c.i. noted this: "Help Make Thursday, December 1st 'Blog Against Racism Day.'" which is a thing by leah at corrente. which just sent me into a panic because i couldn't remember if i'd added them to my blog roll or not. (i had.)
so the thing is to talk about race or racism today.
so here are my thoughts on the matter and you can nod along or spit nails or whatever gets you going. i'm going to focus on an issue where white people who aren't racist enable racism.
'we are we and they are they' is the biggest narrative going. it's how we end up demonizing others. and it depends upon ignorance.
and it depends on our ignoring our commonalities and and not respecting our differences.
instead a difference becomes a reason to demonize.
race is 1 of the easiest ways to play the other (gender is another) because it requires only our eyes to scan quickly and fall for whatever stereotype is being promoted in which ever generation.
we have a bully boy in the white house who loves to play the country against one another and loves to create divisions.
this is also world aids day and that's another example of demonizing. 25 years later the stigma's not as great as it once was. provided you're a child or contracted the disease through blood transfusions.
you saw it with those crappy e-mails from bono's organization always about 'the children' as though that's the only focus for empathy.
ruth in her ruth's morning edition report talks about how 1 of the things she enjoys most is learning about things and i honestly believe that a lot of people feel that way.
but sometimes we act like we don't feel that way because 'what would some 1 say?' i've been amazed at, for instance, the number of people who will say something as stupid as 'i hate that will & grace. they say things like "who's homo?"' but if some 1, usually me, says 'i like that show' the same person fronting 2 minutes ago will suddenly say, 'isn't it funny?'
we're all so worried about what some 1 might think.
that's why bully boy managed to pull off 4 years with so little criticism. we were scared to state the obvious.
so we fear other's reactions. when we find out their reaction, we're usually okay with being open.
and that goes to racism because we fear what we don't know.
and ignorance is encouraged in our culture.
c.i. taught me long ago to say fuck it.
if you're not black and you're around white people fairly often, you've probably been in a group or 1 on 1 with someone that you thought was wonderful only to hear them utter a racist saying.
years ago, it would make me uncomfortable and i'd excuse myself and avoid the person from then on. but c.i. would always say 'that is racist' and not care what their reaction was.
when i was younger, believe it or not, i was not always quick to share my opinion and i was loathe to disagree.
i would see c.i., who really doesn't care - i mean really doesn't care, tell some 1 off for being racist or being sexist or being homophobic or go down the list. it could be any 1 and it never bothered c.i.
it took me awhile to get to that point.
and my silence perpetuated racism. i could tell myself 'well i just won't be around ___ anymore' but that didn't change anything. the person might wonder why i avoided them after the shocked look but they didn't get that their remarks were offensive and wrong.
we need to let people know when they are wrong. if we don't we are perpetuating racism with our silence.
it's easy to say 'well i'm not racist' and go on about your life and i did that with race, gender, you name it.
there was a couple that is friends with my ex-in-laws. they would make the most racist jokes and i would walk away from them. then i would whine to c.i. on the phone. c.i. would always say 'they need to be called on it. it won't change what they are probably, but it will make them twice about assuming that just because every 1 present is white, they can get away with that shit.'
so when we announced our engagement, i was telling myself, i can't be silent tonight.
it was hard for me because back then i really did want every 1 to like me. but that night, when the husband came over to make another 1 of his 'jokes' i let him have it.
the couple avoided me, and our wedding, which is fine. in fact it's better because i didn't have to work to avoid them since they were avoiding me.
and after that, it was honestly easier for me to say to any 1, 'that's wrong.'
for me it was a road to finding my voice and to being able to speak up for what i believe in.
there was a friend that t and i had who we used to do stuff with, us and a group of women. she pulled that nonsense 1 day after we'd all been hanging out for some time.
when i called her on it, she told me i had no sense of humor (they always go there, racists, sexists and homophobes) and started saying stuff like 'you know me, you know i'm not racist.'
i thought i knew you. i thought you weren't racist. then you tell that 'joke.'
and of course she doesn't do it around t.
which is how you know it's not just a 'joke.' if it's just a joke, why say it only when no african-americans are present? this woman was all 'you go, girl!' and 'girlfriend' this and 'girlfriend' that when t was around. (which t always found strange.)
so that's my point for the night.
it's easy for you to tell yourself that since you're not racist, you don't need to worry about it. that turns it into a problem for 'others.' that kind of thinking, for instance, would really push it off on t.
it would be my way of saying, 't, you're african-american, so this is your problem.'
but racism is a problem for every 1 that every 1 needs to address. so if you've grimaced at a 'joke' and said nothing, i want you to think about speaking your mind and calling people out.
maybe it will open some 1's eyes. maybe it will only make them avoid you.
regardless, you'll feel better about yourself. you'll probably also be doing your friends a favor.
i don't mean the ones telling 'jokes.' i mean your own c.i., the person you whine to on the phone about this or that. you'll free up your time to talk about things that really matter instead of constantly needing pep talks. and if you have enough respect to say 'no' you'll be a stronger person.
i'm not sure if this is the sort of thing they were hoping for today but, to quote kat, it is what it is.
and what it is is this: if you're biting your tongue around 'jokes' or worse, you're perpetuating racism.
12/01/2005
11/30/2005
breaking news on breaking 9th circuit
i'm reposting the following (from the common ills) in full because it's that important.
"Target: the 9th Circuit (The Republican war on the judiciary continues)"
From the December issue of The Progressive, Ruth Conniff's "The Progressive Interview: Bernie Sanders:"[Bernie Sanders]:
In my view this happens to be one of the most dangerous moments in American history. These guys are not just reactionaires. They are changing the rules of the game so they will stay in power for the indefinite futere. We see this abuse of power on the floor of the House. They kept the voting rolls open for three hours to pass the Medicare prescription drug bill. I had an amendment, which won, on the Patriot Act. They kept the voting open twenty minutes longer to defeat it. They break the rules. It's like having a football game go into the fifth quareter because you don't like the results at the end of the fourth quarter. We know what DeLay did in Texas. They have taken chairmen -- yanked them out -- because they defy the leadership of the House. They are now attempting to destroy the judiciary system, which will have profound implications for the future of this country.
Note Sander's last sentence, "They are now attempting to destroy the judiciary system, which will have profound implications for the future of this country." (The article's from the latest issue of the magazine and it's not available online at present.) Why note the last sentence? Zachary Coile's "A quiet move in House to split the 9th Circuit" (San Francisco Chronicle):
A little-noticed provision in the massive House budget bill would fulfill the longtime goal of conservatives to split the San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, creating a new 12th circuit appellate court and allowing President Bush to name a slate of new federal judges.
Conservatives long have claimed that the Ninth Circuit is too liberal, and that reputation was reinforced by the court's 2002 ruling that reciting the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
But legal observers say the outcome of such a split is likely to be a more liberal court making decisions for California, Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands and a more conservative court serving seven other Western states now part of the Ninth Circuit -- Alaska, Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Nevada and Arizona.
In the article, Reagan appointee Judge Alex Kozinski is noted as testifying before the Senate last month:
Dividing a circuit should only take place when: one, there is demonstrated proof that a circuit is not operating effectively, and two, there is a consensus among the bench and bar and public that it serves that division is the appropriate remedy. Neither of those conditions exists today.
The article also notes that: "Of the 28 active judges on Ninth Circuit, only three have expressed support for splitting the court."
Though Diane Feinstein opposes the plan, Bully Boy has signed on to it.And who would pack the newly created circuit? (You know the answer.) It's thought that one of the states effected would be Oregon. (We have several members in Oregon.) Oregon hasbeen very active with measures that Bully Boy's Justice Department has opposed. For instance, Oregon's physician-assisted suicide. From CNN's "Federal judge upholds Oregon assisted-suicide law" (April 17, 2002):
In his ruling, Judge Robert E. Jones criticized U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft for seeking to nullify the state law, saying he "fired the first shot in the battle" and had sought to "stifle" a debate on the matter through a Nov. 6 directive.
Jones ordered the federal government to halt any efforts to prosecute Oregon physicians, pharmacists and other health-care providers who participate in assisted suicide of terminally ill patients under Oregon's law.
How bothered is the Bully Boy's Justice Department over this law? When the Ninth Circuit upheld Oregon's law, the Justice Department appealed to the Supreme Court. The case that began as Ashcroft v. Oregon became Gonzales v. Oregon and the Court heard testimony on it in October. (Oral arguments before the Court can be found here.)
The article in the Chronicle focuses on the effects to California. This would impact much more than California. Bully Boy's Justice Department has often proved successful is circuit shopping their cases.
physician-assisted suicide
bernie sanders
ruth conniff
the progressive
death with dignity
ninth circuit
judiciary
that may be 1 of the most important things you need to be aware for the day.
last night i wrote about barbara walters and her boring special. i wrote it before the final 10 minutes or i would have had much more to say. (thanks to wally and c.i. for getting the word out on my post.)
in the last 10 minutes, we worked our ways down to the even less important.
1st we had tom cruise who always, my opinion, comes off gay when he's trying so desperately to convince you that he's in love with some new woman. maybe he's not gay, maybe he is. but when he starts talking 'love' he sounds like some 1 trying real hard to present a front.
though time was limited, each segment lasted about as long as a music video, barbara did have time to go over all the times she'd interviewed tom cruise before; however, she did not have time to ask about the very obvious age difference.
you can be sure she would've asked cher or demi moore about the age issue.
but she's hardly a feminist so it's not too surprising to see her enforcing the sexist status quo.
from there we got the not so great camilla.
barbara walters all but stomped over the late princess diana's grave to run over and ass kiss camilla. it was insulting and it was shocking.
it was nice the way camilla was innocently inserted into charles life. always in the wings but in a platonic measure, of course. what a load of crap.
but it gets stinkier.
the most fascinating person of the year?
to barbara walters it was condi rice. apparently war criminals make barbara's panties moist.
ladies & gentlemen, barbara walters. she's not just a whore for the republican party, she's an old whore.
on that topic, did any 1 watching really think that was her own hair? if you're going to do fake hair, why do it blonde if you're not naturally a blonde?
i couldn't figure out if she picked out the fake, horse hair because it looked so bad and dry that she assumed people would think, 'it looks bad, it must be real' or if it's just further evidence of how she has no taste?
condi has a soft spot, barbara tells us. which means when not lying the american people into war, condi likes to play football.
watching barbara gush over condi, i had to wonder if barbara was hoping to tackle condie on the field?
since colin powell's apparently not running for president ever, barbara walters is all wet and frothy over condi rice.
how that woman can show her face is beyond me.
i meant walters but it applies to both. maybe that's what they bonded over: lack of shame.
the daily jot
the common ills
mikey likes it
mike's new motto:
The Common Ills community is important and the Common Ills community is important to me. So I'll do my part for the Common Ills community.
"Target: the 9th Circuit (The Republican war on the judiciary continues)"
From the December issue of The Progressive, Ruth Conniff's "The Progressive Interview: Bernie Sanders:"[Bernie Sanders]:
In my view this happens to be one of the most dangerous moments in American history. These guys are not just reactionaires. They are changing the rules of the game so they will stay in power for the indefinite futere. We see this abuse of power on the floor of the House. They kept the voting rolls open for three hours to pass the Medicare prescription drug bill. I had an amendment, which won, on the Patriot Act. They kept the voting open twenty minutes longer to defeat it. They break the rules. It's like having a football game go into the fifth quareter because you don't like the results at the end of the fourth quarter. We know what DeLay did in Texas. They have taken chairmen -- yanked them out -- because they defy the leadership of the House. They are now attempting to destroy the judiciary system, which will have profound implications for the future of this country.
Note Sander's last sentence, "They are now attempting to destroy the judiciary system, which will have profound implications for the future of this country." (The article's from the latest issue of the magazine and it's not available online at present.) Why note the last sentence? Zachary Coile's "A quiet move in House to split the 9th Circuit" (San Francisco Chronicle):
A little-noticed provision in the massive House budget bill would fulfill the longtime goal of conservatives to split the San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, creating a new 12th circuit appellate court and allowing President Bush to name a slate of new federal judges.
Conservatives long have claimed that the Ninth Circuit is too liberal, and that reputation was reinforced by the court's 2002 ruling that reciting the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
But legal observers say the outcome of such a split is likely to be a more liberal court making decisions for California, Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands and a more conservative court serving seven other Western states now part of the Ninth Circuit -- Alaska, Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Nevada and Arizona.
In the article, Reagan appointee Judge Alex Kozinski is noted as testifying before the Senate last month:
Dividing a circuit should only take place when: one, there is demonstrated proof that a circuit is not operating effectively, and two, there is a consensus among the bench and bar and public that it serves that division is the appropriate remedy. Neither of those conditions exists today.
The article also notes that: "Of the 28 active judges on Ninth Circuit, only three have expressed support for splitting the court."
Though Diane Feinstein opposes the plan, Bully Boy has signed on to it.And who would pack the newly created circuit? (You know the answer.) It's thought that one of the states effected would be Oregon. (We have several members in Oregon.) Oregon hasbeen very active with measures that Bully Boy's Justice Department has opposed. For instance, Oregon's physician-assisted suicide. From CNN's "Federal judge upholds Oregon assisted-suicide law" (April 17, 2002):
In his ruling, Judge Robert E. Jones criticized U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft for seeking to nullify the state law, saying he "fired the first shot in the battle" and had sought to "stifle" a debate on the matter through a Nov. 6 directive.
Jones ordered the federal government to halt any efforts to prosecute Oregon physicians, pharmacists and other health-care providers who participate in assisted suicide of terminally ill patients under Oregon's law.
How bothered is the Bully Boy's Justice Department over this law? When the Ninth Circuit upheld Oregon's law, the Justice Department appealed to the Supreme Court. The case that began as Ashcroft v. Oregon became Gonzales v. Oregon and the Court heard testimony on it in October. (Oral arguments before the Court can be found here.)
The article in the Chronicle focuses on the effects to California. This would impact much more than California. Bully Boy's Justice Department has often proved successful is circuit shopping their cases.
physician-assisted suicide
bernie sanders
ruth conniff
the progressive
death with dignity
ninth circuit
judiciary
that may be 1 of the most important things you need to be aware for the day.
last night i wrote about barbara walters and her boring special. i wrote it before the final 10 minutes or i would have had much more to say. (thanks to wally and c.i. for getting the word out on my post.)
in the last 10 minutes, we worked our ways down to the even less important.
1st we had tom cruise who always, my opinion, comes off gay when he's trying so desperately to convince you that he's in love with some new woman. maybe he's not gay, maybe he is. but when he starts talking 'love' he sounds like some 1 trying real hard to present a front.
though time was limited, each segment lasted about as long as a music video, barbara did have time to go over all the times she'd interviewed tom cruise before; however, she did not have time to ask about the very obvious age difference.
you can be sure she would've asked cher or demi moore about the age issue.
but she's hardly a feminist so it's not too surprising to see her enforcing the sexist status quo.
from there we got the not so great camilla.
barbara walters all but stomped over the late princess diana's grave to run over and ass kiss camilla. it was insulting and it was shocking.
it was nice the way camilla was innocently inserted into charles life. always in the wings but in a platonic measure, of course. what a load of crap.
but it gets stinkier.
the most fascinating person of the year?
to barbara walters it was condi rice. apparently war criminals make barbara's panties moist.
ladies & gentlemen, barbara walters. she's not just a whore for the republican party, she's an old whore.
on that topic, did any 1 watching really think that was her own hair? if you're going to do fake hair, why do it blonde if you're not naturally a blonde?
i couldn't figure out if she picked out the fake, horse hair because it looked so bad and dry that she assumed people would think, 'it looks bad, it must be real' or if it's just further evidence of how she has no taste?
condi has a soft spot, barbara tells us. which means when not lying the american people into war, condi likes to play football.
watching barbara gush over condi, i had to wonder if barbara was hoping to tackle condie on the field?
since colin powell's apparently not running for president ever, barbara walters is all wet and frothy over condi rice.
how that woman can show her face is beyond me.
i meant walters but it applies to both. maybe that's what they bonded over: lack of shame.
the daily jot
the common ills
mikey likes it
mike's new motto:
The Common Ills community is important and the Common Ills community is important to me. So I'll do my part for the Common Ills community.
11/29/2005
ba-ba-ba ba-ba-boring
'rebecca, why are the posts late these days?'
when john roberts was confirmed, i spiraled into a depression.
alito?
i'm sure his ass will be put on the bench because i don't see any strength in the dems on this. (maybe they're saving up their energy?)
but it won't be because i didn't do what i could.
ava, c.i. and elaine organized on roberts. if you asked them, they'll tell you they weren't surprised that roberts got confirmed. but they knew they had done everything they could to stop it.
if/when alito's confirmed, i want to be sure that i did everything i could to make my voice heard.
i hope you're doing the same.
the editorial i put up here yesterday got a some favorable e-mails.
but it also got questions. 1 was, why isn't anyone talking about this?
i have no idea. maybe everyone was too wrapped up in barbara walter's idea of the ten most whatever people.
interesting?
kayne west is the only 1 who's interesting.
hot?
have you seen some of the people on the special?
i can't think of anything worse than the special.
there's useless babara walters on aruba.
the world really needed that.
am i missing something?
on this 'fascinating' people, where's cindy sheehan.
oh that's right barbara walters carries water for the republicans. hell she probably carried nancy regan's toilet kit.
i'm amazed that this useless piece of fluff has managed to live down iran-contra. but it helps to have a press that doesn't want to question.
she's got all the useless 1s on board.
lance armstrong. peddling fast to escape the french accusations of doping and with his 'pretend i'm a teenager!' girlfriend sheryl crow in tow. did any 1 notice, by the way, that her album tanked?
guess in music you can't be infantile forever. a little spark can get your career going but if you have nothing else to offer and never grow or stretch, you're just boring.
too bad sheryl crow didn't think to go into tv instead. as barbara walters demonstrates, you can be as boring and as infantile as you want and have a long career in tv.
kanye west was the only reason to watch 'instant walters' tonight.
maybe she's as bored with her interviews as every 1 else?
what else could account for this special?
or 'special.'
it's even more superficial than her long winded work.
each 'fascinating' person gets about the time needed for a music video.
probing journalism barbara!
where do old press whores go?
i don't care, i just wish she would get there already.
when john roberts was confirmed, i spiraled into a depression.
alito?
i'm sure his ass will be put on the bench because i don't see any strength in the dems on this. (maybe they're saving up their energy?)
but it won't be because i didn't do what i could.
ava, c.i. and elaine organized on roberts. if you asked them, they'll tell you they weren't surprised that roberts got confirmed. but they knew they had done everything they could to stop it.
if/when alito's confirmed, i want to be sure that i did everything i could to make my voice heard.
i hope you're doing the same.
the editorial i put up here yesterday got a some favorable e-mails.
but it also got questions. 1 was, why isn't anyone talking about this?
i have no idea. maybe everyone was too wrapped up in barbara walter's idea of the ten most whatever people.
interesting?
kayne west is the only 1 who's interesting.
hot?
have you seen some of the people on the special?
i can't think of anything worse than the special.
there's useless babara walters on aruba.
the world really needed that.
am i missing something?
on this 'fascinating' people, where's cindy sheehan.
oh that's right barbara walters carries water for the republicans. hell she probably carried nancy regan's toilet kit.
i'm amazed that this useless piece of fluff has managed to live down iran-contra. but it helps to have a press that doesn't want to question.
she's got all the useless 1s on board.
lance armstrong. peddling fast to escape the french accusations of doping and with his 'pretend i'm a teenager!' girlfriend sheryl crow in tow. did any 1 notice, by the way, that her album tanked?
guess in music you can't be infantile forever. a little spark can get your career going but if you have nothing else to offer and never grow or stretch, you're just boring.
too bad sheryl crow didn't think to go into tv instead. as barbara walters demonstrates, you can be as boring and as infantile as you want and have a long career in tv.
kanye west was the only reason to watch 'instant walters' tonight.
maybe she's as bored with her interviews as every 1 else?
what else could account for this special?
or 'special.'
it's even more superficial than her long winded work.
each 'fascinating' person gets about the time needed for a music video.
probing journalism barbara!
where do old press whores go?
i don't care, i just wish she would get there already.
11/28/2005
editorial
i've got friends over so i'm just going to cross post tonight.
this is from an editorial we worked on at the third estate sunday review and i'm not hearing much media coverage on this court case but maybe i'm just missing it:
'Editorial: Looks Who's Screaming "Special Rights"'
The Gray Lady plays Miss Manners and clucks "Parents are more involved than ever before. So why do children today seem so rude?" in the pull quote to their Week in Review front page story "Kids Gone Wild." Recycling a trend story that's been around longer than The New York Times, the paper's on hot the trail of . . . nothing.
Which is too bad because inside they actually have something worth noting. Page five's "Here's the Problem With Emily Dickinson." The problem with Dickinson, for some, is that she exhibited "a veiled disrespect for authroity in general." Kids today, what you gonna' do?
Apprarently take it to court.
"On Dec. 12, the Federal District Court in Los Angeles will hear a lawsuit filed by a consortium of Christian high schools against the University of California system for refusing to credit some of their courses when their students apply to admission."
Well boo hoo. They want, to use a term 'vangicals are so fond of, "SPECIAL RIGHTS."
Now maybe we're dealing with parents who never made it through a college system that didn't have a televangist attached, but this editorial is written by enrolled college students and college graduates. Rebecca switched universities. When she did, her short story English course? She didn't get credit for it at her new university. We can list stories like that for a month and a half. Colleges have the right to determine what they will recognize as an accredited course (from high school or another college or a junior college). If someone's planning to attend a univeristy, it's incumbent upon them to know which courses are accepted and which aren't.
Five of us have heard a recent transfer whine for an entire semester, in every class, that some of his courses wouldn't "transfer." No one forced him to transfer. He always intended to transfer. It was his choice to fly blind.
Academic admission standards are decided based on what core knowledge all incoming students should have. There's nothing that prevents the Calvary Chapel Christian School of Murrieta, CA from offering whatever electives they want. However, if the core courses don't receive credit, that's something the private high schools need to address within their own systems.
The article in the paper (by Thomas Vinciguerra) offers excerpts from texts for these non-credited courses. The information imparted in those texts may be useful to someone's spirituality or not. They're not helping to educating the students on the basics that one needs to enter college.
No one's forcing the schools to drop those courses. They can offer them. They just shouldn't whine when colleges refuse to accredit them. We're sure the parents are outraged. They've spent good money sending their children to private schools. That's a problem between the parents and the schools they selected for their children.
Nothing prevents the schools from offering the same information in elective courses. But the courses aren't covering the core information that a student entering college needs.
That's not the fault of university standards.
Text books containing (as fact) statements such as "Second, physics as taught in the schools of the world contradicts the processes that shaped the world we see today" aren't teaching core academic requirements. They're teaching opinion and they can continue to do that. No one's stopping them.
They just shouldn't demand that academic standards be lowered to give them "Special Rights."
Want to attend secular universities? Learn the basics. You can learn anything else you want, but cover the basics.
Elaine and C.I. saw a ridiculous "film" about the "haters" this week. "Haters" try to deny rights, the film argued, they want everyone to believe as they do. Do you know who the haters were? Everyone living in a secular world. (Regardless of their own personal beliefs.) The whole world, according to the film, was out to get evangicals.
Talk about a persecution complex.
No one's insisting that private, religious schools teach anything. If their students wish to attend secular universities, they need to be prepared at the same level as other students. There's no Special-Ed U that we're aware of (jokes aside). Classes don't need to come to a repeated halt because someone's not up to the same level as their peers.
The texts excerted by the paper do not cover one course. They are the science texts, the literature texts, the historical texts.
The students have been taught a lot of faith, they haven't been taught a lot of facts. Maybe they've managed to pick that up on their own, maybe they haven't. But colleges determine whether or not a course receives credit based upon the content taught in the class.
Though those with persecution complexes may want to scream that this is a religious issue, it's not. There's nothing preventing the religious schools from teaching these non-credited courses.
They can teach only those courses and continue enrolling any student whose parents are willing to spend money on an education that won't transfer. Or they can teach those courses as electives and offer core classes that meet the academic requirements.
They shouldn't, however, think they can teach substandard courses and then scream "religious bigotry" when a university refuses to credit those courses.
As electives, the courses could help shape a new generation of op-ed writers and thinkers. We wouldn't care to read their writing but their opinions could be shaped by elective courses. However, these aren't core classes. They do not meet the basic requirements.
The only "haters" are the people who want to reject accepted academic standards for high schools and then receive a waiver allowing them to enter a secular university. There's a variety of religions to be found in the authors of this editorial. This includes people who attended parochial schools. They learned their basics there, not just faith.
That 'vangical schools want to pop up and play by their own academic guidelines is fine. They just can't ignore core comptency and then whine about the fact that the substandard academic education they've provided won't transfer. The only "haters" ares the ones insisting upon "Special Rights." When gays and lesbians ask for equal protection under the law, 'vangicals scream (falsely) special rights. This legal challenge is another example of their refusal to recognize the need for equality, in this case equal standards for admission.
[This editorial was written by The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Betty Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man, C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz and Wally of The Daily Jot.]
posted by Third Estate Sunday Review @ Sunday, November 27, 2005
this is from an editorial we worked on at the third estate sunday review and i'm not hearing much media coverage on this court case but maybe i'm just missing it:
'Editorial: Looks Who's Screaming "Special Rights"'
The Gray Lady plays Miss Manners and clucks "Parents are more involved than ever before. So why do children today seem so rude?" in the pull quote to their Week in Review front page story "Kids Gone Wild." Recycling a trend story that's been around longer than The New York Times, the paper's on hot the trail of . . . nothing.
Which is too bad because inside they actually have something worth noting. Page five's "Here's the Problem With Emily Dickinson." The problem with Dickinson, for some, is that she exhibited "a veiled disrespect for authroity in general." Kids today, what you gonna' do?
Apprarently take it to court.
"On Dec. 12, the Federal District Court in Los Angeles will hear a lawsuit filed by a consortium of Christian high schools against the University of California system for refusing to credit some of their courses when their students apply to admission."
Well boo hoo. They want, to use a term 'vangicals are so fond of, "SPECIAL RIGHTS."
Now maybe we're dealing with parents who never made it through a college system that didn't have a televangist attached, but this editorial is written by enrolled college students and college graduates. Rebecca switched universities. When she did, her short story English course? She didn't get credit for it at her new university. We can list stories like that for a month and a half. Colleges have the right to determine what they will recognize as an accredited course (from high school or another college or a junior college). If someone's planning to attend a univeristy, it's incumbent upon them to know which courses are accepted and which aren't.
Five of us have heard a recent transfer whine for an entire semester, in every class, that some of his courses wouldn't "transfer." No one forced him to transfer. He always intended to transfer. It was his choice to fly blind.
Academic admission standards are decided based on what core knowledge all incoming students should have. There's nothing that prevents the Calvary Chapel Christian School of Murrieta, CA from offering whatever electives they want. However, if the core courses don't receive credit, that's something the private high schools need to address within their own systems.
The article in the paper (by Thomas Vinciguerra) offers excerpts from texts for these non-credited courses. The information imparted in those texts may be useful to someone's spirituality or not. They're not helping to educating the students on the basics that one needs to enter college.
No one's forcing the schools to drop those courses. They can offer them. They just shouldn't whine when colleges refuse to accredit them. We're sure the parents are outraged. They've spent good money sending their children to private schools. That's a problem between the parents and the schools they selected for their children.
Nothing prevents the schools from offering the same information in elective courses. But the courses aren't covering the core information that a student entering college needs.
That's not the fault of university standards.
Text books containing (as fact) statements such as "Second, physics as taught in the schools of the world contradicts the processes that shaped the world we see today" aren't teaching core academic requirements. They're teaching opinion and they can continue to do that. No one's stopping them.
They just shouldn't demand that academic standards be lowered to give them "Special Rights."
Want to attend secular universities? Learn the basics. You can learn anything else you want, but cover the basics.
Elaine and C.I. saw a ridiculous "film" about the "haters" this week. "Haters" try to deny rights, the film argued, they want everyone to believe as they do. Do you know who the haters were? Everyone living in a secular world. (Regardless of their own personal beliefs.) The whole world, according to the film, was out to get evangicals.
Talk about a persecution complex.
No one's insisting that private, religious schools teach anything. If their students wish to attend secular universities, they need to be prepared at the same level as other students. There's no Special-Ed U that we're aware of (jokes aside). Classes don't need to come to a repeated halt because someone's not up to the same level as their peers.
The texts excerted by the paper do not cover one course. They are the science texts, the literature texts, the historical texts.
The students have been taught a lot of faith, they haven't been taught a lot of facts. Maybe they've managed to pick that up on their own, maybe they haven't. But colleges determine whether or not a course receives credit based upon the content taught in the class.
Though those with persecution complexes may want to scream that this is a religious issue, it's not. There's nothing preventing the religious schools from teaching these non-credited courses.
They can teach only those courses and continue enrolling any student whose parents are willing to spend money on an education that won't transfer. Or they can teach those courses as electives and offer core classes that meet the academic requirements.
They shouldn't, however, think they can teach substandard courses and then scream "religious bigotry" when a university refuses to credit those courses.
As electives, the courses could help shape a new generation of op-ed writers and thinkers. We wouldn't care to read their writing but their opinions could be shaped by elective courses. However, these aren't core classes. They do not meet the basic requirements.
The only "haters" are the people who want to reject accepted academic standards for high schools and then receive a waiver allowing them to enter a secular university. There's a variety of religions to be found in the authors of this editorial. This includes people who attended parochial schools. They learned their basics there, not just faith.
That 'vangical schools want to pop up and play by their own academic guidelines is fine. They just can't ignore core comptency and then whine about the fact that the substandard academic education they've provided won't transfer. The only "haters" ares the ones insisting upon "Special Rights." When gays and lesbians ask for equal protection under the law, 'vangicals scream (falsely) special rights. This legal challenge is another example of their refusal to recognize the need for equality, in this case equal standards for admission.
[This editorial was written by The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Betty Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man, C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz and Wally of The Daily Jot.]
posted by Third Estate Sunday Review @ Sunday, November 27, 2005
11/27/2005
11/25/2005
news you can use, so use it!
i talked to elaine and asked her, 'are you just going to post the headlines? because i have a busy night.' elaine said she was just going to post them and a peace quote. i'm sure she was being nice because 'fly boy' (as mike calls my ex) and i have a big evening planned. i'll take kindness.
here are headlines.
We've composed the following twelve headlines dealing with Iraq, peace, global warming, reproductive rights, Bob Woodward, Judith Miller, prisons, the Patriot Act, the media, fatalities and other topics.
1) From Dahr Jamail's MidEast Wire (Iraq Dispatches):
Monday in Iraq, US troops fired on a car in Ba'qubah, killing five, two adults and three children. The US military states that they feared the car "booby-trapped." The family had been returning from visiting relatives when a US convoy approached. The car was fired on from the front and the back. One Iraqi was quoted as saying, "The ones who brought in the Americans are at fault. Those who support them are at fault. All of them are at fault. Look at these. They are all children. All of them of are children. They killed them. They killed my entire family."
2) In the United States the Associated Press reports that Cindy Sheehan returned to Crawford, Texas Thursday and joined what some estimates say were 100 protestors and other estimates say as many as 200.Cindy Sheehan stated, "I feel happy to be back here with all my friends ... but I'm heartbroken that we have to be here again," said Sheehan, who hoped to arrive earlier in the week, but was delayed by a family emergency. "We will keep pressing and we won't give up until our troops are brought home."
3) Since Sheehan and others last gathered at Camp Casey I and Camp Casey II, laws have been passed to prevent further gatherings in Crawford -- "local bans on roadside camping and parking." As protestors returned this week, they were advised they could be arrested. Among those arrested Wednesday were Daniel Ellsberg and US diplomat Ann Wright. Democratic Underground has a report from Carl who was also arrested Wendesday. Carl reports that "The entire [arrest & booking] process took 3.5 hours." Carl advises that the vigils will also take place on Christmas and New Year's Eve as well as that "Donations to the Crawford Veterans For Peace can be mailed to P. O. Box 252, Crawford, Texas, 76638-9998."
4) As the participation of psychologists and psychiatrists in the "BISQUIT" program and other 'interrogation' work raises ethical and professional questions today, CounterPunch is reporting that in WWII, United States anthropologists participated with the Office of Strategic Services in attempts to determine means to destroy the Japanese. David Price reports, in what is a clear betrayal of the profession, anthropologists were instructed "to try to conceive ways that any detectable differences could be used in the development of weapons, but they were cautioned to consider this issue 'in a-moral and non-ethical terms'." Price notes "Ralph Linton and Harry Shapiro, objected to even considering the OSS' request but they were the exceptions."
5) In legal news, as the prison industry has switched to a profit making business, prisoners have found themselves located far from relatives. The distance has proved profitable for long distance companies. The Center for Constitutional Rights argued in court Monday on behalf of "New York family members who pay a grossly inflated rate to receive a phone call from their loved ones in state prisons." CCR notes:
The lawsuit, Walton v. NYSDOCS and MCI, seeks an order prohibiting the State and MCI from charging exorbitant rates to the family members of prisoners to finance a 57.5% kickback to the State. MCI charges these family members a 630% markup over regular consumer rates to receive a collect call from their loved ones, the only way possible to speak with them. Judge George Ceresia of the Supreme Court of New York, Albany County, dismissed the suit last fall, citing issues of timeliness.
6) In other legal news, Cynthia L. Cooper reports for Women's enews that November 30th the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. At issue in this case, is whether or not bans on reproductive freedom enacted by state legislatures must take effect before they can be legally challenged or whether they can be challenged as soon as they are passed. The standard up to now has been that laws can be challenged as soon as they are passed. Cooper notes:
By changing the legal standard for when an abortion restriction can be challenged in court, anti-abortion laws could quickly entangle women across the country, without directly overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that held that states could not criminalize abortion in all circumstances.
7) The Guardian of London reports on a Rutgers University study that has found "[g]lobal warming is doubling the rate of sea level rise around the world, but attempts to stop it by cutting back on greenhouse gas emissions are likely to be futile." Professor Kenneth Miller tells The Guardian's Ashraf Khalil, "This is going to cause more beach erosion. Beaches are going to move back and houses will be destroyed." This comes as the Climate Conference is gearing up to take place in Montreal from November 28th to December 9th. United for Peace and Justiceis issuing a call for action:
This fall let's mobilize a nationwide, grassroots education and action campaign leading up to mass demonstrations in Montreal and throughout the U.S. on Saturday, December 3rd. Help gather signatures for the Peoples Ratification of the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty (http://www.unitedforpeace.org/www.kyotoandbeyond.org), which will be presented in Montreal. Join Climate Crisis: USA Join the World! (http://www.unitedforpeace.org/www.climatecrisis.us) as we call for:USA Join the World by Ratifying the Kyoto Protocol
Support and Export Clean, Safe, Non-Nuclear Energy Alternatives
End Government Subsidies for Oil and Coal Corporations
Dramatically Strengthen Energy Conservation and Fuel Efficiency Standards
A Just Transition for Workers, Indigenous and Other Communities Affected by a Change to Clean Energy
Defend the World's Forests; Support Community-Run Tree Planting Campaigns
8) With Congress out of session due to the holidays, a number of organizations are attempting to inform the public of pending legislation. The Bill of Rights Defense Center warns to "[e]xpect a vote [on the renewal of the Patriot Act] after Congress returns on December 12th." Of the bill, Lisa Graves of the ACLU states:
The Patriot Act was bad in 2001, and despite bipartisan calls for reform, it's still bad in 2005. Instead of addressing the real concerns that millions of Americans have about the Patriot Act, the Republican majority in Congress buckled to White House pressure, stripping the bill of modest yet meaningful reforms. Congress must reject this bill.
Both the ACLU and the Bill of Rights of Defense Center are calling for grass roots action.
Also asking for action is NOW. Congress failed to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.You can make your voice heard via NOW's take action page. On their page, you have the option of e-mailing your representatives and/or signing a petition that NOW will present to Congress on December 5th.
9) Meanwhile, as November winds down, American military fatalities have reached 76 for the month, with the Department of Defense reporting 50 Americans wounded thus far this month. The total number of American military killed in Iraq, official count, has reached 2105. Scripps Howard News Service reports that, "U.S. commanders on the ground have already launched plans to close bases and withdraw troops in the coming year, according to two congressmen who returned from Iraq this week." The two congress members are John Kline and Mark Kennedy (Republicans, Minn.).
10) In other Congressional news, Ari Berman reports for The Nation that John McCain is in the midst of makeover. Meeting with The Arizona Republican Assembly in August, McCain slapped some new war paint on as McCain supported the teaching of so-called "intelligent design" side by side with evolution, the state's "ban on gay marriage that denies government benefits to any unmarried couple," hailed Ronald Reagan as "my hero" and was observed "strenuously defending . . . Bush's Iraq policy."
For those who have forgotten, McCain attended Mark Bingham's funeral. Bingham was one of the passengers of Flight 93 on 9/11 in immediate media reports. As the days wore on, Bingham appeared to disappear from many reports. Mark Bingham was gay. Whether that resulted in a "downgrading" by some in the media has been a source of speculation for some time.
11) Focusing on the media, at The Black Commentator, Margaret Kimberly addresses the issue of Bob Woodward, tying him and his editor to the journalistic behaviors of Judith Miller and her editors:
Miller, Sulzberger, Woodward and Bradlee are at the top of the corporate media food chain, and their behavior tells us why Americans aren't being told anything they ought to be told. Woodward uses his access to make a fortune writing about the Supreme Court or various presidential administrations. If a journalist's priority is writing best selling books based on the amount of access gained with the powerful, then truth telling goes out the window.
12) Also addressing the very similar behaviors of Miller and Woodward are Steven C. Day at Pop Politics, Ron Brynaert at Why Are We Back In Iraq?, and Arianna Huffington at The Huffington Post. Though still vocal on Judith Miller and weighing in with the "latest," CJR Daily still can't find a connection between the "journalistic" styles of Judith Miller and Bob Woodward. In their most recent 'Judy report', CJR Daily ponders the question of why did Miller go to jail when Scooter Libby and his people maintain that they released her from confidentiality claims. Covering old news and working themselves into another lather over Miller, CJR Daily wonders"Why did Ms. Miller go to jail?" and maintains the question "has never been fully answered." The question has indeed been answered.
Whether CJR Daily approves of or believes the argument of Miller, Floyd Abrams, et al, is beside the point. For the record, the answer has been given many times. The argument was that Miller needed more than a form signed possibly under duress. Abrams and others have long been on the record explaining that they sought a release other than the form. In the front page report, Sunday October 16, 2005, Don Van Natta Jr., Adam Liptak and Clifford J. Levy reported:
She said she began thinking about whether she should reach out to Mr. Libby for "a personal, voluntary waiver."
[. . .]
While she mulled over over her options, Mr. Bennett was urging her to allow him to approach Mr. Tate, Mr. Libby's lawyer, to try tonegotiate a deal that would get her out of jail. Mr. Bennet wanted to revive the question of the waivers that Mr. Libby and other administration officials signed the previous year authorizing reporters to disclose their confidential discussions.
The other reporters subpoenaed in the case said such waivers were coerced. They said administration officials signed them only because they feared retribution from the prosecutor or the White House. Reporters for at least three news organizations had then gone back to their sources and obtained additional assurances that convinced them the waivers were genunie. But Ms. Miller said she had not gotten an assurance that she felt would allow her to testify.
Again, from the front page New York Times story on . . . October 16, 2005. Though this was not the first reporting on Miller's position, this front page story of the Times was commented in great detail including at CJR Daily here and here. The latter time by the same writer who now wonders "Why did Ms. Miller go to jail?" Repeatedly hitting the designated pinata with articles focusing on her conduct while reducing the conduct of Bob Woodward to asides (whispered asides?) doesn't appear to make for brave "watchdoggery."
Democracy Now! has a special presentation today. The headlines above were composed by The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, Betty Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man, Wally of The Daily Jot and Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix. Thanks to Dallas for his help with links and tags. The above will be reposted at The Third Estate Sunday Review and may also be reposted at the sites of members participating.
here are headlines.
We've composed the following twelve headlines dealing with Iraq, peace, global warming, reproductive rights, Bob Woodward, Judith Miller, prisons, the Patriot Act, the media, fatalities and other topics.
1) From Dahr Jamail's MidEast Wire (Iraq Dispatches):
Monday in Iraq, US troops fired on a car in Ba'qubah, killing five, two adults and three children. The US military states that they feared the car "booby-trapped." The family had been returning from visiting relatives when a US convoy approached. The car was fired on from the front and the back. One Iraqi was quoted as saying, "The ones who brought in the Americans are at fault. Those who support them are at fault. All of them are at fault. Look at these. They are all children. All of them of are children. They killed them. They killed my entire family."
2) In the United States the Associated Press reports that Cindy Sheehan returned to Crawford, Texas Thursday and joined what some estimates say were 100 protestors and other estimates say as many as 200.Cindy Sheehan stated, "I feel happy to be back here with all my friends ... but I'm heartbroken that we have to be here again," said Sheehan, who hoped to arrive earlier in the week, but was delayed by a family emergency. "We will keep pressing and we won't give up until our troops are brought home."
3) Since Sheehan and others last gathered at Camp Casey I and Camp Casey II, laws have been passed to prevent further gatherings in Crawford -- "local bans on roadside camping and parking." As protestors returned this week, they were advised they could be arrested. Among those arrested Wednesday were Daniel Ellsberg and US diplomat Ann Wright. Democratic Underground has a report from Carl who was also arrested Wendesday. Carl reports that "The entire [arrest & booking] process took 3.5 hours." Carl advises that the vigils will also take place on Christmas and New Year's Eve as well as that "Donations to the Crawford Veterans For Peace can be mailed to P. O. Box 252, Crawford, Texas, 76638-9998."
4) As the participation of psychologists and psychiatrists in the "BISQUIT" program and other 'interrogation' work raises ethical and professional questions today, CounterPunch is reporting that in WWII, United States anthropologists participated with the Office of Strategic Services in attempts to determine means to destroy the Japanese. David Price reports, in what is a clear betrayal of the profession, anthropologists were instructed "to try to conceive ways that any detectable differences could be used in the development of weapons, but they were cautioned to consider this issue 'in a-moral and non-ethical terms'." Price notes "Ralph Linton and Harry Shapiro, objected to even considering the OSS' request but they were the exceptions."
5) In legal news, as the prison industry has switched to a profit making business, prisoners have found themselves located far from relatives. The distance has proved profitable for long distance companies. The Center for Constitutional Rights argued in court Monday on behalf of "New York family members who pay a grossly inflated rate to receive a phone call from their loved ones in state prisons." CCR notes:
The lawsuit, Walton v. NYSDOCS and MCI, seeks an order prohibiting the State and MCI from charging exorbitant rates to the family members of prisoners to finance a 57.5% kickback to the State. MCI charges these family members a 630% markup over regular consumer rates to receive a collect call from their loved ones, the only way possible to speak with them. Judge George Ceresia of the Supreme Court of New York, Albany County, dismissed the suit last fall, citing issues of timeliness.
6) In other legal news, Cynthia L. Cooper reports for Women's enews that November 30th the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. At issue in this case, is whether or not bans on reproductive freedom enacted by state legislatures must take effect before they can be legally challenged or whether they can be challenged as soon as they are passed. The standard up to now has been that laws can be challenged as soon as they are passed. Cooper notes:
By changing the legal standard for when an abortion restriction can be challenged in court, anti-abortion laws could quickly entangle women across the country, without directly overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that held that states could not criminalize abortion in all circumstances.
7) The Guardian of London reports on a Rutgers University study that has found "[g]lobal warming is doubling the rate of sea level rise around the world, but attempts to stop it by cutting back on greenhouse gas emissions are likely to be futile." Professor Kenneth Miller tells The Guardian's Ashraf Khalil, "This is going to cause more beach erosion. Beaches are going to move back and houses will be destroyed." This comes as the Climate Conference is gearing up to take place in Montreal from November 28th to December 9th. United for Peace and Justiceis issuing a call for action:
This fall let's mobilize a nationwide, grassroots education and action campaign leading up to mass demonstrations in Montreal and throughout the U.S. on Saturday, December 3rd. Help gather signatures for the Peoples Ratification of the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty (http://www.unitedforpeace.org/www.kyotoandbeyond.org), which will be presented in Montreal. Join Climate Crisis: USA Join the World! (http://www.unitedforpeace.org/www.climatecrisis.us) as we call for:USA Join the World by Ratifying the Kyoto Protocol
Support and Export Clean, Safe, Non-Nuclear Energy Alternatives
End Government Subsidies for Oil and Coal Corporations
Dramatically Strengthen Energy Conservation and Fuel Efficiency Standards
A Just Transition for Workers, Indigenous and Other Communities Affected by a Change to Clean Energy
Defend the World's Forests; Support Community-Run Tree Planting Campaigns
8) With Congress out of session due to the holidays, a number of organizations are attempting to inform the public of pending legislation. The Bill of Rights Defense Center warns to "[e]xpect a vote [on the renewal of the Patriot Act] after Congress returns on December 12th." Of the bill, Lisa Graves of the ACLU states:
The Patriot Act was bad in 2001, and despite bipartisan calls for reform, it's still bad in 2005. Instead of addressing the real concerns that millions of Americans have about the Patriot Act, the Republican majority in Congress buckled to White House pressure, stripping the bill of modest yet meaningful reforms. Congress must reject this bill.
Both the ACLU and the Bill of Rights of Defense Center are calling for grass roots action.
Also asking for action is NOW. Congress failed to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.You can make your voice heard via NOW's take action page. On their page, you have the option of e-mailing your representatives and/or signing a petition that NOW will present to Congress on December 5th.
9) Meanwhile, as November winds down, American military fatalities have reached 76 for the month, with the Department of Defense reporting 50 Americans wounded thus far this month. The total number of American military killed in Iraq, official count, has reached 2105. Scripps Howard News Service reports that, "U.S. commanders on the ground have already launched plans to close bases and withdraw troops in the coming year, according to two congressmen who returned from Iraq this week." The two congress members are John Kline and Mark Kennedy (Republicans, Minn.).
10) In other Congressional news, Ari Berman reports for The Nation that John McCain is in the midst of makeover. Meeting with The Arizona Republican Assembly in August, McCain slapped some new war paint on as McCain supported the teaching of so-called "intelligent design" side by side with evolution, the state's "ban on gay marriage that denies government benefits to any unmarried couple," hailed Ronald Reagan as "my hero" and was observed "strenuously defending . . . Bush's Iraq policy."
For those who have forgotten, McCain attended Mark Bingham's funeral. Bingham was one of the passengers of Flight 93 on 9/11 in immediate media reports. As the days wore on, Bingham appeared to disappear from many reports. Mark Bingham was gay. Whether that resulted in a "downgrading" by some in the media has been a source of speculation for some time.
11) Focusing on the media, at The Black Commentator, Margaret Kimberly addresses the issue of Bob Woodward, tying him and his editor to the journalistic behaviors of Judith Miller and her editors:
Miller, Sulzberger, Woodward and Bradlee are at the top of the corporate media food chain, and their behavior tells us why Americans aren't being told anything they ought to be told. Woodward uses his access to make a fortune writing about the Supreme Court or various presidential administrations. If a journalist's priority is writing best selling books based on the amount of access gained with the powerful, then truth telling goes out the window.
12) Also addressing the very similar behaviors of Miller and Woodward are Steven C. Day at Pop Politics, Ron Brynaert at Why Are We Back In Iraq?, and Arianna Huffington at The Huffington Post. Though still vocal on Judith Miller and weighing in with the "latest," CJR Daily still can't find a connection between the "journalistic" styles of Judith Miller and Bob Woodward. In their most recent 'Judy report', CJR Daily ponders the question of why did Miller go to jail when Scooter Libby and his people maintain that they released her from confidentiality claims. Covering old news and working themselves into another lather over Miller, CJR Daily wonders"Why did Ms. Miller go to jail?" and maintains the question "has never been fully answered." The question has indeed been answered.
Whether CJR Daily approves of or believes the argument of Miller, Floyd Abrams, et al, is beside the point. For the record, the answer has been given many times. The argument was that Miller needed more than a form signed possibly under duress. Abrams and others have long been on the record explaining that they sought a release other than the form. In the front page report, Sunday October 16, 2005, Don Van Natta Jr., Adam Liptak and Clifford J. Levy reported:
She said she began thinking about whether she should reach out to Mr. Libby for "a personal, voluntary waiver."
[. . .]
While she mulled over over her options, Mr. Bennett was urging her to allow him to approach Mr. Tate, Mr. Libby's lawyer, to try tonegotiate a deal that would get her out of jail. Mr. Bennet wanted to revive the question of the waivers that Mr. Libby and other administration officials signed the previous year authorizing reporters to disclose their confidential discussions.
The other reporters subpoenaed in the case said such waivers were coerced. They said administration officials signed them only because they feared retribution from the prosecutor or the White House. Reporters for at least three news organizations had then gone back to their sources and obtained additional assurances that convinced them the waivers were genunie. But Ms. Miller said she had not gotten an assurance that she felt would allow her to testify.
Again, from the front page New York Times story on . . . October 16, 2005. Though this was not the first reporting on Miller's position, this front page story of the Times was commented in great detail including at CJR Daily here and here. The latter time by the same writer who now wonders "Why did Ms. Miller go to jail?" Repeatedly hitting the designated pinata with articles focusing on her conduct while reducing the conduct of Bob Woodward to asides (whispered asides?) doesn't appear to make for brave "watchdoggery."
Democracy Now! has a special presentation today. The headlines above were composed by The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, Betty Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man, Wally of The Daily Jot and Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix. Thanks to Dallas for his help with links and tags. The above will be reposted at The Third Estate Sunday Review and may also be reposted at the sites of members participating.
11/23/2005
what you can do this thanksgiving
tomorrow when you're with family and friends is the perfect time to get the news out on real news, democracy now.
you can do that by talking but showing always works better.
so mike and i are encouraging everyone to use the holiday opportunity to watch or listen to democracy now with family and friends.
you'll be exposing them to the best news program there is and you'll be helping to get the word out.
and people who hear you talk about democracy now we'll now have seen (or heard) it and it won't be something they just hear of.
by seeing it (or listening to it) they'll have a better idea of what the show has to offer and be more likely to actually take the time for it instead of just always meaning to.
you're sick of the corporate media and their eagerness to parrot what ever some elected official says without offering any perspective? do something about it.
mike and i did on labor day.
the reaction was favorable.
people who don't watch still at least know it's out there and know what you're talking
about when you go on about it.
mike had 3 people end up watching regularly after being exposed to it. i can claim two who watch regularly and three who catch it when time permits. (which, judging from their conversations, is about twice a week.)
how do you combat misinformation?
the same way you combat ignorance, with knowledge.
want to reign in the out of control administration?
we'll need the numbers on our side and that's going to mean getting the word out.
each person that you turn on to democracy now is informed that there's an alternative out there.
just knowing that may make them think about what corporate media feeds them.
even better are the people who will become regular viewers or listeners.
i'm going to be asking 2 people for committments to listen.
they enjoyed the show but they can't watch because they're at work.
so i found out what stations, radio, broadcast the program in their areas.
both listen to the radio (music) at work. they can flip over and hear democracy now when it's on.
you can go to this page to find out whose broadcasting democracy now in what areas.
i'll be asking the two for a committment (and trade off that as a christmas gift which will seal the deal with those 2).
the best thing for our country is an informed public.
due to time constraints and interests, every 1's not going to watch or listen.
some people have no interest in the world around them. they just want to veg out on the couch and get lost in a csi or a law & order and when they have conversations they just want to talk about who screwed them over or a diet they're planning to start (someday).
but there are people who care. and there are people who don't follow the news because they care. they've been burned by the big 3 and cable with all the nonsense about which pretty girl went missing or some other gossip.
newspaper circulation is dropping, the networks' viewership of their evening news is dropping.
did the people die off? did they stop caring about the world?
maybe.
but maybe they just got sick of 'news' that trivializes and never questions.
if this holiday each of us managed to add 1 listener or viewer to democracy now imagine how amazing that would be. we'd be more informed and we'd be far less likely to fall for the spin that corporate media is happy to repeat without questioning.
think of how much easier the conversations would be if you weren't having to give the back story to some issue when you wanted to talk about it.
think how powerful an informed people could be.
so do it for democracy now, do it for democracy.
happy thanksgiving. i plan to blog tomorrow night but it will probably be after midnight.
check the common ills tomorrow and c.i. will give you a heads up about what's on democracy now. amy goodman gave a run down today but i've got my pie crust in the oven and need to wrap up here to finish the key lime pie i'm bringing.
remember mike's motto:
The Common Ills community is important and the Common Ills community is important to me. So I'll do my part for the Common Ills community.
democracy now
the common ills
mikey likes it
you can do that by talking but showing always works better.
so mike and i are encouraging everyone to use the holiday opportunity to watch or listen to democracy now with family and friends.
you'll be exposing them to the best news program there is and you'll be helping to get the word out.
and people who hear you talk about democracy now we'll now have seen (or heard) it and it won't be something they just hear of.
by seeing it (or listening to it) they'll have a better idea of what the show has to offer and be more likely to actually take the time for it instead of just always meaning to.
you're sick of the corporate media and their eagerness to parrot what ever some elected official says without offering any perspective? do something about it.
mike and i did on labor day.
the reaction was favorable.
people who don't watch still at least know it's out there and know what you're talking
about when you go on about it.
mike had 3 people end up watching regularly after being exposed to it. i can claim two who watch regularly and three who catch it when time permits. (which, judging from their conversations, is about twice a week.)
how do you combat misinformation?
the same way you combat ignorance, with knowledge.
want to reign in the out of control administration?
we'll need the numbers on our side and that's going to mean getting the word out.
each person that you turn on to democracy now is informed that there's an alternative out there.
just knowing that may make them think about what corporate media feeds them.
even better are the people who will become regular viewers or listeners.
i'm going to be asking 2 people for committments to listen.
they enjoyed the show but they can't watch because they're at work.
so i found out what stations, radio, broadcast the program in their areas.
both listen to the radio (music) at work. they can flip over and hear democracy now when it's on.
you can go to this page to find out whose broadcasting democracy now in what areas.
i'll be asking the two for a committment (and trade off that as a christmas gift which will seal the deal with those 2).
the best thing for our country is an informed public.
due to time constraints and interests, every 1's not going to watch or listen.
some people have no interest in the world around them. they just want to veg out on the couch and get lost in a csi or a law & order and when they have conversations they just want to talk about who screwed them over or a diet they're planning to start (someday).
but there are people who care. and there are people who don't follow the news because they care. they've been burned by the big 3 and cable with all the nonsense about which pretty girl went missing or some other gossip.
newspaper circulation is dropping, the networks' viewership of their evening news is dropping.
did the people die off? did they stop caring about the world?
maybe.
but maybe they just got sick of 'news' that trivializes and never questions.
if this holiday each of us managed to add 1 listener or viewer to democracy now imagine how amazing that would be. we'd be more informed and we'd be far less likely to fall for the spin that corporate media is happy to repeat without questioning.
think of how much easier the conversations would be if you weren't having to give the back story to some issue when you wanted to talk about it.
think how powerful an informed people could be.
so do it for democracy now, do it for democracy.
happy thanksgiving. i plan to blog tomorrow night but it will probably be after midnight.
check the common ills tomorrow and c.i. will give you a heads up about what's on democracy now. amy goodman gave a run down today but i've got my pie crust in the oven and need to wrap up here to finish the key lime pie i'm bringing.
remember mike's motto:
The Common Ills community is important and the Common Ills community is important to me. So I'll do my part for the Common Ills community.
democracy now
the common ills
mikey likes it
i'm blogging tonight. but for now i'm posting this. a stocking stuffer? but it's the night before thanksgiving! this is a jockey underwear ad that was in the new york times today. sherry and tonya both e-mailed me to see if i'd seen it? i'm trying to figure out who he reminds me of. any ideas? drool if you're orientated to his type. (i think he's drool worthy.)
11/22/2005
bully boy lied, people died
Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter.
The information was provided to Bush on September 21, 2001 during the "President's Daily Brief," a 30- to 45-minute early-morning national security briefing. Information for PDBs has routinely been derived from electronic intercepts, human agents, and reports from foreign intelligence services, as well as more mundane sources such as news reports and public statements by foreign leaders.
[. . .]
The highly classified CIA assessment was distributed to President Bush, Vice President Cheney, the president's national security adviser and deputy national security adviser, the secretaries and undersecretaries of State and Defense, and various other senior Bush administration policy makers, according to government records.
the above is from murray waas' 'Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Hill Panel ' in the national journal. i think the article should be called 'further proof that bully boy lied us into war.'
get it? they knew they're case for a war was a lie. they knew ten days after 9/11.
the lie that cheney and bully boy have been pushing this week and last loudly is that every 1 saw the same intelligence. but that's not true. the administration saw this, not congress.
and don't think this is the only intelligence that the administration kept from congress.
bully boy wanted this war and he got it.
we never should have gone to war but he wanted it.
now that it's turned to shit, like everything he touches, he wants to bluff his way out of it and spread the blame. the blame is the administration's.
they lied us into war and they can't change that, they can't bring back the people who've died either. they are liars and their lies caused deaths.
if the mainstream media wasn't controlled by corporations and so desperate to protect the bully boy, we'd be hearing calls for impeachment in every paper on every tv station.
instead, we're supposed to ignore this like everything else the corporate media sweeps under the rug.
and speaking of corporate media, a corporate media 'star' (whore) bit the dust tonight. ted koppel left abc's nightline. good riddance to him.
he was not a voice for the left. he was a voice for the right bringing on guests from the right, addressing topics like figure skating while rome burned.
if you missed it, c.i. makes the case for why the left shouldn't be crying over ted koppel's departure in 'The end of a (bad) era.' ted now moves over to hbo where he will, no doubt, put the b.o. in hbo.
and on corporate pets, if you're looking for the latest on bob woodward, check out ron's "Who told Woodward the 'Slam Dunk' bit? "
mike's got a new motto:
The Common Ills community is important and the Common Ills community is important to me. So I'll do my part for the Common Ills community.
the common ills
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
mikey likes it
iraq
falluja
ted koppel
why are we back in iraq
murray waas
The information was provided to Bush on September 21, 2001 during the "President's Daily Brief," a 30- to 45-minute early-morning national security briefing. Information for PDBs has routinely been derived from electronic intercepts, human agents, and reports from foreign intelligence services, as well as more mundane sources such as news reports and public statements by foreign leaders.
[. . .]
The highly classified CIA assessment was distributed to President Bush, Vice President Cheney, the president's national security adviser and deputy national security adviser, the secretaries and undersecretaries of State and Defense, and various other senior Bush administration policy makers, according to government records.
the above is from murray waas' 'Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Hill Panel ' in the national journal. i think the article should be called 'further proof that bully boy lied us into war.'
get it? they knew they're case for a war was a lie. they knew ten days after 9/11.
the lie that cheney and bully boy have been pushing this week and last loudly is that every 1 saw the same intelligence. but that's not true. the administration saw this, not congress.
and don't think this is the only intelligence that the administration kept from congress.
bully boy wanted this war and he got it.
we never should have gone to war but he wanted it.
now that it's turned to shit, like everything he touches, he wants to bluff his way out of it and spread the blame. the blame is the administration's.
they lied us into war and they can't change that, they can't bring back the people who've died either. they are liars and their lies caused deaths.
if the mainstream media wasn't controlled by corporations and so desperate to protect the bully boy, we'd be hearing calls for impeachment in every paper on every tv station.
instead, we're supposed to ignore this like everything else the corporate media sweeps under the rug.
and speaking of corporate media, a corporate media 'star' (whore) bit the dust tonight. ted koppel left abc's nightline. good riddance to him.
he was not a voice for the left. he was a voice for the right bringing on guests from the right, addressing topics like figure skating while rome burned.
if you missed it, c.i. makes the case for why the left shouldn't be crying over ted koppel's departure in 'The end of a (bad) era.' ted now moves over to hbo where he will, no doubt, put the b.o. in hbo.
and on corporate pets, if you're looking for the latest on bob woodward, check out ron's "Who told Woodward the 'Slam Dunk' bit? "
mike's got a new motto:
The Common Ills community is important and the Common Ills community is important to me. So I'll do my part for the Common Ills community.
the common ills
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
mikey likes it
iraq
falluja
ted koppel
why are we back in iraq
murray waas
11/21/2005
makeout music
i've really got nothing to say on bob woodward. sherry e-mailed friday asking me about that and some more came in this weekend. i didn't catch him on cnn, i think he was supposed to be on tonight. i tivo-ed larry king live and when i watch it if he has anything worth saying, i'll note it.
but if you're needing run downs on bob woodward, you should check out ron's why are we back in iraq.
i'm only now catching up on my 'reading.' i finished elaine's and went over to the common ills and c.i. linked to this by ron on saturday "Bob Woodward Sent Questions" which is something worth reading. i read the excerpt and ron's all over the topic.
the other big thing in the e-mails is where the song post?
if those e-mails hadn't come in, i probably would be taking tonight off. i have an awful headache and a light fever.
if i'm going to get a cold or the flu this week, i'd rather get it at the start of the week and be over by thursday.
actually there was 1 other question in the e-mails. why didn't i name kayla when i posted her baby's photo sunday? i wasn't sure at the time whether she'd given permission or not. i'll add the photo at the top (which elaine did as well). brian is the baby's name. if you're a common ills community member, you know this was a tough pregnancy for kayla who was overdue by two weeks. but isn't brian a cutie? i love his cute face. brian is such a cutie.
i knew kayla was named in the gina & krista round-robin, which ran that photo and four others, but i wasn't sure when i was trying to get the photo up here whether there was permission or not to name her at a site. there was. that's kayla's first child, brian. congratulations to kayla, her husband and brian. nothing but happiness for all 3.
now back to our topic.
for me the ultimate make out song is 'try a little tenderness' by otis redding. i can dance to it, i can kiss to it, i can screw to it. it's the all purpose song. so for me otis redding's live in europe is the ultimate make out album.
1 song that popped up a lot was 'all out of love' by air supply. i was never a fan of air supply and i'm surprised by the e-mails that cited it so much. 24 of you either danced to it at prom, junior prom or at an 8th grade dance. (4 of you at 8th grade dance, in fact. made me wonder if the 4 of you all knew each other.)
becky, who shares my love of sex as well as my name, said i could talk about her 8th grade dance.
she says she was 'cute at best' in junior high and that it was hard because there were 'beautiful girls, tons and tons, in my class.' she hadn't even wanted to go to the dance. it was around thanksgiving so she always thinks about it this time of the year.
so there she was not wanting to go, not sure what to wear when her older sister tells her she has to go and just feeling like she'd spend the night hugging the wall.
jeans were big then so she wore jeans. she didn't like any of her shirts but her sister had a blue blouse that was just a little too big and was becky's favorite of all of her sister's clothes. without becky even asking, her sister brought it in and said 'wear this.'
it had white piping on it and becky thought that was 'very mature.' she wasn't sure about cleavage but her sister unbuttoned it and then they looked for a necklace to wear and even fixed her hair.
she said she felt so grown up but was sure the night would be a disaster. her sister dropped her off at the gym and said she'd back in 2 hours.
becky walked in and the gym had paper mache all over. she said if she looked at it today she would probably think it was overdone and too much but in 8th grade, it looked wonderful.
she spoke to some of her friends, ginger, patty and dina, at the table where punch had been set out. all 3 were cheerleaders and all 3 were dancing while she sipped her cup of punch.
the bleachers were pushed in so you either sat on folding chairs or you stood by the wall. so she moved over to the wall and she was just standing there and watching when vince walked in. vince had just moved into the discrict 2 weeks ago and he had a mystery about him and was good looking. she says he wore his hair like jackson browne back during the lawyers in love period.
she was trying not to stare and he was walking past and she expected him to keep on walking.
but he came up to her and asked her to dance.
she'd never danced with a guy before.
she says he had on a fake leather jacket and pierre cardin cologne.
they went out to the gym floor to dance and bruce springsteen's 'hungry heart' was just going off. then 'all out love' came on and she was kind of standing there when he pulled her in close to him and they slow danced.
they danced some more and kissed and when ever an air supply song would come on, like 'lost in love,' they'd go back out and dance some more.
they went steady for 5 days after and then he and his family moved.
she never saw him again and thinks about him anytime she hears 'all out of love.'
because she'd gone steady with vince, for the 1st time it seemed like to her, guys were interested in her. she started going out to the movies on friday with her sister and her sister would meet up with her date or boyfriend and she'd meet up with her date. she remembers seeing 1 of the friday the 13ths, on golden pond and private benjamin.
it was a dollar theater, the only 1 they had in town, and it was all kids. she said she was at the movies for a lot more but usually spent most of the film wondering if the guy was going to put his arm around her or kiss her.
she says that 'to this day "all out love" is the ultimate make out song for me.'
another group besides air supply that was popular was chicago.
that's another group i was never really into.
t weighed in with an e-mail and she picked 'anything by millie jackson.'
sherry also had a problem picking 1 song. she said she needs a mix tape with 10cc and bread among others.
zach picked the eagles. zach, i don't know what to say. hopefully it gives you a 'peaceful easy feeling' but no 1 else picked them and i've never heard any 1 else say that 'hotel california' and 'life in the fast lane' were the ulitmate make out songs before.
the most popular choice was sade. i'll go ahead and declare her this century's johnny mathis.
other than 'life in the fast lane' the only other shocker for me was 'doctor, doctor' by the thompson twins which diane selected. she offers that she was 'heavy' into new wave. she misses the geometric haircuts of that period and the clothing as well. she blames madonna who 'came off at 1st like she was totally into that scene and then went upscale.'
5 people noted madonna's 'justify my love.'
i wish i wasn't stopped up, with a headache and a fever because i feel like i could offer something more if i had some energy.
i'll still you towards c.i.'s 'NYT: "Defense of Phosphorus Use Turns Into Damage Control" (Scott Shane)' for a look at the spin that needs to be stopped. scott shane's usually 1 of the better reporters.
mike also asked me to note this:
So I'll try to figure out what I'm doing on Thursday and let you know ASAP. The community is important and the community is important to me. So I'll do my part for the community.
and to note what day's i'll be blogging this week. i plan to blog on all 4. but i may take tomorrow off to make sure i'm fine for thanksgiving.
white phosphorous
falluja
fallujah
white phosphorus
the new york times
scott shane
why are we back in iraq
make out songs
sade
air supply
the eagles
thompson twins
chicago
otis redding
the common ills
like maria said paz
mikey likes it
the third estate sunday review
11/20/2005
11/18/2005
friday post, nothing big
mike calls. 'can you blog!!!' with panic in his voice.
elaine had to attend a formal dinner tonight and nina asked mike if they could get an early start on friday for a change. so elaine and mike's plan was to post later tonight.
'but i don't think elaine put it up at her site and i know i didn't at mine.'
elaine wouldn't put it up at her site. she's a very sensitive person but if she did assume that people were repeatedly checking at 7 on the dot, her attitude would be 'i have enough pressure on me! back off!'
i wasn't even sure if i was going to blog tonight.
but since mike's fearing a mutiny, i'll go ahead and do so.
c.i. asked us, mike and me, not to promote the year anniversary of the common ills.
we agreed to back off.
c.i. doesn't see the point in that and feels the focus should be elsewhere.
however, i have nothing else to write about tonight because i wasn't planning on writing.
and the anniversary was actually yesterday.
we talked on the phone last night while c.i. was pulling together the indymedia roundup entries so we were on the phone for about 2 hours. (you got to read through a ton of e-mails to make sure the most important things are covered.)
i'm not going to quote c.i. and let me add the cautionary note of these are my reflections of the conversations and c.i. might feel differently about it so just because i offer my 'testimony' does not mean c.i. would agree that that's how it went down.
so i wondered, what does it feel like a year later?
tired. hard to believe a year has passed. thrilled that so many people have come together to share but also a little overwhelmed.
for those who are late to the party, when the common ills started, c.i. could respond to every e-mail. then along came barbara boxer supporting stephanie tubbs jones in protesting the 2004 count and that day, 500 e-mails arrived. the e-mails only continue to grow. ('3504' was the e-mail count of unread e-mails while we were on the phone.)
c.i. continued to attempt to read e-mails. every e-mail. and to reply. finally an automated reply had to be created. you e-mail, you get it. that cut down and allowed c.i. more time to read. but it wasn't working because the community continued to grow.
jim and i came up with the idea of two addresses. 1, the public 1, would be for visitors, the 2nd would be private and only for members.
that allowed c.i., when pressed for time, to focus on the members and let the public pile up a bit.
but that still wasn't solving the problem. currently ava and jess assist by going through the e-mails and noting which 1s they think c.i. needs to read asap in the private e-mail account. in the public e-mail account, if they read it and don't think it's important, they don't even bother to pass it on to c.i.
when c.i. started the common ills, the thought was, it would be read by about 50 people - c.i., i said - i can quote myself - if your 'closest, most personal friends' alone read it, you'd have over 10 times that amount.
naive much?
but the common ills was going to do what c.i.'s done for 3 years in february only in net form. c.i. goes around speaking about the war, speaking about the bully boy, to college groups and high school groups. a friend was supposed to do that in february 2003 but got asked to do it in another location. the engagements were planned and as a favor c.i. filled in. and it just took off from there.
c.i. may give hours to 1 of those but c.i. isn't speaking the whole time and is usually asking other people to share. so last night i pointed out that in fact the common ills had reflected the speaking events. because what the common ills quickly became was, not a blog, but a resource/review for the left.
not the only 1. not the most left, not the best left, just the left. c.i. would disapprove of qualifiers.
it's 1 place for voices of the left.
and it's a place that people visit, a community, because there's no fiddle-faddle.
it's easy to forget this now, post-cindy sheehan, but a year ago, with bully boy 'winning' the election, you saw a lot of the left and 'left' back off from the war.
when i raised that issue, c.i. wondered if that's why falluja is still so unknown to so many americans?
it could be. but what is true is that moveon moved on. and a lot of others did as well.
it was like every 1 was channeling hillary clinton for many months there.
if they even brought up the war.
and the voices dominating on the 'left' were the 1s wrapping themselves in the flag (we know who i mean) and generally making themselves useless.
early on there was a feeling within the community that they didn't want posted comments and i dealt with that in an earlier post. c.i. told me i missed 1 thing, since c.i. was on campuses, finding out the feelings on comments was quite easy. people aren't really into them.
that was a big thing a few years ago. and relics from that era still want to leave comments at any site they visit. but most reflect the opinions that were in mike's interview with wally - that they are useless. a lot of shout outs, a lot of 'you are so smart!' sucking up and a lot of troll wars.
for the people who listen to the likes of rush limbaugh, that probably is reassuring; however, for people who wouldn't listen to that nonsense just because they're not into the call in format, it's not reassuring.
so where is the common ills a year later?
still talking about falluja and thankfully the mainstream media is as well, a tiny bit.
bring the troops home now is not a fringe view.
and you can think the voices like c.i. for that, all the voices online that stuck to their guns and didn't say 'well the polls say' or distort cindy sheehan or any of the other nonsense are war hawks dem voices pushed.
and they did push lies on cindy sheehan. now that they're candidates of choice are being forced to take some sort of tiny stand on the war, they're all over themselves, covered in urine from their excitement no doubt, trying to figure out their new position.
i talked to t and she said, 'do you get discouraged because you put in time and do you feel like there aren't enough changes coming down the pike?'
not really. because i think change comes slowly and that we've seen a lot of change that if we dropped back a year ago we wouldn't have believed was possible.
in the old days, what passed for bravey was really timid. these days, people are angry and if you try to dixie chick some 1 you better be ready for the backlash - towards you.
we saw the summer of activism and there were questions about that when c.i. 1st threw that phrase out to the 3rd estate sunday review. but sure enough it was a summer of activism.
the roots that were planted continue.
in october, i had e-mails complaining not that there wasn't any way to be heard but that there were so many ways to be heard and so little time.
let that always be our country's problem.
the gutless la times drops robert scheer because the publisher can't stand the voices of freedom and the voices of americans. and? the san francisco chronicle picks him up.
this isn't 2002. this isn't 2003. this isn't 2004.
we are stronger and we are tired of it. we are ready and willing to fight.
that didn't come about by cautious voices saying 'well let's find middle ground' - it came about from people digging in and getting ready to fight. the common ills community has demonstrated that they can and will fight. gina and krista's action alerts and activism lists, in the gina & krista round-robin, are key to that.
and the voices we need aren't the 1s saying 'send in your money so i can show how popular i am and set my ass up as the next cokie roberts.' we need the voices that speak about your own power, your own world and your own actions.
there are enough people telling you that ___ will save you, we don't need anymore.
it's time for us to save ourselves.
and that's what's been obvious, i think, at all the sites that have sprung up from the common ills community.
this congress member let you down? that senator sold out to corporate interests?
big surprise.
quit making heroes out of your employees because that's what they are. they work for you.
as long as you're in a position of begging, they have the power.
they shouldn't. they work for you.
make 'em work.
hold them accountable.
now you can't do that if in 2005 you're already declaring that ___ is the democratic candidate for 2008.
it's not the person, it's the issues.
but it becomes all about the personality too often. the mainstream media does that by focusing on the horse race nature of campaigns at the expense of the actual issues.
now if you're goal is to be able to say 'i voted with __ milions of others for the winner!' then, hey, the current system is perfect for you. if you're goal is to vote for issues, the personality basis isn't going to work.
we need to be more informed. we need to arm ourselves with knowledge.
that's not going to come from playing patty-cakes with politicians. or running fan clubs for them.
so that's my lecture for the night. mike and elaine will post late tonight. but they will post.
the common ills
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
like maria said paz
the third estate sunday review
mikey likes it
the daily jot
elaine had to attend a formal dinner tonight and nina asked mike if they could get an early start on friday for a change. so elaine and mike's plan was to post later tonight.
'but i don't think elaine put it up at her site and i know i didn't at mine.'
elaine wouldn't put it up at her site. she's a very sensitive person but if she did assume that people were repeatedly checking at 7 on the dot, her attitude would be 'i have enough pressure on me! back off!'
i wasn't even sure if i was going to blog tonight.
but since mike's fearing a mutiny, i'll go ahead and do so.
c.i. asked us, mike and me, not to promote the year anniversary of the common ills.
we agreed to back off.
c.i. doesn't see the point in that and feels the focus should be elsewhere.
however, i have nothing else to write about tonight because i wasn't planning on writing.
and the anniversary was actually yesterday.
we talked on the phone last night while c.i. was pulling together the indymedia roundup entries so we were on the phone for about 2 hours. (you got to read through a ton of e-mails to make sure the most important things are covered.)
i'm not going to quote c.i. and let me add the cautionary note of these are my reflections of the conversations and c.i. might feel differently about it so just because i offer my 'testimony' does not mean c.i. would agree that that's how it went down.
so i wondered, what does it feel like a year later?
tired. hard to believe a year has passed. thrilled that so many people have come together to share but also a little overwhelmed.
for those who are late to the party, when the common ills started, c.i. could respond to every e-mail. then along came barbara boxer supporting stephanie tubbs jones in protesting the 2004 count and that day, 500 e-mails arrived. the e-mails only continue to grow. ('3504' was the e-mail count of unread e-mails while we were on the phone.)
c.i. continued to attempt to read e-mails. every e-mail. and to reply. finally an automated reply had to be created. you e-mail, you get it. that cut down and allowed c.i. more time to read. but it wasn't working because the community continued to grow.
jim and i came up with the idea of two addresses. 1, the public 1, would be for visitors, the 2nd would be private and only for members.
that allowed c.i., when pressed for time, to focus on the members and let the public pile up a bit.
but that still wasn't solving the problem. currently ava and jess assist by going through the e-mails and noting which 1s they think c.i. needs to read asap in the private e-mail account. in the public e-mail account, if they read it and don't think it's important, they don't even bother to pass it on to c.i.
when c.i. started the common ills, the thought was, it would be read by about 50 people - c.i., i said - i can quote myself - if your 'closest, most personal friends' alone read it, you'd have over 10 times that amount.
naive much?
but the common ills was going to do what c.i.'s done for 3 years in february only in net form. c.i. goes around speaking about the war, speaking about the bully boy, to college groups and high school groups. a friend was supposed to do that in february 2003 but got asked to do it in another location. the engagements were planned and as a favor c.i. filled in. and it just took off from there.
c.i. may give hours to 1 of those but c.i. isn't speaking the whole time and is usually asking other people to share. so last night i pointed out that in fact the common ills had reflected the speaking events. because what the common ills quickly became was, not a blog, but a resource/review for the left.
not the only 1. not the most left, not the best left, just the left. c.i. would disapprove of qualifiers.
it's 1 place for voices of the left.
and it's a place that people visit, a community, because there's no fiddle-faddle.
it's easy to forget this now, post-cindy sheehan, but a year ago, with bully boy 'winning' the election, you saw a lot of the left and 'left' back off from the war.
when i raised that issue, c.i. wondered if that's why falluja is still so unknown to so many americans?
it could be. but what is true is that moveon moved on. and a lot of others did as well.
it was like every 1 was channeling hillary clinton for many months there.
if they even brought up the war.
and the voices dominating on the 'left' were the 1s wrapping themselves in the flag (we know who i mean) and generally making themselves useless.
early on there was a feeling within the community that they didn't want posted comments and i dealt with that in an earlier post. c.i. told me i missed 1 thing, since c.i. was on campuses, finding out the feelings on comments was quite easy. people aren't really into them.
that was a big thing a few years ago. and relics from that era still want to leave comments at any site they visit. but most reflect the opinions that were in mike's interview with wally - that they are useless. a lot of shout outs, a lot of 'you are so smart!' sucking up and a lot of troll wars.
for the people who listen to the likes of rush limbaugh, that probably is reassuring; however, for people who wouldn't listen to that nonsense just because they're not into the call in format, it's not reassuring.
so where is the common ills a year later?
still talking about falluja and thankfully the mainstream media is as well, a tiny bit.
bring the troops home now is not a fringe view.
and you can think the voices like c.i. for that, all the voices online that stuck to their guns and didn't say 'well the polls say' or distort cindy sheehan or any of the other nonsense are war hawks dem voices pushed.
and they did push lies on cindy sheehan. now that they're candidates of choice are being forced to take some sort of tiny stand on the war, they're all over themselves, covered in urine from their excitement no doubt, trying to figure out their new position.
i talked to t and she said, 'do you get discouraged because you put in time and do you feel like there aren't enough changes coming down the pike?'
not really. because i think change comes slowly and that we've seen a lot of change that if we dropped back a year ago we wouldn't have believed was possible.
in the old days, what passed for bravey was really timid. these days, people are angry and if you try to dixie chick some 1 you better be ready for the backlash - towards you.
we saw the summer of activism and there were questions about that when c.i. 1st threw that phrase out to the 3rd estate sunday review. but sure enough it was a summer of activism.
the roots that were planted continue.
in october, i had e-mails complaining not that there wasn't any way to be heard but that there were so many ways to be heard and so little time.
let that always be our country's problem.
the gutless la times drops robert scheer because the publisher can't stand the voices of freedom and the voices of americans. and? the san francisco chronicle picks him up.
this isn't 2002. this isn't 2003. this isn't 2004.
we are stronger and we are tired of it. we are ready and willing to fight.
that didn't come about by cautious voices saying 'well let's find middle ground' - it came about from people digging in and getting ready to fight. the common ills community has demonstrated that they can and will fight. gina and krista's action alerts and activism lists, in the gina & krista round-robin, are key to that.
and the voices we need aren't the 1s saying 'send in your money so i can show how popular i am and set my ass up as the next cokie roberts.' we need the voices that speak about your own power, your own world and your own actions.
there are enough people telling you that ___ will save you, we don't need anymore.
it's time for us to save ourselves.
and that's what's been obvious, i think, at all the sites that have sprung up from the common ills community.
this congress member let you down? that senator sold out to corporate interests?
big surprise.
quit making heroes out of your employees because that's what they are. they work for you.
as long as you're in a position of begging, they have the power.
they shouldn't. they work for you.
make 'em work.
hold them accountable.
now you can't do that if in 2005 you're already declaring that ___ is the democratic candidate for 2008.
it's not the person, it's the issues.
but it becomes all about the personality too often. the mainstream media does that by focusing on the horse race nature of campaigns at the expense of the actual issues.
now if you're goal is to be able to say 'i voted with __ milions of others for the winner!' then, hey, the current system is perfect for you. if you're goal is to vote for issues, the personality basis isn't going to work.
we need to be more informed. we need to arm ourselves with knowledge.
that's not going to come from playing patty-cakes with politicians. or running fan clubs for them.
so that's my lecture for the night. mike and elaine will post late tonight. but they will post.
the common ills
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
like maria said paz
the third estate sunday review
mikey likes it
the daily jot
army national guard spc. katherine jashinski
so not in the mood for woody tonight.
thanks for all the kind e-mails but 5 felt the need to point out that i mispelled 'amuck.' check your webster's 'amuck' is a perfectly acceptable variation of 'amok.'
now i'm going to steal from c.i.:
Fort Benning, GA Army National Guard Specialist Katherine Jashinski, on active duty with the 111th ASG since January of this year, will make a public statement against war as a conscientious objector in the face of orders to participate in weapons training and deploy to the Middle East. She will be joined by several members of Iraq Veterans Against the War and Veterans for Peace. Jashinski applied for a discharge as a Conscientious Objector in 2004. The Army recently denied her claim and ordered her to weapons training and deployment this week.Speakers at the press conference include Aidan Delgado, an Army Conscientious Objector and member of Iraq Veterans Against the War. Iraq Veterans Against the War supports the right of every soldier to follow their conscience. Today's revelation that chemical weapons were used against citizens in Falluja is evidence that the war is illegal and immoral.
Jashinski's counselor, Persian Gulf War Army Conscientious Objector Aimee Allison, will speak at tomorrow's press conference. Speaking today, Allison stated, "As the first woman GI to publicly take a stand against this war and to declare herself a Conscientious Objector, Katherine's actions are very significant. She is showing remarkable courage."
Jashinski's lawyer, J.E. McNeil with the Center for Conscience and War, will also discuss her legal status and the case. She comments, "Denying Katherine CO status is yet another in a long line of actions by the military to defy its own rules in order to get the numbers of soldiers they need to continue this war."
Katherine is actively supported by Code Pink, a women-initiated grassroots peace group. Medea Benjamin, co-founder of Code Pink adds, "I applaud Katherine's courageous stand against the continued U.S. role in bringing violence to the Middle East."
Father Roy Bourgeois, a Vietnam War veteran and founder of School of the Americas Watch will also speak. Jashinki's statement comes on the eve of a national demonstration at the gates of Fort Benning calling for the closure the U.S. Army School of the Americas. "U.S. foreign policy as it exists today is fundamentally out of alignment with Americans values of peace and justice."
i think that's great and applaud jashinki.
let's see who covers this in the mainstream. it's from milwaukee indymedia's 'TODAY! Army Natinal Guard Spc. Katherine Jashinski refuses to deploy' and it is news.
the military doesn't like these stories because they fear if they get much publicity, others will become aware and take a similar stand.
with a war built on lies, perception becomes even more important.
perception management is something karl rove's supposed to be so good at.
makes you wonder what would happen if every web site spotlighted spc. katherine jashinski's brave stand?
would that force the mainstream media to cover it?
if not, would it matter?
as mike noted tonight, they ignored or mocked the downing street memos. but the word got out to the public.
people don't buy the bully boy's 'reasons' anymore. they know he's a liar.
the mainstream media can't really seem to explain why he's so despised.
they can note polls and they can pretend surprise.
but to note why the people have turned against the bully boy would require listing the reasons and doing that would require seriously covering topics that they have never covered.
there's a whole world outside the mainstream media.
to do for friday for my readers: talk about katherine jashinski's brave stand. get the word out.
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
katherine jashinski
iraq
mikey likes it
the common ills
thanks for all the kind e-mails but 5 felt the need to point out that i mispelled 'amuck.' check your webster's 'amuck' is a perfectly acceptable variation of 'amok.'
now i'm going to steal from c.i.:
Fort Benning, GA Army National Guard Specialist Katherine Jashinski, on active duty with the 111th ASG since January of this year, will make a public statement against war as a conscientious objector in the face of orders to participate in weapons training and deploy to the Middle East. She will be joined by several members of Iraq Veterans Against the War and Veterans for Peace. Jashinski applied for a discharge as a Conscientious Objector in 2004. The Army recently denied her claim and ordered her to weapons training and deployment this week.Speakers at the press conference include Aidan Delgado, an Army Conscientious Objector and member of Iraq Veterans Against the War. Iraq Veterans Against the War supports the right of every soldier to follow their conscience. Today's revelation that chemical weapons were used against citizens in Falluja is evidence that the war is illegal and immoral.
Jashinski's counselor, Persian Gulf War Army Conscientious Objector Aimee Allison, will speak at tomorrow's press conference. Speaking today, Allison stated, "As the first woman GI to publicly take a stand against this war and to declare herself a Conscientious Objector, Katherine's actions are very significant. She is showing remarkable courage."
Jashinski's lawyer, J.E. McNeil with the Center for Conscience and War, will also discuss her legal status and the case. She comments, "Denying Katherine CO status is yet another in a long line of actions by the military to defy its own rules in order to get the numbers of soldiers they need to continue this war."
Katherine is actively supported by Code Pink, a women-initiated grassroots peace group. Medea Benjamin, co-founder of Code Pink adds, "I applaud Katherine's courageous stand against the continued U.S. role in bringing violence to the Middle East."
Father Roy Bourgeois, a Vietnam War veteran and founder of School of the Americas Watch will also speak. Jashinki's statement comes on the eve of a national demonstration at the gates of Fort Benning calling for the closure the U.S. Army School of the Americas. "U.S. foreign policy as it exists today is fundamentally out of alignment with Americans values of peace and justice."
i think that's great and applaud jashinki.
let's see who covers this in the mainstream. it's from milwaukee indymedia's 'TODAY! Army Natinal Guard Spc. Katherine Jashinski refuses to deploy' and it is news.
the military doesn't like these stories because they fear if they get much publicity, others will become aware and take a similar stand.
with a war built on lies, perception becomes even more important.
perception management is something karl rove's supposed to be so good at.
makes you wonder what would happen if every web site spotlighted spc. katherine jashinski's brave stand?
would that force the mainstream media to cover it?
if not, would it matter?
as mike noted tonight, they ignored or mocked the downing street memos. but the word got out to the public.
people don't buy the bully boy's 'reasons' anymore. they know he's a liar.
the mainstream media can't really seem to explain why he's so despised.
they can note polls and they can pretend surprise.
but to note why the people have turned against the bully boy would require listing the reasons and doing that would require seriously covering topics that they have never covered.
there's a whole world outside the mainstream media.
to do for friday for my readers: talk about katherine jashinski's brave stand. get the word out.
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
katherine jashinski
iraq
mikey likes it
the common ills
11/16/2005
little miss run amuck bob woodward
in case you missed it, there is a big journalism story today - bob woodward has known of the adminstration's talking about valerie plame since june of 2003. he testified on monday. the world only found today. he's sat on this during a criminal investigation. while he's been sitting on what he was told, he's taken to the tv and radio to explain to every 1 that this isn't a story, that it's just gossip and that america should pay attention to something else.
gee bobbo, why might you feel that way?
once upon a time he was played by robert redford. if they made a film of his life today, he'd be played by david spade. which might be insulting david spade.
he's totally useless.
gossip, which is what bobbo calls the outing of valerie plame, is what bobbo's made his business for years now.
he grabs his pad and pen, heads down to the white house and waits for crumbs to be tossed to him. then he pulls it all together in a badly transcript (which reportedly then gets improved slightly but is still a writing mess) and calls it a book.
there is an author in the woodward & bernstein team and his name is carl.
carl can write.
carl can also do investigative journalism.
bobbo can take dictation.
he took it from felt and he took it every day since. he laid on his reporter's back and took it gladly some might say (if you want to extend the whore motif).
he made his name on access, some even say he got his job on access.
in the years since watergate, he's had no explosive story and a lot of people scratch their heads and wonder why that is?
how could he uncover watergate, they wonder, and not be breaking stories since?
because he was fed a story then and he was paired with a report who was an actual reporter, someone who went after a story with the belief that the press mattered and that the role of the press was to inform the people.
without carl bernstein at hi side, woody was happy to suck up to power and mitigate the truth.
he is the ziegiest journalist. writing chatty little gossip that will at most embarrass slightly but never get to the core of what's going on, bobbo has made quite a career for himself.
you see him on tv introduced as the breakthrough journalist. watergate was 30 years ago. he's stayed in the field of 'journalism' so where are the brave stories?
let's take a look at his peer group, ok?
there's carl bernstein who broke additional stories but had to break them outside of the washington post which tells you a great deal about the culture of that paper.
now carl became an actual writer and not just a reporter. he graduated and grew up.
and bobbo kept spitting out what he was fed.
but let's look at a reporter who remained a reporter. sy hersh. he was at the new york times when bobbo was covering watergate.
what has sy done just in the last 4 years? he's broken story after story.
he's broken the story about abu ghraib, he's broken the story about the truth of the iraq elections, he's broken stories about what the u.s. is doing re: iran. he's broken the news that we let osama escape in afghanistan because we didn't have enough people on the ground.
that's just in the last four years.
and bobbo?
bush at war? any 1 need to read that piece of crap?
his books read like transcripts of a barbara walters tv special.
so who can pretend to be surprised that it turns out while he was saying 'nothing to see her, move along' the whole time he's being less than honest?
hasn't his post-career since watergate been built upon being less than honest?
there are 2 set of rules at the washington post, there are the rules for bobbo and then there are the rules for every 1 else.
'little miss run amuck' could have been and should have been bob woodward's name. while judy miller was still a reporter - yeah kiddies, once upon a time, she was a real reporter - bobbo was already a practicing stenographer.
you get rewarded for stenography and bobbo certainly has been rewarded.
year after year he's trotted out as the 'brave' reporter who once helped break the watergate story. smarter voices ask the janet question: 'i know you used to do nice stuff for me, but what have you done for me lately?'
nothing.
forget barney, he is the white house pooch. belly scratched, head petted and fed, he was neutered and white house broken long ago.
need more info?
check out c.i.'s 'Editorial: Someone explain to Bob Woodward that a reporter reports.'
plamegate
scooter libby
bob woodward
the washington post
valerie plame
the common ills
gee bobbo, why might you feel that way?
once upon a time he was played by robert redford. if they made a film of his life today, he'd be played by david spade. which might be insulting david spade.
he's totally useless.
gossip, which is what bobbo calls the outing of valerie plame, is what bobbo's made his business for years now.
he grabs his pad and pen, heads down to the white house and waits for crumbs to be tossed to him. then he pulls it all together in a badly transcript (which reportedly then gets improved slightly but is still a writing mess) and calls it a book.
there is an author in the woodward & bernstein team and his name is carl.
carl can write.
carl can also do investigative journalism.
bobbo can take dictation.
he took it from felt and he took it every day since. he laid on his reporter's back and took it gladly some might say (if you want to extend the whore motif).
he made his name on access, some even say he got his job on access.
in the years since watergate, he's had no explosive story and a lot of people scratch their heads and wonder why that is?
how could he uncover watergate, they wonder, and not be breaking stories since?
because he was fed a story then and he was paired with a report who was an actual reporter, someone who went after a story with the belief that the press mattered and that the role of the press was to inform the people.
without carl bernstein at hi side, woody was happy to suck up to power and mitigate the truth.
he is the ziegiest journalist. writing chatty little gossip that will at most embarrass slightly but never get to the core of what's going on, bobbo has made quite a career for himself.
you see him on tv introduced as the breakthrough journalist. watergate was 30 years ago. he's stayed in the field of 'journalism' so where are the brave stories?
let's take a look at his peer group, ok?
there's carl bernstein who broke additional stories but had to break them outside of the washington post which tells you a great deal about the culture of that paper.
now carl became an actual writer and not just a reporter. he graduated and grew up.
and bobbo kept spitting out what he was fed.
but let's look at a reporter who remained a reporter. sy hersh. he was at the new york times when bobbo was covering watergate.
what has sy done just in the last 4 years? he's broken story after story.
he's broken the story about abu ghraib, he's broken the story about the truth of the iraq elections, he's broken stories about what the u.s. is doing re: iran. he's broken the news that we let osama escape in afghanistan because we didn't have enough people on the ground.
that's just in the last four years.
and bobbo?
bush at war? any 1 need to read that piece of crap?
his books read like transcripts of a barbara walters tv special.
so who can pretend to be surprised that it turns out while he was saying 'nothing to see her, move along' the whole time he's being less than honest?
hasn't his post-career since watergate been built upon being less than honest?
there are 2 set of rules at the washington post, there are the rules for bobbo and then there are the rules for every 1 else.
'little miss run amuck' could have been and should have been bob woodward's name. while judy miller was still a reporter - yeah kiddies, once upon a time, she was a real reporter - bobbo was already a practicing stenographer.
you get rewarded for stenography and bobbo certainly has been rewarded.
year after year he's trotted out as the 'brave' reporter who once helped break the watergate story. smarter voices ask the janet question: 'i know you used to do nice stuff for me, but what have you done for me lately?'
nothing.
forget barney, he is the white house pooch. belly scratched, head petted and fed, he was neutered and white house broken long ago.
need more info?
check out c.i.'s 'Editorial: Someone explain to Bob Woodward that a reporter reports.'
plamegate
scooter libby
bob woodward
the washington post
valerie plame
the common ills
11/15/2005
jimmy & billy
i want to note something by jimmy carter called 'This Isn't The Real America:'
In recent years, I have become increasingly concerned by a host of radical government policies that now threaten many basic principles espoused by all previous administrations, Democratic and Republican.
These include the rudimentary American commitment to peace, economic and social justice, civil liberties, our environment and human rights.
Also endangered are our historic commitments to providing citizens with truthful information, treating dissenting voices and beliefs with respect, state and local autonomy and fiscal responsibility.
At the same time, our political leaders have declared independence from the restraints of international organizations and have disavowed long-standing global agreements — including agreements on nuclear arms, control of biological weapons and the international system of justice.
Instead of our tradition of espousing peace as a national priority unless our security is directly threatened, we have proclaimed a policy of "preemptive war," an unabridged right to attack other nations unilaterally to change an unsavory regime or for other purposes. When there are serious differences with other nations, we brand them as international pariahs and refuse to permit direct discussions to resolve disputes.
Regardless of the costs, there are determined efforts by top U.S. leaders to exert American imperial dominance throughout the world.
reading that, i wondered a number of things.
for instance, where's gerald ford? does he want his most remembered public statement to be the pardon he gave nixon?
i thought about how al gore been's outspoken. and thinking of al gore's bravery reminded me of our suddenly shy bill clinton.
where have you gone bill clinton?
is hillary's presidential campaign for 2008 calling all the shots?
or do you just not care?
it's really sickening to see you in photo ops with poppy bush. a criminal who should have been tossed in jail and there's bill clinton smiling with him.
the biggest mistake bill clinton made was in letting all of poppy's crimes be swept under the carpet. there was no thanks for that. instead there's now this illusion that poppy wasn't involved in iran-contra. and there was no 'oh high road, well we'll do the same' instead it was 'we will bury bill clinton with smears and lies!' that's exactly what they tried to do.
now there's bill clinton adding luster to poppy.
and as bad as that is, it's his silence on the torture and on the war that trouble me the most.
he's married to a war hawk. we get it.
he's also a former president of the united states, our last one elected with no clouds of questions over him.
as someone who pledged to uphold the constitution he should have a few op-eds in him on what's going on in our country and what our country is doing to others.
jimmy carter's not afraid to use his voice.
carter was a lot stronger than most people gave him credit for being.
bill clinton
jimmy carter
In recent years, I have become increasingly concerned by a host of radical government policies that now threaten many basic principles espoused by all previous administrations, Democratic and Republican.
These include the rudimentary American commitment to peace, economic and social justice, civil liberties, our environment and human rights.
Also endangered are our historic commitments to providing citizens with truthful information, treating dissenting voices and beliefs with respect, state and local autonomy and fiscal responsibility.
At the same time, our political leaders have declared independence from the restraints of international organizations and have disavowed long-standing global agreements — including agreements on nuclear arms, control of biological weapons and the international system of justice.
Instead of our tradition of espousing peace as a national priority unless our security is directly threatened, we have proclaimed a policy of "preemptive war," an unabridged right to attack other nations unilaterally to change an unsavory regime or for other purposes. When there are serious differences with other nations, we brand them as international pariahs and refuse to permit direct discussions to resolve disputes.
Regardless of the costs, there are determined efforts by top U.S. leaders to exert American imperial dominance throughout the world.
reading that, i wondered a number of things.
for instance, where's gerald ford? does he want his most remembered public statement to be the pardon he gave nixon?
i thought about how al gore been's outspoken. and thinking of al gore's bravery reminded me of our suddenly shy bill clinton.
where have you gone bill clinton?
is hillary's presidential campaign for 2008 calling all the shots?
or do you just not care?
it's really sickening to see you in photo ops with poppy bush. a criminal who should have been tossed in jail and there's bill clinton smiling with him.
the biggest mistake bill clinton made was in letting all of poppy's crimes be swept under the carpet. there was no thanks for that. instead there's now this illusion that poppy wasn't involved in iran-contra. and there was no 'oh high road, well we'll do the same' instead it was 'we will bury bill clinton with smears and lies!' that's exactly what they tried to do.
now there's bill clinton adding luster to poppy.
and as bad as that is, it's his silence on the torture and on the war that trouble me the most.
he's married to a war hawk. we get it.
he's also a former president of the united states, our last one elected with no clouds of questions over him.
as someone who pledged to uphold the constitution he should have a few op-eds in him on what's going on in our country and what our country is doing to others.
jimmy carter's not afraid to use his voice.
carter was a lot stronger than most people gave him credit for being.
bill clinton
jimmy carter
11/14/2005
la times sends a message
Lynda e-mails to ask why I haven't noted Robert Scheer's firing by the LA Times? Because the community hasn't noted it. I know Scheer and don't want to be accused of using this space to promote writers I know. So, since no one brought it up, I haven't brought it up here.
Since Lynda's now brought it up, what Scheer says on today's Democracy Now! is what's being said (loudly). It's also being said that the paper's leadership is willing to crawl (through glass?) on it's knees to prove their bonafides (right wing bonafides) to a group still smarting over the pre-election Gropinator coverage.
In terms of Scheer's remarks on Democracy Now!, I'll add one point. The LA Times isn't a national paper (as they damn well know -- they attempted to kill distribution to D.C. but that didn't go over well). So I'm confused as to why California based Scheer will be replaced with, among others, DC based Jonah Goldberg (or will he be sleeping on Judith Regan's couch?).Was not one of the problems (one of the many problems) with Michael Kinsley's reign the fact that Kinsley wasn't based in California? Now Goldberg, who already has a syndicated column, will be getting space in the LA Times. Why? He's on CNN already. How much of Goldberg do Californians need?
Myself? I don't think they need any. I rank this as the worst thing the LA Times has done since an editor passed on a smear about Jean Seberg and vouched for the source to get it into print. Then he attempted to claim a faulty memory when, years later, it was discovered that Seberg had been targeted by the FBI and that the smear that popped up in the LA Times was in fact one devised by FBI agents. (Sure was lucky for the editor involved that he had a Reagan-like memory, no?)
If anyone wants to express themselves, the phone number for the LA Times is (213) 237-5000. Letters to the editor can be sent via letters@latimes.com
the above is from c.i.'s entry this morning at the common ills. if you need more on this topic, check out:
LA Times Fires Longtime Progressive Columnist Robert Scheer
The Los Angeles Times newspaper last week announced that it was firing longtime columnist Robert Scheer. Scheer has been at the Times for 30 years and was one of the most progressive voices at the paper. In recent years, his columns took on the Bush Administration and its justifications for the invasion of Iraq.
the dixie chicking of america has not stopped and robert scheer's firing is proof of that.
at a time when his columns carry sentiments echoed by the majority of americans, what's the point of firing him?
well for 1 it sends a message to others in the press and for 2 it removes a strong voice.
c.i. makes a strong point about how jonah golberg lives in d.c. so what the hell is he doing writing for a paper called the los angeles times in place of an actual resident of the area?
the la times didn't just fire robert scheer, it sent a message to americans that if you feel like he does, the majority of americans, you're opinions aren't needed and will not be noted.
this is a big deal. tuesday there's a protest:
PROTEST FIRING OF ROBERT SCHEER
Bob Scheer was one of my editors at Ramparts. He is one of America’s top reporters and commentators. He’s been with the LA Times for thirty years and he’s been fired for what appears to be political reasons. Activists in Los Angeles are protesting tomorrow at the LA Times:
"Last Friday, LA Times Publisher Jeff Johnson firedRobert Scheer who had worked there for 30 years,the last 12 years as a weekly columnist.
"Robert Scheer's Anti-War Voiceis Critical. Los Angeles Times readerswill not Tolerate the Paper's Op-ed Pages Tilting Further to the Right with the firing of Scheer and theHiring of Far-right Columnists Max Boot and Jonah Goldberg with No One Holding Scheer's Spot As the Voice of Peace.
"A delegation will also demand a meeting with publisher Jeff Johnson, who reportedly has privately told people that he hated every word that Scheer wrote. We want to read full-spectrum of voices in the LA Times and know that our daily newspaper will fully cover the anti-war movement in Los Angeles."
WHEN: Tuesday, Nov. 15 at Noon
WHERE: Outside, LA Times BuildingFirst Street Entrance202 W. 1st St. (at Spring St.)Los Angeles, CA 90012
Visit LAObserved.com for latest developments.
that's from danny schechter's news dissector. and if you're reading this other than on monday the 14th of november, the link will take you to the latest news dissector. which i think is a good thing. people should make a habit to check out danny schechter.
democracy now
the common ills
robert scheer
danny schechter
Since Lynda's now brought it up, what Scheer says on today's Democracy Now! is what's being said (loudly). It's also being said that the paper's leadership is willing to crawl (through glass?) on it's knees to prove their bonafides (right wing bonafides) to a group still smarting over the pre-election Gropinator coverage.
In terms of Scheer's remarks on Democracy Now!, I'll add one point. The LA Times isn't a national paper (as they damn well know -- they attempted to kill distribution to D.C. but that didn't go over well). So I'm confused as to why California based Scheer will be replaced with, among others, DC based Jonah Goldberg (or will he be sleeping on Judith Regan's couch?).Was not one of the problems (one of the many problems) with Michael Kinsley's reign the fact that Kinsley wasn't based in California? Now Goldberg, who already has a syndicated column, will be getting space in the LA Times. Why? He's on CNN already. How much of Goldberg do Californians need?
Myself? I don't think they need any. I rank this as the worst thing the LA Times has done since an editor passed on a smear about Jean Seberg and vouched for the source to get it into print. Then he attempted to claim a faulty memory when, years later, it was discovered that Seberg had been targeted by the FBI and that the smear that popped up in the LA Times was in fact one devised by FBI agents. (Sure was lucky for the editor involved that he had a Reagan-like memory, no?)
If anyone wants to express themselves, the phone number for the LA Times is (213) 237-5000. Letters to the editor can be sent via letters@latimes.com
the above is from c.i.'s entry this morning at the common ills. if you need more on this topic, check out:
LA Times Fires Longtime Progressive Columnist Robert Scheer
The Los Angeles Times newspaper last week announced that it was firing longtime columnist Robert Scheer. Scheer has been at the Times for 30 years and was one of the most progressive voices at the paper. In recent years, his columns took on the Bush Administration and its justifications for the invasion of Iraq.
the dixie chicking of america has not stopped and robert scheer's firing is proof of that.
at a time when his columns carry sentiments echoed by the majority of americans, what's the point of firing him?
well for 1 it sends a message to others in the press and for 2 it removes a strong voice.
c.i. makes a strong point about how jonah golberg lives in d.c. so what the hell is he doing writing for a paper called the los angeles times in place of an actual resident of the area?
the la times didn't just fire robert scheer, it sent a message to americans that if you feel like he does, the majority of americans, you're opinions aren't needed and will not be noted.
this is a big deal. tuesday there's a protest:
PROTEST FIRING OF ROBERT SCHEER
Bob Scheer was one of my editors at Ramparts. He is one of America’s top reporters and commentators. He’s been with the LA Times for thirty years and he’s been fired for what appears to be political reasons. Activists in Los Angeles are protesting tomorrow at the LA Times:
"Last Friday, LA Times Publisher Jeff Johnson firedRobert Scheer who had worked there for 30 years,the last 12 years as a weekly columnist.
"Robert Scheer's Anti-War Voiceis Critical. Los Angeles Times readerswill not Tolerate the Paper's Op-ed Pages Tilting Further to the Right with the firing of Scheer and theHiring of Far-right Columnists Max Boot and Jonah Goldberg with No One Holding Scheer's Spot As the Voice of Peace.
"A delegation will also demand a meeting with publisher Jeff Johnson, who reportedly has privately told people that he hated every word that Scheer wrote. We want to read full-spectrum of voices in the LA Times and know that our daily newspaper will fully cover the anti-war movement in Los Angeles."
WHEN: Tuesday, Nov. 15 at Noon
WHERE: Outside, LA Times BuildingFirst Street Entrance202 W. 1st St. (at Spring St.)Los Angeles, CA 90012
Visit LAObserved.com for latest developments.
that's from danny schechter's news dissector. and if you're reading this other than on monday the 14th of november, the link will take you to the latest news dissector. which i think is a good thing. people should make a habit to check out danny schechter.
democracy now
the common ills
robert scheer
danny schechter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)