i told cedric to blog and then i would. we both agreed to put off blogging last night so that we could take part in a thing common ills community member polly was doing. we were glad to take part but we both thought we'd have time to blog early today. that didn't happen.
i'm not complaining.
please, we're in holding pattern on The Third Estate Sunday Review because c.i.'s at a rally. this is the 3rd location c.i.'s been in today. i won't dare whine about being tired with that example in my face.
we've got two ideas for stories for the third estate sunday review and dona's asking that we try to think of at least 1 short entry. everyone's exhausted from speaking out today. i hope you are too. it's a good kind of exhaustion but it's also true that people need their rest and, as dona pointed out, we may not get any tonight.
tomorrow night, sunday night, on RadioNation with Laura Flanders christian parenti will be one of the guests so be sure to listen. he's smart, he's sexy, he's parenti. don't miss him.
cedric's written 'About the fighters: Russ Feingold, Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez' and you should check it out. those are fighters. they put the rest of us to shame.
"New York Times Chief Military Correspondent Michael Gordon Defends Pre-War Reporting on WMDs" is what you need to check out. amy and juan don't take any crap from michael gordon and all michael gordon has to offer is crap.
and read c.i.'s "NYT: Can't own up to mistakes, be it the paper or Michael Gordon" which outlines just how full of crap michael gordon and his paper are. fly boy and i were reading that this morning. fly boy said, 'c.i.'s really not in the mood for crap these days.' no.
i think it has to do with seeing so much nonsense around us. so many people acting like a war isn't going on. acting like people aren't dying. and you've got supposed left of center people who are still talking the b.s. of 'stay the course.'
i wonder about some blogs who whine that they don't get attention but all they do is repeat the talking points from the dnc. if they missed it, established democrats aren't real popular right now. russ feingold is popular. the spineless cowards? not.
but, and you know who they are, you see a lot of idiots rushing in to shore up weak ass policies and statements. like the flag waver who didn't know a thing about cindy sheehan but that didn't prevent her from writing about it. has any 1 ever been more stupid than that woman who, in the midst of camp casey, wrote that cindy sheehan wasn't for bringing the troops home?
it's ignorance. it's because you've got people who just tell you what the democratic party says and turn to mainstream media for their news. they rely on mainstream media. you never see them mention democracy now. now maybe if the idiot had watched democracy now she would have known who cindy sheehan was before camp casey and she would have known that cindy sheehan is for and has been for bringing the troops home now.
so you get those idiots and you wonder why the country is in the state it is?
take the dope who, in january of 2005, hectors c.i. about how james dobson needs to be respected and listened to. now if that was a right-wing site, no problem. but that fool, a man this time, thought he was left-of-center if not left.
that was just nonsense.
people like that should have to eat their damn words. they are so uninformed and they go and blog about something they know nothing about. whether it's james dobson or cindy sheehan or promoting the hideous t.d. jakes.
know something about what you're talking about.
or how about the fool claiming 'free speech' allows recruiters on campus. no, it doesn't. free speech isn't for the federal government. the federal government did not need a bill of rights. that's not why it was created.
and it's these voices that have pissed off so many.
we're tired of the uninformed still saying 'stay the course.' maybe, because their posts are archived, they can't pretend like they haven't been preaching that all this time?
you can put all the flags up on your site that you want, if you want this war, get your ass over there and serve. quit hiding behind the flag and quit trying to pretend your left.
you're nothing but a dlc dem.
1 of the idiots, the man, wrote something like 'simon rosenberg is making sense' or some such nonsense. c.i. asked him, 'are you for the war?' this was back in 2004 or 2005. no, he said, he was opposed to the war. then why didn't he know that simon rosenberg was for the war before the war and during the war?
i mean, come on people, use your brains. try reading.
they think because they went to the popular click of the day they're informed. they know the 'big story' of the day, as reported by mainstream media, but because they don't buy a paper or magazine, that's all the know.
you need to quit relying on the mainstream media that's failed this country repeatedly.
and little wimps who want to say 'i can't speak out on the war' need to just shut up then. seriously. there's one 'online mag' (you know which 1) that thought it was okay to go to town on bright eyes and kat. they can't speak out against the war, this online mag, but they can slam people who do (while they promote the new republic). that's nonsense.
seriously, it's useless, it's just wasting every 1's time.
of the little fool who thought she was funny trashing ms. magazine. well, if you can't read, maybe all you can do is blog about a cover photograph. (and even that you can't comprehend.)
we're sick of them and their nonsense.
we're sick of a supreme court judge retiring and a supposed feminist blogging about her dopey vacation instead of the retirement. (repeatedly. for days and days and days.)
the bully boy is destroying the constitution, we've got 2 wars (afganistan and iraq) and bully boy wants a 3rd, reproductive rights are under attack, gays and lesbians are under attack and there's just a feeling of 'i'm not in the mood for the nonsense.'
i get e-mails complaining about that. people wondering why it's so hard for some 1 who sets up a blog to declare a position on the war, for instance? i have no idea. i have no idea why some 1 would go to the trouble of setting up a blog to share their thoughts and have no thought to share on the illegal occupation.
i think a lot of people have made themselves useless.
and unless we want 3 more years of this war (or more than that), we need to use our voices. online or offline, we need to use our voices. we need to talk about the war. about the wars overseas and the wars at home. and if we're not doing that, if we're busy talking about the latest time cover story because it's the hot link of the day (and a cover story that media matters will demolish shortly - after some of the dopes and dupes have praised it), what good are we to any 1?
so there is a feeling of 'i've had enough.'
if you've had enough, use your voice. and seek out alternative media.
3 years into the war that corporate media sold, it's time to stop depending on the corporate media.
3/16/2006
never cheerlead an illegal war
okay, i need some help here. sing with me here, we're going for the melody to dionne warwick's 'i'll never fall in love again.'
what do you get when you cheerlead an illegal war?
bit of reality to burst your bubble.
that's what you get for all your trouble
mara liasson, never cheerlead a war again.
what do you get when you rah-rah-rah?
americans coming home with worse than pneumonia
some of whom can never phone you
chris matthews, never cheerlead a war again
chris matthews, never cheerlead a war again.
don't tell me what's it all about
because you were a fool and people died
from those lies
your lies that bind you
that is why i'm here to remind you.
what do you get when you cheerlead an illegal war?
you only get lies and pain and sorrow
so take a vow for peaceful tomorrows
never cheerlead an illegal war again.
never cheerlead an illegal war again.
the inspiration for the above version of hal davis and burt bacharach's classic is a new item from fair - '"The Final Word Is Hooray!" Remembering the Iraq War's Pollyanna pundits' and here are some of my personal favorites of dupes embarrassing themselves as they got on board for the illegal war:
"Oh, it was breathtaking. I mean I was almost starting to think that we had become inured to everything that we'd seen of this war over the past three weeks; all this sort of saturation. And finally, when we saw that it was such a just true, genuine _expression. It was reminiscent, I think, of the fall of the Berlin Wall. And just sort of that pure emotional _expression, not choreographed, not stage-managed, the way so many things these days seem to be. Really breathtaking." (Washington Post reporter Ceci Connolly, appearing on Fox News Channel on 4/9/03, discussing the pulling down of a Saddam Hussein statue in Baghdad, an event later revealed to have been a U.S. military PSYOPS operation [stunt]--Los Angeles Times, 7/3/04)
"The war winds down, politics heats up.... Picture perfect. Part Spider-Man, part Tom Cruise, part Ronald Reagan. The president seizes the moment on an aircraft carrier in the Pacific." (PBS's Gwen Ifill, 5/2/03, on George W. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech)
"This has been a tough war for commentators on the American left. To hope for defeat meant cheering for Saddam Hussein. To hope for victory meant cheering for President Bush. The toppling of Mr. Hussein, or at least a statue of him, has made their arguments even harder to defend. Liberal writers for ideologically driven magazines like The Nation and for less overtly political ones like The New Yorker did not predict a defeat, but the terrible consequences many warned of have not happened. Now liberal commentators must address the victory at hand and confront an ascendant conservative juggernaut that asserts United States might can set the world right." (New York Times reporter David Carr, 4/16/03)
"Over the next couple of weeks when we find the chemical weapons this guy was amassing, the fact that this war was attacked by the left and so the right was so vindicated, I think, really means that the left is going to have to hang its head for three or four more years." (Fox News Channel's Dick Morris, 4/9/03)
use the link to relive more embarrassing moments of the war cheerleaders.
so how are you protesting the war on the third anniversary of the invasion?
andrea and her best friend hannah are going to read a piece they wrote together to their grandmother's saturday mah jong group. andrea asked her asked her grandmother and she said 'sure.' andrea says she and hannah are really excited and have been practicing their presentation in front of her grandmother who says it's really good.
i'm sure it is and i'm sure if 2 young women, 12 year olds, can find a way to make their voices heard, you can too.
goldie's having her friends over for a sleep over like mindy's doing this week (and like goldie did in september) but this time, before the sleep over, they're going to walk up and down the sidewalks carrying signs. they've already made 'stop the war'; 'bring the troops home'; and 'bush lied people died' and they're working on the other 1s. goldie's mom told her it was fine as long as she made sure the other mothers knew ahead of time so she and mom called the other mother's and everything is okay with it. they're working a cheer to chant right now.
7 high schoolers are attending their 1st protest. some of you who became protest veterans in 2005 are gearing up for the next wave and bringing friends along.
there's a huge group in oregon that's working on sign they'll hang from a bridge over a highway.
we've got 2 different women organizing teach ins with their friends.
so what are the rest of you doing?
if nothing else, you can make a point to talk 1 on 1 to a friend about the war. in my opinion, that's the very least you can do, bare minimum.
check out elaine's "Peace doesn't come about through silence" and wally's "THIS JUST IN! BULLY BOY LAUNCHES OPERATION GET IT UP!" and c.i.'s "NYT: It's only news when Republicans issue statements."
and do something. make your voice heard.
fair
war cheerleaders
like maria said paz
the daily jot
the common ills
what do you get when you cheerlead an illegal war?
bit of reality to burst your bubble.
that's what you get for all your trouble
mara liasson, never cheerlead a war again.
what do you get when you rah-rah-rah?
americans coming home with worse than pneumonia
some of whom can never phone you
chris matthews, never cheerlead a war again
chris matthews, never cheerlead a war again.
don't tell me what's it all about
because you were a fool and people died
from those lies
your lies that bind you
that is why i'm here to remind you.
what do you get when you cheerlead an illegal war?
you only get lies and pain and sorrow
so take a vow for peaceful tomorrows
never cheerlead an illegal war again.
never cheerlead an illegal war again.
the inspiration for the above version of hal davis and burt bacharach's classic is a new item from fair - '"The Final Word Is Hooray!" Remembering the Iraq War's Pollyanna pundits' and here are some of my personal favorites of dupes embarrassing themselves as they got on board for the illegal war:
"Oh, it was breathtaking. I mean I was almost starting to think that we had become inured to everything that we'd seen of this war over the past three weeks; all this sort of saturation. And finally, when we saw that it was such a just true, genuine _expression. It was reminiscent, I think, of the fall of the Berlin Wall. And just sort of that pure emotional _expression, not choreographed, not stage-managed, the way so many things these days seem to be. Really breathtaking." (Washington Post reporter Ceci Connolly, appearing on Fox News Channel on 4/9/03, discussing the pulling down of a Saddam Hussein statue in Baghdad, an event later revealed to have been a U.S. military PSYOPS operation [stunt]--Los Angeles Times, 7/3/04)
"The war winds down, politics heats up.... Picture perfect. Part Spider-Man, part Tom Cruise, part Ronald Reagan. The president seizes the moment on an aircraft carrier in the Pacific." (PBS's Gwen Ifill, 5/2/03, on George W. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech)
"This has been a tough war for commentators on the American left. To hope for defeat meant cheering for Saddam Hussein. To hope for victory meant cheering for President Bush. The toppling of Mr. Hussein, or at least a statue of him, has made their arguments even harder to defend. Liberal writers for ideologically driven magazines like The Nation and for less overtly political ones like The New Yorker did not predict a defeat, but the terrible consequences many warned of have not happened. Now liberal commentators must address the victory at hand and confront an ascendant conservative juggernaut that asserts United States might can set the world right." (New York Times reporter David Carr, 4/16/03)
"Over the next couple of weeks when we find the chemical weapons this guy was amassing, the fact that this war was attacked by the left and so the right was so vindicated, I think, really means that the left is going to have to hang its head for three or four more years." (Fox News Channel's Dick Morris, 4/9/03)
use the link to relive more embarrassing moments of the war cheerleaders.
so how are you protesting the war on the third anniversary of the invasion?
andrea and her best friend hannah are going to read a piece they wrote together to their grandmother's saturday mah jong group. andrea asked her asked her grandmother and she said 'sure.' andrea says she and hannah are really excited and have been practicing their presentation in front of her grandmother who says it's really good.
i'm sure it is and i'm sure if 2 young women, 12 year olds, can find a way to make their voices heard, you can too.
goldie's having her friends over for a sleep over like mindy's doing this week (and like goldie did in september) but this time, before the sleep over, they're going to walk up and down the sidewalks carrying signs. they've already made 'stop the war'; 'bring the troops home'; and 'bush lied people died' and they're working on the other 1s. goldie's mom told her it was fine as long as she made sure the other mothers knew ahead of time so she and mom called the other mother's and everything is okay with it. they're working a cheer to chant right now.
7 high schoolers are attending their 1st protest. some of you who became protest veterans in 2005 are gearing up for the next wave and bringing friends along.
there's a huge group in oregon that's working on sign they'll hang from a bridge over a highway.
we've got 2 different women organizing teach ins with their friends.
so what are the rest of you doing?
if nothing else, you can make a point to talk 1 on 1 to a friend about the war. in my opinion, that's the very least you can do, bare minimum.
check out elaine's "Peace doesn't come about through silence" and wally's "THIS JUST IN! BULLY BOY LAUNCHES OPERATION GET IT UP!" and c.i.'s "NYT: It's only news when Republicans issue statements."
and do something. make your voice heard.
fair
war cheerleaders
like maria said paz
the daily jot
the common ills
3/15/2006
you don't need a pollster to know which way the wind blows
Feingold Criticizes Fellow Dems Bush Measure
Here in the United States, Senator Russ Feingold has lashed out at fellow Democrats for not supporting his measure to censure President Bush for his warrantless domestic spy program. Feingold has failed to attract any co-sponsors. Appearing on Fox News, Feingold said: "I'm amazed at Democrats, cowering with this president's numbers so low. The administration just has to raise the specter of the war and the Democrats run and hide. … Too many Democrats are going to do the same thing they did in 2000 and 2004.… [Democrats shouldn't] cower to the argument, that whatever you do, if you question the administration, you're helping the terrorists."
that's from democracy now. so are we surprised?
the democrats are still running scared. the evan blahs are running the show and the result is every 1 plays duck and cover. scared little turtles afraid to come out of the shells.
they better learn to do something or quit complaining about the results of elections.
2006 is supposed to be a lock, a sure thing.
of course we heard that in 2004 and 2002 as well. remember?
in 2002, it was 'we're going to win! we're going to win! the opposition party always, always, always picks up seats in the mid-terms!' and?
they lost.
in 2004, it was 'people are sick of bully boy so we're going to win!' and?
they're so scared to say a damn thing.
i'm sick of the hillary clintons who want to get their war on. i'm sick of the bean counters who crunch the numbers. i'm sick of james carville most of all.
he really needs to go away.
he and paul begela are cowards and have always been cowards. carville knows how to shout, when he's not stammering, but what's the point when he can't stand up for anything?
could he or the weasel begela stand up for cynthia mckinney? no, they ran with the press lies and slammed her.
that's who they are. if there's a hint of controversy, they run.
and i really do not think 1 of our talking heads should be married to mary matalin. not because she's a republican, not because she wipes the floor with him in their 'cutesy' tv matchups, but because she's involved with cheney.
with all that's happened regarding scooter libby and the outing of valerie plame, with the hunting accident, with every thing, he needs to step away from the limelight.
we have no idea who aided in the lies and who didn't. matalin's a spinner. she's often a liar. if she's part of the lie the people into war, then we don't need her husband speaking for us.
if she was involved in the conspiracy to out valerie plame, do you think she'll get what's coming to her or will she get a pass?
i'm not saying she is involved. i'm saying there are too many serious issues coming out of the vice president's office and someone so close to it should not be the spouse of a democratic talking head. he needs to step away from the limelight.
worst case scenario, he's married to this year's g. gordon liddy. the democratic party doesn't need him speaking for them.
so what do we lose out on?
a few of his bizarre sayings that make tim russert chuckle and make us look like idiots?
that's really all we miss out on.
he's 1 of the triangulators. his whole life is triangulation.
he's not going to step away, even if mary matalin gets frog marched off, so we should wake up to the fact that he's not a political genius.
he can't figure out how to solve a problem and his campaign strategy for bill clinton was nothing but the most simplistic crap that every 1's used since. in bill clinton's 1st campaign, there was betsy wright to balance out carville and wright got the big picture.
carville doesn't. that's why he runs such crappy campaigns and why kerry's campaign was doomed the minute carville and the others hopped on board.
it's all about 'don't make any waves and you'll win.'
this while the other side launches attacks and makes their own waves.
so the candidate floats along while a tidal wave mounts until it's wipe out time.
then there's jimmy carville within 2 weeks telling the press how the candidate failed. the candidate. it's never jimmy carville's fault.
i'm really sick of him and his centrist, b.s. crowd that can't speak honestly because they're too busy polling to figure out what people MIGHT think.
i don't know what's worse, those people are a democratic party inane enough to send out a fund raising e-mail entitled 'russ feingold is a traitor.' after the generic salutation, 'howard dean' tells you that's what the republicans want you to think. (i didn't get an e-mail with that title from republicans, 'howard dean.') then they hit you up for money.
here's some of that e-mail:
That's what Republicans want you to think.
They are so scared of having a legitimate debate about Iraq or national security that they have only one reaction to news of their failures or calls for accountability.
On Monday, Democratic Senator Russ Feingold introduced legislation to censure the President for breaking the law by creating a secret domestic spying program. Agree or disagree with his proposal, as a Senator -- and as an American -- he has the right to speak his mind and express his views without Republican Senators questioning his patriotism.
But that's exactly what happened. This week Republican Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado, in an interview with Fox News radio, said in response to Feingold's action that he has "time and time again [sided] with the terrorists".
they're scared, 'howard'? them? i didn't see any democrats in the senate rushing to defend feingold. so who's scared?
seriously, let's be objective. wayne allard's an idiot. but he's speaking his mind. his inflamatory statement passed his polling group or he side stepped them. where are the democrats?
some 1 needs to tell them: YOU DON'T NEED A POLLSTER TO KNOW WHICH WAY THE WIND BLOWS.
until they can figure that out, they're stuck in their own mess as sure as we're stuck in iraq.
tomorrow, i'm going to note some things that readers are planning to mark the 3rd annivesary of the invasion but tonight, i'm too pissed off at cowardly democrats. if you need to know about something serious, something the dems won't talk about, go read c.i.'s "NYT: They're calling the current situation in Iraq 'strife'". i read it this morning while drinking my coffee. i had parts of read it to me by t over the phone. (she loves it.) then fly boy came by tonight (not a good night because we had the roundtable for the gina & krista round-robin) and wanted to talk about it and he's still wondering exactly what it takes up to wake up the big media and the democratic party to what's going on in iraq? i have no idea.
Here in the United States, Senator Russ Feingold has lashed out at fellow Democrats for not supporting his measure to censure President Bush for his warrantless domestic spy program. Feingold has failed to attract any co-sponsors. Appearing on Fox News, Feingold said: "I'm amazed at Democrats, cowering with this president's numbers so low. The administration just has to raise the specter of the war and the Democrats run and hide. … Too many Democrats are going to do the same thing they did in 2000 and 2004.… [Democrats shouldn't] cower to the argument, that whatever you do, if you question the administration, you're helping the terrorists."
that's from democracy now. so are we surprised?
the democrats are still running scared. the evan blahs are running the show and the result is every 1 plays duck and cover. scared little turtles afraid to come out of the shells.
they better learn to do something or quit complaining about the results of elections.
2006 is supposed to be a lock, a sure thing.
of course we heard that in 2004 and 2002 as well. remember?
in 2002, it was 'we're going to win! we're going to win! the opposition party always, always, always picks up seats in the mid-terms!' and?
they lost.
in 2004, it was 'people are sick of bully boy so we're going to win!' and?
they're so scared to say a damn thing.
i'm sick of the hillary clintons who want to get their war on. i'm sick of the bean counters who crunch the numbers. i'm sick of james carville most of all.
he really needs to go away.
he and paul begela are cowards and have always been cowards. carville knows how to shout, when he's not stammering, but what's the point when he can't stand up for anything?
could he or the weasel begela stand up for cynthia mckinney? no, they ran with the press lies and slammed her.
that's who they are. if there's a hint of controversy, they run.
and i really do not think 1 of our talking heads should be married to mary matalin. not because she's a republican, not because she wipes the floor with him in their 'cutesy' tv matchups, but because she's involved with cheney.
with all that's happened regarding scooter libby and the outing of valerie plame, with the hunting accident, with every thing, he needs to step away from the limelight.
we have no idea who aided in the lies and who didn't. matalin's a spinner. she's often a liar. if she's part of the lie the people into war, then we don't need her husband speaking for us.
if she was involved in the conspiracy to out valerie plame, do you think she'll get what's coming to her or will she get a pass?
i'm not saying she is involved. i'm saying there are too many serious issues coming out of the vice president's office and someone so close to it should not be the spouse of a democratic talking head. he needs to step away from the limelight.
worst case scenario, he's married to this year's g. gordon liddy. the democratic party doesn't need him speaking for them.
so what do we lose out on?
a few of his bizarre sayings that make tim russert chuckle and make us look like idiots?
that's really all we miss out on.
he's 1 of the triangulators. his whole life is triangulation.
he's not going to step away, even if mary matalin gets frog marched off, so we should wake up to the fact that he's not a political genius.
he can't figure out how to solve a problem and his campaign strategy for bill clinton was nothing but the most simplistic crap that every 1's used since. in bill clinton's 1st campaign, there was betsy wright to balance out carville and wright got the big picture.
carville doesn't. that's why he runs such crappy campaigns and why kerry's campaign was doomed the minute carville and the others hopped on board.
it's all about 'don't make any waves and you'll win.'
this while the other side launches attacks and makes their own waves.
so the candidate floats along while a tidal wave mounts until it's wipe out time.
then there's jimmy carville within 2 weeks telling the press how the candidate failed. the candidate. it's never jimmy carville's fault.
i'm really sick of him and his centrist, b.s. crowd that can't speak honestly because they're too busy polling to figure out what people MIGHT think.
i don't know what's worse, those people are a democratic party inane enough to send out a fund raising e-mail entitled 'russ feingold is a traitor.' after the generic salutation, 'howard dean' tells you that's what the republicans want you to think. (i didn't get an e-mail with that title from republicans, 'howard dean.') then they hit you up for money.
here's some of that e-mail:
That's what Republicans want you to think.
They are so scared of having a legitimate debate about Iraq or national security that they have only one reaction to news of their failures or calls for accountability.
On Monday, Democratic Senator Russ Feingold introduced legislation to censure the President for breaking the law by creating a secret domestic spying program. Agree or disagree with his proposal, as a Senator -- and as an American -- he has the right to speak his mind and express his views without Republican Senators questioning his patriotism.
But that's exactly what happened. This week Republican Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado, in an interview with Fox News radio, said in response to Feingold's action that he has "time and time again [sided] with the terrorists".
they're scared, 'howard'? them? i didn't see any democrats in the senate rushing to defend feingold. so who's scared?
seriously, let's be objective. wayne allard's an idiot. but he's speaking his mind. his inflamatory statement passed his polling group or he side stepped them. where are the democrats?
some 1 needs to tell them: YOU DON'T NEED A POLLSTER TO KNOW WHICH WAY THE WIND BLOWS.
until they can figure that out, they're stuck in their own mess as sure as we're stuck in iraq.
tomorrow, i'm going to note some things that readers are planning to mark the 3rd annivesary of the invasion but tonight, i'm too pissed off at cowardly democrats. if you need to know about something serious, something the dems won't talk about, go read c.i.'s "NYT: They're calling the current situation in Iraq 'strife'". i read it this morning while drinking my coffee. i had parts of read it to me by t over the phone. (she loves it.) then fly boy came by tonight (not a good night because we had the roundtable for the gina & krista round-robin) and wanted to talk about it and he's still wondering exactly what it takes up to wake up the big media and the democratic party to what's going on in iraq? i have no idea.
3/14/2006
what are you doing to be heard?
so the weekend is fastly approaching. have you made your plans for how you're going to make yourself heard on the third anniverary of the invasion of iraq?
now i know i have young readers but i know they are strong readers. you never fail to amaze me with your strength and your convictions. mindy is 13 and is planning a sleep over with her 12 girlfriends. they're all against the war so what she's going to do is try to make sure they all have information on the war. she was wondering if i had any suggestions for dvds she could show? she wants to show at least 2 movies. i wrote her back that if she only shows 1 movie it needs to be danny schechter's weapons of mass deception.
i'm participating in a discussion on that tonight for the gina and krista round-robin. i was out today and there seems to be some problem with my cell phone judging by the number of people complaining to my answering machine here. i did have some messages on my cell phone but i've got a lot of people who called my landline and left a message on answering machine saying they called repeatedly and couldn't get through.
but that's the 1 movie to watch if you're only going to watch 1. i'm sending mindy another movie that's shorter and is about falluja. but i told her that it should be used only after and and only if every 1 is still in the mood for another dvd.
why? because you don't just need to watch, you need to discuss. so if you watch danny schechter's documentary and then discuss it, with every 1 sharing, it will have a huge impact. you shouldn't attempt to load every 1 down with a series of dvds.
if you're not able to attend a rally, then you need to be thinking along those lines. something with information that people will watch (and enjoy) that can prompt a discussion.
we need to all be having a dialogue. (c.i. wrote about how the media refuses to do so last night.)
if you don't use your voice, what good are you?
hey, sounds like a question for the senate democrats, right? if you missed it, they're having a hard time figuring out where they stand regarding russ feingold's call for censure:
"Democrats run and hide" when the administration invokes the war on terrorism, Feingold told reporters.
Feingold introduced censure legislation Monday in the Senate but not a single Democrat has embraced it. Several have said they want to see the results of a Senate Intelligence Committee investigation before supporting any punitive legislation.
isn't that sweet. aren't they so brave?
cedric and i spoke about this today and we can't believe how disgusted we are with the cowards.
he's already shared his thoughts on it so be sure to read that.
right before i started this entry, kat called me about a story she heard on kpfa's evening news tonight. i hadn't heard about it but i looked online and here's a link to an associated press story on the topic. what's going on?
The Bush administration last year quietly rewrote the rules for allowing gays and lesbians to receive national-security clearances, drawing complaints from civil rights activists.
The Bush administration said security clearances cannot be denied "solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the individual." But it removed language saying sexual orientation "may not be used as a basis for or a disqualifying factor in determining a person's eligibility for a security clearance."
are you surprised? you shouldn't be. and lincoln logs who support bully boy (log cabin republicans) and other gay and lesbian people who support him should either admit that they're self-hating or masochistic or both if they can't wake up to the reality that they are not a part of the republican big tent.
that is so disgusting. this was done in december. stephen hadley distributed the changes on dec. 29th. we hear about it now.
guess what else? bully boy has a record. his administration has rejected, said no to, storm disaster loans more than any administration in 15 years. well it's not like any 1 needed them in 2005 or now, right? it's not like we've had any hurricanes in years, right?
he's a loser. he's an embarrassment. he's a war criminal.
which must be why pat roberts has decided to rush through the investigation into the faked intel that bully boy used to lead us into an illegal war.
so are we going to use our voices? we need to. mindy's using her's. all you high schoolers reading, is a 13 year-old about to show you up? (i think she might.)
now i know i have young readers but i know they are strong readers. you never fail to amaze me with your strength and your convictions. mindy is 13 and is planning a sleep over with her 12 girlfriends. they're all against the war so what she's going to do is try to make sure they all have information on the war. she was wondering if i had any suggestions for dvds she could show? she wants to show at least 2 movies. i wrote her back that if she only shows 1 movie it needs to be danny schechter's weapons of mass deception.
i'm participating in a discussion on that tonight for the gina and krista round-robin. i was out today and there seems to be some problem with my cell phone judging by the number of people complaining to my answering machine here. i did have some messages on my cell phone but i've got a lot of people who called my landline and left a message on answering machine saying they called repeatedly and couldn't get through.
but that's the 1 movie to watch if you're only going to watch 1. i'm sending mindy another movie that's shorter and is about falluja. but i told her that it should be used only after and and only if every 1 is still in the mood for another dvd.
why? because you don't just need to watch, you need to discuss. so if you watch danny schechter's documentary and then discuss it, with every 1 sharing, it will have a huge impact. you shouldn't attempt to load every 1 down with a series of dvds.
if you're not able to attend a rally, then you need to be thinking along those lines. something with information that people will watch (and enjoy) that can prompt a discussion.
we need to all be having a dialogue. (c.i. wrote about how the media refuses to do so last night.)
if you don't use your voice, what good are you?
hey, sounds like a question for the senate democrats, right? if you missed it, they're having a hard time figuring out where they stand regarding russ feingold's call for censure:
"Democrats run and hide" when the administration invokes the war on terrorism, Feingold told reporters.
Feingold introduced censure legislation Monday in the Senate but not a single Democrat has embraced it. Several have said they want to see the results of a Senate Intelligence Committee investigation before supporting any punitive legislation.
isn't that sweet. aren't they so brave?
cedric and i spoke about this today and we can't believe how disgusted we are with the cowards.
he's already shared his thoughts on it so be sure to read that.
right before i started this entry, kat called me about a story she heard on kpfa's evening news tonight. i hadn't heard about it but i looked online and here's a link to an associated press story on the topic. what's going on?
The Bush administration last year quietly rewrote the rules for allowing gays and lesbians to receive national-security clearances, drawing complaints from civil rights activists.
The Bush administration said security clearances cannot be denied "solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the individual." But it removed language saying sexual orientation "may not be used as a basis for or a disqualifying factor in determining a person's eligibility for a security clearance."
are you surprised? you shouldn't be. and lincoln logs who support bully boy (log cabin republicans) and other gay and lesbian people who support him should either admit that they're self-hating or masochistic or both if they can't wake up to the reality that they are not a part of the republican big tent.
that is so disgusting. this was done in december. stephen hadley distributed the changes on dec. 29th. we hear about it now.
guess what else? bully boy has a record. his administration has rejected, said no to, storm disaster loans more than any administration in 15 years. well it's not like any 1 needed them in 2005 or now, right? it's not like we've had any hurricanes in years, right?
he's a loser. he's an embarrassment. he's a war criminal.
which must be why pat roberts has decided to rush through the investigation into the faked intel that bully boy used to lead us into an illegal war.
so are we going to use our voices? we need to. mindy's using her's. all you high schoolers reading, is a 13 year-old about to show you up? (i think she might.)
3/13/2006
robert parry & russ feingold
Special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh was so outraged by Sen. Bob Dole's disruption of the Iran-contra criminal cases against senior Reagan-Bush officials that Walsh "briefly considered" adding a chapter to his final report criticizing Dole's tactics. Walsh detailed Dole's strategy for hindering the prosecutions in Firewall, a book scheduled for publication next year. Walsh, a lifelong Republican, released two chapters now to show voters how Dole lobbied President Bush to pardon former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger in 1992. Because of that position, Walsh deemed Dole's recent demands that Clinton eschew pardons for Whitewater defendants a clear case of "Dole's hypocrisy." The two chapters offer other insights as well into how Bush and Dole engineered the Iran-contra end game to minimize political damage to the Republican Party. Their strategy succeeded, in part, because some leading Democrats and influential members of the Washington news media signaled acceptance of the Weinberger pardon.
that's from robert parry's 'lost history: dole nearly cited in iran-contra report' published in 1996 at consortium news. carey e-mailed it to me and asked if i would note it. sunday when the new york times felt the need to offer that there used to be more civility in the congress and 1 moron quoted in the article noted how wonderfully they got along and worked together during iran-contra. that's because the democrats rolled over. it's easy for every 1 to get along when 1 side gets what it wants because the other throws in the towel.
and we're seeing it again. note this from democracy now:
Sen. Feingold to Introduce Resolution to Censure Bush
On Capitol Hill, Democratic Senator Russ Feingold is introducing a resolution today to censure President Bush for deliberately breaking the law by ordering the National Security Agency to conduct domestic surveillance without legally required court warrants. Feingold's resolution also accuses the president of misinforming the public about the program's existence and legality. Feingold announced his plan on Sunday on ABC's This Week. "It's an unusual step. It's a big step, but what the President did by consciously and intentionally violating the constitutional laws of this country with this illegal wiretapping has to be answered," Feingold said. "There can be debate about whether the law should be changed. There can be debate about how best to fight terrorism. We all believe that there should be wiretapping in appropriate cases. But the idea that the President can just make up a law in violation of his oath of office has to be answered." Minutes after Senator Feingold spoke, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist appeared on the same program and said he hoped that the leadership in Iran was not listening because of the terrible signal Feingold's message sent to the world about President Bush.
great, right? dems are getting their act together?
wrong. either they don't know where they stand on censure yet or else they've already come out slamming like the ultimate loser joe lieberman.
as kat noted saturday, i think russ feingold is sexy. he's a fighter who fights for what he believes in. and he's also physically sexy. and don't understimate that when people start competing for the democratic nomination.
hilary? the sure thing? i don't think she's a sure thing.
evan blah? get serious.
the new york times tried to tell us sunday that mark warner stands a chance. no chance in hell.
i called c.i. sunday evening and asked about the cover photo? c.i. had pulled the main section and 'i've already sorted for recycling' but i persisted.
okay, i said, look at the cover of the sunday magazine. tell me who it looks like?
'oh my god!'
uh-huh.
he looks like a younger richard nixon.
forget the gaps in his teeth (which are really bad teeth). forget that he hasn't learned that men need to trim their eyebrows.
just the fact that he so closely resembles tricky dick is enough to tank that nomination.
here's 1 more bit of news you should know about. (besides the fact that russ feingold stands a chance at the presidential nomination and mark warner is just going to embarrass himself.) it's from democracy now:
Sen. DeWine To Propose Law Criminalizing Reporting on NSA
Meanwhile Ohio Republican Senator Mike DeWine has proposed legislation that could result in the arrest and jailing of journalists who disclose information about the government's surveillance program. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the bill which could be introduced as soon as this week. Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said "The bill would make it a crime to tell the American people that the president is breaking the law, and the bill could make it a crime for the newspapers to publish that fact."
i don't know why they need a law for this. i mean when the new york times found out about the illegal nsa spying they sat on the story when the bully boy asked them not to run it. they waited over a year before reporting on it.
that's from robert parry's 'lost history: dole nearly cited in iran-contra report' published in 1996 at consortium news. carey e-mailed it to me and asked if i would note it. sunday when the new york times felt the need to offer that there used to be more civility in the congress and 1 moron quoted in the article noted how wonderfully they got along and worked together during iran-contra. that's because the democrats rolled over. it's easy for every 1 to get along when 1 side gets what it wants because the other throws in the towel.
and we're seeing it again. note this from democracy now:
Sen. Feingold to Introduce Resolution to Censure Bush
On Capitol Hill, Democratic Senator Russ Feingold is introducing a resolution today to censure President Bush for deliberately breaking the law by ordering the National Security Agency to conduct domestic surveillance without legally required court warrants. Feingold's resolution also accuses the president of misinforming the public about the program's existence and legality. Feingold announced his plan on Sunday on ABC's This Week. "It's an unusual step. It's a big step, but what the President did by consciously and intentionally violating the constitutional laws of this country with this illegal wiretapping has to be answered," Feingold said. "There can be debate about whether the law should be changed. There can be debate about how best to fight terrorism. We all believe that there should be wiretapping in appropriate cases. But the idea that the President can just make up a law in violation of his oath of office has to be answered." Minutes after Senator Feingold spoke, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist appeared on the same program and said he hoped that the leadership in Iran was not listening because of the terrible signal Feingold's message sent to the world about President Bush.
great, right? dems are getting their act together?
wrong. either they don't know where they stand on censure yet or else they've already come out slamming like the ultimate loser joe lieberman.
as kat noted saturday, i think russ feingold is sexy. he's a fighter who fights for what he believes in. and he's also physically sexy. and don't understimate that when people start competing for the democratic nomination.
hilary? the sure thing? i don't think she's a sure thing.
evan blah? get serious.
the new york times tried to tell us sunday that mark warner stands a chance. no chance in hell.
i called c.i. sunday evening and asked about the cover photo? c.i. had pulled the main section and 'i've already sorted for recycling' but i persisted.
okay, i said, look at the cover of the sunday magazine. tell me who it looks like?
'oh my god!'
uh-huh.
he looks like a younger richard nixon.
forget the gaps in his teeth (which are really bad teeth). forget that he hasn't learned that men need to trim their eyebrows.
just the fact that he so closely resembles tricky dick is enough to tank that nomination.
here's 1 more bit of news you should know about. (besides the fact that russ feingold stands a chance at the presidential nomination and mark warner is just going to embarrass himself.) it's from democracy now:
Sen. DeWine To Propose Law Criminalizing Reporting on NSA
Meanwhile Ohio Republican Senator Mike DeWine has proposed legislation that could result in the arrest and jailing of journalists who disclose information about the government's surveillance program. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the bill which could be introduced as soon as this week. Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said "The bill would make it a crime to tell the American people that the president is breaking the law, and the bill could make it a crime for the newspapers to publish that fact."
i don't know why they need a law for this. i mean when the new york times found out about the illegal nsa spying they sat on the story when the bully boy asked them not to run it. they waited over a year before reporting on it.
3/10/2006
when the fbi spied on laugh-in
okay, there's about to be a long excerpt and i wanted to start out talking so that no 1 reading was lost. in the late 60s and early 70s, there was a television show called rowan & martin's laugh-in but most people just called it laugh-in. of today's programs, probably mad tv and saturday night live would be closest to it. it was a comedy program with a lot of fast paced gags and skits.
(in fact, wally will tell you that while he was in dc with kat, c.i. and the third estate sunday review, c.i. brought some episodes of laugh-in for him to look at. c.i. thought that would give wally some ideas for how to get back to the daily jot. he meant for it to be a humorous, fast-paced site but when hurricane wilma hit florida, wally lives in florida, he started covering that and then it became a lot heavier site. he was very depressed when alito got confirmed to the supreme court and took a break from the daily jot for a week. he's doing a great job at his site and it is moving along quickly and with irreverance.)
goldie hawn was on laugh-in the 60s and that's how she became famous. she left to make catcus flower and won an oscar for that film. lily tomlin is another famous name to come out of the show. she did many of her famous characters on the show like edith ann and ernastine the telephone operator. so that was laugh-in and it was a very popular, very funny show.
i always learn things at the common ills, but last night i learned, in 'and the war drags on', that the fbi had 'reviewed' laugh-in at the request of fbi director j. edgar hoover. here's the fbi report:
A skit concerning the FBI was performed. It was introduced by a shorter skit representing a President and First Lady sitting in the White House chatting. Between them was a large vase of flowers. When their converation turned to the the Director [FBI Director, J. Edgar Hoover], it was made obvious that one of the flowers was actually a bugging device and the President spoke directly to Mr. Hoover by means of this device.
The longer skit was unified by means of a production-type number consisting of cheerleaders, complete with sweaters emblazoned with "FBI," who sang a "fight song" pertaining to the FBI. This "song," satirical in nature, was interrupted by various minor skits and short gag situations, all bearing on the FBI.
A great deal of what was purported to be humor related to the Director and his age. For example, the statement, "I don't believe that just because the Director of the FBI is named Hoover that there has been a vacuum in that Department for years." A particularly vicious attack was made by means of a knock-knock joke in which the answer to "Who is there?" is "Hoover." In reply to the question "Hoover who?" a play on words is made in the statement: "Hoover heard of a seventy-six-year-old policeman?" Another sick-type joke pertaining to the Director was an announcement that "J. Edgar Hoover retired one half-hour ago but will be back at his desk first thing in the morning."
Although jokes and sight gags were made in rapid fashion, emphasis was placed on surveillance-type activities and clandestine-type operations. In one minor skit, two Agents were portrayed meeting and being extremely guarded in their conversation with each other, with each trying to elict information from the other.
All in all, this skit pertaining to the FBI was rather typical of the poor fare that is served on this so-called laugh show, a show that has gained some considerable notoriety by its risque jokes and irreverent satirical attacks. Tasteless, sometimes downright vicious jokes and a great deal of forced humor add up to a more telling commentary on this low-grade show itself than on the FBI.
now what do you think of that? and does it seem like something that could happen today? it does to me.
it's as though we've completely forgotten lessons we should have learned from that time.
i hope you're ready to speak out and address the topic of the war. we need to be vocal, we need to be loud. we need to say bring the troops home now. we also need to say 'stop the illegal spying'. congress isn't saying it for us.
but congress isn't the country. we're the country. and if our elected officials want to shirk their responsibilities, it's up to us to call them out on it.
a year ago this month, bully boy was still falsely claiming a 'mandate' from the 2004 elections. he was bragging about having 'capitol' to spend. he's not walking so tall today, is he, not with the latest poll:
The poll suggests that most Americans wonder whether Bush is up to the job. The survey, conducted Monday through Wednesday of 1,000 people, found that just 37 percent approve of his overall performance. That is the lowest of his presidency.
that happened because of the events that are ongoing and because we haven't been afraid to speak the truth. we need to keep speaking the truth.
do you know this guy:
Claude Alexander Allen, 45, was arrested Thursday by Montgomery County police for allegedly claiming refunds for more than $5,000 worth of merchandise he did not buy, according to county and federal authorities.
he was a nominee (blocked) by bully boy to the 4th circuit. a thief. of course bully boy nominated him. besides being a nominee, he also served as 2nd in charge at health and human services. and in 2005, bully boy hired him as 'a domestic policy adviser.'
it's a crooked administration. speak your truth this month.
(in fact, wally will tell you that while he was in dc with kat, c.i. and the third estate sunday review, c.i. brought some episodes of laugh-in for him to look at. c.i. thought that would give wally some ideas for how to get back to the daily jot. he meant for it to be a humorous, fast-paced site but when hurricane wilma hit florida, wally lives in florida, he started covering that and then it became a lot heavier site. he was very depressed when alito got confirmed to the supreme court and took a break from the daily jot for a week. he's doing a great job at his site and it is moving along quickly and with irreverance.)
goldie hawn was on laugh-in the 60s and that's how she became famous. she left to make catcus flower and won an oscar for that film. lily tomlin is another famous name to come out of the show. she did many of her famous characters on the show like edith ann and ernastine the telephone operator. so that was laugh-in and it was a very popular, very funny show.
i always learn things at the common ills, but last night i learned, in 'and the war drags on', that the fbi had 'reviewed' laugh-in at the request of fbi director j. edgar hoover. here's the fbi report:
A skit concerning the FBI was performed. It was introduced by a shorter skit representing a President and First Lady sitting in the White House chatting. Between them was a large vase of flowers. When their converation turned to the the Director [FBI Director, J. Edgar Hoover], it was made obvious that one of the flowers was actually a bugging device and the President spoke directly to Mr. Hoover by means of this device.
The longer skit was unified by means of a production-type number consisting of cheerleaders, complete with sweaters emblazoned with "FBI," who sang a "fight song" pertaining to the FBI. This "song," satirical in nature, was interrupted by various minor skits and short gag situations, all bearing on the FBI.
A great deal of what was purported to be humor related to the Director and his age. For example, the statement, "I don't believe that just because the Director of the FBI is named Hoover that there has been a vacuum in that Department for years." A particularly vicious attack was made by means of a knock-knock joke in which the answer to "Who is there?" is "Hoover." In reply to the question "Hoover who?" a play on words is made in the statement: "Hoover heard of a seventy-six-year-old policeman?" Another sick-type joke pertaining to the Director was an announcement that "J. Edgar Hoover retired one half-hour ago but will be back at his desk first thing in the morning."
Although jokes and sight gags were made in rapid fashion, emphasis was placed on surveillance-type activities and clandestine-type operations. In one minor skit, two Agents were portrayed meeting and being extremely guarded in their conversation with each other, with each trying to elict information from the other.
All in all, this skit pertaining to the FBI was rather typical of the poor fare that is served on this so-called laugh show, a show that has gained some considerable notoriety by its risque jokes and irreverent satirical attacks. Tasteless, sometimes downright vicious jokes and a great deal of forced humor add up to a more telling commentary on this low-grade show itself than on the FBI.
now what do you think of that? and does it seem like something that could happen today? it does to me.
it's as though we've completely forgotten lessons we should have learned from that time.
i hope you're ready to speak out and address the topic of the war. we need to be vocal, we need to be loud. we need to say bring the troops home now. we also need to say 'stop the illegal spying'. congress isn't saying it for us.
but congress isn't the country. we're the country. and if our elected officials want to shirk their responsibilities, it's up to us to call them out on it.
a year ago this month, bully boy was still falsely claiming a 'mandate' from the 2004 elections. he was bragging about having 'capitol' to spend. he's not walking so tall today, is he, not with the latest poll:
The poll suggests that most Americans wonder whether Bush is up to the job. The survey, conducted Monday through Wednesday of 1,000 people, found that just 37 percent approve of his overall performance. That is the lowest of his presidency.
that happened because of the events that are ongoing and because we haven't been afraid to speak the truth. we need to keep speaking the truth.
do you know this guy:
Claude Alexander Allen, 45, was arrested Thursday by Montgomery County police for allegedly claiming refunds for more than $5,000 worth of merchandise he did not buy, according to county and federal authorities.
he was a nominee (blocked) by bully boy to the 4th circuit. a thief. of course bully boy nominated him. besides being a nominee, he also served as 2nd in charge at health and human services. and in 2005, bully boy hired him as 'a domestic policy adviser.'
it's a crooked administration. speak your truth this month.
3/09/2006
non-pretty news
i'm starting late tonight but for a good reason. cedric wanted to read a post he was working on so i listened to it and we stayed on the phone for about an hour after just talking.
make a point to read cedric's 'Thoughts on Michael Jackson and heroes.' when he called, he had to fill me in 1st because i hadn't even heard any michael jackson news today.
so let's get the bad news out of the way. bully boy's signed the reauthorization of the patriot act and tenneessee's state senate is moving to overturn abortion. every right wing controlled state will probably follow this pattern as they attempt to create the 'perfect' test case to get the supreme court to overturn roe v. wade.
here's kim gandy, president of now, from 'the attack has begun:'
The attack has begun. Women are counting on us and we must not lose this fight.
This week South Dakota enacted a ban on all abortions except to save the life of the woman. Her health and future fertility do not matter to the South Dakota legislature or Governor Rounds. The fact that a woman has survived rape or incest does not matter to them. Because THEY know what is best for her and for her family, and they intend to force their will on her. Will your state be next?
roberts and alito's confirmations mattered, even though democrats didn't seem to think so. not enough to filibuster. and i'm also recalling all the gas bags taking up time prior to each confirmation whining that 'abortion isn't the only issue.' no, it wasn't. and all the law professors stating that usually went on to make a bad case for their own pet issue. too bad because abortion is concrete and every 1 can grasp it. too bad that a lot of them dismissed concerns about abortion.
more bad news. add in that the efforts to privatize the irs continue. following up on 2004 legislation, the irs has selected 3 private companies to help them collect debts. how much fun that will be for the people who owe taxes.
from my e-mail inbox, danny schechter's 'Academy Awards Showcase Hollywood's Progressive Turn:'
New York, March 7: Jon Stewart gave it that old college try as the host of this year's Academy Awards. He got off a few on-target one-liners but could not light the place on fire. If, as the old song has it, "you can't put a tuxedo on the funky blues," you also can't take a TV comic that works in the controlled television culture and assume that because he's popular in one medium, he will knock the socks off of another.
Jon is in the attitude business, not the news business. He's ridiculing news media and political pretensions every day and, as a result, has become a counter-cultural hero and an anti-establishment figure.
The Academy Awards is an establishment function, the annual spectacle of the movie business and culture. It is deliberately star-studded and packaged to sell the dream machine and with it the fashions and personalities of the day.
Putting it down while pumping it up is a contradiction that is hard to resolve.
That could be one reason the ratings were down this year.
But what we also saw this year is that a concerned Hollywood is itself taking on the shallow Hollywood, challenging mindless entertainment with films that matter. That's why we were treated to that montage of social issue movies that Stewart smugly joked about. Jon knows that his own company Viacom, which owns CBS, would never have made a tough film about the network's glory years. (Notice how many stars plugging movies show up on his show and how few media activists there are promoting change. His Comedy Channel is there to keep us laughing -- not struggling for change.)
Those socially conscious films all took battles to make and offered the kind of creative commentary we rarely see on TV. "Network" was about TV, not a product of it, and far more radical than the Daily Show because it appeals to its viewers not just to smirk or smile but to shout "I am mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore." (In some ways that's what media activists are doing today with the upcoming protests against the coverage of the war.)
also from the inbox, fair's 'Brian Ross "Completely Aware" of WMD Context: So why weren't ABC viewers allowed to know?:'
Two recent reports on ABC raised the possibility that 10-year-old tapes of Saddam Hussein might show that he "did hide weapons of mass destruction"--giving the White House's rationale for the March 2003 invasion a boost.But as a February 17 FAIR action alert pointed out, ABC's reporting omitted evidence that undermined this argument. The tapes seem to show Hussein Kamel, Iraq's weapons chief at the time, talking about information about weapons programs that Iraq had concealed from U.N. inspectors. But when Kamel defected--soon after these tapes were recorded--he not only told CIA and U.N. investigators about this concealment, he at the same time insisted that Iraq had destroyed all its unconventional weapons stockpiles. FAIR's alert questioned why ABC failed to inform its viewers about this key information.
2 more things i want to note. first c.i.'s 'NYT: 'G.O.P. Plan Would Allow Spying Without Warrants' (Shane and Kirkpatrick)' which i'm going to lobby hard for to get it spotlighted at the third estate sunday review. (lobbying means taking on c.i. who always says, 'go with some 1 else.') 2nd, "Washington nonprofit where Abramoff was director wrote articles favoring Abramoff clients" which is an abramoff story by john byrne and ron brynaert (why are we back in iraq?). oops, got a 3rd 1, betty's got a new chapter up, 'Club Membership: One.'
between ann richards cancer and the attacks on abortion, it didn't feel like much of an international women's day yesterday to me. ann richards is a strong woman and i'm sure she's in there fighting and i pray it turns out well. but between the 2 blows, it didn't feel much like a day of celebration.
democracy now wraps up their broadcasts from london so make sure to check that out tomorrow.
oh, elaine said i quoted her last night. she did make that statement. after the woman left. my statement, before that, was what caused 'perky' to leave. i don't remember making it but it sounds like me, unfortunately, it's too lewd to put up here. so i did remember right that elaine said what i remembered. i just didn't remember that i had said something prior and that after perky left, we all riffed on what i'd said (with cleaner versions).
make a point to read cedric's 'Thoughts on Michael Jackson and heroes.' when he called, he had to fill me in 1st because i hadn't even heard any michael jackson news today.
so let's get the bad news out of the way. bully boy's signed the reauthorization of the patriot act and tenneessee's state senate is moving to overturn abortion. every right wing controlled state will probably follow this pattern as they attempt to create the 'perfect' test case to get the supreme court to overturn roe v. wade.
here's kim gandy, president of now, from 'the attack has begun:'
The attack has begun. Women are counting on us and we must not lose this fight.
This week South Dakota enacted a ban on all abortions except to save the life of the woman. Her health and future fertility do not matter to the South Dakota legislature or Governor Rounds. The fact that a woman has survived rape or incest does not matter to them. Because THEY know what is best for her and for her family, and they intend to force their will on her. Will your state be next?
roberts and alito's confirmations mattered, even though democrats didn't seem to think so. not enough to filibuster. and i'm also recalling all the gas bags taking up time prior to each confirmation whining that 'abortion isn't the only issue.' no, it wasn't. and all the law professors stating that usually went on to make a bad case for their own pet issue. too bad because abortion is concrete and every 1 can grasp it. too bad that a lot of them dismissed concerns about abortion.
more bad news. add in that the efforts to privatize the irs continue. following up on 2004 legislation, the irs has selected 3 private companies to help them collect debts. how much fun that will be for the people who owe taxes.
from my e-mail inbox, danny schechter's 'Academy Awards Showcase Hollywood's Progressive Turn:'
New York, March 7: Jon Stewart gave it that old college try as the host of this year's Academy Awards. He got off a few on-target one-liners but could not light the place on fire. If, as the old song has it, "you can't put a tuxedo on the funky blues," you also can't take a TV comic that works in the controlled television culture and assume that because he's popular in one medium, he will knock the socks off of another.
Jon is in the attitude business, not the news business. He's ridiculing news media and political pretensions every day and, as a result, has become a counter-cultural hero and an anti-establishment figure.
The Academy Awards is an establishment function, the annual spectacle of the movie business and culture. It is deliberately star-studded and packaged to sell the dream machine and with it the fashions and personalities of the day.
Putting it down while pumping it up is a contradiction that is hard to resolve.
That could be one reason the ratings were down this year.
But what we also saw this year is that a concerned Hollywood is itself taking on the shallow Hollywood, challenging mindless entertainment with films that matter. That's why we were treated to that montage of social issue movies that Stewart smugly joked about. Jon knows that his own company Viacom, which owns CBS, would never have made a tough film about the network's glory years. (Notice how many stars plugging movies show up on his show and how few media activists there are promoting change. His Comedy Channel is there to keep us laughing -- not struggling for change.)
Those socially conscious films all took battles to make and offered the kind of creative commentary we rarely see on TV. "Network" was about TV, not a product of it, and far more radical than the Daily Show because it appeals to its viewers not just to smirk or smile but to shout "I am mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore." (In some ways that's what media activists are doing today with the upcoming protests against the coverage of the war.)
also from the inbox, fair's 'Brian Ross "Completely Aware" of WMD Context: So why weren't ABC viewers allowed to know?:'
Two recent reports on ABC raised the possibility that 10-year-old tapes of Saddam Hussein might show that he "did hide weapons of mass destruction"--giving the White House's rationale for the March 2003 invasion a boost.But as a February 17 FAIR action alert pointed out, ABC's reporting omitted evidence that undermined this argument. The tapes seem to show Hussein Kamel, Iraq's weapons chief at the time, talking about information about weapons programs that Iraq had concealed from U.N. inspectors. But when Kamel defected--soon after these tapes were recorded--he not only told CIA and U.N. investigators about this concealment, he at the same time insisted that Iraq had destroyed all its unconventional weapons stockpiles. FAIR's alert questioned why ABC failed to inform its viewers about this key information.
2 more things i want to note. first c.i.'s 'NYT: 'G.O.P. Plan Would Allow Spying Without Warrants' (Shane and Kirkpatrick)' which i'm going to lobby hard for to get it spotlighted at the third estate sunday review. (lobbying means taking on c.i. who always says, 'go with some 1 else.') 2nd, "Washington nonprofit where Abramoff was director wrote articles favoring Abramoff clients" which is an abramoff story by john byrne and ron brynaert (why are we back in iraq?). oops, got a 3rd 1, betty's got a new chapter up, 'Club Membership: One.'
between ann richards cancer and the attacks on abortion, it didn't feel like much of an international women's day yesterday to me. ann richards is a strong woman and i'm sure she's in there fighting and i pray it turns out well. but between the 2 blows, it didn't feel much like a day of celebration.
democracy now wraps up their broadcasts from london so make sure to check that out tomorrow.
oh, elaine said i quoted her last night. she did make that statement. after the woman left. my statement, before that, was what caused 'perky' to leave. i don't remember making it but it sounds like me, unfortunately, it's too lewd to put up here. so i did remember right that elaine said what i remembered. i just didn't remember that i had said something prior and that after perky left, we all riffed on what i'd said (with cleaner versions).
3/08/2006
some news roundups just depress
Westboro Baptist has outraged mourning communities across the nation by showing up at soldiers' funerals with signs that read "God Hates F*gs" or "God Made IEDs," a reference to roadside bombs. Members of the congregation contend soldiers are being struck down by God for defending a nation that tolerates homosexuality.
the item above contains a censoring by me. i have a pretty laid back approach to language but i'm not going to have that word, used in hate, on my site. so that's from an associated press article about how that church will no longer picket the funerals of soldiers in states that have laws forbidding them from picketing. i can't believe how disgusting that makes me feel.
hateful people. hateful to gays and lesbians, hateful to the families burying their loved 1s.
i just find it so disgusting.
on the sad front, ann richards has cancer. i've always liked her. she has a real fighting spirit and, hopefully, that spirit will help her through this.
somedays, it's just not worth reading the news.
ok, we're going to move on.
who asked jack abramoff 'what are you benching, buff guy?'
did you guess bully boy?
supposedly, according to bully boy, he barely knows abramoff so what was that? a pick up line?
moving from 1 close friend/crook bully boy's distancing himself from to one he still pretends he barely knew, ken lay (or 'kenny-boy' as bully boy dubbed him) got dissed in court today. andrew fastow, under cross, said 'i had the character to admit what i did was wrong.'
ken lay didn't. maybe that's what he and bully boy bonded over - remember bully boy, in the debates, when asked to name 1 mistake he'd made had to take a pass.
and today is international women's day. kim gandy has a statement on that worth reading.
lastly, check out this from democracy now: "Legendary Actor Vanessa Redgrave Calls Cancellation of Rachel Corrie Play an 'Act of Catastrophic Cowardice.'" i've always liked vanessa redgrave. she's a great actress, she cares about the world around and she's so graceful.
on graceful, elaine is graceful. a number of you have written about a prompt c.i. was giving me to tell a story. i thought it was elaine's story. elaine swears that it's me. c.i. swears it too. i've spoken to 3 other friends from college and they all say i was the 1 who told off perky. i've never been accused of being modest before so it must be my memory's way of trying to teach me modesty. but there was this perky little thing who would always say 'on the other hand ...' to any news. some 1 could say 'i just failed that exam' and she would reply 'on the other hand, you learned a valuable lesson about the importance of studying.' some 1 could say, 'i just got a ticket.' she would reply 'on the other hand, you now know the importance of road safety.'
she'd have this insane grin on her face. it was really freaky. so 1 night, elaine, c.i., another friend and i were at a table eating but mainly talking when the other friend says she thinks she's pregnant and there's perky. actually she said, 'i am afriad i'm pregnant. i know i'm pregnant. i don't know what i'm going to do.' and perky pops up and pipes up, 'on the other hand, now you'll know if he loves you or not.' i swear i still think it was elaine, even with every 1 saying it was me, but apparently i said 'everybody hates you. on the other hand, you'll never have to worry about having any friends.' said in the same sing-song way that perky delivered all her stupid lines and with the same stupid grin. if it was me, and every 1 says it was, good for me. but i swear i still think it was elaine.
the item above contains a censoring by me. i have a pretty laid back approach to language but i'm not going to have that word, used in hate, on my site. so that's from an associated press article about how that church will no longer picket the funerals of soldiers in states that have laws forbidding them from picketing. i can't believe how disgusting that makes me feel.
hateful people. hateful to gays and lesbians, hateful to the families burying their loved 1s.
i just find it so disgusting.
on the sad front, ann richards has cancer. i've always liked her. she has a real fighting spirit and, hopefully, that spirit will help her through this.
somedays, it's just not worth reading the news.
ok, we're going to move on.
who asked jack abramoff 'what are you benching, buff guy?'
did you guess bully boy?
supposedly, according to bully boy, he barely knows abramoff so what was that? a pick up line?
moving from 1 close friend/crook bully boy's distancing himself from to one he still pretends he barely knew, ken lay (or 'kenny-boy' as bully boy dubbed him) got dissed in court today. andrew fastow, under cross, said 'i had the character to admit what i did was wrong.'
ken lay didn't. maybe that's what he and bully boy bonded over - remember bully boy, in the debates, when asked to name 1 mistake he'd made had to take a pass.
and today is international women's day. kim gandy has a statement on that worth reading.
lastly, check out this from democracy now: "Legendary Actor Vanessa Redgrave Calls Cancellation of Rachel Corrie Play an 'Act of Catastrophic Cowardice.'" i've always liked vanessa redgrave. she's a great actress, she cares about the world around and she's so graceful.
on graceful, elaine is graceful. a number of you have written about a prompt c.i. was giving me to tell a story. i thought it was elaine's story. elaine swears that it's me. c.i. swears it too. i've spoken to 3 other friends from college and they all say i was the 1 who told off perky. i've never been accused of being modest before so it must be my memory's way of trying to teach me modesty. but there was this perky little thing who would always say 'on the other hand ...' to any news. some 1 could say 'i just failed that exam' and she would reply 'on the other hand, you learned a valuable lesson about the importance of studying.' some 1 could say, 'i just got a ticket.' she would reply 'on the other hand, you now know the importance of road safety.'
she'd have this insane grin on her face. it was really freaky. so 1 night, elaine, c.i., another friend and i were at a table eating but mainly talking when the other friend says she thinks she's pregnant and there's perky. actually she said, 'i am afriad i'm pregnant. i know i'm pregnant. i don't know what i'm going to do.' and perky pops up and pipes up, 'on the other hand, now you'll know if he loves you or not.' i swear i still think it was elaine, even with every 1 saying it was me, but apparently i said 'everybody hates you. on the other hand, you'll never have to worry about having any friends.' said in the same sing-song way that perky delivered all her stupid lines and with the same stupid grin. if it was me, and every 1 says it was, good for me. but i swear i still think it was elaine.
3/07/2006
news roundup: patriot act, spying, olympia snowe and more
democracy now is in london this week. it's always a show you should watch but if you've put it off and said, 'i'll watch it some day,' well, here's your reason to tune in. want to know what's going on in england. what the british are thinking without the new york times' alan cowell stamping his filter on it? tune in to democracy now.
by the way, am i the only 1 who misses pru's regular feature in the round-robin where she'd ask cowell a basic question about england and he'd have no clue? i love her new target but it was just so much more fun to laugh at alan cowell.
so let's dish the news. 1st 2 items from democracy now.
South Dakota Gov. Signs Near-Total Abortion Ban
In South Dakota, Governor Mike Rounds has signed legislation to ban all abortions in the state, unless they're performed to save the life of the woman. Rounds said he expects a lengthy court battle over the new law. The measure comes as a similar effort is moving ahead in the state of Mississippi.
well, i know nina simone's 'mississippi goddamn' and phil ochs' 'here's to the state of mississippi' but i don't know any south dakota songs. any 1?
the republicans think they'll have another appointment to the supreme court by next year, they actually think it will be by this summer. the senate should have fought alito, they should have fought roberts. instead, they went along. i'm so sick of the senate and so sick of having to beg for my rights to be protected.
you saw what happened with the patriot act. they objected for a little bit and then went along.
and the house just passed it tonight so it's time for bully boy to sign it. we have a congress that's afraid to take a stand and afraid to fight. that's republicans and democrats. (and, yes, there are exceptions.) i used to think, when i was in jr. high, that being in congress required smarts and strength. now i know it just requires lobbyists pumping money into your campaign. and apparently it requires that you never make waves, never fight for anything.
it's rather sad what we've come to in this country. but note, while women (and some men) have to scream for our reproductive rights to be protected by congress, congress abandons their own powers. they're letting bully boy trample on them as much as on the constitution.
in the meantime, women lose ground while bully boy gives lip service to the notion of equality.
Khalilzad Warns of Iraq Civil War
In comments the Los Angeles Times calls "among the frankest and bleakest public assessments of the Iraq situation by a high-level American official," U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad has warned of a full-blown civil war. Referring to the recent bombing of a Shiite shrine in Sammara, Khalilzad said: "If another incident [occurs], Iraq is really vulnerable to it at this time." Khalilzad went on to say: "We have opened the Pandora's box and the question is, what is the way forward?" His comments come just days after General Peter Pace, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said things were "going very, very well" in Iraq.
if you missed it, rumsfeld's been busy today. 1st he accused the media of being the 1 to hype that iraq is in crisis and may head towards civil war - does zalmay work for the administration or for the press? 2nd, he's dismissing reports of a civil war in iraq, take that zalmay!
olympia snowe is a hack of the 1st degree. she's joining with mike dewine, lindsey graham and chuck-i-didn't-see-nothing-hagel to make bully boy's 4 year illegal spying now legal - according to the ap. oh, olympia, isn't there some constitutents you can have arrested?
she must be bored. which would explain the hair.
pat roberts is rail roading his intel committee to do bully boy's bidding:
Meanwhile, Democrats on the Intelligence Committee expressed outrage after a meeting Tuesday that senators voted -- along party lines -- to reject an investigation of the surveillance proposed by West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the committee's top Democrat.
"The committee -- to put it bluntly -- basically is in the control of the White House," a visibly angry Rockefeller said.
republican motto: ask not what you can do for your country, ask what you can can do for your bully boy!
in good news, the town of newfane, vermont voted to impeach bully boy today.
thank god we've got a happy note to go out on.
by the way, am i the only 1 who misses pru's regular feature in the round-robin where she'd ask cowell a basic question about england and he'd have no clue? i love her new target but it was just so much more fun to laugh at alan cowell.
so let's dish the news. 1st 2 items from democracy now.
South Dakota Gov. Signs Near-Total Abortion Ban
In South Dakota, Governor Mike Rounds has signed legislation to ban all abortions in the state, unless they're performed to save the life of the woman. Rounds said he expects a lengthy court battle over the new law. The measure comes as a similar effort is moving ahead in the state of Mississippi.
well, i know nina simone's 'mississippi goddamn' and phil ochs' 'here's to the state of mississippi' but i don't know any south dakota songs. any 1?
the republicans think they'll have another appointment to the supreme court by next year, they actually think it will be by this summer. the senate should have fought alito, they should have fought roberts. instead, they went along. i'm so sick of the senate and so sick of having to beg for my rights to be protected.
you saw what happened with the patriot act. they objected for a little bit and then went along.
and the house just passed it tonight so it's time for bully boy to sign it. we have a congress that's afraid to take a stand and afraid to fight. that's republicans and democrats. (and, yes, there are exceptions.) i used to think, when i was in jr. high, that being in congress required smarts and strength. now i know it just requires lobbyists pumping money into your campaign. and apparently it requires that you never make waves, never fight for anything.
it's rather sad what we've come to in this country. but note, while women (and some men) have to scream for our reproductive rights to be protected by congress, congress abandons their own powers. they're letting bully boy trample on them as much as on the constitution.
in the meantime, women lose ground while bully boy gives lip service to the notion of equality.
Khalilzad Warns of Iraq Civil War
In comments the Los Angeles Times calls "among the frankest and bleakest public assessments of the Iraq situation by a high-level American official," U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad has warned of a full-blown civil war. Referring to the recent bombing of a Shiite shrine in Sammara, Khalilzad said: "If another incident [occurs], Iraq is really vulnerable to it at this time." Khalilzad went on to say: "We have opened the Pandora's box and the question is, what is the way forward?" His comments come just days after General Peter Pace, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said things were "going very, very well" in Iraq.
if you missed it, rumsfeld's been busy today. 1st he accused the media of being the 1 to hype that iraq is in crisis and may head towards civil war - does zalmay work for the administration or for the press? 2nd, he's dismissing reports of a civil war in iraq, take that zalmay!
olympia snowe is a hack of the 1st degree. she's joining with mike dewine, lindsey graham and chuck-i-didn't-see-nothing-hagel to make bully boy's 4 year illegal spying now legal - according to the ap. oh, olympia, isn't there some constitutents you can have arrested?
she must be bored. which would explain the hair.
pat roberts is rail roading his intel committee to do bully boy's bidding:
Meanwhile, Democrats on the Intelligence Committee expressed outrage after a meeting Tuesday that senators voted -- along party lines -- to reject an investigation of the surveillance proposed by West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the committee's top Democrat.
"The committee -- to put it bluntly -- basically is in the control of the White House," a visibly angry Rockefeller said.
republican motto: ask not what you can do for your country, ask what you can can do for your bully boy!
in good news, the town of newfane, vermont voted to impeach bully boy today.
thank god we've got a happy note to go out on.
3/06/2006
oscar blahs
well blogger/blogspot certainly has a mind of it's own, doesn't it?
i've added a blog to the blog roll, american tonic. support women bloggers and check it out.
sherry wondered what i thought of the oscars? 1st off, this weekend cedric wrote and entry that everyone should check out 'The Oscars'. reading it made me handle the oscars better.
why? i wanted jake to win. i love george clooney but i really wanted to see jake win. no 1 won that i was rooting for.
reese witherspoon? well, didn't doris day win an oscar once too?
i mean, we're not talking a real actress here. in that film with matthew broadrick years ago, her quirks seemed fresh and you thought they were part of the character. election was the name of that film. since then, it's been the same old, same old. i'm not real fond of perky.
sally field had to really stretch to get her oscars. i didn't think the johnny cash film was a good film and i didn't think she was good in it. i had a party here and a number of people were booing when reese won.
t said it best, 'duckface! they just gave it to duckface!'
but it wasn't really a year about inclusion. cedric got that right. what was it? awarding the usual people.
i thought jon stewart was funny. but the show was dragging from the start. and i wasn't pleased with the award winners.
people make fun of marisa tomei, but she created a character for her oscar win. reese tossed on a wig and acted like ... reese.
after she won, people were betting on how long before her marriage busted up because when the woman wins the oscar and the husband's career is in the toilet, the marriage is in trouble.
i don't wish a divorce upon her but i would have picked any of the 4 other actresses. i was really rooting for felicity because i thought she gave an incredible performance but i would have been fine with any 1 but reese.
my hope is that she'll suffer the 'i won the oscar' curse and start doing serious roles, heavy dramas, first lady of the screen roles, kill off her career and we'll all be spared legally blonde XXII.
i was going to do a rundown on the news but ...
need news, check out 'And The War Drags On.'
i've added a blog to the blog roll, american tonic. support women bloggers and check it out.
sherry wondered what i thought of the oscars? 1st off, this weekend cedric wrote and entry that everyone should check out 'The Oscars'. reading it made me handle the oscars better.
why? i wanted jake to win. i love george clooney but i really wanted to see jake win. no 1 won that i was rooting for.
reese witherspoon? well, didn't doris day win an oscar once too?
i mean, we're not talking a real actress here. in that film with matthew broadrick years ago, her quirks seemed fresh and you thought they were part of the character. election was the name of that film. since then, it's been the same old, same old. i'm not real fond of perky.
sally field had to really stretch to get her oscars. i didn't think the johnny cash film was a good film and i didn't think she was good in it. i had a party here and a number of people were booing when reese won.
t said it best, 'duckface! they just gave it to duckface!'
but it wasn't really a year about inclusion. cedric got that right. what was it? awarding the usual people.
i thought jon stewart was funny. but the show was dragging from the start. and i wasn't pleased with the award winners.
people make fun of marisa tomei, but she created a character for her oscar win. reese tossed on a wig and acted like ... reese.
after she won, people were betting on how long before her marriage busted up because when the woman wins the oscar and the husband's career is in the toilet, the marriage is in trouble.
i don't wish a divorce upon her but i would have picked any of the 4 other actresses. i was really rooting for felicity because i thought she gave an incredible performance but i would have been fine with any 1 but reese.
my hope is that she'll suffer the 'i won the oscar' curse and start doing serious roles, heavy dramas, first lady of the screen roles, kill off her career and we'll all be spared legally blonde XXII.
i was going to do a rundown on the news but ...
need news, check out 'And The War Drags On.'
3/04/2006
from the house on boo corner to the world itself, bully boy sells fear
from the prophethic pens and pencils of isaiah, his most recent the world today just nuts entitled 'the house on boo corner.' when the polls drop what does bully boy do? start talking 'osama' start talking '9-11' ... it's old, it's tired but he still does it. poor winnie, piglet and eeyore.
prophetic? this went up yesterday but was supposed to go up last sunday. that's when blogger/blogspot decided to 'white list' the common ills. sound like the days of joe mccarthy? yep, to me too. so while c.i. had to fight the 'white list' there was no way for posts to be e-mailed to the site. to put up new art work, the program 'hello' is used by all of us. 'hello' just sends it to your site. (after it's at a site, like 'the house on boo corner' is, you can carry it to another site without having to e-mail).
if you missed it the administration and the bully boy have been rumbling (like a distended stomach) about catching osama. now for 5 years, he's been the last thing on their mind. but bully boy's polls have dropped, yet again, and it's the only trick they have to play.
i didn't blog last night, you're not missing a post. fly boy surprised me yesterday afternoon with tickets to a play so we went to see that and had a very long night.
sherry e-mailed wondering why i don't link (in posts) to robert parry? i usually forget, to be honest. i see them up at the common ills, usually when i'm having my morning coffeee and watching democracy now, and then, when evening rolls around, i'm thinking about something else.
i do read him, he's 1 of my favorites. he may be number 1 on my list of favorites.
but i'm usually rushing to get the things done. but here's a piece of his latest called 'Bush Flummoxes Kafka, Orwell:'
Bush, of course, insists that the United States does not torture despite extensive evidence that detainees in the Iraq War and the War on Terror have been subjected to simulated drowning by "water-boarding," beatings to death, suffocations, coffin-like confinements, painful stress positions, naked exposure to heat and cold, anal rape, sleep deprivation, dog bites, and psychological ploys involving sexual and religious humiliation.
But Bush says none of this amounts to torture, even as his protection of abusive practices now ventures beyond word games into mind-bending legal rationalizations.
Bush's lawyers went into federal court in Washington on March 2 and argued that a new law that specifically prohibits cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees -- known as the McCain Amendment after its sponsor, Sen. John McCain -- can't be enforced at Guantanamo Bay because another clause of the law grants these prisoners only limited access to U.S. courts.
In other words, the Bush administration is contending that the McCain Amendment might make it illegal to abuse the Guantanamo prisoners, but that the inmates have no legal recourse to enforce the law by going to court and getting an order for the abuses to end.
the torture issue is something that elaine and c.i. have hit hard on repeatedly. i'm not sure that i have much to say on it that they haven't already covered. i think our reaction ties into isaiah's cartoon above, where we let some idiot so scare us that we stop caring about what we're supposed to stand for or what humanity is supposed to mean. it helps that they are 'detainees' (prisoners as elaine and c.i. have pointed out). we don't see them, we don't know about them so we, as a country, don't care too much. and when a 'soft,' little word like 'detainees' is used over and over, it doesn't seem all that important. if they were called prisoners, we might care more. but by calling them 'detainees' ... well they're just detained, right. 'detainees' sounds short term.
this administration has broken more laws and moral codes than any of us could count. but give them credit for knowing how to market their schemes and scams. as some 1 who worked in public relations, and worked successfully in my field, i'm amazed that so many people latch on to their jargon. they keep an eye on marketing. they don't care what they do as long as they can sell it to the american people.
thinking people need to stop using the administration's terms. that's how they set the agenda and control it. your average american, scared to death by the bully boy's fear mongering or not, is not going to be comfortable with prisoners being held without trial for years and years. but call them 'detainees' and you're deflating the balloon. 'detainee' implies temporary. as c.i. noted once, it makes it sound like you've been stopped while going through customs because you forgot to declare something.
in marketing, you sell the product by making it appealing. some of you may be too young to remember the early days of tampon commercials (they haven't changed that much). it was thought that talking about periods was just 'too much' for the average american to handle. so what to do? set up a commercial with clouds and horses and smiling faces and then mention the product a few times. you're selling a lifestyle because you can't sell the product.
so the woman at home is thinking 'if i use kotex, i'll be just as happy as that woman! my period usually hurts like hell! but look, she uses kotex and she's riding a horse!'
they can't sell prisoners. so the administration uses another word (like 'feminine napkin') that sounds softer. and when asked about these prisoners, they always go to 9-11. they can't sell prisoners to americans, but they can sell the 'lifestyle' factor. they can use a mild word ('detainees') and put it in their context (world trade center, pentagon, et al) so that the 'audience' is thinking 'oh my god!' and the discussion is derailed.
the fact of the matter is that if any 1 at guantanamo was involved in 9-11, there would have been a very public show trial a long time ago. they're not involved. they are prisoners of war. afghanistan did not declare war on us. they were 'guilty' of the fact that osama was in their country. when we asked them to turn him over to us, they responded (as we would), show us the proof and we will.
we wouldn't. we said 'turn him over now, proof comes later.' if another country did that to the u.s., there would be a huge outcry. so we go to war with afghanistan and, like in any war, the people fight, on both sides. we, the 'victors,' imprison the captured and bought (you can make a healthy living rounding up people and selling them to unquestioning american forces if you tell them that the people are 'taliban' or 'al quaeda').
so what we have is prisoners, and they're prisoners of war. that's the reality. and every time john mccain wants to play his 'i was a prisoner of war' card, no 1 ever asks him, 'well, as a prisoner of war, how do feel about the prisoners in guantanamo?'
that's where we are. we hold prisoners of war for years and years. we torture them and we never get honest about it. we use soft sounding terms to disguise reality.
here's some more reality from democracy now:
Study: Antartic Ice Sheet Shrinking Significantly
In environmental news, the Washington Post is reporting scientists have found the Antartic ice sheet is shrinking by as much as 36 cubic miles a year. Researchers say the results, published in the journal Science, provide the first evidence that the sheet's total mass is shrinking significantly. Scientists said the decrease is likely linked to global warming.
we've done that too. and what does bully boy call it 'climate' something. we're all aware of the term 'global warming.' but he comes into office and the order is use the milder term. so most reporters and news orgs. follow his edict as though they're working for him.
if we don't the shrinking of the artic ice seriously, no 1 will be working for any 1.
bully boy can plan all the trips to mars he wants, but if the earth becomes unable to support life systems, we've got nowhere to go. we've really trashed our home. if al gore was in the white house, we might be trying to address the issue of global warming. but bully boy is the oil man who could never find oil. he kept drilling and drilling and coming up dry (there's a sexual metaphor there, for any 1 who wants to explore). so now he's the 'big boy' who brags about how his old friends have to call him 'mr. president.' all part of proving his manhood - like strutting around on a carrier with a stuffed crotch or cozying up to big oil, where he never made it, and letting them trash our only environment.
well, hopefully it did enough for him that laura got a little action. the rest of us got screwed as well but not in the good way.
for humor and commentary check out c.i.'s 'other items' and 'NYT: The paper sends Linda Lavin to report on the Katrina tapes.' who knew they were hiring linda lavin at the paper of record? i hope they'll hire bonnie franklin next because she was always my favorite of the women on cbs' sunday nights.
3/02/2006
news wrap up?
so the cowards (of both parties) in the senate fell over itself to extend the patriot act. army major general geoffery miller won't testify in the case of army sgt. michael smith who was 'creative' with the use of dogs and prisoners. presumably, miller would have either have had to discuss the actual policy or lied. 'cheney urges americans' should save more but you can only stretch a mcdollar so far, dick. in reply, america urged the administration to create some actual jobs and to raise the minimum wage. and bully boy appears to be confessing that osama was part of team bush in 2004! - wonder if karl rove brought him on board?
in the world of media, the new york times has apparently hired linda lavin and america's funniest videos has had to outsource to the czech republic. in entertainment, kat has 2 new reviews completed: "Kat's Korner: Nina Simone -- Golden" and "Kat's Korner: Cat Power's Greatness."
but most of all, and why i delayed my post for later tonight, betty has a new chapter. c.i. had an idea for a way that might help her struggle less with each chapter and betty's really excited about it. though you'll laugh when you read the latest chapter, you won't get why or what's coming up until the next 2 chapters. i think this is what is known as a 'plot point' (check with c.i. on the term).
people are coming to life these days. can you believe the change from two years ago? this is from democracy now:
Bolton Speech Disrupted in New York
And in New York, a group of protesters stood up and held signs as UN Ambassador John Bolton gave a speech at New York University Wednesday. One sign read: "US interests -- torture, illegal war, secret abductions, racial profiling, war crimes," among others, and quoted Bolton's infamous statement that: "Diplomacy is not an end [in] itself if it does not advance U.S. interests."
must have been a shock to him, a week after time magazine fawned all over him.
elaine's got something you should go read right away - if you haven't already read "No quote tonight -- it's already too long." sherry said reading it was like looking at old photographs with friends. i think that's a great way to look at it.
last thought for tonight: have i plugged trina's kitchen? i'm not sure if i have or not. i don't blog on saturdays or sundays and by monday, i'm usually focused on something else. but trina's kitchen is trina's site and trina's offering commentary and recipes. trina's mike's mother and a longterm member of the common ills community so make a point to check out her site. she posts on saturdays.
this is brief, i know. i was wanting to be sure to know betty's latest and it was a long day long before that. though this is brief, i'm kind of shocked by the amount of items we noted. bully boy and osama, dick cheney's foolish economics, go down the list.
in the world of media, the new york times has apparently hired linda lavin and america's funniest videos has had to outsource to the czech republic. in entertainment, kat has 2 new reviews completed: "Kat's Korner: Nina Simone -- Golden" and "Kat's Korner: Cat Power's Greatness."
but most of all, and why i delayed my post for later tonight, betty has a new chapter. c.i. had an idea for a way that might help her struggle less with each chapter and betty's really excited about it. though you'll laugh when you read the latest chapter, you won't get why or what's coming up until the next 2 chapters. i think this is what is known as a 'plot point' (check with c.i. on the term).
people are coming to life these days. can you believe the change from two years ago? this is from democracy now:
Bolton Speech Disrupted in New York
And in New York, a group of protesters stood up and held signs as UN Ambassador John Bolton gave a speech at New York University Wednesday. One sign read: "US interests -- torture, illegal war, secret abductions, racial profiling, war crimes," among others, and quoted Bolton's infamous statement that: "Diplomacy is not an end [in] itself if it does not advance U.S. interests."
must have been a shock to him, a week after time magazine fawned all over him.
elaine's got something you should go read right away - if you haven't already read "No quote tonight -- it's already too long." sherry said reading it was like looking at old photographs with friends. i think that's a great way to look at it.
last thought for tonight: have i plugged trina's kitchen? i'm not sure if i have or not. i don't blog on saturdays or sundays and by monday, i'm usually focused on something else. but trina's kitchen is trina's site and trina's offering commentary and recipes. trina's mike's mother and a longterm member of the common ills community so make a point to check out her site. she posts on saturdays.
this is brief, i know. i was wanting to be sure to know betty's latest and it was a long day long before that. though this is brief, i'm kind of shocked by the amount of items we noted. bully boy and osama, dick cheney's foolish economics, go down the list.
3/01/2006
tongue biting
As we approach the third anniversary of Bush's invasion of Iraq, with domestic spending being gutted, tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans being extended, and the Bush administration submitting a request for an additional $72.4 billion in war-related funding, the National Priorities Project (NPP) has issued an invaluable new report demonstrating the financial impact of the war on taxpayers in every state.
Upon approval of the supplemental funding bill, total spending on the war and occupation in Iraq will exceed $315 billion. Nobel Prize-winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz, estimates that when all is said and done the final price tag will reach somewhere between $1 trillion and $2 trillion.The NPP highlights the unfathomable trade-offs our nation is making in order to continue funding the Iraq occupation -- other spending priorities that are being missed -- both at the state and national levels.
that's from katrina vande heuvel's "The Costs of War." i noted harper's magazine yesterday and would've noted her piece if i'd known of it. there are a number of figures worth knowing, so if you haven't already checked it out, please do. also check out the common ills tonight. c.i. and ava will have a joint entry and that's all i can say or i'll spill the beans. check out "Kat's Korner: Cat Power's Greatness." kat's review made me buy the cd today. read the review and you may as well. more tomorrow night. i'm biting my tongue tonight and every 1 knows i'm lousy at keeping a secret so that's it.
Upon approval of the supplemental funding bill, total spending on the war and occupation in Iraq will exceed $315 billion. Nobel Prize-winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz, estimates that when all is said and done the final price tag will reach somewhere between $1 trillion and $2 trillion.The NPP highlights the unfathomable trade-offs our nation is making in order to continue funding the Iraq occupation -- other spending priorities that are being missed -- both at the state and national levels.
that's from katrina vande heuvel's "The Costs of War." i noted harper's magazine yesterday and would've noted her piece if i'd known of it. there are a number of figures worth knowing, so if you haven't already checked it out, please do. also check out the common ills tonight. c.i. and ava will have a joint entry and that's all i can say or i'll spill the beans. check out "Kat's Korner: Cat Power's Greatness." kat's review made me buy the cd today. read the review and you may as well. more tomorrow night. i'm biting my tongue tonight and every 1 knows i'm lousy at keeping a secret so that's it.
2/28/2006
russ comes out swinging, you just wish joe would finish and get off of you
here's a fact for you: total projected cost of the war per u.s. household, based on a january estimate: $19,600.
how's that feel? it's from the 'harper's index' page nine of the current issue of harper's magazine. c.i. did an excerpt from lewis lapham's 'The Case For Impeachment' and that hooked me on getting this issue.
$19,600. if you live in apartment complex, think about how everyone unit is paying $19,600. if you live in a home in a residential area, look up and down the block and realize that every home is paying $19,600. not putting it away for a child's college tuition or using it to pay the bills right now, but for an illegal war.
bully boy took a gamble (an illegal 1) and now we're all paying his debt.
that just amazes me.
okay, nsa hearings.
what can i say but 'thank god for russ feingold.' seriously. oh, i can say something else, 'thank god i didn't have to hear dianne feinstein.' i had to answer the door and sign for a delivery at 1 point and maybe she was on for that brief moment, but i don't think so. i did hear her laugh at 1 of arlen specter's 'jokes' near the end. i think it was her. it was a female's laugh and she was the only woman on the committee. but maybe it was a staffer?
did every 1 who wanted to follow the hearing listen via pacifica?
russ had the fight in him today. i'm not sure every 1 else did. it's amazing that while bully boy's tanking in the polls and getting only a 34% approval rating from the american people that democrats and republicans on the committee can't do any better than they did today.
i thought pacifica did a great job and gave a lot of information. i had no idea that 15 of the 18 senators serving on the committee were lawyers. (we all know feinstein isn't a lawyer because she can never speak without reminding every 1 of that.)
i thought biden . . .
biden.
joe biden is the guy you think you want to have sex with. you're going at it and about 30 seconds in, you suddenly realize, 'he is awful at this!' and you're just praying that he's a premature ejaculator so you can be done with the whole thing quickly. only thing is, he's not. so you're stuck going through the motions while he does his mechanical love making.
he showed promise for about 30 seconds and then started yammering on and on.
i loved pacifica's wrap up and think larry bensky did a wonderful job throughout. i also loved c.i.'s take on what had to be the most insane moment, when orrin hatch started whining about how tough it was to get a fisa warrant. fisa's the easiest to get a warrant from. not just because they rarely turn any request down, but also because they have been set up to be an easy court. can't get a warrant through the regular court system, go to fisa.
but there was orrin whining about how hard it was and how they might have to explain why ___ has them suspicious.
what world does he live in?
the government wants a warrant to spy on some 1. you're going to have to offer more than 'because i say so.'
c.i. has a whole thing on that moment where 'miss priss instant cuckoo: o hatch!' looked like the biggest fool to sit on the judiciary committe. no easy task but he was helped by the fact that john coryn didn't speak.
bully boy broke the law. he admits to his actions.
he needs to be impeached.
that's my thought for the night. that and that while russ was a fighter, joe was really bad sex.
how's that feel? it's from the 'harper's index' page nine of the current issue of harper's magazine. c.i. did an excerpt from lewis lapham's 'The Case For Impeachment' and that hooked me on getting this issue.
$19,600. if you live in apartment complex, think about how everyone unit is paying $19,600. if you live in a home in a residential area, look up and down the block and realize that every home is paying $19,600. not putting it away for a child's college tuition or using it to pay the bills right now, but for an illegal war.
bully boy took a gamble (an illegal 1) and now we're all paying his debt.
that just amazes me.
okay, nsa hearings.
what can i say but 'thank god for russ feingold.' seriously. oh, i can say something else, 'thank god i didn't have to hear dianne feinstein.' i had to answer the door and sign for a delivery at 1 point and maybe she was on for that brief moment, but i don't think so. i did hear her laugh at 1 of arlen specter's 'jokes' near the end. i think it was her. it was a female's laugh and she was the only woman on the committee. but maybe it was a staffer?
did every 1 who wanted to follow the hearing listen via pacifica?
russ had the fight in him today. i'm not sure every 1 else did. it's amazing that while bully boy's tanking in the polls and getting only a 34% approval rating from the american people that democrats and republicans on the committee can't do any better than they did today.
i thought pacifica did a great job and gave a lot of information. i had no idea that 15 of the 18 senators serving on the committee were lawyers. (we all know feinstein isn't a lawyer because she can never speak without reminding every 1 of that.)
i thought biden . . .
biden.
joe biden is the guy you think you want to have sex with. you're going at it and about 30 seconds in, you suddenly realize, 'he is awful at this!' and you're just praying that he's a premature ejaculator so you can be done with the whole thing quickly. only thing is, he's not. so you're stuck going through the motions while he does his mechanical love making.
he showed promise for about 30 seconds and then started yammering on and on.
i loved pacifica's wrap up and think larry bensky did a wonderful job throughout. i also loved c.i.'s take on what had to be the most insane moment, when orrin hatch started whining about how tough it was to get a fisa warrant. fisa's the easiest to get a warrant from. not just because they rarely turn any request down, but also because they have been set up to be an easy court. can't get a warrant through the regular court system, go to fisa.
but there was orrin whining about how hard it was and how they might have to explain why ___ has them suspicious.
what world does he live in?
the government wants a warrant to spy on some 1. you're going to have to offer more than 'because i say so.'
c.i. has a whole thing on that moment where 'miss priss instant cuckoo: o hatch!' looked like the biggest fool to sit on the judiciary committe. no easy task but he was helped by the fact that john coryn didn't speak.
bully boy broke the law. he admits to his actions.
he needs to be impeached.
that's my thought for the night. that and that while russ was a fighter, joe was really bad sex.
2/27/2006
are you trying to be you or some 1 else? if the latter, why?
late. thought about not posting. i've never done anything for that many hours straight as i did helping out on sunday's the third estate sunday review. i'm not griping. dona was telling all of us that we could go ahead and go as sun up approached. but there was 1 problem after another. we lost whole features and had to redo them. go down the list and make it of any and everything you think could have happened.
it was an endurance test. wally had it in him to stay until the end but he also had college work to focus on (a test on monday and a paper due as well). i called him to see if my posting would make him feel like he had to. he said he couldn't believe how tired he was (he's not crazy about his paper but he thinks he aced his test). mike had told him to just chill tonight and that's what he's ended up doing. (he was on his way to bed after we got off the phone.)
i called because every 1 already has enough pressure on them and if i was adding to wally's pressure by posting, i wouldn't be posting tonight. a lot of us try to live up to the example c.i. sets at the common ills. i don't. elaine doesn't. that's because we've know c.i. forever and we're quite aware that c.i. can outlast us. in college, c.i. could party all night, turn around and go to a 1st of the morning class, make incredible points, and move on to the next class. c.i. is an insomniac, true. but it's also true that we're talking incredible endurance, incredible focus and an ability to juggle that exceeds what you'd find in a circus tent.
we know c.i. brings that same 'can do' attitude to the common ills. we love it. we love the site, we love c.i. but we knew long ago that we couldn't do that. but for others, it's the example, the standard. c.i. doesn't encourage that. doesn't push it. tells people to take time for themselves.
plus, the common ills community is huge. so there are more demands there than any of us have. when c.i. says 'write it but do it without me' on something we're all working on, it's because it's a sensitive subject for a member. which member? c.i. can tell you. c.i.'s always been able to do that. 1 nickname was 'the journal' because it was like having a journal recording everything. if elaine and i had a disagreement, we'd call c.i. and say 'what happened? who is right here?'
i can keep a few of my readers straight. i can tell you a ton about sherry because she's been reading since i started this site and she's become some 1 i think of as a friend. anytime i check the e-mails, the 1st thing i look for is to see if sherry's written. but i can probably only keep track of 15 of my readers in terms of being able to spit out their most important issues.
c.i. is not competative. you'll never meet any 1 less competative. if you've got something you're doing, it's yours. c.i.'s not going to do it. in college, c.i. was being asked to run for a student office 1 year. for obvious reasons. the person running for re-election comes up and explains how 'important' the position is to them. so c.i. doesn't run. (c.i. won as a write in.) in classes where the prof would tell you your grade before the final so you'd know how well you needed to do, c.i. wouldn't let the prof say it. why? c.i. was always the a student. every 1 knew it because after any test, if the prof went over them in class, he or she would tell you the true or false answers, the multiple choice answers and then, on the essay section, say 'for an example of the perfect essay see' c.i. other people would bask in that. i would. c.i. would slink in the chair.
i do anything, half-assed or full on, and c.i. is there with praise. try to praise c.i. and you'll get 'oh please' or something else dismissive. there is no complimenting c.i. (ask elaine if you don't believe me.)
i bet some of you reading this know some 1 like that. i hope you do anyway. i know a lot of talented people who are extremely conceited. i know very few who are modest like c.i. if you do know someone who is talented and gifted and modest, you know you're lucky to have them as a friend and you learn quickly that there's no point in using them as a measuring stick because you'll come up short every time.
i'm writing this for people who are trying to 'keep up.' i doubt any 1 who blogs in the community is competative with c.i. because when you get to know c.i., you realize that competition is not an option and that it only makes c.i. feel awkward (and start offering self-put downs or being self-negative). but i do think a few people are looking and thinking 'geez, c.i.'s posting 3 to 4 times a day. i should be able to manage at least once.'
when a similar thought was voiced to c.i. all it did was make c.i. feel bad and feel like the fault belonged to guess who. (no, not me. c.i. grabs none of the glory but will gobble up all the blame and guilt.)
it's not worth it to measure yourself against any 1. the few times c.i. has rallied competition wise is when some 1's tried to steal something. i remember a really sick, twisted lover in college trying to steal c.i.'s idea for a creative writing assignment. that's 1 time i saw c.i. really angry about something other than a social justice issue.
and what did c.i. do? stuck with the same original idea. and ended up getting the highest grade in the class. why? here's the lesson folks. because the jerk could rip off c.i.'s idea but not write what c.i. lived as well as c.i.
sherry could create a site called politics and sex and attitude and screeds tomorrow and try to do what i do the way i do and she'd fail. she could create a site tomorrow and write in her voice and be a huge success. (she's very gifted and i've repeatedly told her to start a site.)
sherry can be the best sherry. i can be the best rebecca (or the best i can be). but i'd be a lousy elaine copy or c.i. copy. the lesson here is to be you. if you speak in your own voice, you're going to win in the long run.
it reminds me of a huge battle c.i. had with a racist and sexist prof. so sexist, have i told this story before?, that he would say things like the wacs weren't interested in helping the country out in wwii, just in getting laid. say that in a lecture to the class. the professor did a lot of academic studies. co-authored them. people hated him but were intimidated by him, students were. so he got away with that crap.
until c.i. ended up in his class. c.i. aced the class and did it by being c.i. others tried to echo the prof and spit back whatever he spewed. not c.i.
or, a philosophy prof. he had an idol among philosophers. 1 class, on plato, had very little plato in it because the prof would always go back to his idol. anyway, c.i. wrote an incredible paper which was 1/3 of the grade. the prof didn't like it. (c.i. didn't care for the prof's idol.) he refused to accept it. he gave it back with all these remarks that were non-academic scribbled on it and told c.i. to redo it. said 'do it this way and you'll have an a.'
c.i. didn't do that. instead, c.i. took the paper to the dean, showed how unprofessional (and personal) the remarks the prof had written were, showed up with all the index cards and research backing up each point. the prof was told he had to accept the paper and the dean said he'd be looking over the grading of it.
this took up a lot of time, this battle. and the easiest thing to do would have been to just redo the paper the way the prof wanted and get the easy a. but c.i. said 'if i do it his way and fail, i've failed twice, on the grade and failed myself by not being true to myself.' every 1 on campus that knew c.i. was saying 'just do it the prof's way.' c.i. would rather have taken a failing grade than tried to 'write like' the prof.
i've come out of my own shell. i used to be so scared of speaking out. (i know that's hard to believe if you've read this site very often.) a lot of that is the personal issues i've had to deal with shortly before beginning this site. but it's also true that due to those issues, i realized that how little so much i thought mattered actually did.
i get credited by elaine and c.i. for my 'strength.' i think a lot of it is due to finally having enough and seeing how little surface things matter added in with seeing c.i. over the years.
like i said, in college, i learned quickly that i couldn't compete with c.i.'s endurance. but what i did learn in the last few years, and hopefully there's some 1 around you that you've learned this from or that you will learn this from, is that in the end, you have to answer for what you did. not who liked you, not who thought highly of you. c.i. demonstrated that then and demonstrates it now.
when the freak got pissed that c.i. linked to joan mellen and defended her (mellen wrote an incredible book, read it), there was a lot of 'oh my god!' from people. c.i. couldn't care less. truly. there are times, if c.i. thinks someone's been hurt, that it is an issue. but there will be no guilt attached to a slam for being true to yourself.
there's a scene in the pelican brief that elaine and i always tease c.i. about. julia roberts is in class and being asked about a court decision on gays and lesbians. julia says something about every 1 is equal and the prof says something like 'well the court felt differently' and julia responds evenly and calmly something like 'well they're wrong.'
that is any course we've taken with c.i.
dexter filkins gets criticized for his phoney reporting now. a little. and it's picking up still. the criticism. but there are people who are still shocked that in real time, november 2004 during falluja, c.i. would criticize dexy. they shouldn't be. c.i.'s not interested in being 'right' today. c.i. has and will take people saying 'you are wrong' and the attitude is always 'i'll be right in the long run.'
i'm stronger these days and a part of that is because of the example i've seen from c.i. over the years. money, relationships, go down the list, none of it is important enough to sell yourself out and i've seen an example of that up close. are there rocky times as a result? yeah, usually there are. but you win in the end. the 'win' is that you stayed true. you didn't water yourself down to please some 1 else. take it from some 1 who spent most of her life, too many years, watering herself down to be liked, there's no point in that. there's no long term reward.
in the end, you actually end up feeling very hollow.
there are 3 points to tonight's entry. the first, already noted, is to encourage every 1 to realize they need to do their best, not some 1 else's. the 2nd is dexy and i'll get to him in a minute. the 3rd is that march is coming up on us.
on that. it's the 3rd anniversary. what are you going to do. are you going to find your voice now and speak out against the war? if you already have your voice, are you going to speak out more? if you're saying 'well i don't know what to do' are you actually looking for things to do?
here's something you can do, danny schechter, "Why Protest Media Coverage March 15?"
The national day for local media protest announced last week on Mediachannel.org received such a positive response that the organizers of United For Peace and Justice, the country's largest anti-war coalition, decided to change the date from March 21 to March 15 to make a focus on the media the kickoff event for this years week-long "spring offensive" against the war to mark the third anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq.
Activists, peace groups and media reformers are being encouraged to organize protests in every city and community.
I wanted to add some personal comments to this campaign because journalists as a rule and Mediachannel until now has reported on protests, not helped organize them. Usually, media people are not activists but this case is different. Here the issue is not about politicians or causes, but our own profession and industry.
If we are not willing to speak out on a problem so close to home, who will? If we don't stand up for media freedom and against deceptive news practices, how can we lecture or editorializes other institutions to practice ethical standards, accountability and transparency?
I know there are colleagues of ours who find protests, well, unseemly, and likely to do no good. Some readers feel that way too. To these "nattering nabobs of negativity," to quote the late and great Spiro T Agnew, a politician with loose standards but clever language, I would respond, it is the duty of all of us who believe in the need for honest journalism to say so publicly.
Remember the phrase "my country right or wrong, my country!" The response is always "My country right or wrong, but when wrong, set it right." The same goes for the press.
I have been fighting this media battle for a long time. In his foreword to my book WHEN NEWS LIES on media complicity and the Iraq War, Michael Wolff calls me "the 2000 year old" media critic in the spirit of Mel Brooks and Carl Reiner’s hysterical 2000 year old man shtick.
Yes, I have been doing it a while but mostly in the media, dissecting news on the radio or producing TV and films. In the case of Iraq, I have written two books and made the documentary WMD (Weapons of Mass Deception). I think I know what I am talking about.I have spoken on the issue all over this country and throughout the world. And yes, I know from painful personal experience, how easy it is to be ignored, or patronized and marginalized.
but you know what? given the choice between doing what he believe and staying silent, danny schechter would choose doing what he believe in. so should you. (i don't know danny schechter, by the way. i have read his books and his website and c.i. speaks highly of him.) 30 years from now, people will still be talking about danny schechter. other 'names' even 1s on tv currently? we'll have forgotten them. they've done nothing. they've done the job that causes no waves and makes no impressions other than to their bosses who are so amazed how well trained the clapping seals have turned out to be.
the people you remember are the 1s who stand up. the 1s with courage. the 1s who don't sit on the sidelines waiting for some 1 else to act. think of your life as a movie. shouldn't you be starring in your own movie? otherwise, you're just a supporting character. you're there to say 'really, and then what happened?' and serve as recap for events that others did. don't you want to be the star of your own movie?
now for c.i.'s "And the war drags on . . ." because c.i. took on dexy again:
Now for the New York Times. Prepare to chuckle (and thanks to Rob for pointing it out, I often skip the book section and had intended this to be one of those days):
But [Paul L.] Bremer bears a heavy responsibility for keeping silent -- and so does General Sanchez. If we can ssume that Bremer's recollection is correct, then General Sanchez's remarks indicate that Baghdad was indeed out of control, that both he and Bremer knew it and that without more troops, it was likely to stay out of control. [. . .]
By staying silent, Bremer ensured that there would be no public debate on the merits of deploying more Americans troops. By staying silent, he ensured that there would be little public discussion over the condition of the Iraqi security forces, whose quality he doubted. [. . . .]
What do we learn from the above? It's by an in-house writer at the paper so it's safe to assume (no surprise) that the Times argument remains "Stay until more are slaughtered!" Yeah, they're making the idiotic argument that "more troops" are needed. Got to protect those foreign investments, got to protect that "free market," no need to leave until we've privatized everything. That's their real argument. The Times can support human rights . . . to a point. The point is where human rights intersects with a "healthy" profit motive. At that point, the paper tosses human rights out the window.
Listening to the scolding of Bremer (who deserves it) for his silence is anyone else thinking of all that the paper of record has been silent on? The Bully Boy hump? The NSA warrantless and illegal spying that they sat on for a year. And so much more. (For years and years and years.)
If you're thinking, "Who is the Times to scold anyone for staying silent?" wait, it's about to get a whole lot funnier (and more hypocritical). The review is entitled "Desert Sturm" (oh, aren't they cute -- in their minds). And the writer? Dexter Filkins.
Dexter Filkins who stayed silent on the slaughter he should have witnessed in Falluja. Supposedly he was there in November 2004. But to read his rah-rah, video game reporting, it was all, people killed, people who had it coming to them. And it was so 'totally cool' judging by his breathless reporting. (Did the American troops have to swat him on the snout to get him to stop huming their legs?) It was all so glorious, so wonderous to read Dexy's "award winning" "reporting." The piece that took over six days to make it into print. Who edited that report? Who had to clear it? Why did it take so long to make it into the paper?
Those are questions Dexy may have to answer someday (probably sooner than he thinks). But the man who couldn't report the truth on Iraq (not just on Falluja, on the entire occupation) now wants to scold Bremer for staying silent. It's interesting to watch the liars turn on one another.
As the Judith Miller controversy was in its final stages, I said repeatedly that if she helped get us into war (she was part of a large number of helpers -- she didn't do it alone), it's the "reporters" like Dexter Filkins who keep us over there by refusing to report the truth. Now Dexter wants to scold Bremer for "staying silent"? Filkins' press releases live from the Green Zone will not be forgotten. He can pretend like the only one staying silent was Bremer but it was him too. Had the Times written the truth about the occupation long ago, America might have woken up sooner.
that's the c.i. who has inspired me for years and continues to inspire me. but i couldn't write that. for 1 thing, i loathe the times too much to go through it the way c.i. does. for another, in november 2004, i'm not sure i would have gotten how silly dexy's 'award winning' report was. or the problems with it. but mainly, i'm not c.i. i can do a full rebecca on dexy. and if i approach it that way, i'm the only 1 who can.
so the point is, you've been given a voice, are you going to use it? march is coming up. the 3rd anniversary. are you going to be silent (a silent extra in your own movie of your life - worse than a supporting player)? or are you going to speak out?
dexter filkins
the new york times
danny schechter
united for peace and justice
the common ills
it was an endurance test. wally had it in him to stay until the end but he also had college work to focus on (a test on monday and a paper due as well). i called him to see if my posting would make him feel like he had to. he said he couldn't believe how tired he was (he's not crazy about his paper but he thinks he aced his test). mike had told him to just chill tonight and that's what he's ended up doing. (he was on his way to bed after we got off the phone.)
i called because every 1 already has enough pressure on them and if i was adding to wally's pressure by posting, i wouldn't be posting tonight. a lot of us try to live up to the example c.i. sets at the common ills. i don't. elaine doesn't. that's because we've know c.i. forever and we're quite aware that c.i. can outlast us. in college, c.i. could party all night, turn around and go to a 1st of the morning class, make incredible points, and move on to the next class. c.i. is an insomniac, true. but it's also true that we're talking incredible endurance, incredible focus and an ability to juggle that exceeds what you'd find in a circus tent.
we know c.i. brings that same 'can do' attitude to the common ills. we love it. we love the site, we love c.i. but we knew long ago that we couldn't do that. but for others, it's the example, the standard. c.i. doesn't encourage that. doesn't push it. tells people to take time for themselves.
plus, the common ills community is huge. so there are more demands there than any of us have. when c.i. says 'write it but do it without me' on something we're all working on, it's because it's a sensitive subject for a member. which member? c.i. can tell you. c.i.'s always been able to do that. 1 nickname was 'the journal' because it was like having a journal recording everything. if elaine and i had a disagreement, we'd call c.i. and say 'what happened? who is right here?'
i can keep a few of my readers straight. i can tell you a ton about sherry because she's been reading since i started this site and she's become some 1 i think of as a friend. anytime i check the e-mails, the 1st thing i look for is to see if sherry's written. but i can probably only keep track of 15 of my readers in terms of being able to spit out their most important issues.
c.i. is not competative. you'll never meet any 1 less competative. if you've got something you're doing, it's yours. c.i.'s not going to do it. in college, c.i. was being asked to run for a student office 1 year. for obvious reasons. the person running for re-election comes up and explains how 'important' the position is to them. so c.i. doesn't run. (c.i. won as a write in.) in classes where the prof would tell you your grade before the final so you'd know how well you needed to do, c.i. wouldn't let the prof say it. why? c.i. was always the a student. every 1 knew it because after any test, if the prof went over them in class, he or she would tell you the true or false answers, the multiple choice answers and then, on the essay section, say 'for an example of the perfect essay see' c.i. other people would bask in that. i would. c.i. would slink in the chair.
i do anything, half-assed or full on, and c.i. is there with praise. try to praise c.i. and you'll get 'oh please' or something else dismissive. there is no complimenting c.i. (ask elaine if you don't believe me.)
i bet some of you reading this know some 1 like that. i hope you do anyway. i know a lot of talented people who are extremely conceited. i know very few who are modest like c.i. if you do know someone who is talented and gifted and modest, you know you're lucky to have them as a friend and you learn quickly that there's no point in using them as a measuring stick because you'll come up short every time.
i'm writing this for people who are trying to 'keep up.' i doubt any 1 who blogs in the community is competative with c.i. because when you get to know c.i., you realize that competition is not an option and that it only makes c.i. feel awkward (and start offering self-put downs or being self-negative). but i do think a few people are looking and thinking 'geez, c.i.'s posting 3 to 4 times a day. i should be able to manage at least once.'
when a similar thought was voiced to c.i. all it did was make c.i. feel bad and feel like the fault belonged to guess who. (no, not me. c.i. grabs none of the glory but will gobble up all the blame and guilt.)
it's not worth it to measure yourself against any 1. the few times c.i. has rallied competition wise is when some 1's tried to steal something. i remember a really sick, twisted lover in college trying to steal c.i.'s idea for a creative writing assignment. that's 1 time i saw c.i. really angry about something other than a social justice issue.
and what did c.i. do? stuck with the same original idea. and ended up getting the highest grade in the class. why? here's the lesson folks. because the jerk could rip off c.i.'s idea but not write what c.i. lived as well as c.i.
sherry could create a site called politics and sex and attitude and screeds tomorrow and try to do what i do the way i do and she'd fail. she could create a site tomorrow and write in her voice and be a huge success. (she's very gifted and i've repeatedly told her to start a site.)
sherry can be the best sherry. i can be the best rebecca (or the best i can be). but i'd be a lousy elaine copy or c.i. copy. the lesson here is to be you. if you speak in your own voice, you're going to win in the long run.
it reminds me of a huge battle c.i. had with a racist and sexist prof. so sexist, have i told this story before?, that he would say things like the wacs weren't interested in helping the country out in wwii, just in getting laid. say that in a lecture to the class. the professor did a lot of academic studies. co-authored them. people hated him but were intimidated by him, students were. so he got away with that crap.
until c.i. ended up in his class. c.i. aced the class and did it by being c.i. others tried to echo the prof and spit back whatever he spewed. not c.i.
or, a philosophy prof. he had an idol among philosophers. 1 class, on plato, had very little plato in it because the prof would always go back to his idol. anyway, c.i. wrote an incredible paper which was 1/3 of the grade. the prof didn't like it. (c.i. didn't care for the prof's idol.) he refused to accept it. he gave it back with all these remarks that were non-academic scribbled on it and told c.i. to redo it. said 'do it this way and you'll have an a.'
c.i. didn't do that. instead, c.i. took the paper to the dean, showed how unprofessional (and personal) the remarks the prof had written were, showed up with all the index cards and research backing up each point. the prof was told he had to accept the paper and the dean said he'd be looking over the grading of it.
this took up a lot of time, this battle. and the easiest thing to do would have been to just redo the paper the way the prof wanted and get the easy a. but c.i. said 'if i do it his way and fail, i've failed twice, on the grade and failed myself by not being true to myself.' every 1 on campus that knew c.i. was saying 'just do it the prof's way.' c.i. would rather have taken a failing grade than tried to 'write like' the prof.
i've come out of my own shell. i used to be so scared of speaking out. (i know that's hard to believe if you've read this site very often.) a lot of that is the personal issues i've had to deal with shortly before beginning this site. but it's also true that due to those issues, i realized that how little so much i thought mattered actually did.
i get credited by elaine and c.i. for my 'strength.' i think a lot of it is due to finally having enough and seeing how little surface things matter added in with seeing c.i. over the years.
like i said, in college, i learned quickly that i couldn't compete with c.i.'s endurance. but what i did learn in the last few years, and hopefully there's some 1 around you that you've learned this from or that you will learn this from, is that in the end, you have to answer for what you did. not who liked you, not who thought highly of you. c.i. demonstrated that then and demonstrates it now.
when the freak got pissed that c.i. linked to joan mellen and defended her (mellen wrote an incredible book, read it), there was a lot of 'oh my god!' from people. c.i. couldn't care less. truly. there are times, if c.i. thinks someone's been hurt, that it is an issue. but there will be no guilt attached to a slam for being true to yourself.
there's a scene in the pelican brief that elaine and i always tease c.i. about. julia roberts is in class and being asked about a court decision on gays and lesbians. julia says something about every 1 is equal and the prof says something like 'well the court felt differently' and julia responds evenly and calmly something like 'well they're wrong.'
that is any course we've taken with c.i.
dexter filkins gets criticized for his phoney reporting now. a little. and it's picking up still. the criticism. but there are people who are still shocked that in real time, november 2004 during falluja, c.i. would criticize dexy. they shouldn't be. c.i.'s not interested in being 'right' today. c.i. has and will take people saying 'you are wrong' and the attitude is always 'i'll be right in the long run.'
i'm stronger these days and a part of that is because of the example i've seen from c.i. over the years. money, relationships, go down the list, none of it is important enough to sell yourself out and i've seen an example of that up close. are there rocky times as a result? yeah, usually there are. but you win in the end. the 'win' is that you stayed true. you didn't water yourself down to please some 1 else. take it from some 1 who spent most of her life, too many years, watering herself down to be liked, there's no point in that. there's no long term reward.
in the end, you actually end up feeling very hollow.
there are 3 points to tonight's entry. the first, already noted, is to encourage every 1 to realize they need to do their best, not some 1 else's. the 2nd is dexy and i'll get to him in a minute. the 3rd is that march is coming up on us.
on that. it's the 3rd anniversary. what are you going to do. are you going to find your voice now and speak out against the war? if you already have your voice, are you going to speak out more? if you're saying 'well i don't know what to do' are you actually looking for things to do?
here's something you can do, danny schechter, "Why Protest Media Coverage March 15?"
The national day for local media protest announced last week on Mediachannel.org received such a positive response that the organizers of United For Peace and Justice, the country's largest anti-war coalition, decided to change the date from March 21 to March 15 to make a focus on the media the kickoff event for this years week-long "spring offensive" against the war to mark the third anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq.
Activists, peace groups and media reformers are being encouraged to organize protests in every city and community.
I wanted to add some personal comments to this campaign because journalists as a rule and Mediachannel until now has reported on protests, not helped organize them. Usually, media people are not activists but this case is different. Here the issue is not about politicians or causes, but our own profession and industry.
If we are not willing to speak out on a problem so close to home, who will? If we don't stand up for media freedom and against deceptive news practices, how can we lecture or editorializes other institutions to practice ethical standards, accountability and transparency?
I know there are colleagues of ours who find protests, well, unseemly, and likely to do no good. Some readers feel that way too. To these "nattering nabobs of negativity," to quote the late and great Spiro T Agnew, a politician with loose standards but clever language, I would respond, it is the duty of all of us who believe in the need for honest journalism to say so publicly.
Remember the phrase "my country right or wrong, my country!" The response is always "My country right or wrong, but when wrong, set it right." The same goes for the press.
I have been fighting this media battle for a long time. In his foreword to my book WHEN NEWS LIES on media complicity and the Iraq War, Michael Wolff calls me "the 2000 year old" media critic in the spirit of Mel Brooks and Carl Reiner’s hysterical 2000 year old man shtick.
Yes, I have been doing it a while but mostly in the media, dissecting news on the radio or producing TV and films. In the case of Iraq, I have written two books and made the documentary WMD (Weapons of Mass Deception). I think I know what I am talking about.I have spoken on the issue all over this country and throughout the world. And yes, I know from painful personal experience, how easy it is to be ignored, or patronized and marginalized.
but you know what? given the choice between doing what he believe and staying silent, danny schechter would choose doing what he believe in. so should you. (i don't know danny schechter, by the way. i have read his books and his website and c.i. speaks highly of him.) 30 years from now, people will still be talking about danny schechter. other 'names' even 1s on tv currently? we'll have forgotten them. they've done nothing. they've done the job that causes no waves and makes no impressions other than to their bosses who are so amazed how well trained the clapping seals have turned out to be.
the people you remember are the 1s who stand up. the 1s with courage. the 1s who don't sit on the sidelines waiting for some 1 else to act. think of your life as a movie. shouldn't you be starring in your own movie? otherwise, you're just a supporting character. you're there to say 'really, and then what happened?' and serve as recap for events that others did. don't you want to be the star of your own movie?
now for c.i.'s "And the war drags on . . ." because c.i. took on dexy again:
Now for the New York Times. Prepare to chuckle (and thanks to Rob for pointing it out, I often skip the book section and had intended this to be one of those days):
But [Paul L.] Bremer bears a heavy responsibility for keeping silent -- and so does General Sanchez. If we can ssume that Bremer's recollection is correct, then General Sanchez's remarks indicate that Baghdad was indeed out of control, that both he and Bremer knew it and that without more troops, it was likely to stay out of control. [. . .]
By staying silent, Bremer ensured that there would be no public debate on the merits of deploying more Americans troops. By staying silent, he ensured that there would be little public discussion over the condition of the Iraqi security forces, whose quality he doubted. [. . . .]
What do we learn from the above? It's by an in-house writer at the paper so it's safe to assume (no surprise) that the Times argument remains "Stay until more are slaughtered!" Yeah, they're making the idiotic argument that "more troops" are needed. Got to protect those foreign investments, got to protect that "free market," no need to leave until we've privatized everything. That's their real argument. The Times can support human rights . . . to a point. The point is where human rights intersects with a "healthy" profit motive. At that point, the paper tosses human rights out the window.
Listening to the scolding of Bremer (who deserves it) for his silence is anyone else thinking of all that the paper of record has been silent on? The Bully Boy hump? The NSA warrantless and illegal spying that they sat on for a year. And so much more. (For years and years and years.)
If you're thinking, "Who is the Times to scold anyone for staying silent?" wait, it's about to get a whole lot funnier (and more hypocritical). The review is entitled "Desert Sturm" (oh, aren't they cute -- in their minds). And the writer? Dexter Filkins.
Dexter Filkins who stayed silent on the slaughter he should have witnessed in Falluja. Supposedly he was there in November 2004. But to read his rah-rah, video game reporting, it was all, people killed, people who had it coming to them. And it was so 'totally cool' judging by his breathless reporting. (Did the American troops have to swat him on the snout to get him to stop huming their legs?) It was all so glorious, so wonderous to read Dexy's "award winning" "reporting." The piece that took over six days to make it into print. Who edited that report? Who had to clear it? Why did it take so long to make it into the paper?
Those are questions Dexy may have to answer someday (probably sooner than he thinks). But the man who couldn't report the truth on Iraq (not just on Falluja, on the entire occupation) now wants to scold Bremer for staying silent. It's interesting to watch the liars turn on one another.
As the Judith Miller controversy was in its final stages, I said repeatedly that if she helped get us into war (she was part of a large number of helpers -- she didn't do it alone), it's the "reporters" like Dexter Filkins who keep us over there by refusing to report the truth. Now Dexter wants to scold Bremer for "staying silent"? Filkins' press releases live from the Green Zone will not be forgotten. He can pretend like the only one staying silent was Bremer but it was him too. Had the Times written the truth about the occupation long ago, America might have woken up sooner.
that's the c.i. who has inspired me for years and continues to inspire me. but i couldn't write that. for 1 thing, i loathe the times too much to go through it the way c.i. does. for another, in november 2004, i'm not sure i would have gotten how silly dexy's 'award winning' report was. or the problems with it. but mainly, i'm not c.i. i can do a full rebecca on dexy. and if i approach it that way, i'm the only 1 who can.
so the point is, you've been given a voice, are you going to use it? march is coming up. the 3rd anniversary. are you going to be silent (a silent extra in your own movie of your life - worse than a supporting player)? or are you going to speak out?
dexter filkins
the new york times
danny schechter
united for peace and justice
the common ills
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)