uniform and so forth, I think we need to turn up the heat on the administration and demand some sort of oversight, as citizens, as to what successes the administration is having in training the Iraqi Security Forces.
There is nothing inspiring about that and nothing you couldn't read in a Thomas Friedman column. Or, for that matter, in a William Safire column if Safire was still writing op-eds. This was a campaign based on "We're not pulling out now. At some point we'll leave, but not yet." That's the Bully Boy's plan.
A lot of people, including Hackett, invested time and energy on his run for office but there was no real campaign. There was no plan, no proposal. Instead it all came down to "He served in Iraq!" Democrats need to find a way to offer proposals, plans and alternatives.
If this was a try out for the 2006 races, Democrats need to realize that we need real voices, with real ideas and real plans. We didn't get that from Hackett and the cheerleading and the applause that greeted his constant use of the term "chickenhawk" didn't provide any solutions or alternatives.
If the party wants to seriously try to win some elections, they're going to have to do better than presenting poster boys and thinking that a chorus of rah-rah cheers replaces real ideas and real thoughts. (Thanks as always to C.I. for acting as a sounding board and offering encouragement.)
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center)
The only thing that's been a worse flop than the organization of nonviolence has been the organization of violence.
Joan Baez
Mike asked me to note this from Democracy Now!
21 Marines Die in Iraq Over Two-Day Period
Fourteen Marines and a civilian interpreter were killed early today in western Iraq making it one of the deadliest days for U.S. forces in months. Seven more Marines died on Monday.
I can remember when the invasion started in 2003. It was probably a week in and someone noted that it wasn't a "big deal," that it wasn't like the casualities in Vietnam. In that first month, 65 American soldiers died. One month of losses didn't seem to matter to this woman because it didn't compare with the years and years of the Vietnam conflict.
We're at 1822 right now. And we've got Donald Rumsfeld saying we could be over there for ten more years. You've got too many Democratics elected in Congress who don't want to address the problem and now Bully Boy's doing the Nixon dance of "I have a plan" as the next election cycle approaches. The plan is a Vietnam retread and it's not much of a plan.
So where does that leave us? Paul Hackett ran for Congress in a special election yesterday and he did pretty well. But there's something that bothered me about the way the election was pushed by Democrats.
Vote Hackett because he's a war hero. Vote him because he's been over there.
There were probably many reasons to vote for Hackett. And he did pretty well. He lost, but he did pretty well.
But the thing that bothered me was the fact that we're still trying to do the 2004 election. Hackett wasn't for bringing the troops home now. He was going to fight a smarter war. Does that sound familiar? He was a war hero.
At some point Democrats are going to have to be able to offer a true alternative.
Bully Boy received no mandate. (Lizz Winstead would say "Mandate my ass!") But when you tried to point out a) how high turnout was, b) how many votes Kerry got, the "thinkers" would dismiss that. They would say only the results matter.
Now the talk isn't that it only mattered who won.
I don't think winning is the only thing matters and I certainly don't believe that we only learn based on who's declared the winner. But it's interesting that we're operating under a different principle now.
I also think it's interesting that we're still not presenting alternatives.
As a people, we're in favor of bringing the troops home. It's only our elected officials, with few brave exceptions, that won't enter that dialogue.
What's more worrisome is that we seem to be resorting, repeatedly, to the idea that only war heroes are worthy of office. We need ideas from our leaders. And the Democratic Party needs to offer some.
Military service is not a requirement for public office. It shouldn't be a liability either.
But it's not a platform. Jingoistic cheerleading, and we heard that as Hackett was pushed, doesn't take the place of ideas.
The party needs to get it together between now and 2006. That means offering plans and being an alternative to more of the same.
Hackett didn't have a platform and if you have trouble accepting that, listen, watch or read his interview with Amy Goodman today:
AMY GOODMAN: Well, it's hard to say congratulations on your defeat, but it has astounded many. Can you talk about what happened and the platform that you ran on?
PAUL HACKETT: Well, I mean, I had first confessed that I did not sit around and (quote/unquote) "come up with a platform." There are many issues that I believe in, and believe very passionately in, and those issues, as they came up in the campaign, I shared with the citizens of the Second District. So, it's funny, when I hear the term "platform," I sort of think as though that there was a committee that sat around and said, 'Okay, this is what we believe on this.' I mean, I just felt that in this district there had not been a choice. There had not been an alternative, and that many like me were not being represented, our voices were not being represented regarding many issues in the U.S. government, foreign policy to name a big one that was certainly spoken a lot about in the election campaign, and so forth. And then many social issues, as well. I mean, I just -- I'm just not happy with the state of politics in southern Ohio and, frankly, across the nation.
He feels that the district hadn't had a choice. He didn't offer them any choices in terms of ideas or inspiration. He speaks of having no idea what a platform is. Now the anti-government faction might like that or some factions might see it as "keeping it real," but in terms of a strategy for the Democratic Party, a platform's pretty important.
Also from the interview, he speaks of the importance of dissent but then goes on to offer this:
And the only criticism that I have heard about my comments regarding this administration are usually of those who have never served in the military. And a very, very small percentage of people have come up to me and said, "I was in the military. That wasn't right." And usually then, when I then ask them, "Have you ever been in combat?" the answer is "no." I have yet, and, you know, I am not asking -- this is not an invitation, but I have yet to have somebody say, "Hey, you know, I was in combat, and what you said was wrong." That I have not heard. Almost unanimously the word from the veterans that have contacted me by email, by telephone, and come to work with us in person have been overwhelmingly supportive, and so --
Those who disagreed hadn't served in the military. So Hackett doesn't value their opinion. Is that a Democratic message? More importantly, as he did throughout the campaign, he then goes further. Not seconds later, he's saying that actually some did serve and their opinion doesn't matter because they didn't see combat.
The message behind those statements was never examined. No one can disagree with Hackett if they didn't serve and if they didn't serve in a combat zone. Statements like that came out of his mouth constantly. I didn't note it because I didn't want to blow his chances.
But the election's over now. And people need to look at what went down because he didn't have a platform and his public statements often contradicted statements made moments before.
But what's really bothersome is the fact that there's this attitude that was pushed by others and by him which is only those who served in the military can weigh in. That's not democracy.
Back to the interview:
AMY GOODMAN: So, you would return to fight a war that you think is unjust?
PAUL HACKETT: Well, I've not said it's unjust. I have said that it's been mismanaged by the administration. I have said it was a poor use of our military. I'm not quite sure the implication of the label of unjust, so I'm uncomfortable using that. I have been critical of it up and down, but to me, that's not inconsistent with my desire to want to serve and my desire to want to lead marines and be with them in the field.
He's not sure whether it's a just war or an unjust war. He ran for office. He ran on his military record. But he can't weigh in on a very obvious question, one raised by the Pope in 2003. Amy Goodman wasn't bringing up an obscure theory and the election was over. But we can't get an answer on that question from him.
He has "no empathy or sympathy" for Camilo Mejia and that's bothersome. Mejia made a moral choice. And Hackett doesn't want do the work to determine whether the war is just or unjust.
But he's perfectly happy to talk about consequences. Whose consquences?
Mejia has to take consequences for his actions, according to Hackett, but he won't weigh in on the consequences of the war itself.
What is Hackett's plan?
From the interview:
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think that the U.S. should get out of Iraq?
PAUL HACKETT: I'm not there yet. I think that -- let me step back and say, when you say, 'Should the U.S. get out of Iraq?' Yes. Eventually, yes. The question is, are we going to do it tomorrow, or are we going to accomplish the bare minimum and allow the Iraqis to survive within their defined government and social structure? And right now, I don't think that any form of security force in Iraq is capable of providing that for the people. And, while it may seem difficult to comprehend on this side of the world, at this point, I believe that Iraq will spiral out of control. And even though it's in a terrible condition today as a result of the insurgency phasing into civil war, perhaps, I don't think it's currently today as bad as it will be if we were to pull out tomorrow. I think that the administration has got to permit the American military over there to fight that fight and train the I.S.F., the Iraqi Security Forces, in a manner acceptable to our military, which I argue they're not -- the administration is not allowing that, so that the I.S.F. can be up to speed and we can get out of there. I think that, as a citizen of the United States, setting aside, you know, my uniform and so forth, I think we need to turn up the heat on the administration and demand some sort of oversight, as citizens, as to what successes the administration is having in training the Iraqi Security Forces.
There is nothing inspiring about that and nothing you couldn't read in a Thomas Friedman column. Or, for that matter, in a William Safire column if Safire was still writing op-eds. This was a campaign based on "We're not pulling out now. At some point we'll leave, but not yet." That's the Bully Boy's plan.
A lot of people, including Hackett, invested time and energy on his run for office but there was no real campaign. There was no plan, no proposal. Instead it all came down to "He served in Iraq!" Democrats need to find a way to offer proposals, plans and alternatives.
If this was a try out for the 2006 races, Democrats need to realize that we need real voices, with real ideas and real plans. We didn't get that from Hackett and the cheerleading and the applause that greeted his constant use of the term "chickenhawk" didn't provide any solutions or alternatives.
If the party wants to seriously try to win some elections, they're going to have to do better than presenting poster boys and thinking that a chorus of rah-rah cheers replaces real ideas and real thoughts. (Thanks as always to C.I. for acting as a sounding board and offering encouragement.)
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center)
The only thing that's been a worse flop than the organization of nonviolence has been the organization of violence.
Joan Baez
8/01/2005
Aidan Delgado's truth telling
Rebecca called today and says she'll be gone at least one more week. In case anyone's showing up late to this party, Rebecca's on vacation. I'm her friend Elaine who's never blogged before Rebecca asked me to cover for her so if I do something wrong, don't be surprised.
You can e-mail me at common_ills@yahoo.com and C.I. will forward it. Rebecca's address is sexandpoliticsandscreeds@yahoo.com but she's not reading e-mails while she's on vacation and I don't have the password to it.
C.I. forwarded a batch of e-mails Sunday and a lot of people were wondering what it was like to help out The Third Estate Sunday Review. I'm not sure that I had much to offer but I did enjoy myself. It wasn't one of their usual all nighters so I can't speak to that. They wrapped up very early for them, according to what Ty was saying. They work very had but they have a lot of fun doing it. I was honored to be asked and hope I didn't mess things up too much.
Now I want to note something from Democracy Now! today.
Jimmy Carter: Iraq War Was "Unnecessary and Unjust"
Former President Jimmy Carter has called the Iraq war "unnecessary and unjust" and criticized the Bush administration for its handling of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Speaking at an international Baptist convention in Britain, Carter said, "I think what's going on in Guantanamo Bay and other places is a disgrace to the U.S.A." He went on to say "I wouldn't say it's the cause of terrorism, but it has given impetus and excuses to potential terrorists to lash out at our country and justify their despicable acts."
And Mike asked me to note a thing Rebecca wrote about The Common Ills awhile back.
Which leads me into the next thing. C.I. and I were on the phone and there's an article that I wasn't aware of. Lisa Sousa's "A Different Duty" from In These Times and here's a small piece of it:
"I don't like doing this. It's not something I want to do," says Aidan Delgado of his public presentations. "I feel like I have to do it."
A veteran of the Iraq war, Delgado, 23, has spoken to students, churches and peace groups across the country. "The media's not giving the full picture," he says. "Nobody's seeing the ugly side, the underside of the war, and it's something that I've seen, so I feel like I have to share it with people."
In March, Delgado participated in a daylong teach-in on military recruitment at Berkeley High School in California. Students and concerned teachers organized the event in response to the increased presence of recruiters, who are able to target high school students like never before, thanks to Section 9528 of the No Child Left Behind Act. "There's a lot about being in the army that recruiters are not going to tell you," Delgado says.
It's a really important article so I hope you'll make some time to read it (online or in print).
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center)
No matter how big a nation is, it is no stronger that its weakest people, and as long as you keep a person down, some part of you has to be down there to hold him down, so it means you cannot soar as you might otherwise.
Marian Anderson
You can e-mail me at common_ills@yahoo.com and C.I. will forward it. Rebecca's address is sexandpoliticsandscreeds@yahoo.com but she's not reading e-mails while she's on vacation and I don't have the password to it.
C.I. forwarded a batch of e-mails Sunday and a lot of people were wondering what it was like to help out The Third Estate Sunday Review. I'm not sure that I had much to offer but I did enjoy myself. It wasn't one of their usual all nighters so I can't speak to that. They wrapped up very early for them, according to what Ty was saying. They work very had but they have a lot of fun doing it. I was honored to be asked and hope I didn't mess things up too much.
Now I want to note something from Democracy Now! today.
Jimmy Carter: Iraq War Was "Unnecessary and Unjust"
Former President Jimmy Carter has called the Iraq war "unnecessary and unjust" and criticized the Bush administration for its handling of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Speaking at an international Baptist convention in Britain, Carter said, "I think what's going on in Guantanamo Bay and other places is a disgrace to the U.S.A." He went on to say "I wouldn't say it's the cause of terrorism, but it has given impetus and excuses to potential terrorists to lash out at our country and justify their despicable acts."
And Mike asked me to note a thing Rebecca wrote about The Common Ills awhile back.
Which leads me into the next thing. C.I. and I were on the phone and there's an article that I wasn't aware of. Lisa Sousa's "A Different Duty" from In These Times and here's a small piece of it:
"I don't like doing this. It's not something I want to do," says Aidan Delgado of his public presentations. "I feel like I have to do it."
A veteran of the Iraq war, Delgado, 23, has spoken to students, churches and peace groups across the country. "The media's not giving the full picture," he says. "Nobody's seeing the ugly side, the underside of the war, and it's something that I've seen, so I feel like I have to share it with people."
In March, Delgado participated in a daylong teach-in on military recruitment at Berkeley High School in California. Students and concerned teachers organized the event in response to the increased presence of recruiters, who are able to target high school students like never before, thanks to Section 9528 of the No Child Left Behind Act. "There's a lot about being in the army that recruiters are not going to tell you," Delgado says.
It's a really important article so I hope you'll make some time to read it (online or in print).
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center)
No matter how big a nation is, it is no stronger that its weakest people, and as long as you keep a person down, some part of you has to be down there to hold him down, so it means you cannot soar as you might otherwise.
Marian Anderson
7/29/2005
We need some silence
As C.I. noted this morning, Kevin Benderman was sentenced.
From Democracy Now! I'll note this headline:
War Resister Benderman Sentenced to 15 Months
A US Army mechanic who refused to go to Iraq while he sought conscientious objector status was acquitted yesterday of desertion but found guilty of a lesser charge during his court-martial. Sgt. Kevin Benderman was sentenced to 15 months in prison on the charge of missing movement. He also was given a dishonorable discharge from the military and a reduction in rank to private. If he had been found guilty of desertion, he could have faced five years in prison. Still, his sentence appears to be the harshest yet given to an Iraq war resister.
As Amy Goodman noted, the "sentence appears to be the harshest yet given to an Iraq war resister."
Norman Solomon has spoken up. Hopefully he is just the first of many. From his CounterPunch article "In Praise of Kevin Benderman:"
Monica Benderman is correct. Facing truths about the priorities of our country's government can be very difficult. During the Vietnam War -- also based on lies, also methodically murderous -- an extraordinary U.S. senator made the same basic point. "We're going to become guilty, in my judgment, of being the greatest threat to the peace of the world," Wayne Morse said at a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "It's an ugly reality, and we Americans don't like to face up to it."
Moments before the Senate hearing adjourned, on February 27, 1968, Morse said that he did not "intend to put the blood of this war on my hands." In the summer of 2005, while the horrors of the Iraq war continue, not a single United States senator is willing to speak with such moral clarity.
As an astute cliche says, truth is the first casualty of war. But another early casualty is conscience, routinely smothered in the national media echo chamber.
On the TV networks, the voices are usually smooth, and people often seem to be speaking loudly. In contrast, the human conscience is close to a whisper. Easily unheard.
Especially in these times when we've all been egged on with the blood lust. We haven't had a moment of silence or time to reflect as the Bully Boy's encouraged us to behave like an ADD nation.
"Why are you so scared of silence? Here can you handle this."
That's from Alanis Morissette's "All I Really Want."
We better. We better start taking time to pause here and ask ourselves what's really going on in our country, what is our nation really doing?
Behind the chants of "go get 'em," something really ugly is seeping in. Amidst the chants, a great deal of people still haven't noticed. Some people are noticing. They're touched by the casualities personally or they're able to connect with the humanity that's under attack.
People slowly realizing that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 are waking up. And they're wondering what we are doing in Iraq.
Bully Boy saw it as our national baptism. Now we're soaking in the blood bath.
We need to find some silence and think about what we are doing.
Please visit BendermanDefense.org.
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center)
Warmaking doesn't stop warmaking. If it did, our problems would have stopped millennia ago.
Colman McCarthy
From Democracy Now! I'll note this headline:
War Resister Benderman Sentenced to 15 Months
A US Army mechanic who refused to go to Iraq while he sought conscientious objector status was acquitted yesterday of desertion but found guilty of a lesser charge during his court-martial. Sgt. Kevin Benderman was sentenced to 15 months in prison on the charge of missing movement. He also was given a dishonorable discharge from the military and a reduction in rank to private. If he had been found guilty of desertion, he could have faced five years in prison. Still, his sentence appears to be the harshest yet given to an Iraq war resister.
As Amy Goodman noted, the "sentence appears to be the harshest yet given to an Iraq war resister."
Norman Solomon has spoken up. Hopefully he is just the first of many. From his CounterPunch article "In Praise of Kevin Benderman:"
Monica Benderman is correct. Facing truths about the priorities of our country's government can be very difficult. During the Vietnam War -- also based on lies, also methodically murderous -- an extraordinary U.S. senator made the same basic point. "We're going to become guilty, in my judgment, of being the greatest threat to the peace of the world," Wayne Morse said at a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "It's an ugly reality, and we Americans don't like to face up to it."
Moments before the Senate hearing adjourned, on February 27, 1968, Morse said that he did not "intend to put the blood of this war on my hands." In the summer of 2005, while the horrors of the Iraq war continue, not a single United States senator is willing to speak with such moral clarity.
As an astute cliche says, truth is the first casualty of war. But another early casualty is conscience, routinely smothered in the national media echo chamber.
On the TV networks, the voices are usually smooth, and people often seem to be speaking loudly. In contrast, the human conscience is close to a whisper. Easily unheard.
Especially in these times when we've all been egged on with the blood lust. We haven't had a moment of silence or time to reflect as the Bully Boy's encouraged us to behave like an ADD nation.
"Why are you so scared of silence? Here can you handle this."
That's from Alanis Morissette's "All I Really Want."
We better. We better start taking time to pause here and ask ourselves what's really going on in our country, what is our nation really doing?
Behind the chants of "go get 'em," something really ugly is seeping in. Amidst the chants, a great deal of people still haven't noticed. Some people are noticing. They're touched by the casualities personally or they're able to connect with the humanity that's under attack.
People slowly realizing that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 are waking up. And they're wondering what we are doing in Iraq.
Bully Boy saw it as our national baptism. Now we're soaking in the blood bath.
We need to find some silence and think about what we are doing.
Please visit BendermanDefense.org.
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center)
Warmaking doesn't stop warmaking. If it did, our problems would have stopped millennia ago.
Colman McCarthy
7/28/2005
Some lead, some hide on the sidelines
It's Elaine again. Still with you while Rebecca's on vacation.
Thanks to everyone who's written and thanks to C.I. for forwarding the e-mails. (I don't have Rebecca's password so if you need to write me, please write care of common_ills@yahoo.com and C.I. will forward it to me.)
A few of the e-mails coming in have asked for personal details which I'm really not comfortable doing. But some ask why the posts go up in the evening? That's a valid question. I work during the day and I also help out a local college group. I think Rebecca's noted here that I'm a psychologist so I'm fine putting that out there. That's why you may hear me use words like "clinical." I try to catch that when I can and I try not to turn this into some sort of debate on various strands of therapy.
A lot of the e-mails ask how Rebecca, C.I. and I all met. Actually, I know C.I. from my brother.
I'm not sure if I met Rebecca before C.I. or around the same time. But they were my two closest friends and you know how that goes, you introduce friends to each other and hope they hit it off. They did hit it off but they're much closer these days.
And if you've been in that situation before, you know it can feel a little odd because you go from being the mediator bringing two people together to filling left out. And there have been times when I honestly did feel that way. Rebecca is always on the phone. It's nothing to get three to four calls from her a day. Fortunately, they're quick calls or I'd be on the phone all day too. But once she started blogging, it stopped being her asking me how C.I. was to her telling me how C.I. was. And that was a little weird at first.
I got over it but I really understand it now because, like Rebecca, I'm calling C.I. several times a day and floating ideas. I've also gotten to know Kat and Mike pretty well while I've been subbing. Mike wrote this really supportive e-mail after my first attempt at substituting went up and included his phone number. So we've spoken a great deal and exchanged ideas. With Kat, we've talked about the two albums she's been reviewing and I've asked her for tips on how to say something effectively because I really think she captures each album she reviews in a way that you grasp immediately what the album has to offer or doesn't have to offer.
(And let me link to Mike's favorite post by Rebecca because he was talking about this yesterday and I forgot to do it then.)
And let me thank C.I. Our friendship predates blogging, predates the internet and we're always e-mailing or calling so I didn't think twice about ringing to say, "Okay, I told Rebecca I'd do this but I'm in way over my head."
C.I. and I talked about the "moderates" who condemned Jane Fonda this week. (This was an on the record talk.) It's interesting that they feel they know so much as they trash her for her Christianity or make jokes that maybe Ted Kennedy can drive the bus. All the while claiming not to be Republicans. They're disgusting.
They're too scared (or stupid) to do anything themselves, so they want to trash her. And they somehow missed that she's not doing the tour alone.
They claim she's doing it to promote her book. The book already spent three weeks at number one, "moderates," it's a hit. C.I. pointed out that she could be sitting her butt the way so many others are but instead she's putting herself out there. While whiney little moderates (who link to the Drudge Report, no less) do nothing.
When we were in Boston on election night, or when we were at the inauguration protesting, or when we go around speaking out against the war, C.I. and I do stuff. But these "moderates" stay safe in their own comfort zone.
People are dying and Jane Fonda's putting herself out there to speak out. She knows that the right will attack her. It's interesting to see that the "moderates" will as well. But they need a Fonda to prove how "reasonable" they are.
They're ahistorical idiots. The fright wingers at least have the excuse that they've suckeled so long from the fright wing that they have no idea what reality is. The moderates have only deluded themselves. They have only themselves to blame.
They can't speak out against the war because there's no belief that they won't sell out to appear "moderate." Or maybe they just have no beliefs?
They're disgusting. Clinically, they're something's very self-hating when they claim "Democrat" and link to The Drudge Report. Every link adds to that idiot's visibility. Some even link to the Free Republic.
And they want to question Jane Fonda's motives?
They're fake and they see others as fake because they can only see themselves in others.
Usually, those types are stunted early on in their adolescence. I find it much easier to treat someone suffering from a trauma than to try to reach these types in my practice.
They need a Fonda or a Dixie Chicks or a Susan Sarandon (they need them, really need them, to be women) so that they can say, "See, I'm not one of those lefties!" No, and you're not a righty.
You're just a nothing going through life doing nothing and accomplishing nothing.
While the Fondas, Howard Zinns and others inspire, the "moderates" have about as much to offer the world as Cokie Roberts as they teeter on the fence, never able to committ to anything. It's honestly sad.
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center)
If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.
Bishop Desmond Tutu
Thanks to everyone who's written and thanks to C.I. for forwarding the e-mails. (I don't have Rebecca's password so if you need to write me, please write care of common_ills@yahoo.com and C.I. will forward it to me.)
A few of the e-mails coming in have asked for personal details which I'm really not comfortable doing. But some ask why the posts go up in the evening? That's a valid question. I work during the day and I also help out a local college group. I think Rebecca's noted here that I'm a psychologist so I'm fine putting that out there. That's why you may hear me use words like "clinical." I try to catch that when I can and I try not to turn this into some sort of debate on various strands of therapy.
A lot of the e-mails ask how Rebecca, C.I. and I all met. Actually, I know C.I. from my brother.
I'm not sure if I met Rebecca before C.I. or around the same time. But they were my two closest friends and you know how that goes, you introduce friends to each other and hope they hit it off. They did hit it off but they're much closer these days.
And if you've been in that situation before, you know it can feel a little odd because you go from being the mediator bringing two people together to filling left out. And there have been times when I honestly did feel that way. Rebecca is always on the phone. It's nothing to get three to four calls from her a day. Fortunately, they're quick calls or I'd be on the phone all day too. But once she started blogging, it stopped being her asking me how C.I. was to her telling me how C.I. was. And that was a little weird at first.
I got over it but I really understand it now because, like Rebecca, I'm calling C.I. several times a day and floating ideas. I've also gotten to know Kat and Mike pretty well while I've been subbing. Mike wrote this really supportive e-mail after my first attempt at substituting went up and included his phone number. So we've spoken a great deal and exchanged ideas. With Kat, we've talked about the two albums she's been reviewing and I've asked her for tips on how to say something effectively because I really think she captures each album she reviews in a way that you grasp immediately what the album has to offer or doesn't have to offer.
(And let me link to Mike's favorite post by Rebecca because he was talking about this yesterday and I forgot to do it then.)
And let me thank C.I. Our friendship predates blogging, predates the internet and we're always e-mailing or calling so I didn't think twice about ringing to say, "Okay, I told Rebecca I'd do this but I'm in way over my head."
C.I. and I talked about the "moderates" who condemned Jane Fonda this week. (This was an on the record talk.) It's interesting that they feel they know so much as they trash her for her Christianity or make jokes that maybe Ted Kennedy can drive the bus. All the while claiming not to be Republicans. They're disgusting.
They're too scared (or stupid) to do anything themselves, so they want to trash her. And they somehow missed that she's not doing the tour alone.
They claim she's doing it to promote her book. The book already spent three weeks at number one, "moderates," it's a hit. C.I. pointed out that she could be sitting her butt the way so many others are but instead she's putting herself out there. While whiney little moderates (who link to the Drudge Report, no less) do nothing.
When we were in Boston on election night, or when we were at the inauguration protesting, or when we go around speaking out against the war, C.I. and I do stuff. But these "moderates" stay safe in their own comfort zone.
People are dying and Jane Fonda's putting herself out there to speak out. She knows that the right will attack her. It's interesting to see that the "moderates" will as well. But they need a Fonda to prove how "reasonable" they are.
They're ahistorical idiots. The fright wingers at least have the excuse that they've suckeled so long from the fright wing that they have no idea what reality is. The moderates have only deluded themselves. They have only themselves to blame.
They can't speak out against the war because there's no belief that they won't sell out to appear "moderate." Or maybe they just have no beliefs?
They're disgusting. Clinically, they're something's very self-hating when they claim "Democrat" and link to The Drudge Report. Every link adds to that idiot's visibility. Some even link to the Free Republic.
And they want to question Jane Fonda's motives?
They're fake and they see others as fake because they can only see themselves in others.
Usually, those types are stunted early on in their adolescence. I find it much easier to treat someone suffering from a trauma than to try to reach these types in my practice.
They need a Fonda or a Dixie Chicks or a Susan Sarandon (they need them, really need them, to be women) so that they can say, "See, I'm not one of those lefties!" No, and you're not a righty.
You're just a nothing going through life doing nothing and accomplishing nothing.
While the Fondas, Howard Zinns and others inspire, the "moderates" have about as much to offer the world as Cokie Roberts as they teeter on the fence, never able to committ to anything. It's honestly sad.
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center)
If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.
Bishop Desmond Tutu
7/27/2005
Attacks on Fonda and word from Rebecca
Elaine back with you as substitute blogger while Rebecca is on vacation.
I want to start off by noting that Google, whose politics have been repeatedly questioned, currently features, when you search Jane Fonda in news, a bull's eye target shoot photo of Jane Fonda. I guess I miss the "joke" or how this vile thing is "news." Or why Google feels it's okay to promote it?
It's not okay to promote that. Mike wrote a thing yesterday about how his sister saw one of those trashy shows that junk up the airwaves (this one starring the "I'm reforming!" stooge) called The Insider who felt it was necessary to interview the man who spat on Fonda at a book signing. As Mike rightly asked, would they also interview celebrity stalkers? Would they give those violent kooks a platform? No, but they feel it's okay when it has something to do with Jane Fonda.
On the plus side, it's a testament to how much these war mongers, creeps and losers fear Jane Fonda's upcoming speak out tour that they are crawling out of the woodwork prepared to launch these attacks.
However, that doesn't excuse Google's use of a target photo of Jane Fonda. Note that I said "use." I did not say promote. Google would argue that they are not "promoting" violence against Jane Fonda. They would say they were just displaying "news images." But it isn't a "news image." And they are using it. It has no place popping up in one of their searches.
A great deal was made recently, to give but one example, over their apparent hiding of images of Abu Ghraib; however, encouraging violence towards Jane Fonda is apparently a-okay?
It's not okay and they need to pull that "news" photo from their "news" results.
The idiot who "created" the photo can run it as his site (I'm guessing that it's a "he"). Free speech gives him the right to be as vile as he wants to be. But the image is not "news" and it doesn't belong in a news search done on Google and hopefully Google will address this issue promptly.
Now I'll move on to tell you that I heard from Rebecca today. She phoned a little after noon. She's enjoying herself and and her rest but said to tell everyone she is missing blogging and will be back when she's had enough of her vacation. She says to tell Sherry that she (Sherry) was right, the wrong men wear speedos in real life. She said to tell you that she misses all of you but she needed to get away from all the crap (mainly ex-in-laws shredding an entry she'd worked hard on about her abortion) and needed a rest.
I'll be here until she gets back which, hopefully, will be soon.
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center)
We must be the change we wish to see.
Mahatma Gandhi
I want to start off by noting that Google, whose politics have been repeatedly questioned, currently features, when you search Jane Fonda in news, a bull's eye target shoot photo of Jane Fonda. I guess I miss the "joke" or how this vile thing is "news." Or why Google feels it's okay to promote it?
It's not okay to promote that. Mike wrote a thing yesterday about how his sister saw one of those trashy shows that junk up the airwaves (this one starring the "I'm reforming!" stooge) called The Insider who felt it was necessary to interview the man who spat on Fonda at a book signing. As Mike rightly asked, would they also interview celebrity stalkers? Would they give those violent kooks a platform? No, but they feel it's okay when it has something to do with Jane Fonda.
On the plus side, it's a testament to how much these war mongers, creeps and losers fear Jane Fonda's upcoming speak out tour that they are crawling out of the woodwork prepared to launch these attacks.
However, that doesn't excuse Google's use of a target photo of Jane Fonda. Note that I said "use." I did not say promote. Google would argue that they are not "promoting" violence against Jane Fonda. They would say they were just displaying "news images." But it isn't a "news image." And they are using it. It has no place popping up in one of their searches.
A great deal was made recently, to give but one example, over their apparent hiding of images of Abu Ghraib; however, encouraging violence towards Jane Fonda is apparently a-okay?
It's not okay and they need to pull that "news" photo from their "news" results.
The idiot who "created" the photo can run it as his site (I'm guessing that it's a "he"). Free speech gives him the right to be as vile as he wants to be. But the image is not "news" and it doesn't belong in a news search done on Google and hopefully Google will address this issue promptly.
Now I'll move on to tell you that I heard from Rebecca today. She phoned a little after noon. She's enjoying herself and and her rest but said to tell everyone she is missing blogging and will be back when she's had enough of her vacation. She says to tell Sherry that she (Sherry) was right, the wrong men wear speedos in real life. She said to tell you that she misses all of you but she needed to get away from all the crap (mainly ex-in-laws shredding an entry she'd worked hard on about her abortion) and needed a rest.
I'll be here until she gets back which, hopefully, will be soon.
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center)
We must be the change we wish to see.
Mahatma Gandhi
7/26/2005
Here come the war mongers
And the blog goes on, and the blog goes on. Elaine back with you while Rebecca's on vacation.
Let's start with something from Democracy Now! today:
Gov't Study Estimate War Cost to Reach $700B
A new government study has found that the total cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will top $700 billion over the next decade. Already $300 billion has been spent. The total cost estimate comes from the Congressional Budget Office. The San Francisco Chronicle reports this would make the combined campaigns the most expensive military effort in the last 60 years. It is estimated that the Vietnam War cost about 600 billion in current dollars. The Korean War cost about 430 billion in current dollars.
There's always money for war, isn't there? People in the world and in our own country go without food and shelter but we can always scrape together the big bucks for war. The administration can screech lies about Social Security having a solvency problem but at the same time they can throw out $300 billion to invade and occupy. These are the priorities of some of our rulers and at a time when Hillary Clinton's making it clear where she stands, you need to be asking yourself if these are your priorities?
Mike has a great post on this today:
I had an e-mail from Kat about how the same day Fonda comes on strong for peace Hillary Clinton's trying to prove . . . Well what is she trying to prove?I never disliked Hillary until that speech she gave yesterday. She's not one of my senators so I didn't pay as close to attention to her as I did to Kerry and Kennedy. But she was our First Lady and I thought she did a pretty good job of that. Yesterday she embarrassed herself. Now maybe she appealed to some cowards and stuff but she came off pretty cowardly to me.
That really is what it's about. Fear. War mongers rattle the swords because they fear. They try to impose out of fear. Throughout history, they've operated from fear. Fear combined with greed as they've defined the other and then attempted to conquer the other.
Now comes Hillary Clinton clearly stepping into the mix. It wasn't a secret to her constiuents who attempted to speak to her about the war. She's brushed them off and ignored them repeatedly. But this was Hillary Clinton on the national stage announcing that she is one with the DLC and, therefore, one with the war mongers.
Clinically, what makes a person respond that way? I'd argue that it has a great deal to do with the attacks on her over the years, attacks that still cotinue but have lessened in their severity as she's associated herself with the likes of Newt Gingrich. She'll never be embraced fully by the right wing, but as she's moderated her stance, she's seen that some on the right have supported her and defended her even when rumor riddled book was released.
When Chris Matthews starts praising her, we'll know her own Scoop Jackson transformation has been complete.
That theory is based upon the belief that she's ever stood for something. For many, left or right, there's the belief that she's never had a core belief she'd stand for and by. That's why she could participate in the attacks on working women and single mothers, known as "welfare reform," while still being hailed as a feminist hero.
Rebecca's made it clear in this space that she has little to no use for Hillary Clinton. As she moves further and further away from the beliefs that her core supporters hold, it will be interesting to see whether they'll continue to justify her actions or whether they'll move away from her.
Among the supporters are people who truly are opposed to many policies that Bill Clinton championed in the nineties. When they justify, you can hear them offer, as C.I. noted this morning, that it would have been worse without Bill Clinton. Which reminds me of a woman in the ER with swollen lips and black eyes arguing that her husband could have also broken an arm but didn't.
There is a dance that Hillary Clinton does and there's a dance that her supporters do and somewhere in the movements, truth goes unheeded which is why questions can't be asked and her supporters will get very angry when they are.
As Hillary Clinton, who's always been one of the team C.I.'s dubbed The Operation Happy Talkers, comes out steadfast in her support of the occupation/invasion, it's important for us to remember what is going on, what actions we are using. I read Jane Mayer's detailed, eleven page article "The Experiment" detailing what's gone on Gitmo, how the techniques were developed and how they migrated to Iraq, most famously with Abu Ghraib. If you haven't read the article, please read C.I.'s summary of it. From the summary:
Concerns are raised regarding "force drift." That's when "interrogators encountering resistance begin to lose the ability to restrain themselves." If you'll think of it in terms of parenting, you'll relate that to the "power struggle." There's also a "seductive" component of these techniques, as an attorney for several prisoners -- Marc Falkoff -- notes. Falkoff asserts that "a mass suicide attempt at Guantanamo, in August 2003, in which two dozens or so detainees tried to hang or strangle themselves, was provoked by Koran mistreatment . . ."
That's a SERE technique. Only on American soil, while "testing" American soldiers, they used a Bible. They might tear pages out of it or kick it around or some other method. But it was developed here with the Bible. (Again, I'm holding my tongue and just attempting to summarize.)
The question is posed (and I'd argue throughout the article) by at least one person in the article of what are we becoming? What does it say about us when we "do things that our enemies do, like using torture?"We'll close out this summary by noting that doctors have participated as "bisquits" (though not all "bisquits" are doctors -- some are p.h.d.s) with the comments of Jonathan Moreno (bioethicist):
Guantanamo is going to haunt us for a long time. The Hippocratic oath is the oldest ethical code we have. We might abandon our morality about other professions. But the medical profession is sort of the last gasp. If we give that up, we've given up our core values.
As a country we're giving up a great deal of what we believe in. Read C.I.'s summary of Jane Mayer's "The Experiment" because The New Yorker hasn't made the article available online. Then use your libraries to find a copy of the issue.
We're not seeing a lot of "leaders" asking that we think about our actions and the consequences that will result from these actions and others. We need to be asking those questions. Real leadership by true leaders would result in opening up a dialogue on this topic. Instead, we see the Operation Happy Talkers and the war hawks like Hillary Clinton whose fear and blood lust require denying reality and speaking out for more deaths.
The easy road is never the moral one or the ethical one which is why so many skip down it. We can follow them or we can insist that a dialgoue on these issues, an honest one, may take place.
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center)
The first principle of non-violent action is that of non-cooperation with everything humiliating.
Cesar Chavez
Let's start with something from Democracy Now! today:
Gov't Study Estimate War Cost to Reach $700B
A new government study has found that the total cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will top $700 billion over the next decade. Already $300 billion has been spent. The total cost estimate comes from the Congressional Budget Office. The San Francisco Chronicle reports this would make the combined campaigns the most expensive military effort in the last 60 years. It is estimated that the Vietnam War cost about 600 billion in current dollars. The Korean War cost about 430 billion in current dollars.
There's always money for war, isn't there? People in the world and in our own country go without food and shelter but we can always scrape together the big bucks for war. The administration can screech lies about Social Security having a solvency problem but at the same time they can throw out $300 billion to invade and occupy. These are the priorities of some of our rulers and at a time when Hillary Clinton's making it clear where she stands, you need to be asking yourself if these are your priorities?
Mike has a great post on this today:
I had an e-mail from Kat about how the same day Fonda comes on strong for peace Hillary Clinton's trying to prove . . . Well what is she trying to prove?I never disliked Hillary until that speech she gave yesterday. She's not one of my senators so I didn't pay as close to attention to her as I did to Kerry and Kennedy. But she was our First Lady and I thought she did a pretty good job of that. Yesterday she embarrassed herself. Now maybe she appealed to some cowards and stuff but she came off pretty cowardly to me.
That really is what it's about. Fear. War mongers rattle the swords because they fear. They try to impose out of fear. Throughout history, they've operated from fear. Fear combined with greed as they've defined the other and then attempted to conquer the other.
Now comes Hillary Clinton clearly stepping into the mix. It wasn't a secret to her constiuents who attempted to speak to her about the war. She's brushed them off and ignored them repeatedly. But this was Hillary Clinton on the national stage announcing that she is one with the DLC and, therefore, one with the war mongers.
Clinically, what makes a person respond that way? I'd argue that it has a great deal to do with the attacks on her over the years, attacks that still cotinue but have lessened in their severity as she's associated herself with the likes of Newt Gingrich. She'll never be embraced fully by the right wing, but as she's moderated her stance, she's seen that some on the right have supported her and defended her even when rumor riddled book was released.
When Chris Matthews starts praising her, we'll know her own Scoop Jackson transformation has been complete.
That theory is based upon the belief that she's ever stood for something. For many, left or right, there's the belief that she's never had a core belief she'd stand for and by. That's why she could participate in the attacks on working women and single mothers, known as "welfare reform," while still being hailed as a feminist hero.
Rebecca's made it clear in this space that she has little to no use for Hillary Clinton. As she moves further and further away from the beliefs that her core supporters hold, it will be interesting to see whether they'll continue to justify her actions or whether they'll move away from her.
Among the supporters are people who truly are opposed to many policies that Bill Clinton championed in the nineties. When they justify, you can hear them offer, as C.I. noted this morning, that it would have been worse without Bill Clinton. Which reminds me of a woman in the ER with swollen lips and black eyes arguing that her husband could have also broken an arm but didn't.
There is a dance that Hillary Clinton does and there's a dance that her supporters do and somewhere in the movements, truth goes unheeded which is why questions can't be asked and her supporters will get very angry when they are.
As Hillary Clinton, who's always been one of the team C.I.'s dubbed The Operation Happy Talkers, comes out steadfast in her support of the occupation/invasion, it's important for us to remember what is going on, what actions we are using. I read Jane Mayer's detailed, eleven page article "The Experiment" detailing what's gone on Gitmo, how the techniques were developed and how they migrated to Iraq, most famously with Abu Ghraib. If you haven't read the article, please read C.I.'s summary of it. From the summary:
Concerns are raised regarding "force drift." That's when "interrogators encountering resistance begin to lose the ability to restrain themselves." If you'll think of it in terms of parenting, you'll relate that to the "power struggle." There's also a "seductive" component of these techniques, as an attorney for several prisoners -- Marc Falkoff -- notes. Falkoff asserts that "a mass suicide attempt at Guantanamo, in August 2003, in which two dozens or so detainees tried to hang or strangle themselves, was provoked by Koran mistreatment . . ."
That's a SERE technique. Only on American soil, while "testing" American soldiers, they used a Bible. They might tear pages out of it or kick it around or some other method. But it was developed here with the Bible. (Again, I'm holding my tongue and just attempting to summarize.)
The question is posed (and I'd argue throughout the article) by at least one person in the article of what are we becoming? What does it say about us when we "do things that our enemies do, like using torture?"We'll close out this summary by noting that doctors have participated as "bisquits" (though not all "bisquits" are doctors -- some are p.h.d.s) with the comments of Jonathan Moreno (bioethicist):
Guantanamo is going to haunt us for a long time. The Hippocratic oath is the oldest ethical code we have. We might abandon our morality about other professions. But the medical profession is sort of the last gasp. If we give that up, we've given up our core values.
As a country we're giving up a great deal of what we believe in. Read C.I.'s summary of Jane Mayer's "The Experiment" because The New Yorker hasn't made the article available online. Then use your libraries to find a copy of the issue.
We're not seeing a lot of "leaders" asking that we think about our actions and the consequences that will result from these actions and others. We need to be asking those questions. Real leadership by true leaders would result in opening up a dialogue on this topic. Instead, we see the Operation Happy Talkers and the war hawks like Hillary Clinton whose fear and blood lust require denying reality and speaking out for more deaths.
The easy road is never the moral one or the ethical one which is why so many skip down it. We can follow them or we can insist that a dialgoue on these issues, an honest one, may take place.
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center)
The first principle of non-violent action is that of non-cooperation with everything humiliating.
Cesar Chavez
7/25/2005
Jane Fonda speaking out against war again
Elaine back with you for another day filling in for Rebecca. News that made me happy today included the first item below. (The illustrations above were done by Isaiah and thanks to Isaiah and C.I. for permission to run them here.)
"Fonda to tour in opposition to war in Iraq" (Associated Press)
Actress and activist Jane Fonda says she intends to take a cross-country bus tour to call for an end to U.S. military operations in Iraq.
"I can't go into any detail except to say that it's going to be pretty exciting," she said.
Fonda said her anti-war tour in March will use a bus that runs on "vegetable oil." She will be joined by families of Iraq war veterans and her daughter.
C.I. and I were on the phone about this for about a half-hour this afternoon. The other thing we were discussing was Matthew Rothschild's interview with Carl Webb on The Progressive Radio Show. There are a number of ways you can listen to the interview, just go here where you'll find that "Carl Webb is a US soldier who has gone AWOL. I speak with him about his reasons for this decision, and what may be in store for him as a consequence."
"I" is Matthew Rothschild. Here's my attempt at a transcript. Rothschild asks him about his objection to the war.
Carl Webb explains, "It's overtly political. I do not believe that this country went to war for the excuses that they're putting out in their propaganda, the idea of us exporting democracy or actually defending this country. You know the president has already come out on TV and admitted not that they can't find any weapons of mass destruction but that there aren't any weapons of mass destruction. The links between Iraq and Al Qaeda and 9/11? False. I guess we could still claim that we are trying to export democracy but those were fraudulent elections . . ."
Matthew Rothschild asks him how he sees the war going and Carl Webb replies, "I think it will go very similar to the way Vietnam went. They're going to claim that they have some plan to withdraw and it's just going to escalate and escalate."
Now I'll put The Third Estate Sunday Review editorial in here because Rebecca always does this.
Editorial: The Gang That Couldn't Talk Straight
Jimmy Breslin wrote about The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight. Plauging our nation today is The Gang That Couldn't Talk Straight. Whether it's "privatization" or "tort reform" or "Clean Skies" or "No Child Left Behind" everything's hidden behind a phrase that implies something directly opposite from the actual meaning. (And no, we don't find that "ironic.")We've seen it play out since before the Bully Boy started occuyping the White House. "The votes have been counted and recounted!" (When in fact the majority had never been counted.) So maybe it shouldn't be shocking, for instance, that Bully Boy now says he'll fire whomever outed Plame in his administration only if they're found to have committed a crime.
Unless Bully Boy was seeking to establish a precedent, wasn't that always a given? Is he trying to tell us that's what he meant all along? "You go to prison, I'll fire you." That is where he draws the line?
His concept of integrity baffles the mind. But we're seeing that and a lot worse play out. Over and over, they try to divert and obscure. The gang that couldn't talk straight fails to grasp that conviction or not, Rove and Libby have already done enough that demonstrates they need to go. Enough has also come out that a Congressional investigation is needed to find out who else helped and (just as important) who failed to do anything when news of the impending outing reached the administration (as early as July 7th, 2003, Valerie Plame was outed on January 14th, 2003).
From Watching the Watchers' "Child Abuse at Abu Ghraib" by A! of Watching the Watchers, we learn that:
Data is emerging, no matter how the administration attempts to hide it, that the new photos and video of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison include the torture of children.
Norway's Prime Minister's office says it plans to address the situation with the U.S. "in a very severe and direct way."
Could this mean losing yet another ally in the Iraq occupation? Amnesty International in Norway has said that Norway can no longer continue their occupation of Iraq, or their support of US policy in this matter.
And some countries, as Tom Tomorrow notes, actually listen to their activists.While there isn't even an inkling of this in the US Mainstream media, all over the world people are beginning to read about the US abusing children at Abu Ghraib.
We weren't supposed to worry about that either, remember? Remember Operation Happy Talk of "a few bad apples" and that the photos just showed more of the same as the already released photos? Remember the GOP senators rushing to tell the public that releasing the photos could hurt us as a nation?
So they sat on them, after apparently lying about them, and a surprise only to the administration (which never seems to grasp that eventually the truth will come out), the photos haven't gone away.
Karl Rove and Karen Hughes may have instructed, "Clap your hands if you believe in Bully Boys." If so, not enough people clapped because not enough people believe. Operation Happy Talk goes into motion and at best disguises reality for a few weeks. Truth does come out.And what's coming out is that this administration with all their talk of "integrity" and "honor" has been the least accountable administration in recent history. They've fixed reports. They've lied about PDBs. They've outed a CIA agent. They've tried to cover up abuse that we should have dealt with a long time ago.
If America is hurt by the release of the photos, the Happy Talkers have themselves to blame.
They should have owned up to what was happening when they saw the photos. Instead, they tried to obscure the issue. As if it weren't bad enough that the torture occurred, our administration is now seen as trying to cover it up.That's not the way the United States is supposed to behave.
Make no mistake, Bully Boy and his Bullies Without Borders have had a lot of enablers. Including wishy-washy Democrats who didn't want to speak up or, when they did speak up, wanted to immediately cave, buckle, wimp out in the face of criticism.
The only apologies in the last five years have been coming from Democrats and, frequently, they're apologizing for things that don't require an apology. While the Dems bend over backwards to apologize for words, the administration demonstrates no accountability for its actions.
That needs to stop. The unwarrented apologies from Dems who try to speak the truth and the lack of accountability for the most mismanged administration that any of us can recall.
Congress better start excersizing their oversight because if they don't, accountability may come in the form of votes on election day in 2006. We need a truth movement in this country. Actually, we have it. You saw it on Saturday with people meeting to discuss and raise attention on the Downing Street Memo. As with Valerie Plame, the public's the one pushing for the truth.Hopefully, the mainstream press will also take part. But they haven't driven this.
One person who is asking questions that need to be asked is Robert Parry. From his "Rove-Bush Conspiracy Noose Tightens:"
The second new fact is what Rove did after his conversation with Cooper.
Although supposedly in a rush to leave on vacation, Rove e-mailed Stephen J. Hadley, then Bush's deputy national security adviser (and now national security adviser). According to the Associated Press, Rove's e-mail said he "didn’t take the bait" when Cooper suggested that Wilson’s criticisms had hurt the administration.
While it’s not entirely clear what Rove meant in the e-mail, the significance is that Rove immediately reported to Hadley, an official who was in a position to know classified details about Plame’s job. In other words, the e-mail is evidence that the assault on Wilson was being coordinated at senior White House levels.
Cooper also told the grand jury that his second source on the allegations about the Niger trip and Wilson’s wife was Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a leading neoconservative advocate for invading Iraq. According to Cooper, Libby said on a not-for-attribution basis about Plame, "Yeah, I’ve heard that, too."
See last week's editorial and you'll know why we're glad he's raising it and surprised that everyone else (including Richard W. Stevenson in today's New York Times) isn't also on it.
As the public begins asking what Parry's asking, The Gang That Couldn't Talk Straight is going to find itself in even hotter water. What we've constantly seen is avoidance in the place of accountability. With consistently bad polling results, we like to hope the sheen is finally off the Bully Boy.
Speeches and phrases based upon coded antonyms and the refusal of others in place to hold the administration accountable (the press, the Congress) have resulted in our current state. But at a time when things could seem hopeless, what we're seeing is a public getting active and asking the questions and raising the issues that others won't. That's healthy for democracy. And having grown weary waiting for leadership, the public's now ready to set the agenda and lead on their own.
[This editorial was written by the following: The Third Estate Sunday Review's Ty, Jess, Dona, Jim and Ava, C.I. of The Common Ills, Betty of Thomas Friedman is a Great Man, Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Kat of Kat's Korner and Mike of Mikey Likes It!]
I'm all over the map tonight. But Rebecca's really big on noting the community members with their own sites. She's also very big on David Sirota. He's not Christian Slater or Dahr Jamail, but he is one of her crushes. So I'll do a quote from him before wrapping up.
"How the DLC Reinforces Dishonest Stereotypes" (Sirotablog)
I've written before about how some people who claim to speak for Democrats seem to take pleasure in reinforcing dishonest stereotypes about the Democratic Party. The Democratic Leadership Council is no different - just read the headline of this article. Their whole case is based on the idea that Democrats do not back the military, which is so wildly dishonest it's beyond just a normal lie: it is a knowing lie. Democrats have consistently backed the military where the Republicans have not. That is a hard fact. But that doesn't fit the DLC's goals, which are to undermine the Democratic Party. Instead of working to debunk these right-wing stereotypes, these insulated Beltway snobs seem to only feel relevant if they reinforce the right-wing stereotypes parroted by Fox News and the Republican Party. It just shows that for Democrats who want to win - and not just preserve their status on the Washington cocktail party circuit - the DLC is really part of the problem, not the solution.
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center)
We need, in every community, a group of angelic troublemakers.
Bayard Rustin
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)