hey, everybody, i'm nancy keenan. i'm president of naral and i'm, uh, just pretty, um upset, and i'm, uh, so mad, right now, i just might let some expression come into my voice. no, i don't think i will. i think i'll just play poor pathetic for another year. i like that. i like to picture the supreme court as tonya harding and myself as nancy kerrigan. i bet if i just sit here and do nothing but hold my knee and scream 'it hurts' then america will love me.
nancy keenan was on kpfa's evening news tonight and she played bland when not saying 'uh' and 'um' a lot. she had another repeater, maybe it was 'i ... i' but i don't remember. 9you can go the archives and listen yourself.)
naral has made them useless and there was la-la nancy making herself more useless. it's not just that it was a snooze-fest while she used words about how 'alarmed' we should all be without ever sounding alarmed (or prepared for an interview, or, as she would put it, prepared for an, uh, uh, interview). you're useless, nancy. if there's any 1 in power at naral that is useful, let them speak. you're a lousy speaker. or, if you prefer, you're a, uh, lousy, um, speaker.
get kim gandy (president of now) on the air or any other woman who is a passionate fighter. don't let little nancy whine about the boo-boo on her knee while we see roe v. wade under attack again.
she's bound and determined to destroy abortion rights.
at 1 point she spoke of how the late-term abortion (the issue's been picked up, via a case the supreme court will be hearing) should be a medical decision. then she went on to say it should be a decision between a doctor, a woman and, um, her family.
her family?
know your shit. seriously. it's an issue for a woman and her doctor only.
nancy, did you have an abortion for medical reason?
i did. it was my decision. the doctor presented me with the facts after the test and i made the decision. it's my body. my body wouldn't belong to a 'family.'
what an idiot. every time she opens her mouth, she chips away at abortion rights. she needed to step down as president a long time ago. it's too late for that now. but it's not too late for her to designate some 1 else as the public speaker for naral.
so, here's the deal every 1's worrying about. during the third estate sunday review edition, i explained, as i did here saturday, that i was cramping. c.i., elaine and betty started saying, 'rebecca, you need to go to a doctor.' with c.i. asking which doctor's office i was writing about saturday - my dentist or my dermatologist? i avoid medical doctors. (it was my dentist. a dentist is a doctor.) i can deal with the externals like skin and teeth. i can't handle the internals. (and c.i. and elaine would go to town on that admission.)
this was probably a 30 minute discussion during the edition putting us all behind. then we were working on some piece, i don't remember which 1. and some 1, jim?, asked c.i.'s opinion after i had weighed in. c.i.'s response was a shocker: 'oh my god. you're not getting your period. you miscarried.'
yes, that's what the cramps were. i love c.i. but it always freaks me out when that happens. and it's always the same way. you think something's over and you've moved on and then out of the blue, it will hit c.i. what's going on (it was the same with my divorce from fly boy which i wasn't rushing to tell c.i. or elaine about, with an annullment - 'i don't care what we eat ... oh my god, rebecca he's gay' - and over and over throughout the years). i used to kid, 'what are you, psychic?' c.i. just has always been able to zero in on something if you're trying to put a happy face on it. and when the realization hits, it's usually as c.i.'s speaking - taking even c.i. by surprise.
i wasn't that far along. i hadn't even told fly boy. i wasn't surprised because i had miscarried twice with fly boy and once with my first husband.
i was surprised because we were using birth control, surprised to be pregnant.
that's just the way it goes.
did i cry. yes, i cried saturday afternoon for several hours. then saturday night, i put on my thinking cap and got to work with the gang on the latest edition. i hadn't planned on telling any 1 but my saturday entry came up and then elaine, betty and c.i. were saying 'you need to go to the doctor.' then c.i. realized what was going on. every 1 was supportive and caring, i thank them for that, but it put the whole edition behind and brought every 1 down. don't feel down. it's life.
i am going to the doctor tomorrow. elaine arranged the appointment. everything's fine.
i know everyone's sad for me and i appreciate that.
things happen.
you live with them.
i purposely started off the post with nancy keelen to show i'm fine. i'm not sobbing. i'm not whimpering. i'm fine.
now let's talk about something else. rick hertzberg. t is pissed and i don't blame her 1 bit.
in the new yorker, hertzberg has another 1 of his nonsense pieces (he's new republican and then some) 'distraction.' what's it about? among other things same-sex marriage.
talk about your bullshit. talk about your nonsense.
who but an unfeeling straight boy (white) would label the right to marry for all a 'distraction.'
i'm really sorry that little ricky thinks the issue is eating up his valuable time.
but it's an issue to a lot of people.
t was insulted and i didn't blame her 1 bit.
she wondered if, since she was both african-american and a lesbian, she was a 'double distraction'?
that's my best friend, little ricky, who are you to label issues that matter to her a distraction?
little ricky is an idiot. in 2004, during 1 of the conventions, i think the democratic 1, he was a guest on the majority report on air america. if you remember back then, you know that the networks decided the conventions weren't worthy of a great deal coverage. it was all a dog and pony show, blah, blah, blah.
so janeane made the point that there were stories there (and they found some) and that reporters shouldn't allow themselves to be managed, or something like that, by the party. about how the delegates were left outside. and she asks rick about that because he's written about it. his basic response is: what are you talking about?
little ricky has written about it over and over. i called my ex-mother-in-law (they love the new republican - though i was glad to hear that they'd finally stopped reading it - apparently it's gotten even worse - who thought that was possible?). her husband has each few months leatherbound (or had) and i wanted her to go summer 1988 because i remember that 1 where little ricky was whining about how all the delegates weren't even allowed in the democratic convention hall (it was too small for them all). she found it. it's ran in the august 8, 1988 issue.
that's not the only 1. that's just the 1 i could remember off hand (i wasn't going to make my ex-mother-in-law go through every election year convention).
now hertzberg would probably argue he didn't say anything bad about gays and lesbians. he didn't. he did the 'tolerance' speech. oh how brave.
he's running scared like all the other 'career pundits.'
stop being scared. let's have the discussion.
quit playing like now-is-not-the-time.
if you wait for 'career pundits,' it's never the time.
he's tolerant.
tolerant enough to allow that they are serious issues to gays and lesbians (despite the column's title 'distraction'). i'm sorry, i'm not 'tolerant.' i embrace the right of gays and lesbians to live in an equal world with equal benefits, equal access, go down the list.
little ricky's too old to not grasp that running scared is not going to play. not for equality and not for an election.
bully boy wants to paint some 1 as a gay and lesbian friend? go for it.
the natural response is: 'yes, i support equality. i'm not sure why he doesn't. but i believe in america that we are equal.'
b-b-but some nutcase like james dobson says if you allow same-sex marriages, the next thing you know some 1 will want to marry a goat!
'i have to wonder what sort of fantasy life a person like that has? let's just say i wouldn't visit a farm with them.'
ha-ha. big laugh for the nation. point made.
instead, the nation's leaders want to run from. why should we support a run for office by anyone we only see running AWAY FROM issues?
leave it to a career pundit.
paul krugman isn't a career pundit. but his column pissed me off. today, he's waxing on about the 50s. oh yeah, he tells you, it wasn't great for every 1 and not every 1 got to be middle class, but we were closer together then and there wasn't bipartisanship (he credits that to wwii).
does he not get how offensive that is?
on today of all days?
if you're blanking, while he's praising the 50s and noting how the policitians could work together in the column that ran today, today is also the day on which, in 1953, ethel and julius rosenberg were executed. that's the 50s he's waxing on about and about the story in time magazine that he read blah-blah-blah.
yeah, there was a bond between a lot of dems and a lot of repubes - it was the desire to launch a witch hunt. ethel and julius were only 2 of the casualities.
krugman should be embarrassed that his paen to the 50s ran today, on the 53rd anniversary of their executions.
hertzberg would rather talk about the economy too. at least krugman is an economist.
but the point here is, and it's what ava and c.i. were getting at in their wonderful review this week, it's easy for those white, straight males, to scream 'single-issue' on anything that doesn't effect them directly. but white, straight, male does not cover every 1. it doesn't even cover the majority of americans.
'single-issue' allows abortion to be pushed aside, gay rights, civil rights, just go down the list.
if bully boy could pull a wonderful economy out of his ass tomorrow, it wouldn't address racism. it wouldn't address any of these issue.
it's really funny because he writes (and he was on a progam, krugman, that i'm not providing a link for because i'm pissed at him for publishing that column on the anniversary of julius and ethel's executions, talking about it as well) how the 'other' was used as a dividing issue before.
guess what, it will be again. until the 'career pundits' stop dismissing issues that impact people's lives as 'side issues,' there will always be an 'other' and it will always be used to demonize.
'demonize' that's the title a thinking person would have used - not, as hertzberg did, 'distraction.'
what's the biggest distraction (and election turnout drag)? straight, white males who think only the issues in their lives matter.
so that's my entry for tonight. any 1 reading it should be able to tell, i'm my usual self. things happen. i appreciate the concern. i really do. i'm glad that so many take my life so seriously and care so much for me. but there's no reason to worry.
what happened happened. it's happened to me before. it happens to many women. it's life.
want to worry? worry about c.i. who has nightmares, i'm told wake up screaming 1s, since friday about what's being done at guantanamo.
here's c.i.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Chaos and violence continue.
ADDED: THE ASSOCIATED PRESS IS REPORTING "THE U.S. ARMY HAS CHARGED THREE SOLDIERS IN CONNECTION WITH THE DEATHS OF THREE IRAQIS WHO WERE IN MILITARY CUSTODY IN NORTHERN IRAQ LAST MONTH".
In Baghdad, Reuters notes two bombings, a "car bomb" at "a police checkpoint" resulted in three deaths and three wounded and a "sucicide car bomber" who killed at least four others and wounded at least ten. CBS and the AP note "[a] parked car bomb" that killed five and wounded nine.
The BBC notes: "Violence is continuing in Baghdad despite the introduction of stringent new security measures last week that have seen more than 40,000 Iraqi and US forces deployed in the city." Dahr Jamail reports on the days since Bully Boy's photo-op in the Green Zone and concludes: "Each passing day only brings the people of Iraq and soldiers serving in the US military deeper into the quagmire that the brutal, despicable, tortured occupation has become."
Bombings also took place outside of Baghdad. The AP notes that three people were killed in Fallujah when a roadside bomb exploded while another roadside bomb, in Hillah, killed at least person and wounded at least four others. Reuters notes that, in Najaf, one person died from a bombing while at least five were wounded.
Reuters also reports an attack in Karbala where "a senior police officer" was shot to death and two of his bodyguards were wounded. AP identifies the man as Abdel-Shahid Saleh and notes that Saadoun Abdul-Hussein Radi, electrician, was shot to death in Amarah.Kidnappings? Reuters reports that the Mujahideen Shura Council, which most recently claimed credit for four of the seven Saturday bombings in Baghdad, is now claiming to be holding four Russian diplomats which, Reuters notes, appears to be a reference to the June 3rd attack. The attack resulted in the death of Russian diplomat Vitaly Vitalyevich Titov and the four who were kidnapped were identified by the Russian embassy as: Feodor Zaycev, Rinat Agliulin, Anatolii Smirnov and Oleg Feodosiev. AFP reports that the Mujahideen Shura Council is also claiming that it has the two US soldiers reported to have been taken by "masked gunmen" on Friday. AFP describes it as a body that "groups eight armed factions led by Al-Qaeda."The US military has not confirmed the abduction of the two soldiers. AFP reports that their names have been released: "Kristian Menchaca, 23, and Thomas L. Tucker, 25."
Richard A. Oppel Jr. (New York Times) reported that "more than 8,000" US and Iraqis are searching for Menchaca and Tucker and the AFP notes that seven US troops have been wounded since the search began Friday.
Meanwhile, CBS and AP quote Christina Menchaca, wife of Kristian, saying, "We're basically just watching the news because no one else knows anything about it, no one has heard anything about it."
On the American, Keith Maupin, who has been MIA since April 8, 2004, the AFP reports: "The Arabic news channel Al-Jazeera aired a video a week later that showed the American seated on the floor surrounded by masked gunmen. A month later it aired what it said was the execution of an American soldier, but the images were unclear and the army said it was inconclusive."
Al Jazeera is reporting that Iraq forces will be responsible for Muthanna relieving the British forces. This is the area that Japanese troops were also responsible for possibly adding creedence to the press coverage of the rumors that Japan will be announcing, prior to June 29th, that it is withdrawing all of its troops from Iraq. CBS and the AP note that Japan, England and Australia will "continue moving to "support role." The AP notes: "The decision, announced after [Nouri] al-Maliki met with Japan's ambassador, does not necessarily mean that any U.S.-led coalition forces will be withdrawn from Muthana province."
Ramadi? As noted by Sandra Lupien on KPFA's The Morning Show, "major military operations" continue as "helicopters and airplanes are flying over the town." Reuters reports that "seven tanks moved along Maarif Street and July 17 Street. Two explosions were heard but the cause was not clear." Ali Hussein Mohammed is quoted as saying: "The water is totally cut off. We have to go to the river to get water. There has been no water for 24 hours and we have no gas to boil the river water to drink it."
Meanwhile, in Italy, the AFP reports that prosecutors are saying that the US marine who shot Nicola Calipari should be put on trial. Calipari had been sent to Iraq by the Italian government to rescue kidnapped Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena. Though he and Sgrena made it safely to the car, while traveling to the airport to leave Iraq, their car (or "caravan" in some reports at the time) was shot at by US forces. In the attack, Calipari was killed. Sgrena will be in New York City Friday June 23rd for an event with Amy Goodman at Columiba University. (Event starts at 7:30 p.m.)
Finally, Bully Boy is due to visit Vienna this week (Tuesday and Wednesday) and a group is attempting to organize a loud, if not welcoming, reception for him. "Bush Go Home" organizer Michael Proebsting tells the AAP: "The name George Bush, the name of the American president, has become a symbol for war crimes, for Abu Ghraib, for Guantanamo, for Jenin."
6/17/2006
extra
c.i. phoned to ask if i was having any problem with blogger/blogspot? i'm not but mike and elaine are. i told c.i. i'd get something up as quick as possible (before the e-mails pour in at the common ills about how 'no 1's writing!' - really, if you're bothered by no 1 writing, write the person you think should be writing. when i hear about that, i always feel like some 1 went running to teacher.)
so what i'm going to focus on for this entry is the latest edition of extra! i'm signed up with fair for their e-mails (and there are 2 that have come in since the 1 on extra but i'll wait to read those or i'll end up blogging on that and the issue and that would mean being online all morning).
i'm copying and pasting their entry and adding my comments. i will note that i planned to note this issue and might not be if others weren't having problems at their site because i left my issue on the backporch last night (while i was doing part ii of a roundtable - which is in polly's brew tomorrow) and i went to get it this morning and half the issue got attacked by morning dew.
New Issue of Extra!: The False Debate Over 'Broken Borders'
The June issue of FAIR's magazine Extra! is now available:The False Debate Over 'Broken Borders'
When pro-business passes as pro-immigration-- Saurav Sarkar argues that the debate in immigration coverage pits a pro-business standpoint against an anti-immigrant nativist perspective, leaving truly pro-immigrant and pro-worker voices on the sidelines.
this sounds like a good article. make a point to read it. i plan to. seriously, i haven't read that article yet. (i just got the issue thursday.)
Bush-Hating Nation Anatomy of an epithet- Steve Rendall documents and dissects the popular-among-pundits label "Bush hater."
this was the 1st thing i read. in the print edition, it's pages 10 and 11 and has a nice cartoon by tom tomorrow. faults?
i'm a new republican hater so i would have made sure to point out that fred barnes, who accuses the new republican of being 'a pretty hardcore bush-hating magazine,' spent time at the new republican. (if you're new, the rag's title is the new republic, i always refer to it as the new republican.)
why would i note that? the rag hasn't changed since fred barnes was there, it still sells war, it still offers nonsense. my point is that it's all a game to them. fred barnes knows they aren't 'bush-hating' but says it because it helps portray the new republican as the most extreme 'liberal' outlet. it reduces the debate (if that nonsense is accepted) and allows centrists to come off as leftists further constricting the range and the understanding of the range.
i'm not slamming steve rendall, by the way. if i want to slam, i slam. freely and without worry.
it's a strong article and i've read it twice. i couldn't have written it. i don't have that talent.
what i do have is an understanding of people. the people who don't read extra, the people who don't visit the fair website or listen to counterspin. i have p.r. experience and plenty of it.
so what i know (this much is true, lol) is that there are people in this country who look for their cues. they're going to hear barnes snarl 'bush-hater' and they've given no thought to anything but they know they don't agree with barnes so they'll align themselves with the new republican thinking, falsely, it must be like them.
that happens all the time and i'm really surprised that media critics don't explore that.
i can't tell you the number of people (women AND men) i know who are with a right-winger (usually just a pissed off person who's been fed lies and thinks fox 'news' is the only 1 'looking out for them') and will watch that nonsense with their partners.
that's where they'll form their opinions. they'll take from fox 'news.'
they'll watch and, since they don't identify as right-wing, they'll grab on to the opposing guest (or the idiot alan colmes) or some trashing that a foxer does of what they label as the 'left' and they'll say 'that's what i stand for.'
i'm really working the issue of iraq into all my conversations these days and i hope you are as well. 1 of the biggest surprises i've had from people who support the beliefs of the left is that they wonder why 'no 1' spoke out against the war before hand. they'll name janeane garofalo, susan sarandon and any 1 else who was attacked but they really think it was a small number.
sadly, because they also got a large helping of 'left' voices saying we had to go to war, they think that was the left opinion and that janeane and others were in the minority on the left.
tv presents an authority that print doesn't. (if that's a surprise to any 1, they need to work in p.r. and they'll quickly learn that.) you're not just reading words. you've got a person in front of you that you think is just speaking (usually, they're giving a carefully shaped performance, even on what passes for 'news'). so they're speaking and you can see them and hear their voice. it's more immediate and with few barriers.
if fred barnes, and people who watch fox 'news' know his name and face, says 'the left . . .' and gives examples, to those people that's 'truth.'
i heard time and again this week as i reconnected with a lot of people i haven't spoken to that it was 'just you and . . .' and they'd toss out some celebrity. that were speaking against the war before the illegal invasion. and this is in response to who they knew that spoke out against the war.
these people know me. they don't 'know' susan sarandon or janeane garofalo or whomever. but that's the effect tv has, they feel they 'know' them. (of in sarandon's case, 'know' them because they know 'of' them - i don't think sarandon went on fox 'news.')
fred barnes is a trusted voice to some on the left. that statement may drive you crazy. it drove me crazy when i grasped it from conversations.
but there are people on the left who take what he says not to embrace it, but to find out who he is against and, since they're against his position, that must mean the 1s he bad mouths are just like them!
it's a nice little con game. and it works on non-readers. when i heard, over and over, 'well my stance now is just like the new republic's stance,' i would ask, 'what is that stance?' they'd never read the new republican (no 1 does). that's how the notion that the rag is the voice of the left is allowed to seep in day after day.
that's not my recommendation that people of the left should go on fox. i personally think no 1 should. the people you think you will reach aren't going to do anything about it. they're passive and that's how they'll likely remain. if nancy pelosi went on and did a wonderful job or a poor job, there would be a small margin of the fox 'news' audience that would be thrilled. but they're not going to do anything. they only thing it will help with is awareness. (janeane going on that crap network to try to prevent a war was noble and people who didn't do a thing about it did at least hear her.)
i was talking about this with c.i. and c.i. ended up making a comment (about peter beinhart of the new republican) that was wonderful. i said, 'that's so true, you should write that' and c.i. said, 'why? i'm going to demonstrate how the next war can be sold more effectively?' good point. but i was thinking about that conversation as well as my conversations with people that i had honestly avoided since 2003 (because they wouldn't do a thing about the war).
this apathetic america. i'm willing to talk to them about the war because i think we need them if only in the 'they might get polled for a poll' sense but i have no delusions about them ever doing anything. (1 or 2 may surprise me.) i went red in the face before the invasion. i don't need that kind of aggrevation.
but it's been interesting seeing this side. with the community and friends i've kept like t, i am around very political people. and it's interesting to now mix with those who chose to be non-political. contray to what most people think, these people aren't changing. it's not a matter of reaching them and they'll get active. they won't. they're set in their ways. they love couching. what they do is talk about what they've seen (they're not radio listeners, they're not readers with 1 exception that i'll get to in a minute). so a fred barnes convinces them that he's against the new republican (a con game, and he knows it) and they're convinced the rag stands for them. so the rag enters their daily conversations. they end up saying something like 'well my opinion is the same as the new republican.' and bit by bit, in the world around them, that becomes accepted - that the new republic (that no 1 reads) is this brave political journal standing up for peace. at some point the rag gets a reader because at some point they're going to have a conversation with, or 1 overheard by, some 1 who is desperate for something that's not right-wing and they've heard the recommendation/endorsement.
this is the crowd that is grateful when their parenter will let them (let them) watch an hour or so of cnn so they can get 'the other side.'
i think it's important to note fred barnes was once with that magazine. to some it will mean, 'oh well he changed his mind.' but not to every 1. some will see him as ungrateful. some 1 will think he's a johnny-come-lately. some may grasp that it's all a con job.
the extra readership probably knows it. i am an extra reader and i know it. but i do leave my copy in my doctor's office. and it's always interesting to see what gets taken. it gets picked up. but last month i saw a young woman put the anniversary issue into her purse after she'd been reading it. that's great. hopefully she'll read it repeatedly. maybe she'll visit the website or buy an issue at a later date.
with counterspin, my personal taste is i don't need a run down of what the nut job bill o'reilly has said. i think the regular listeners are aware of the problem with that 'news' network and i would rather hear the critiques of the so-called mainstream. i don't think it gets enough critiques. so when they do their run down of recent news stories at the top of the show, if they're going on about something on fox 'news,' i usually end up turning off the radio and doing something else. that's me. (that's why i didn't cover the show while ruth was on vacation. i told her i'd listen up until fox 'news' came on. if it came on, i wasn't discussing the show.) that's their opinion, that it's worth running down and they need to run their radio show the way they want.
but it does nothing for me. the 1s who watch, the tiny sliver that does identify as left, isn't listening to counterspin. (my opinion - if they were, i'd assume they'be using other sources all the time and not have any time to sit in front of fox 'news.') i never have a problem with extra covering it. it's a bi-monthly so that may be surprising (since it has less space). that may be due to the fact, the i'm not being served it 1st thing. (i leaf around the magazine, i don't read it in order.) (i'm that way with my eating as well. i laugh at c.i. because we're the exact opposite on reading and eating. c.i. will read all the way through to avoid missing anything the same way with eating the things that are 'good for you' 1st even if it's something that c.i. hates. i'll skip over portions and go straight to what i want.)
so with the magazine, i'm able to read it when i want. but i turn off counterspin all the time. it just doesn't speak to me when i'm thinking about something i saw on tv or in the paper and i'm hearing about bill o'reilly or whomever instead.
i'll give an example. the so-called war on christmas. i know that some people enjoyed counterspin's coverage of that. they felt it was needed. so it obviously spoke to an audience (and an audience that makes up their listenership) but for me, it was a waste of time. i didn't need counterspin to tell me it was made up and how. that probably comes from spending so long in p.r., i can usually tell a manufactured story which is really just marketing at it's most basic.
other people, who listen to the show, enjoyed that. so it's probably my background. but i'm signed up for media matter alerts and it's a rare day when they haven't highlighted five lies on fox 'news.' and they aren't highlighting everything. if they were, they'd be sending out 100 alerts a day. my point is that there's so much crap on fox 'news' and i expect it. i don't watch because it's marketing masquerading as news and i'm really not that interested in their being disproven on the radio. (i do read the stuff up at the fair website, but, again, i'm able to pick and choose based on my mood.)
maybe it has to do with the fact that those items not only come 1st in the radio program but are so brief? the rest of the show is an interview or two interviews. so that brief opening is important. i remember when they had the dexter filkins pushing propaganda (revealed by the washington post) and they noted that and then turned it around to say 'and guess who is airing military propaganda, fox "news" broadcast . . .' and i just turned off the program right there. dexter filkins is caught, by a washington post reporter, and you want to talk about fox 'news'?
to me the perspective was all wrong. listeners know fox is a liar. the news value was in the fact that dexter filkins had been exposed. anything else was just wasting my time. it seems like an easy way to make a point and to me that point is so minor because it's so obvious (fox 'news' lies). which is why, week after week, i start listening to the show and end up turning it off.
i'm reading over the article again because something occurred to me. see the fox 'news' angle is a problem even in print. the article's not just about fox 'news' - it's about quite a bit more. but how do you talk about nicky k (nicholas kristof) and his attacks on the left and never mention that he has slammed feminism repeatedly. every time he can find some anti-feminist group of religious fundamentalists, he's rushing into print with 1 of his, 'feminists who say they care about women have never bothered to draw attention to ...'
that's not mentioned. to me that's much more serious than anything fox 'news' does because fox 'news' is watched by the apathetic left. the 1s who will say 'paper, not plastic' at the grocery store and then turn and smile to you to prove just how 'left' they are. that's about all they're ever going to do. ('radical' would be the notion that use a canvas bag for their groceries.)
if i wasn't talking about the article, i wouldn't have noticed it. but i think so much time is spent treating fox 'news' as a serious 'news' organization that it ends up marketing that idea even when that's not the desired effect.
where do you challenge and where does a challenge actually become (unintentional) marketing?
i don't know.
Study Finds First Drop in Think Tank Cites
Progressive groups see biggest decline-- In his annual think tank study, Michael Dolny finds that all think tank citations are down--but especially those of progressive groups. No left-leaning think tanks appeared in the top ten, which is composed of five conservative and five centrist think tanks.
i loved this article. i loved rendall's as well (i'm not some 1 who raves. i'm also not doing your cliff notes' version here. if you want a synopsis, go somewhere else.) its pages 24 & 25. if you're wondering, the highest ranking think tank labeled progressive was at number 13: economic policy institute. (it saw a 47% decrease from 2004 to 2005 - of on air time and print exposure.) i'm ignoring 'center-left' because those are centrists.
Articles only available in print:
Stossel’s 'Stupid' Schools
A beginner’s course in deceptive reporting By Peter Hart & Janine Jackson
fair's covered this topic before but i would've made this available online if i were fair. john stossel has a weight that fox 'news' doesn't have. he's on 'mainstream' so he's thought to be some 1 non-partisan. his whole act also plays well with uninformed people who are disgusted.
it's a con job (like fred barnes).
i don't know. maybe it's an issue of intent or purpose? to me there's more value in this report. i'm not referring to the writing, it's well written, but to the subject matter. there are people who watch 20/20 (because there's nothing else on or for whatever reason) and think they're getting news. john stossel presenting crackpot 'reporting' matters a little more to me than bill o'reilly doing his monologues.
Intelligence Manipulation at the Washington Post
Editorial page ignores facts to back Bush
By Peter Hart
this is pages 12 through 13. this is about the paper's editoral board slanting and cherry picking to argue that joe wilson 'wasn't so right!' was he wrong? no. they sold a war. at some point, people are going to ask why. danny schechter's 1 of the few besides amy goodman that's regularly addressed this. i think there's a larger reason (and i'm guessing goodman and schechter do as well) but when you're stuck explaining the fundamentals over and over (because you're the only 1s addressing it), it's hard to move on to the next point. (that's not a slam at goodman or schechter. i am noting that they have seriously addressed some aspects of why the war was sold. not just how. and i'm not seeing a great deal of that elsewhere. if i were, i'm sure they'd move on to the next phases of why it was sold. but when you're a lonley voice on an issue, you have to stress the most easy to grasp sections over and over until people start grasping them. read amy goodman's the exception to the rulers for a broader explanations of the how and danny schechter has many books, but i'll go with the death of the media because fly boy just finished that and is interested in reading more of schechter's books - i have them all, please, all c.i. and i do for christmas is give each other books.)
Fight for Your Right to Be Fired
U.S. media to French youth
By Peter Hart
i finished katha pollitt's excellent collection of essays entitled virginity or death! and intend to comment on it next week. but i've now started greg palast's armed madhouse. the article's good for understanding how the riots were portrayed (this was 1 series of riots, there were also riots in france over the treatment of young muslims). armed madhouse will add to this article.
Globalization vs. Growth
NYT op-ed omits stats that debunk pro-corporate claims
By Jim Naureckas
worthy target, worthy read.
CNN’s Immigration ProblemIs Dobbs the exception--or the rule?
By Julie Hollar
Fair Use It or Lose It
read it and wonder why lou dobbs is still on cnn. (why? because the message is pleasing to corporate owners.)
Copyright owners' threats erode free expression
By Marjorie Heins
this was interesting but i actually don't have a comment. there was an interview that michael smith did on law and disorder with his son and a musician that has me rethinking copyrights. that was several months ago, actually. i'm still rethinking it. largely wondering why we even need 1? there should be some form of return on investment for development, for instance,e but do we need eternity copyrights - that's really what they've become. read the article because it will get you thinking. don't read it if you don't want to be on a months long journey the way i am. naomi klein has covered a lot of this in various writings and the book no logo. i recommend reading klein. but there's another level of disgust i have over the issue as i've been following up on it in conversations and readings since law and disorder had their discussion. i also was unaware, until c.i. walked me through some basics in april, of how hard it was being pushed on other countries. beyond the disney doesn't want any 1 to draw mickey mouse and post it on a billboard aspect. it's a huge leveraging tool, the copyright laws the u.s. wants other countries to pass, and it's a huge impediment. it's also become something of a racket.
COUNTERSPIN INTERVIEW'
Wall Street Does Not Like Newspapers
Ben Bagdikian on the Knight Ridder Sale
i haven't read this. i did catch the interview because ruth recommended it highly. here's the thing, newspapers aren't in trouble. they're still turning a profit. why doesn't wall street like them? for the same reason that awhile back, wall st. insisted a company that made good products sell off their distribution. the company (i'm being vague because i'm using a real life example of a company that was a p.r. client) made a quality line of food products. they sold nicely. no 1 was starving at the company. it had a solid income and, once upon a time, that would be enough. more than enough, that would be a success. analysts would steer you to the company because it was a safe investment. but it's not about safe or success anymore. it's about roller coaster rides (i think they, wall st., enjoys the highs and lows and think a study should be done on the people working in investment - it was once a button downed, closed mindset, it's now a bunch of joy riders). so a successful company that had been built up solidly and could expect to survive even in tough times ended up being nothing but a stamp on products. it was 'sexy' to investors if they were going to sell off their production, that would drive up investments. that's part of the reason (though not the full reason) that manufacturing in this country is gone and not coming back unless there are real changes made.
Every Extra! also includes cartoons by Tom Tomorrow and others, and much more.
Extra!, FAIR's bimonthly magazine of hard-hitting, well-documented media criticism, tackles the same types of issues as this online activist list, but in greater depth and detail. With every new issue, we make a few featured articles available online free of charge. But because subscriptions to Extra! are a big part of what keeps FAIR going--helping us provide free services like the action alerts on this list--the only way we can give you access to the full magazine is if you subscribe.
Please subscribe today--you'll get a year's worth of first-rate media criticism delivered to your door, starting with this issue, and help sustain FAIR.
$21 per year gets you six issues of Extra!, plus six issues of our newsletter Extra! Update.
SPECIAL OFFER: Subscribe for two years ($40) and get FAIR's book "The Oh Really? Factor" absolutely free.
Subscribe online today!
i'm including the above because maybe you've read and thought, 'sounds like an interesting magazine' (it is) and wanted to subscribe.
my cycle has been completely off for the last 2 months and i'm cramping like crazy. i was going to go back in and add links but i'm going to lay down with a heating pad. i'll steal from wally's site to grab some links to things you should read. and if the list is short, i have 10 in mind, it just means that the cramps got to me, it's not a comment on any of the other sites. oh, and read elaine's post today if it ever goes up.
"NYT: Dexy puts on the redlight (yet again)"
"And the war drags on . . . (Indymedia Roundup)"
'THIS JUST IN! JOHN BOEHNER HEADED FOR THE FRONT LINES IN IRAQ!'
'THIS JUST IN! IN THE CHURCH OF THE BULLY BOY ...'
"Guns & Butter, the war hawk Hillary"
"The Beat of Black Wings"
"Law and Disorder, Dahr Jamail & Amy Goodman on Falluja, the death of two Iraqi women, Ramadi and more, and Jason Leopold"
"A difference of opinion"
so what i'm going to focus on for this entry is the latest edition of extra! i'm signed up with fair for their e-mails (and there are 2 that have come in since the 1 on extra but i'll wait to read those or i'll end up blogging on that and the issue and that would mean being online all morning).
i'm copying and pasting their entry and adding my comments. i will note that i planned to note this issue and might not be if others weren't having problems at their site because i left my issue on the backporch last night (while i was doing part ii of a roundtable - which is in polly's brew tomorrow) and i went to get it this morning and half the issue got attacked by morning dew.
New Issue of Extra!: The False Debate Over 'Broken Borders'
The June issue of FAIR's magazine Extra! is now available:The False Debate Over 'Broken Borders'
When pro-business passes as pro-immigration-- Saurav Sarkar argues that the debate in immigration coverage pits a pro-business standpoint against an anti-immigrant nativist perspective, leaving truly pro-immigrant and pro-worker voices on the sidelines.
this sounds like a good article. make a point to read it. i plan to. seriously, i haven't read that article yet. (i just got the issue thursday.)
Bush-Hating Nation Anatomy of an epithet- Steve Rendall documents and dissects the popular-among-pundits label "Bush hater."
this was the 1st thing i read. in the print edition, it's pages 10 and 11 and has a nice cartoon by tom tomorrow. faults?
i'm a new republican hater so i would have made sure to point out that fred barnes, who accuses the new republican of being 'a pretty hardcore bush-hating magazine,' spent time at the new republican. (if you're new, the rag's title is the new republic, i always refer to it as the new republican.)
why would i note that? the rag hasn't changed since fred barnes was there, it still sells war, it still offers nonsense. my point is that it's all a game to them. fred barnes knows they aren't 'bush-hating' but says it because it helps portray the new republican as the most extreme 'liberal' outlet. it reduces the debate (if that nonsense is accepted) and allows centrists to come off as leftists further constricting the range and the understanding of the range.
i'm not slamming steve rendall, by the way. if i want to slam, i slam. freely and without worry.
it's a strong article and i've read it twice. i couldn't have written it. i don't have that talent.
what i do have is an understanding of people. the people who don't read extra, the people who don't visit the fair website or listen to counterspin. i have p.r. experience and plenty of it.
so what i know (this much is true, lol) is that there are people in this country who look for their cues. they're going to hear barnes snarl 'bush-hater' and they've given no thought to anything but they know they don't agree with barnes so they'll align themselves with the new republican thinking, falsely, it must be like them.
that happens all the time and i'm really surprised that media critics don't explore that.
i can't tell you the number of people (women AND men) i know who are with a right-winger (usually just a pissed off person who's been fed lies and thinks fox 'news' is the only 1 'looking out for them') and will watch that nonsense with their partners.
that's where they'll form their opinions. they'll take from fox 'news.'
they'll watch and, since they don't identify as right-wing, they'll grab on to the opposing guest (or the idiot alan colmes) or some trashing that a foxer does of what they label as the 'left' and they'll say 'that's what i stand for.'
i'm really working the issue of iraq into all my conversations these days and i hope you are as well. 1 of the biggest surprises i've had from people who support the beliefs of the left is that they wonder why 'no 1' spoke out against the war before hand. they'll name janeane garofalo, susan sarandon and any 1 else who was attacked but they really think it was a small number.
sadly, because they also got a large helping of 'left' voices saying we had to go to war, they think that was the left opinion and that janeane and others were in the minority on the left.
tv presents an authority that print doesn't. (if that's a surprise to any 1, they need to work in p.r. and they'll quickly learn that.) you're not just reading words. you've got a person in front of you that you think is just speaking (usually, they're giving a carefully shaped performance, even on what passes for 'news'). so they're speaking and you can see them and hear their voice. it's more immediate and with few barriers.
if fred barnes, and people who watch fox 'news' know his name and face, says 'the left . . .' and gives examples, to those people that's 'truth.'
i heard time and again this week as i reconnected with a lot of people i haven't spoken to that it was 'just you and . . .' and they'd toss out some celebrity. that were speaking against the war before the illegal invasion. and this is in response to who they knew that spoke out against the war.
these people know me. they don't 'know' susan sarandon or janeane garofalo or whomever. but that's the effect tv has, they feel they 'know' them. (of in sarandon's case, 'know' them because they know 'of' them - i don't think sarandon went on fox 'news.')
fred barnes is a trusted voice to some on the left. that statement may drive you crazy. it drove me crazy when i grasped it from conversations.
but there are people on the left who take what he says not to embrace it, but to find out who he is against and, since they're against his position, that must mean the 1s he bad mouths are just like them!
it's a nice little con game. and it works on non-readers. when i heard, over and over, 'well my stance now is just like the new republic's stance,' i would ask, 'what is that stance?' they'd never read the new republican (no 1 does). that's how the notion that the rag is the voice of the left is allowed to seep in day after day.
that's not my recommendation that people of the left should go on fox. i personally think no 1 should. the people you think you will reach aren't going to do anything about it. they're passive and that's how they'll likely remain. if nancy pelosi went on and did a wonderful job or a poor job, there would be a small margin of the fox 'news' audience that would be thrilled. but they're not going to do anything. they only thing it will help with is awareness. (janeane going on that crap network to try to prevent a war was noble and people who didn't do a thing about it did at least hear her.)
i was talking about this with c.i. and c.i. ended up making a comment (about peter beinhart of the new republican) that was wonderful. i said, 'that's so true, you should write that' and c.i. said, 'why? i'm going to demonstrate how the next war can be sold more effectively?' good point. but i was thinking about that conversation as well as my conversations with people that i had honestly avoided since 2003 (because they wouldn't do a thing about the war).
this apathetic america. i'm willing to talk to them about the war because i think we need them if only in the 'they might get polled for a poll' sense but i have no delusions about them ever doing anything. (1 or 2 may surprise me.) i went red in the face before the invasion. i don't need that kind of aggrevation.
but it's been interesting seeing this side. with the community and friends i've kept like t, i am around very political people. and it's interesting to now mix with those who chose to be non-political. contray to what most people think, these people aren't changing. it's not a matter of reaching them and they'll get active. they won't. they're set in their ways. they love couching. what they do is talk about what they've seen (they're not radio listeners, they're not readers with 1 exception that i'll get to in a minute). so a fred barnes convinces them that he's against the new republican (a con game, and he knows it) and they're convinced the rag stands for them. so the rag enters their daily conversations. they end up saying something like 'well my opinion is the same as the new republican.' and bit by bit, in the world around them, that becomes accepted - that the new republic (that no 1 reads) is this brave political journal standing up for peace. at some point the rag gets a reader because at some point they're going to have a conversation with, or 1 overheard by, some 1 who is desperate for something that's not right-wing and they've heard the recommendation/endorsement.
this is the crowd that is grateful when their parenter will let them (let them) watch an hour or so of cnn so they can get 'the other side.'
i think it's important to note fred barnes was once with that magazine. to some it will mean, 'oh well he changed his mind.' but not to every 1. some will see him as ungrateful. some 1 will think he's a johnny-come-lately. some may grasp that it's all a con job.
the extra readership probably knows it. i am an extra reader and i know it. but i do leave my copy in my doctor's office. and it's always interesting to see what gets taken. it gets picked up. but last month i saw a young woman put the anniversary issue into her purse after she'd been reading it. that's great. hopefully she'll read it repeatedly. maybe she'll visit the website or buy an issue at a later date.
with counterspin, my personal taste is i don't need a run down of what the nut job bill o'reilly has said. i think the regular listeners are aware of the problem with that 'news' network and i would rather hear the critiques of the so-called mainstream. i don't think it gets enough critiques. so when they do their run down of recent news stories at the top of the show, if they're going on about something on fox 'news,' i usually end up turning off the radio and doing something else. that's me. (that's why i didn't cover the show while ruth was on vacation. i told her i'd listen up until fox 'news' came on. if it came on, i wasn't discussing the show.) that's their opinion, that it's worth running down and they need to run their radio show the way they want.
but it does nothing for me. the 1s who watch, the tiny sliver that does identify as left, isn't listening to counterspin. (my opinion - if they were, i'd assume they'be using other sources all the time and not have any time to sit in front of fox 'news.') i never have a problem with extra covering it. it's a bi-monthly so that may be surprising (since it has less space). that may be due to the fact, the i'm not being served it 1st thing. (i leaf around the magazine, i don't read it in order.) (i'm that way with my eating as well. i laugh at c.i. because we're the exact opposite on reading and eating. c.i. will read all the way through to avoid missing anything the same way with eating the things that are 'good for you' 1st even if it's something that c.i. hates. i'll skip over portions and go straight to what i want.)
so with the magazine, i'm able to read it when i want. but i turn off counterspin all the time. it just doesn't speak to me when i'm thinking about something i saw on tv or in the paper and i'm hearing about bill o'reilly or whomever instead.
i'll give an example. the so-called war on christmas. i know that some people enjoyed counterspin's coverage of that. they felt it was needed. so it obviously spoke to an audience (and an audience that makes up their listenership) but for me, it was a waste of time. i didn't need counterspin to tell me it was made up and how. that probably comes from spending so long in p.r., i can usually tell a manufactured story which is really just marketing at it's most basic.
other people, who listen to the show, enjoyed that. so it's probably my background. but i'm signed up for media matter alerts and it's a rare day when they haven't highlighted five lies on fox 'news.' and they aren't highlighting everything. if they were, they'd be sending out 100 alerts a day. my point is that there's so much crap on fox 'news' and i expect it. i don't watch because it's marketing masquerading as news and i'm really not that interested in their being disproven on the radio. (i do read the stuff up at the fair website, but, again, i'm able to pick and choose based on my mood.)
maybe it has to do with the fact that those items not only come 1st in the radio program but are so brief? the rest of the show is an interview or two interviews. so that brief opening is important. i remember when they had the dexter filkins pushing propaganda (revealed by the washington post) and they noted that and then turned it around to say 'and guess who is airing military propaganda, fox "news" broadcast . . .' and i just turned off the program right there. dexter filkins is caught, by a washington post reporter, and you want to talk about fox 'news'?
to me the perspective was all wrong. listeners know fox is a liar. the news value was in the fact that dexter filkins had been exposed. anything else was just wasting my time. it seems like an easy way to make a point and to me that point is so minor because it's so obvious (fox 'news' lies). which is why, week after week, i start listening to the show and end up turning it off.
i'm reading over the article again because something occurred to me. see the fox 'news' angle is a problem even in print. the article's not just about fox 'news' - it's about quite a bit more. but how do you talk about nicky k (nicholas kristof) and his attacks on the left and never mention that he has slammed feminism repeatedly. every time he can find some anti-feminist group of religious fundamentalists, he's rushing into print with 1 of his, 'feminists who say they care about women have never bothered to draw attention to ...'
that's not mentioned. to me that's much more serious than anything fox 'news' does because fox 'news' is watched by the apathetic left. the 1s who will say 'paper, not plastic' at the grocery store and then turn and smile to you to prove just how 'left' they are. that's about all they're ever going to do. ('radical' would be the notion that use a canvas bag for their groceries.)
if i wasn't talking about the article, i wouldn't have noticed it. but i think so much time is spent treating fox 'news' as a serious 'news' organization that it ends up marketing that idea even when that's not the desired effect.
where do you challenge and where does a challenge actually become (unintentional) marketing?
i don't know.
Study Finds First Drop in Think Tank Cites
Progressive groups see biggest decline-- In his annual think tank study, Michael Dolny finds that all think tank citations are down--but especially those of progressive groups. No left-leaning think tanks appeared in the top ten, which is composed of five conservative and five centrist think tanks.
i loved this article. i loved rendall's as well (i'm not some 1 who raves. i'm also not doing your cliff notes' version here. if you want a synopsis, go somewhere else.) its pages 24 & 25. if you're wondering, the highest ranking think tank labeled progressive was at number 13: economic policy institute. (it saw a 47% decrease from 2004 to 2005 - of on air time and print exposure.) i'm ignoring 'center-left' because those are centrists.
Articles only available in print:
Stossel’s 'Stupid' Schools
A beginner’s course in deceptive reporting By Peter Hart & Janine Jackson
fair's covered this topic before but i would've made this available online if i were fair. john stossel has a weight that fox 'news' doesn't have. he's on 'mainstream' so he's thought to be some 1 non-partisan. his whole act also plays well with uninformed people who are disgusted.
it's a con job (like fred barnes).
i don't know. maybe it's an issue of intent or purpose? to me there's more value in this report. i'm not referring to the writing, it's well written, but to the subject matter. there are people who watch 20/20 (because there's nothing else on or for whatever reason) and think they're getting news. john stossel presenting crackpot 'reporting' matters a little more to me than bill o'reilly doing his monologues.
Intelligence Manipulation at the Washington Post
Editorial page ignores facts to back Bush
By Peter Hart
this is pages 12 through 13. this is about the paper's editoral board slanting and cherry picking to argue that joe wilson 'wasn't so right!' was he wrong? no. they sold a war. at some point, people are going to ask why. danny schechter's 1 of the few besides amy goodman that's regularly addressed this. i think there's a larger reason (and i'm guessing goodman and schechter do as well) but when you're stuck explaining the fundamentals over and over (because you're the only 1s addressing it), it's hard to move on to the next point. (that's not a slam at goodman or schechter. i am noting that they have seriously addressed some aspects of why the war was sold. not just how. and i'm not seeing a great deal of that elsewhere. if i were, i'm sure they'd move on to the next phases of why it was sold. but when you're a lonley voice on an issue, you have to stress the most easy to grasp sections over and over until people start grasping them. read amy goodman's the exception to the rulers for a broader explanations of the how and danny schechter has many books, but i'll go with the death of the media because fly boy just finished that and is interested in reading more of schechter's books - i have them all, please, all c.i. and i do for christmas is give each other books.)
Fight for Your Right to Be Fired
U.S. media to French youth
By Peter Hart
i finished katha pollitt's excellent collection of essays entitled virginity or death! and intend to comment on it next week. but i've now started greg palast's armed madhouse. the article's good for understanding how the riots were portrayed (this was 1 series of riots, there were also riots in france over the treatment of young muslims). armed madhouse will add to this article.
Globalization vs. Growth
NYT op-ed omits stats that debunk pro-corporate claims
By Jim Naureckas
worthy target, worthy read.
CNN’s Immigration ProblemIs Dobbs the exception--or the rule?
By Julie Hollar
Fair Use It or Lose It
read it and wonder why lou dobbs is still on cnn. (why? because the message is pleasing to corporate owners.)
Copyright owners' threats erode free expression
By Marjorie Heins
this was interesting but i actually don't have a comment. there was an interview that michael smith did on law and disorder with his son and a musician that has me rethinking copyrights. that was several months ago, actually. i'm still rethinking it. largely wondering why we even need 1? there should be some form of return on investment for development, for instance,e but do we need eternity copyrights - that's really what they've become. read the article because it will get you thinking. don't read it if you don't want to be on a months long journey the way i am. naomi klein has covered a lot of this in various writings and the book no logo. i recommend reading klein. but there's another level of disgust i have over the issue as i've been following up on it in conversations and readings since law and disorder had their discussion. i also was unaware, until c.i. walked me through some basics in april, of how hard it was being pushed on other countries. beyond the disney doesn't want any 1 to draw mickey mouse and post it on a billboard aspect. it's a huge leveraging tool, the copyright laws the u.s. wants other countries to pass, and it's a huge impediment. it's also become something of a racket.
COUNTERSPIN INTERVIEW'
Wall Street Does Not Like Newspapers
Ben Bagdikian on the Knight Ridder Sale
i haven't read this. i did catch the interview because ruth recommended it highly. here's the thing, newspapers aren't in trouble. they're still turning a profit. why doesn't wall street like them? for the same reason that awhile back, wall st. insisted a company that made good products sell off their distribution. the company (i'm being vague because i'm using a real life example of a company that was a p.r. client) made a quality line of food products. they sold nicely. no 1 was starving at the company. it had a solid income and, once upon a time, that would be enough. more than enough, that would be a success. analysts would steer you to the company because it was a safe investment. but it's not about safe or success anymore. it's about roller coaster rides (i think they, wall st., enjoys the highs and lows and think a study should be done on the people working in investment - it was once a button downed, closed mindset, it's now a bunch of joy riders). so a successful company that had been built up solidly and could expect to survive even in tough times ended up being nothing but a stamp on products. it was 'sexy' to investors if they were going to sell off their production, that would drive up investments. that's part of the reason (though not the full reason) that manufacturing in this country is gone and not coming back unless there are real changes made.
Every Extra! also includes cartoons by Tom Tomorrow and others, and much more.
Extra!, FAIR's bimonthly magazine of hard-hitting, well-documented media criticism, tackles the same types of issues as this online activist list, but in greater depth and detail. With every new issue, we make a few featured articles available online free of charge. But because subscriptions to Extra! are a big part of what keeps FAIR going--helping us provide free services like the action alerts on this list--the only way we can give you access to the full magazine is if you subscribe.
Please subscribe today--you'll get a year's worth of first-rate media criticism delivered to your door, starting with this issue, and help sustain FAIR.
$21 per year gets you six issues of Extra!, plus six issues of our newsletter Extra! Update.
SPECIAL OFFER: Subscribe for two years ($40) and get FAIR's book "The Oh Really? Factor" absolutely free.
Subscribe online today!
i'm including the above because maybe you've read and thought, 'sounds like an interesting magazine' (it is) and wanted to subscribe.
my cycle has been completely off for the last 2 months and i'm cramping like crazy. i was going to go back in and add links but i'm going to lay down with a heating pad. i'll steal from wally's site to grab some links to things you should read. and if the list is short, i have 10 in mind, it just means that the cramps got to me, it's not a comment on any of the other sites. oh, and read elaine's post today if it ever goes up.
"NYT: Dexy puts on the redlight (yet again)"
"And the war drags on . . . (Indymedia Roundup)"
'THIS JUST IN! JOHN BOEHNER HEADED FOR THE FRONT LINES IN IRAQ!'
'THIS JUST IN! IN THE CHURCH OF THE BULLY BOY ...'
"Guns & Butter, the war hawk Hillary"
"The Beat of Black Wings"
"Law and Disorder, Dahr Jamail & Amy Goodman on Falluja, the death of two Iraqi women, Ramadi and more, and Jason Leopold"
"A difference of opinion"
6/15/2006
sillary clinton
Clinton Booed Over Iraq War Stance
Kerry's comments at the "Take Back America" conference came shortly after an address from New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Clinton was booed when she said she opposed a firm date for a troop withdrawal. As she left the stage following her speech, a group of audience members chanted: "Bring home the troops."
oh, it's just too good not to note again. war hawk hillary getting her blood lust on. audiences recoiling in shock as they see a woman so desperate to keep bodies on the killing fields. illustration's from "Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts 'The Beat of Black Wings/ The Screech of the War Hawk'" and the news item is from democracy now.
that's it for tonight. i'm participating in a roundtable for the gina & krista round-robin. i know c.i.'s posted two things already and is working on the indymedia roundup while this roundtable goes on. god bless c.i. but it's all i can do to type what little i have typed and still pay attention to the roundtable.
6/14/2006
'the way i see it,' he said 'you just can't win it'
c.i. made me laugh today. i was out on a walk and came back to a message on my machine. it was perfect for my mood.
'the way i see it,' he said
'you just can't win it . . .
everybody's in it for their own gain
you can't please 'em all
there's always somebody calling your down
i do my best
and i do good business
that's where it cut off. it's from joni mitchell's 'free man in paris' (on court & spark). when we i got my 1st answering machine, years ago, elaine and c.i. would each leave songs on it. so it was a nice reminder and it was also a perfect summary of my mood.
that is my mood my now. i wrote about it last night. if someone has a problem, well it's their problem. too bad.
that's the attitude that's been taken with jason leopold so i certainly won't step forward to defend any 1 that couldn't spare a 2nd to defend him.
so did you hear about hillary? you may not have. sherry e-mailed me that a certain site didn't offer medea benjamin's article though they frequently do. guess they were scared about taking back ameria being offended?
i notice they did have time for nonsense about 'blog power' and other ass kissing.
last week, they pointed out something ava and c.i. had . . . back in april. they're useless. they'll talk a good game about this needs to stop and dems need to stand up but when it comes down to it, they're scared and, as joni would sing, 'in it for their own gain.'
so here's the medea benjamin article, 'Peace Activists at Hillary Clinton's Speech Try to Take Back ''Take Back America'':'
Fearing that CODEPINK would openly confront Clinton on her pro-war policy, the organizers of Take Back America entered into negotiations with CODEPINK a few days before the conference. "We had lengthy discussions where they pleaded with us not to protest during her keynote breakfast address," explained Gael Murphy, one of the cofounders of CODEPINK. "Instead, we were told that we could distribute flyers explaining Hillary's pro-war position to the crowd inside and outside the hotel, and we would be called on to ask her the first question after the speech. We agreed."
However, when CODEPINK showed up on Tuesday morning in advance of Clinton's speech, the security guards refused to allow them to pass out flyers, even outside the hotel.
"Take Back America violated the agreement from the moment we arrived," said Ms. Murphy. "Even though we had a table inside the conference, burly security guards blocked us and informed us that it was a private event, that we were not welcome, and they escorted us out of the building. We telephoned the conference staff who then told us that we couldn't enter the hotel, couldn’t leaflet the event, the hallways--anywhere. They went back on their word and tried to quash even peaceful, respectful dissent."
apparently that's too controversial for some shy wallflowers. well, you know me, i court controversy. it should have been headline news but i've noticed others had other things to do, other things to cover.
well, like joni said . . .
i saw that picture last night and intended to blog on it but then i listened to the program and wasn't in the mood for much of anything.
i remember thinking, 'i bet c.i. would love to put that picture up!' (c.i. doesn't post photos except in promotional capacity to avoid infringing on anyone's copyrights.) so i logged on this morning and saw hillary and thought, 'god bless you isaiah!'
the community's so lucky to have an illustrator. for a mid-week cartoon, it must have really been an issue to isaiah. he does stuff now for the gina & krista round-robin and polly's brew so he's got a lot on his plate. to do a mid-week illustration for the site must have meant he really wanted to weigh in.
hillary really looked like that in the photo i saw. she was screaming. as though all her repressed rage towards bill over monica was coming out and she was going to scream it at the crowd. well, she made a fool out of herself defending one oval office occupant so why not do it again by preaching her 'stay-the-course' nonsense?
some women aren't their own women. for the 90s she was bill's, and this decade, she's been bully boy's. i've been talking about how the illustration is isaiah's but let me put in the link: "Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts 'The Beat of Black Wings/ The Screech of the War Hawk'."
betsy e-mailed to say she hoped i was feeling better today and that she was glad some 1 wasn't running to avoid jason leopold.
i'm glad too. i'm glad i wrote what i wrote.
feeling better? let's just say a protective covering has crossed my heart.
the next time some 1 is in danger or being ridiculed, some 1 who couldn't say anything about jason leopold, in his defense, i'll just shrug my shoulders and think, 'you're on your own.'
that's all it is. and them using him to say 'see i'm not him!' not today, anyway.
a big thank you to cedric for listening to me last night. i was a blubbering mess and kept trying to get off the phone but he kept me on the phone and talking until i was all cried out. (he wrote about it in 'Law and Disorder, Dahr Jamail & Amy Goodman on Falluja, the death of two Iraqi women, Ramadi and more, and Jason Leopold.')
it was surprising last night. it's not so much now. every 1 is in it for their own gain. that's why they avoid what happened to codepink or other stuff that matters.
those are my thoughts for tonight. not sad. not upbeat. just 'with eyes wide open' (as creed howls in their song).
6/13/2006
jason
i'm a little sad tonight. blame it on flashpoints. not because of the news they reported from gaza which makes me angry (the events there). but because robert parry was a guest tonight and i really thought he'd offer some kind of support for jason leopold. i didn't hear it.
that saddened me.
jason leopold reported that an idictment was forthcoming on karl rove and now rove's attorney is gleeful and saying that rove won't be indicted.
i guess i expected more from parry than i had a right to?
i didn't expect him to defend jason strongly.
that would have been nice. but i didn't expect it.
i figured he would note stories that had blown up in the face of big media.
talk about the way you can get burned by a source.
he didn't.
he talked (or maybe lectured?) about 'scoop journalism' and how he didn't practice it.
i guess leopold's been kicked to the curb. (i wasn't hearing dennis offering a strong defense of jason either.)
if the story was false (see this story), he got burned by some sources. if.
he's not the 1st to be burned. he won't be the last.
i guess i'll be less quick to defend a reporter in the future.
i don't know mean jason. he's being kicked around. i don't care what he writes on, about or in, i'll defend him. i think he's a good journalist.
because he didn't get support, that only makes me support him more. when c.i. wrote the thing and talked about how sometimes the people who seem the strongest really need the support. sherry wondered if that was a telling statement? it was but c.i. was telling on me. so jason leopold won't be trashed here.
nor will i act like he's done something unusual or awful.
we still don't know the story. the easiest answer is he got burned.
i was talking to c.i. about this and was asked what i was scared of?
scared of jason leopold ending up dead.
scared of what happened to gary webb or james hatfield happening to jason.
he's some 1 i liked before the rove story. the fact that there appears to be a need for every 1 to sort of grunt and snort about him only makes me support him more.
as some 1 who's gone through a really bad time, i know how hard it can be. and i won't turn my back on him or make fun of him.
i do not believe he sat down 1 day and said 'let me create a lie.' there was no pay off in that. he was told some things and he wrote them up.
was he burned?
maybe.
but it's also true that there are a lot of people right now who've disputed every thing rove's lawyer has ever said. but now this is gospel?
i won't turn my back on some 1 just because it's popular or the 'in' thing to do.
what i will do in the future is this: any reporter on their own are on their own.
what do i mean by that?
i mean if there's no effort to understand what's going on in jason's life right now, i really don't have a need to defend any of the 1s who could be saying something, anything, to support a journalist in a difficult time.
what do i think happened?
a number of things.
a) the indictment that's sealed was against rove but rove hemmed and hawwed and then gave patrick fitzgerald some of what he wanted.
b) or maybe rove wanted to test the waters before he started talking a little. float the idea of indictment and see how it played.
i don't know. i don't believe jason lied.
and i'm not going to rush to prove how 'smart' i am by using jason.
if some 1 sees something he writes, e-mail it. i really don't surf the net so i could easily miss it. but jason's not cut off here. i don't work that way. i'm saddened that others do.
if people want to throw stones, hurl some at me too because i'm standing with him.
that saddened me.
jason leopold reported that an idictment was forthcoming on karl rove and now rove's attorney is gleeful and saying that rove won't be indicted.
i guess i expected more from parry than i had a right to?
i didn't expect him to defend jason strongly.
that would have been nice. but i didn't expect it.
i figured he would note stories that had blown up in the face of big media.
talk about the way you can get burned by a source.
he didn't.
he talked (or maybe lectured?) about 'scoop journalism' and how he didn't practice it.
i guess leopold's been kicked to the curb. (i wasn't hearing dennis offering a strong defense of jason either.)
if the story was false (see this story), he got burned by some sources. if.
he's not the 1st to be burned. he won't be the last.
i guess i'll be less quick to defend a reporter in the future.
i don't know mean jason. he's being kicked around. i don't care what he writes on, about or in, i'll defend him. i think he's a good journalist.
because he didn't get support, that only makes me support him more. when c.i. wrote the thing and talked about how sometimes the people who seem the strongest really need the support. sherry wondered if that was a telling statement? it was but c.i. was telling on me. so jason leopold won't be trashed here.
nor will i act like he's done something unusual or awful.
we still don't know the story. the easiest answer is he got burned.
i was talking to c.i. about this and was asked what i was scared of?
scared of jason leopold ending up dead.
scared of what happened to gary webb or james hatfield happening to jason.
he's some 1 i liked before the rove story. the fact that there appears to be a need for every 1 to sort of grunt and snort about him only makes me support him more.
as some 1 who's gone through a really bad time, i know how hard it can be. and i won't turn my back on him or make fun of him.
i do not believe he sat down 1 day and said 'let me create a lie.' there was no pay off in that. he was told some things and he wrote them up.
was he burned?
maybe.
but it's also true that there are a lot of people right now who've disputed every thing rove's lawyer has ever said. but now this is gospel?
i won't turn my back on some 1 just because it's popular or the 'in' thing to do.
what i will do in the future is this: any reporter on their own are on their own.
what do i mean by that?
i mean if there's no effort to understand what's going on in jason's life right now, i really don't have a need to defend any of the 1s who could be saying something, anything, to support a journalist in a difficult time.
what do i think happened?
a number of things.
a) the indictment that's sealed was against rove but rove hemmed and hawwed and then gave patrick fitzgerald some of what he wanted.
b) or maybe rove wanted to test the waters before he started talking a little. float the idea of indictment and see how it played.
i don't know. i don't believe jason lied.
and i'm not going to rush to prove how 'smart' i am by using jason.
if some 1 sees something he writes, e-mail it. i really don't surf the net so i could easily miss it. but jason's not cut off here. i don't work that way. i'm saddened that others do.
if people want to throw stones, hurl some at me too because i'm standing with him.
6/12/2006
flashpoints this monday had patrick cockburn, michael ratner and more
quick entry tonight. c.i. sent me katha pollitt's new book, virginity or death, and i've been reading it most of the evening. it's a collection of her essays from the nation. i finished p. 198 ('earthly rewards for the christian voter') and realized how late it was.
on flashpoints tonight, michael berg talked of how there was no joy in the loss of life and of how donald rumsfeld, bully boy and others in the administration had more blood on their hands than most terrorists.
patrick cockburn talked about iraq. of basra, he said it 'has a state of anarchy at the moment.' on the accusations that the good areas aren't reported on, he said it wasn't true and that the press doesn't go there because the areas are out of control and no 1 is safe there. on determining deaths in iraq of iraqis he said: 'if it happens in baghad, maybe they're taken to the morturary.' otherwise, they're quickly buried. i think c.i. wrote about basra but maybe we just spoke of it over the phone - at any rate, in basra british troops fired on civilians and reportedly killed a child and wounded another. the british investigation? they went to a hospital and no boy had been brought in so, they pompously declared, there was no killing. c.i. said that the child was probably immediately buried and that with the hospital situation in iraq, it was highly unlikely that, since the child was reported to be killed on the spot, anything was done except to bury the child and have a funeral among the family and friends.
patrick said there had to be a timetable for withdrawal, for all the troops.
robert knight covered the death of al zarqawi and the assertions of locals that he was beaten to death by american forces when they arrived on the scene, grabbed the stretcher from the ambulance, removed zarqawi's robe and began kicking him repeatedly for over 15 minutes until he was dead.
knight noted how the u.s. version of what happened continue to change and he addressed the tragic nonsense of guantanamo. (i call it 'nonsense' because bully boy should never have been allowed to hold prisoners without charges or a right to a trial.)
they covered the israeli attack on gaza where 15 people on the beach (adults and children) were killed. why? who knows why. i'm sure the israeli government will offer an explanation and the media will run with it and act as though some little girl needed to see her father die while she's swimming. these were families spending a day at the beach. the israeli government will no doubt pass it off as 'terrorism' and the media will repeat it without questioning it.
israel gets the last word because? because america never wants to address the reality for palestians living under the occupation. 32 people died 'including 13 children.'
this was terrorism. it wasn't palestinians doing the terrorism.
a woman named dr. mona (i don't know her last name) addressed the issue of all the various sanctions that keep needed medical supplies out of the occupied territories.
michael ratner (of the center for constitutional rights and 1 of 4 hosts of law and disorder) discussed the death of the 3 guantanamo prisoners. 2 were saudi and 1 was yemen. 1 was on a hunger strike on and off since august. he talked about the force feeding torture and the u.s. claim that they only used if some 1 was near death. that was a lie. they did it to every 1 on a hunger strike.
the administration belongs in prison. every 1 of them. 'this is a human, moral, political outrage that is unspeakable.'
on the democrats, michael ratner noted their cowardly silence and said 'they're running like they've run from everything else.'
we wrote about this topic for sunday's third estate sunday review editorial and i don't think any 1 participating would deny that c.i. and elaine were more the most passionate about this topic. we all care about it, all find it outrageous and shameful. (and illegal.) but i'm amazed by both elaine & c.i.'s knowledge on this and by their passion.
this morning's entry, the 2nd 1, at the common ills, i read that and, granted i know c.i., i knew there was nothing more to say on c.i.'s end. it is disgusting.
c.i. compared the democrats actions to elvis costello's 'little triggers' and it really is. this are silent shots, they shoot with silence, they kill with silence because the democrats have been too cowardly to stand up on this issue.
i also think, and the editorial makes this point, that it's all interrelated to the other actions. the same we-are-above-the-law attitude operates on every level from the illegal spying on american citizens, to their tax lies, to the lies that sold the war on iraq.
we have crooks & criminals running this country and the democrats are going to stand by and wait until the public figures it out. when they do, and they are firm in it, the democrats will suddenly pipe up. the nation is dying because bully boy is killing it, the democrats are standing by watching in silence.
so that's flashpoints for tonight and, like i said, i want to get back to katha pollitt and finish the book.
on flashpoints tonight, michael berg talked of how there was no joy in the loss of life and of how donald rumsfeld, bully boy and others in the administration had more blood on their hands than most terrorists.
patrick cockburn talked about iraq. of basra, he said it 'has a state of anarchy at the moment.' on the accusations that the good areas aren't reported on, he said it wasn't true and that the press doesn't go there because the areas are out of control and no 1 is safe there. on determining deaths in iraq of iraqis he said: 'if it happens in baghad, maybe they're taken to the morturary.' otherwise, they're quickly buried. i think c.i. wrote about basra but maybe we just spoke of it over the phone - at any rate, in basra british troops fired on civilians and reportedly killed a child and wounded another. the british investigation? they went to a hospital and no boy had been brought in so, they pompously declared, there was no killing. c.i. said that the child was probably immediately buried and that with the hospital situation in iraq, it was highly unlikely that, since the child was reported to be killed on the spot, anything was done except to bury the child and have a funeral among the family and friends.
patrick said there had to be a timetable for withdrawal, for all the troops.
robert knight covered the death of al zarqawi and the assertions of locals that he was beaten to death by american forces when they arrived on the scene, grabbed the stretcher from the ambulance, removed zarqawi's robe and began kicking him repeatedly for over 15 minutes until he was dead.
knight noted how the u.s. version of what happened continue to change and he addressed the tragic nonsense of guantanamo. (i call it 'nonsense' because bully boy should never have been allowed to hold prisoners without charges or a right to a trial.)
they covered the israeli attack on gaza where 15 people on the beach (adults and children) were killed. why? who knows why. i'm sure the israeli government will offer an explanation and the media will run with it and act as though some little girl needed to see her father die while she's swimming. these were families spending a day at the beach. the israeli government will no doubt pass it off as 'terrorism' and the media will repeat it without questioning it.
israel gets the last word because? because america never wants to address the reality for palestians living under the occupation. 32 people died 'including 13 children.'
this was terrorism. it wasn't palestinians doing the terrorism.
a woman named dr. mona (i don't know her last name) addressed the issue of all the various sanctions that keep needed medical supplies out of the occupied territories.
michael ratner (of the center for constitutional rights and 1 of 4 hosts of law and disorder) discussed the death of the 3 guantanamo prisoners. 2 were saudi and 1 was yemen. 1 was on a hunger strike on and off since august. he talked about the force feeding torture and the u.s. claim that they only used if some 1 was near death. that was a lie. they did it to every 1 on a hunger strike.
the administration belongs in prison. every 1 of them. 'this is a human, moral, political outrage that is unspeakable.'
on the democrats, michael ratner noted their cowardly silence and said 'they're running like they've run from everything else.'
we wrote about this topic for sunday's third estate sunday review editorial and i don't think any 1 participating would deny that c.i. and elaine were more the most passionate about this topic. we all care about it, all find it outrageous and shameful. (and illegal.) but i'm amazed by both elaine & c.i.'s knowledge on this and by their passion.
this morning's entry, the 2nd 1, at the common ills, i read that and, granted i know c.i., i knew there was nothing more to say on c.i.'s end. it is disgusting.
c.i. compared the democrats actions to elvis costello's 'little triggers' and it really is. this are silent shots, they shoot with silence, they kill with silence because the democrats have been too cowardly to stand up on this issue.
i also think, and the editorial makes this point, that it's all interrelated to the other actions. the same we-are-above-the-law attitude operates on every level from the illegal spying on american citizens, to their tax lies, to the lies that sold the war on iraq.
we have crooks & criminals running this country and the democrats are going to stand by and wait until the public figures it out. when they do, and they are firm in it, the democrats will suddenly pipe up. the nation is dying because bully boy is killing it, the democrats are standing by watching in silence.
so that's flashpoints for tonight and, like i said, i want to get back to katha pollitt and finish the book.
6/10/2006
did you get the memo?
did you get the memo?
time to rally the troops to once again save npr/pbs.
save npr?
wasn't the mc-millions supposed to do that?
and on those mc-millions, in a decade or 2 will people look at that money the way people now see donations from big tobacco?
regardless, the seasons are changing, the dems are telling us, again, they'll save us. funny how they couldn't talk that talk during the alito confirmation hearings.
but now they'll save us.
thanks, i'll save myself.
how about dems just try to do your damn job?
that would be wonderful.
but it's time to save pbs and npr.
i'm looking at countless e-mails on that and wondering why they bother to send this to me?
i'm all for serious issues.
npr?
pbs?
pbs. i have satellite tv. i don't need public television.
before you say 'well you rude, rich bitch," who does need pbs?
people who can't afford cable and satellite could have a few more viewing options with pbs.
but pbs doesn't give a damn about those people. it's still not moved to digital (how much money have they wasted on that move anyway?) but that is the plan. get out of broadcast, move to digital.
take the 'public' (even more so) out of public television.
i'm supposed to save a corporation that doesn't give a damn about the people who need them the most?
i've got sundance. i've got a million channels. i did watch the barbra streisand special. (fly boy also bought me the boxed set of all the specials.) that's about the only thing i've HAD to see on pbs in years.
so i'll take a pass (again) on pbs.
i'll take a pass on npr which is possibly more useless than pbs. national petroleum radio is what dennis bernstein likes to dub them (and did so friday on ). it's a wonderful point.
there is no public in npr or pbs.
but we're all supposed to rally around and save them again so they can stab the people in the back again.
gina & krista did a poll of the community (noted here with permission) and if this effects pacifica, we'll care. it probably doesn't. (if it does, we'll hear about it and join the fight.) pacifica doesn't get the funds that npr does from the government because pacifica won't agree to the censorship that npr regularly does.
want to save public radio? don't e-mail your congress members about npr or pbs. use the time to grab a person, sit them down and get them to listen to pacifica. they'll end up aware that there is an alaternative. get the word out.
1 out of 10 listeners contribute, i believe that's the figure. it would be wonderful if every 1 could contribute (fly boy and i did in the latest round) but every 1 can't. that's reality. those who can need to do so for their own listening pleasure and because others can't. increasing the number of listeners around the world increases the chances that more people can contribute.
so do something useful, get the word out on pacifica.
the not so fresh air of terry gross won't be missed. boo hoo for terry 'all i did was ask.' yes dear, but whom did you ask, whom? not any 1 that could talk about the war in a realistic manner. terry thinks realism comes via dexter filkins of the new york times. three years into the war and the anti-war movement remains invisible on what is supposed to be national public radio with the exception of a report or two or three on cindy sheehan. terry gross can probe in mind numbing detail how a craftsman (and they're usually always 'men') came to see driftwood as the perfect medium to express himself in, she just can't address anything that effects our lives.
steve and renee might have to get real jobs. cokie might have to do a few more corporate convention speeches. every 1 will live. if times get hard for them, good. they might be forced to reconsider their own actions when they pushed the stock market as a way of covering labor issues. they might have to think, 'i wouldn't be existing on ramen noodles right now if only i'd said "this is crap, people are having hard times, we need to report it!" ' they never would. they can't.
they try to sell the idea that they have an upscale audience. brings in the corporate underwriting. (never raising unplesant issues keeps the corporate underwriting.)
we've got 2 wars waging right now. i really don't have time to try to fish crap out of a toilet yet again which is how i see npr and pbs.
let 'em die if they can't survive on their own.
how many millions did they give newt? bill bennett?
they always have money for that. they always have money for everything but the people.
they can kiss my ass.
they're crap and we kid ourselves each cycle that we'll save them and they'll appreciate it.
they don't.
i advocate that every 1 sit this 1 out.
let pbs and npr realize what happens when the natural audience they have betrayed sits it out.
let them work to get us back.
they were never 'left.' they were attempting to provide a better job representing the public. those days are gone.
i think it's past time people quit kidding themselves that any of their efforts to save funding in the past were appreciated.
nothing changes.
they won't even fire mara liar liason even though she regularly breaks every ethic and code of her profession. if that was a leftist going on about republicans, she would have been told 'you are a reporter, not a columnist - you can't work here and do that pundit gig anymore.' but she's a right winger, who reportedly assured roger ailes she was a republican before she started appearing on fox 'news' - so every 1 looks the other way when she all but calls for the heads of congress members on charges of treason.
you want to fight to save that, you go right ahead.
but there are serious battles to be fought.
this isn't 1 of them.
let them fight to save their own damn ass for a change.
let them see how far that gets them.
when they finally face a real cut, a deep 1, that can't be restored, maybe they'll learn to appreciate the audience?
until that happens, screw them.
maybe you can use the time to protest the war, protest the war on women, protest any number of REAL issues. or maybe you can just use the time to take a moment to relax?
zoing out in front of the tv is more productive than attempting to 'save' a so-called friend.
npr and pbs are a spouse that you repeatedly catch cheating.
now hillary would forgive that.
but is hillary clinton now the standard for the left?
i hope not.
be sure to read c.i.'s "NYT: Everybody wants to be a war pornographer" and "Other Items (Robert Jay Lifton on Democracy Now)" - they are amazing.
time to rally the troops to once again save npr/pbs.
save npr?
wasn't the mc-millions supposed to do that?
and on those mc-millions, in a decade or 2 will people look at that money the way people now see donations from big tobacco?
regardless, the seasons are changing, the dems are telling us, again, they'll save us. funny how they couldn't talk that talk during the alito confirmation hearings.
but now they'll save us.
thanks, i'll save myself.
how about dems just try to do your damn job?
that would be wonderful.
but it's time to save pbs and npr.
i'm looking at countless e-mails on that and wondering why they bother to send this to me?
i'm all for serious issues.
npr?
pbs?
pbs. i have satellite tv. i don't need public television.
before you say 'well you rude, rich bitch," who does need pbs?
people who can't afford cable and satellite could have a few more viewing options with pbs.
but pbs doesn't give a damn about those people. it's still not moved to digital (how much money have they wasted on that move anyway?) but that is the plan. get out of broadcast, move to digital.
take the 'public' (even more so) out of public television.
i'm supposed to save a corporation that doesn't give a damn about the people who need them the most?
i've got sundance. i've got a million channels. i did watch the barbra streisand special. (fly boy also bought me the boxed set of all the specials.) that's about the only thing i've HAD to see on pbs in years.
so i'll take a pass (again) on pbs.
i'll take a pass on npr which is possibly more useless than pbs. national petroleum radio is what dennis bernstein likes to dub them (and did so friday on ). it's a wonderful point.
there is no public in npr or pbs.
but we're all supposed to rally around and save them again so they can stab the people in the back again.
gina & krista did a poll of the community (noted here with permission) and if this effects pacifica, we'll care. it probably doesn't. (if it does, we'll hear about it and join the fight.) pacifica doesn't get the funds that npr does from the government because pacifica won't agree to the censorship that npr regularly does.
want to save public radio? don't e-mail your congress members about npr or pbs. use the time to grab a person, sit them down and get them to listen to pacifica. they'll end up aware that there is an alaternative. get the word out.
1 out of 10 listeners contribute, i believe that's the figure. it would be wonderful if every 1 could contribute (fly boy and i did in the latest round) but every 1 can't. that's reality. those who can need to do so for their own listening pleasure and because others can't. increasing the number of listeners around the world increases the chances that more people can contribute.
so do something useful, get the word out on pacifica.
the not so fresh air of terry gross won't be missed. boo hoo for terry 'all i did was ask.' yes dear, but whom did you ask, whom? not any 1 that could talk about the war in a realistic manner. terry thinks realism comes via dexter filkins of the new york times. three years into the war and the anti-war movement remains invisible on what is supposed to be national public radio with the exception of a report or two or three on cindy sheehan. terry gross can probe in mind numbing detail how a craftsman (and they're usually always 'men') came to see driftwood as the perfect medium to express himself in, she just can't address anything that effects our lives.
steve and renee might have to get real jobs. cokie might have to do a few more corporate convention speeches. every 1 will live. if times get hard for them, good. they might be forced to reconsider their own actions when they pushed the stock market as a way of covering labor issues. they might have to think, 'i wouldn't be existing on ramen noodles right now if only i'd said "this is crap, people are having hard times, we need to report it!" ' they never would. they can't.
they try to sell the idea that they have an upscale audience. brings in the corporate underwriting. (never raising unplesant issues keeps the corporate underwriting.)
we've got 2 wars waging right now. i really don't have time to try to fish crap out of a toilet yet again which is how i see npr and pbs.
let 'em die if they can't survive on their own.
how many millions did they give newt? bill bennett?
they always have money for that. they always have money for everything but the people.
they can kiss my ass.
they're crap and we kid ourselves each cycle that we'll save them and they'll appreciate it.
they don't.
i advocate that every 1 sit this 1 out.
let pbs and npr realize what happens when the natural audience they have betrayed sits it out.
let them work to get us back.
they were never 'left.' they were attempting to provide a better job representing the public. those days are gone.
i think it's past time people quit kidding themselves that any of their efforts to save funding in the past were appreciated.
nothing changes.
they won't even fire mara liar liason even though she regularly breaks every ethic and code of her profession. if that was a leftist going on about republicans, she would have been told 'you are a reporter, not a columnist - you can't work here and do that pundit gig anymore.' but she's a right winger, who reportedly assured roger ailes she was a republican before she started appearing on fox 'news' - so every 1 looks the other way when she all but calls for the heads of congress members on charges of treason.
you want to fight to save that, you go right ahead.
but there are serious battles to be fought.
this isn't 1 of them.
let them fight to save their own damn ass for a change.
let them see how far that gets them.
when they finally face a real cut, a deep 1, that can't be restored, maybe they'll learn to appreciate the audience?
until that happens, screw them.
maybe you can use the time to protest the war, protest the war on women, protest any number of REAL issues. or maybe you can just use the time to take a moment to relax?
zoing out in front of the tv is more productive than attempting to 'save' a so-called friend.
npr and pbs are a spouse that you repeatedly catch cheating.
now hillary would forgive that.
but is hillary clinton now the standard for the left?
i hope not.
be sure to read c.i.'s "NYT: Everybody wants to be a war pornographer" and "Other Items (Robert Jay Lifton on Democracy Now)" - they are amazing.
6/08/2006
flashpoints (dahr jamail was a guest)
i'm covering flashpoints tonight and that's it. it's actually past the time i had said i would forget about blogging if blogger/blogspot wasn't up. but mike called and said it was up. i'll keep it short in case it goes down again.
flashpoints. bradley wrote and he's a huge fan of flashpoints. i am too. but i'm not going to cover every minute of the show. i write about what stands out to me and what i'm in the mood to write about. i don't do requests.
so here's what stood out to me on flashpoints.
the knight report. i really enjoy that feature. it covers a ton of material and it's too much for me to cover. here's what robert knight covered tonight: zarqawi and how's he's been 'dead' before.
robert knight ran it all down regarding 'the latest in a series of death reports' about the 'bruised but remarkably preserved corpse' since the house was 'vaporized' in 'the u.s. strike.'
he noted that 'almost exactly a year ago . .. june 2, 2005,' it was announced 'he was killed and buried in falluja.' 'before that death . . . in march of 2004 [it was] reported that he was killed . . .' 'a year later, in may of 2005 . . . claimed that zarqawi was killed yet again . . . during . . . operation matador' 'In september of last year, yet another death report . . .' 'but in november . . . november 20, 2005 . . . was killed . . .'
nora (who may be norah, i'm still learning names) made a point that few in the media had when she addressed the issue: 'alleged al Quada leader.'
she spoke with the one & only dahr jamail and asked him about the timing of this "news"?
the timing?
'i think that is really the most important of the issues. the fact that haditha was getting the attention it fianlly deserved . . . more and more was coming out . . . the damn had finally broke . ..' but now it's out the window. It 'couldn't have come at more convenient time for' the american administration. dahr pointed out that it was knocking everything else out of the news cycle.
on the subject of rumsfeld naming number of dead that zarqawi is allegedly responsible for, dahr said 'in my opinion over 250, 000 Iraqis have died as a result of this illegal invasion/occupation.'
the displaying of zarqawi's photos reminded him of the person put up on the screen (in 1984) for the 'hate time.' he wondered, 'who will we blame the catastrophe of iraq on now?'
then he spoke of when saddam hussein was arrested and the reaction he heard from iraqis,
'well is capturing saddam going to get me more electricty . . . is it going to get me a job' - a long list.
what's next?
'the level or propaganda I think will only continue to increase . . . . i think we should continue to expect more propaganda . . .'
he noted that the way "reporters" are "reporting" 'they're leaving the door open to that path' of connecting iraq to al qaeda to osama.
nora wondered what was happening that they wouldn't hear about and dahr said that truth would be the victim.
he noted that we'd probably not here about a lot of things: 'women's right in Iraq . . they've gone back at least a 100 years. . . . when are we going to start hearing about collective punishment' by the u.s. military.
he noted ramadi and called it 'the key event' comparing it to falluja in april of 2004 and noting that the city was already surrounded, snipers in place, etc.
he and nora then discussed the 2 500-pound bombs and who was killed by them. he noted he hadn't heard a thing about civilian casulities. he noted that it was 'the equivalent of a small car bomb. . . . without a doubt there were civilian casulities'
dennis then conducted an interview with a guest who pointed out that zarqawi was brought to iraq by the occupation, a product of the occupation. this isn't a victory for freedom, it's a symptom of the occupation.
he saw the announcement on tv at midnight and saw the prime minister surrounded by americans to make the announcement. he wondered of the puppet government, 'what kind of a government is that? . . . he's surrounded by the americans on the right and on the left . . . this is a puppet government.'
so that was flashpoints. i hope you listened. if you missed it, you can hear it at kpfa or at flashpoints - both archive.
i'm going to throw in c.i.'s iraq snapshot but i also want to note that c.i. was all over this zarqawi nonsense from the first thing this morning.
Iraq snapshot.
al-Zarqawi is dead. Maybe. As **Sandra Lupien noted**, this is the second "death" of al-Zarqawi, according to the US government ("Earlier this year the military thought it had killed Zarqawi in another operation but later announced it had been mistaken."). Also noted by Goodman was Thomas E. Ricks "Military Plays Up Role of Zarqawi: Jordian Painted As Foreign Threat To Iraq's Stability" (Washington Post). In that article, Ricks wrote of "a propaganda campaign" run by the US military "to magnify the role of the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq." Andrew Marshall (Reuters) notes that "the Zarqawi myth" was fed by "U.S. forces" despite the fact that "[m]ost experts believe his foreign fighters make up only a fraction of the insurgency". The Financial Times of London is calling it "one of the biggest propaganda coup's for the US since the capture of Saddam Hussein in 2003."
Brian Whitaker (Guardian of London) notes the build up "by the US and sections of the media . . . [to turn al-Zarqawi] into the main bogeyman, but the war, or civil war as it is increaingly regarded, has a momentum of its own." Whitaker goes on to note the daily deaths of "[d]ozens of ordinary people" in Iraq including the targeting of ice vendors. Jonathan Wright (Reuters) reports that news of the death has resulted "in deep splits on Thursday" among Arabs outside of Iraq and quotes Arab analysts including Diaa Rashwan ("expert on Islamist groups at the al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo") saying, "Zarqawi in recent times did not represent an important element in violent operations on the ground in Iraq. Other groups which are not extreme, resistance groups not terrorist groups, have grown in strength."
The military strike which may or may not have killed al-Zarqawi involved "[t]wo F-16 warplanes [which] dropped two 500-pound bombs" on the area (China's People Daily). Reuters' Hilmy Kamal reports from that area and is told by a teenager there, "The Americans have a habit of bombing places and then claiming Zarqawi or others were there." Kamal notes that residents are "sceptical" of the claim that al-Zarqawi was there. On KPFA's The Morning Show, Sandra Lupien noted that the US military "called the operation a precision airstrike," that a woman and child died in the attack and that among the rubble/ruins of the attack were "a child's sandal" and "a backpack with a teddy bear on it." The Financial Times notes that "Television pictures of the site of the raid on the village of Hibhib showed an extensive area of destruction and a US Centcom official confirmed to al-Jazeera television that not all the casualties inflicted during the raid were inside the house targetted." KUNA reports that UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan was asked about the reported killing in terms of whether or not it would be a violation of the Geneva Convention and he responded he didn't think so, "if indeed he is the one who has been killed, has been at war, in a fight. I don't think you can equate it to targeted assassinations of the kind we have seen elsewhere."
Brian Conley notes that Al Jazeera was attempting to interview Zarqawi's brother in law Abu Qudama but the interview was stopped, Abu Qudama "was arrested by Jordanian police. Just before he was arrested he was denouncing members of the press for not always speaking truth about his brother-in-law, making him into an evil man, and not just a fighter for god." Conley notes that "at least one Al-Jazeera correspondent" was arrested as well.
Meanwhile the BBC reports that two posts have been filled in occupation puppet and Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki. Actually, three posts were (finally) filled as the Guardian reports: "General Abdul-Qadre Mohammed Jassim, a Sunni Arab, . . . named as the new defence minister . . . Jawad al-Bolani named as the interior minister and Sherwan al-Waili as national security minister" (both al-Bolani and al-Waili are "Shia Muslims"). This comes after many missed deadlines that al-Maliki set for himself as well as seventeen days after the constitutional deadline of May 22nd.
The Associated Press reports on the bombs in the Baghadad that killed "at least 19 people . . . wounding more than 40." The bombs went off at in a section known as New Baghdad. Ignoring this and other realities allows Sally Buzbee (Associated Press) to declare Thursday "good news Thursday" indicating that possibly she's auditioning for a TV chat gig since such a statement has little resemblance to reporting. (In one of her most non-reporting remarks, she concludes of al-Maliki: "Thursday's events just made clear he's bound and determined to jump in and try." Well Yippee-ki-yay, Cowgirl!)
What Iraq was she speaking of? Along with the bombing noted already, Reuters reports thirteen were wounded from a bomb "planted inside a building" in Baghdad, that four corpses were discovered, that police announced today that (yesterday) Ahmed Kurdi ("judge of Dujail court") had been kidnapped . . . Fredrik Dahl (Reuters) reports that: "Gunmen shot and seriously wounded a senior Defence Ministry official . . . General Khalil al-Ibadi, in charge of food supplies for the armed forces, and his driver . . ."
This as the BBC reports that the British Ministry of Defence is investigating the death of a thirteen-year-old boy. As noted yesterday, "The Associated Press reports that British soldiers fired on civilians and did so because 100 people (presumably adults) were stoning them, Iraqi police say that the "people" were children and that a thirteen-year-old boy was killed and a twelve-year-old girl was wounded." A spokesman acknowledges to the BBC that they "are aware of reports that a 13-year-old has been killed" and states that British troops "reported that two teenage boys had been hit."
Finally, Terri Judd reports on the continued deterioration for women in Iraq. Noting that Iraq was "once the envy of women across the Middle East," Judd offers a look at the new realities which include women's heads being forcibly shaved after they refuse to "refuse to wear a scarf," being "stoned in the street for wearing make-up," being nothing but tokens who make up "25 per cent of Iraq's Provincial Council" . . . On the last item, Judd notes that women's faces are "blacked out" with the slogan "No women in politics" on "[p]osters around the city" and that women serving on the council have been told "you don't know anything" so "they just agreed to sign whatever they were told."
democracy now
amy goodman
the common ills
iraq
kpfa
the morning show
sandra lupien
the washington post
thomas e. rick
brian conley
dahr jamail
mikey likes it
flashpoints
flashpoints. bradley wrote and he's a huge fan of flashpoints. i am too. but i'm not going to cover every minute of the show. i write about what stands out to me and what i'm in the mood to write about. i don't do requests.
so here's what stood out to me on flashpoints.
the knight report. i really enjoy that feature. it covers a ton of material and it's too much for me to cover. here's what robert knight covered tonight: zarqawi and how's he's been 'dead' before.
robert knight ran it all down regarding 'the latest in a series of death reports' about the 'bruised but remarkably preserved corpse' since the house was 'vaporized' in 'the u.s. strike.'
he noted that 'almost exactly a year ago . .. june 2, 2005,' it was announced 'he was killed and buried in falluja.' 'before that death . . . in march of 2004 [it was] reported that he was killed . . .' 'a year later, in may of 2005 . . . claimed that zarqawi was killed yet again . . . during . . . operation matador' 'In september of last year, yet another death report . . .' 'but in november . . . november 20, 2005 . . . was killed . . .'
nora (who may be norah, i'm still learning names) made a point that few in the media had when she addressed the issue: 'alleged al Quada leader.'
she spoke with the one & only dahr jamail and asked him about the timing of this "news"?
the timing?
'i think that is really the most important of the issues. the fact that haditha was getting the attention it fianlly deserved . . . more and more was coming out . . . the damn had finally broke . ..' but now it's out the window. It 'couldn't have come at more convenient time for' the american administration. dahr pointed out that it was knocking everything else out of the news cycle.
on the subject of rumsfeld naming number of dead that zarqawi is allegedly responsible for, dahr said 'in my opinion over 250, 000 Iraqis have died as a result of this illegal invasion/occupation.'
the displaying of zarqawi's photos reminded him of the person put up on the screen (in 1984) for the 'hate time.' he wondered, 'who will we blame the catastrophe of iraq on now?'
then he spoke of when saddam hussein was arrested and the reaction he heard from iraqis,
'well is capturing saddam going to get me more electricty . . . is it going to get me a job' - a long list.
what's next?
'the level or propaganda I think will only continue to increase . . . . i think we should continue to expect more propaganda . . .'
he noted that the way "reporters" are "reporting" 'they're leaving the door open to that path' of connecting iraq to al qaeda to osama.
nora wondered what was happening that they wouldn't hear about and dahr said that truth would be the victim.
he noted that we'd probably not here about a lot of things: 'women's right in Iraq . . they've gone back at least a 100 years. . . . when are we going to start hearing about collective punishment' by the u.s. military.
he noted ramadi and called it 'the key event' comparing it to falluja in april of 2004 and noting that the city was already surrounded, snipers in place, etc.
he and nora then discussed the 2 500-pound bombs and who was killed by them. he noted he hadn't heard a thing about civilian casulities. he noted that it was 'the equivalent of a small car bomb. . . . without a doubt there were civilian casulities'
dennis then conducted an interview with a guest who pointed out that zarqawi was brought to iraq by the occupation, a product of the occupation. this isn't a victory for freedom, it's a symptom of the occupation.
he saw the announcement on tv at midnight and saw the prime minister surrounded by americans to make the announcement. he wondered of the puppet government, 'what kind of a government is that? . . . he's surrounded by the americans on the right and on the left . . . this is a puppet government.'
so that was flashpoints. i hope you listened. if you missed it, you can hear it at kpfa or at flashpoints - both archive.
i'm going to throw in c.i.'s iraq snapshot but i also want to note that c.i. was all over this zarqawi nonsense from the first thing this morning.
Iraq snapshot.
al-Zarqawi is dead. Maybe. As **Sandra Lupien noted**, this is the second "death" of al-Zarqawi, according to the US government ("Earlier this year the military thought it had killed Zarqawi in another operation but later announced it had been mistaken."). Also noted by Goodman was Thomas E. Ricks "Military Plays Up Role of Zarqawi: Jordian Painted As Foreign Threat To Iraq's Stability" (Washington Post). In that article, Ricks wrote of "a propaganda campaign" run by the US military "to magnify the role of the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq." Andrew Marshall (Reuters) notes that "the Zarqawi myth" was fed by "U.S. forces" despite the fact that "[m]ost experts believe his foreign fighters make up only a fraction of the insurgency". The Financial Times of London is calling it "one of the biggest propaganda coup's for the US since the capture of Saddam Hussein in 2003."
Brian Whitaker (Guardian of London) notes the build up "by the US and sections of the media . . . [to turn al-Zarqawi] into the main bogeyman, but the war, or civil war as it is increaingly regarded, has a momentum of its own." Whitaker goes on to note the daily deaths of "[d]ozens of ordinary people" in Iraq including the targeting of ice vendors. Jonathan Wright (Reuters) reports that news of the death has resulted "in deep splits on Thursday" among Arabs outside of Iraq and quotes Arab analysts including Diaa Rashwan ("expert on Islamist groups at the al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo") saying, "Zarqawi in recent times did not represent an important element in violent operations on the ground in Iraq. Other groups which are not extreme, resistance groups not terrorist groups, have grown in strength."
The military strike which may or may not have killed al-Zarqawi involved "[t]wo F-16 warplanes [which] dropped two 500-pound bombs" on the area (China's People Daily). Reuters' Hilmy Kamal reports from that area and is told by a teenager there, "The Americans have a habit of bombing places and then claiming Zarqawi or others were there." Kamal notes that residents are "sceptical" of the claim that al-Zarqawi was there. On KPFA's The Morning Show, Sandra Lupien noted that the US military "called the operation a precision airstrike," that a woman and child died in the attack and that among the rubble/ruins of the attack were "a child's sandal" and "a backpack with a teddy bear on it." The Financial Times notes that "Television pictures of the site of the raid on the village of Hibhib showed an extensive area of destruction and a US Centcom official confirmed to al-Jazeera television that not all the casualties inflicted during the raid were inside the house targetted." KUNA reports that UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan was asked about the reported killing in terms of whether or not it would be a violation of the Geneva Convention and he responded he didn't think so, "if indeed he is the one who has been killed, has been at war, in a fight. I don't think you can equate it to targeted assassinations of the kind we have seen elsewhere."
Brian Conley notes that Al Jazeera was attempting to interview Zarqawi's brother in law Abu Qudama but the interview was stopped, Abu Qudama "was arrested by Jordanian police. Just before he was arrested he was denouncing members of the press for not always speaking truth about his brother-in-law, making him into an evil man, and not just a fighter for god." Conley notes that "at least one Al-Jazeera correspondent" was arrested as well.
Meanwhile the BBC reports that two posts have been filled in occupation puppet and Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki. Actually, three posts were (finally) filled as the Guardian reports: "General Abdul-Qadre Mohammed Jassim, a Sunni Arab, . . . named as the new defence minister . . . Jawad al-Bolani named as the interior minister and Sherwan al-Waili as national security minister" (both al-Bolani and al-Waili are "Shia Muslims"). This comes after many missed deadlines that al-Maliki set for himself as well as seventeen days after the constitutional deadline of May 22nd.
The Associated Press reports on the bombs in the Baghadad that killed "at least 19 people . . . wounding more than 40." The bombs went off at in a section known as New Baghdad. Ignoring this and other realities allows Sally Buzbee (Associated Press) to declare Thursday "good news Thursday" indicating that possibly she's auditioning for a TV chat gig since such a statement has little resemblance to reporting. (In one of her most non-reporting remarks, she concludes of al-Maliki: "Thursday's events just made clear he's bound and determined to jump in and try." Well Yippee-ki-yay, Cowgirl!)
What Iraq was she speaking of? Along with the bombing noted already, Reuters reports thirteen were wounded from a bomb "planted inside a building" in Baghdad, that four corpses were discovered, that police announced today that (yesterday) Ahmed Kurdi ("judge of Dujail court") had been kidnapped . . . Fredrik Dahl (Reuters) reports that: "Gunmen shot and seriously wounded a senior Defence Ministry official . . . General Khalil al-Ibadi, in charge of food supplies for the armed forces, and his driver . . ."
This as the BBC reports that the British Ministry of Defence is investigating the death of a thirteen-year-old boy. As noted yesterday, "The Associated Press reports that British soldiers fired on civilians and did so because 100 people (presumably adults) were stoning them, Iraqi police say that the "people" were children and that a thirteen-year-old boy was killed and a twelve-year-old girl was wounded." A spokesman acknowledges to the BBC that they "are aware of reports that a 13-year-old has been killed" and states that British troops "reported that two teenage boys had been hit."
Finally, Terri Judd reports on the continued deterioration for women in Iraq. Noting that Iraq was "once the envy of women across the Middle East," Judd offers a look at the new realities which include women's heads being forcibly shaved after they refuse to "refuse to wear a scarf," being "stoned in the street for wearing make-up," being nothing but tokens who make up "25 per cent of Iraq's Provincial Council" . . . On the last item, Judd notes that women's faces are "blacked out" with the slogan "No women in politics" on "[p]osters around the city" and that women serving on the council have been told "you don't know anything" so "they just agreed to sign whatever they were told."
democracy now
amy goodman
the common ills
iraq
kpfa
the morning show
sandra lupien
the washington post
thomas e. rick
brian conley
dahr jamail
mikey likes it
flashpoints
6/07/2006
stupid blogger/blogspot
blogger/blogspot is full of shit.
mike and elaine lost their posts. mike's on the phone now. i'm not wasting all night while they try to get their shit together.
remember a few weeks ago? they had time, they MADE time, to accuse me of being a robot.
for that, they have all the time in the world. to fix the damn problem they've had since monday? they don't have time for that.
i think we need to seriously consider pullling all our sites and going to a for-pay site where, presumably, you would get a response when THEY screw up. as opposed to the weak-ass apologies that are meaningless (which is all blogger/blogspot gives).
i've really had it with their nonsense.
Army Lt. Refuses Iraq Deployment
Meanwhile, a US army officer has announced he's refusing his deployment to Iraq slated for later this month. The officer, First Lt. Ehren Watada, says he first asked for permission to resign his position in January. He says he wrote: "I am whole-heartedly opposed to the continued war in Iraq, the deception used to wage this war, and the lawlessness that has pervaded every aspect of our civilian leadership." Lt. Watada is believed to be the first commissioned officer to refuse deployment to Iraq since the invasion. Simultaneous news conferences by his supporters are expected to be held today in his home state of Hawaii and in Olympia, Washington. Military officials told Watada he cannot attend the news conference because he is barred from speaking publicly about his case while on duty at the base.
on flashpoints tonight, they aired an interview with ehren watada. listen to that. it's real news. i'm not writing another word because blogger/blogspot will probably lose it.
people have lives. they don't need to spend an hour or more on a post just to have blogger/blogspot screw it up. and i've got a message now that 'could not connect to blogger.com. saving and publishing may fail.' so let me get this up while the message is gone.
i'm so sick of them. they can make me prove i'm not a robot but they can't do their own job.
mike and elaine lost their posts. mike's on the phone now. i'm not wasting all night while they try to get their shit together.
remember a few weeks ago? they had time, they MADE time, to accuse me of being a robot.
for that, they have all the time in the world. to fix the damn problem they've had since monday? they don't have time for that.
i think we need to seriously consider pullling all our sites and going to a for-pay site where, presumably, you would get a response when THEY screw up. as opposed to the weak-ass apologies that are meaningless (which is all blogger/blogspot gives).
i've really had it with their nonsense.
Army Lt. Refuses Iraq Deployment
Meanwhile, a US army officer has announced he's refusing his deployment to Iraq slated for later this month. The officer, First Lt. Ehren Watada, says he first asked for permission to resign his position in January. He says he wrote: "I am whole-heartedly opposed to the continued war in Iraq, the deception used to wage this war, and the lawlessness that has pervaded every aspect of our civilian leadership." Lt. Watada is believed to be the first commissioned officer to refuse deployment to Iraq since the invasion. Simultaneous news conferences by his supporters are expected to be held today in his home state of Hawaii and in Olympia, Washington. Military officials told Watada he cannot attend the news conference because he is barred from speaking publicly about his case while on duty at the base.
on flashpoints tonight, they aired an interview with ehren watada. listen to that. it's real news. i'm not writing another word because blogger/blogspot will probably lose it.
people have lives. they don't need to spend an hour or more on a post just to have blogger/blogspot screw it up. and i've got a message now that 'could not connect to blogger.com. saving and publishing may fail.' so let me get this up while the message is gone.
i'm so sick of them. they can make me prove i'm not a robot but they can't do their own job.
6/06/2006
immigrants, molly ivins, third estate sunday review
on flashpoints tonight, a wonderful point was made about ahnuld being all ready to support his bully boy by sending troops to the california-mexico border and ahnuld was talking about the 'exit strategy.' trying to be on top of his game, no doubt. but the point was made that you don't usually talk of 'exit strategies' for your own country. well maybe ahnuld was feeling a little home sick for austria? maybe we should build a wall to protect the u.s. from ahnuld? as long as bully boy's scapegoating immigrants, why not scapegoat them all! that's what i propose. scapegoat every 1. you, me, every 1 who's not 100% native american. (and i don't mean, by 'native american,' born in the united states.)
this latest wave of scapegoating comes as the united nations notes that over 191 million people around the world live outside of their country of birth. like the governator ahnuld.
molly ivins has a hilarious look at the truth of all bully boy's bluster on gay marriage, immigrants, flag burning and more. from 'Flag Burning and Other Dubious Epidemics:'
Gay marriage, now there's a crisis. Well, OK, so there isn't much gay marriage going on here in Texas. None, in fact. First, we made it illegal. Then, we made it unconstitutional. But President Bush is all concerned about it, so I guess we have to alter the U.S. Constitution.
Gus and Captain Call (of "Lonesome Dove" fame) will be an item--with who knows who waiting in line right after them.
Also of great concern to Republicans is God Almighty, who, rather to my surprise, has been elected chairman of the Texas Republican Party. That's what they announced at the biannual convention in San Antonio this week: "He is the chairman of the party." Sheesh, the Democrats couldn't even get Superman.
Also weighing down the nation with a heavy burden is the estate tax, which the Senate will try to repeal this week. The estate tax applies to around 1% of Americans, and I have yet to find any record of it costing anyone a family farm or business. It affects only very, very, very rich people, of whom you are probably not one. And they don’t, actually, need another tax break.
These are the things we are supposed to be worrying about, and you notice that it frees us of quite a few troubles we might otherwise fret about.
The war in Iraq? No sweat.
War with Iran? We're carefree.
The economy? Hey, did you see that employment report? Well, ignore it.
since elaine's post on the most recent edition for the third estate sunday review was lost, cedric asked me to note something about it if i had anything to note. what i talked to elaine about was mainly the fact that c.i. and dona started the week having to clean up the mess that was the news roundup and both didn't get to sleep on monday morning until after the sun came up. then there was the roundtable friday/saturday. i just felt like 4 hours was too much to try to force a short story (that never came). i was for trying for about an hour and a half, maybe 2. but after 2 hours it was obvious that nothing was going to come of it and i was for ditching it then. but both dona and c.i. had sunday plans and having done so much at the start of the week, they really didn't need to sit around and wait for every 1 to grasp that there was no short story there when we could have been busy writing other things.
that's it from me. be sure to read 'TV: TESR Investigates.' (i may cover the edition again tomorrow night.)
this latest wave of scapegoating comes as the united nations notes that over 191 million people around the world live outside of their country of birth. like the governator ahnuld.
molly ivins has a hilarious look at the truth of all bully boy's bluster on gay marriage, immigrants, flag burning and more. from 'Flag Burning and Other Dubious Epidemics:'
Gay marriage, now there's a crisis. Well, OK, so there isn't much gay marriage going on here in Texas. None, in fact. First, we made it illegal. Then, we made it unconstitutional. But President Bush is all concerned about it, so I guess we have to alter the U.S. Constitution.
Gus and Captain Call (of "Lonesome Dove" fame) will be an item--with who knows who waiting in line right after them.
Also of great concern to Republicans is God Almighty, who, rather to my surprise, has been elected chairman of the Texas Republican Party. That's what they announced at the biannual convention in San Antonio this week: "He is the chairman of the party." Sheesh, the Democrats couldn't even get Superman.
Also weighing down the nation with a heavy burden is the estate tax, which the Senate will try to repeal this week. The estate tax applies to around 1% of Americans, and I have yet to find any record of it costing anyone a family farm or business. It affects only very, very, very rich people, of whom you are probably not one. And they don’t, actually, need another tax break.
These are the things we are supposed to be worrying about, and you notice that it frees us of quite a few troubles we might otherwise fret about.
The war in Iraq? No sweat.
War with Iran? We're carefree.
The economy? Hey, did you see that employment report? Well, ignore it.
since elaine's post on the most recent edition for the third estate sunday review was lost, cedric asked me to note something about it if i had anything to note. what i talked to elaine about was mainly the fact that c.i. and dona started the week having to clean up the mess that was the news roundup and both didn't get to sleep on monday morning until after the sun came up. then there was the roundtable friday/saturday. i just felt like 4 hours was too much to try to force a short story (that never came). i was for trying for about an hour and a half, maybe 2. but after 2 hours it was obvious that nothing was going to come of it and i was for ditching it then. but both dona and c.i. had sunday plans and having done so much at the start of the week, they really didn't need to sit around and wait for every 1 to grasp that there was no short story there when we could have been busy writing other things.
that's it from me. be sure to read 'TV: TESR Investigates.' (i may cover the edition again tomorrow night.)
6/05/2006
blogger's acting nutsy tonight so short post
elaine just called and is upset. why? blogger/blogspot (which rarely fixes any of its problems and never responds to e-mails) just lost her entire post.
this wasn't a normal post. she spent at least two hours talking to people for this post. she wrote 12 paragraphs based on the conversations. (and this was about the latest third estate sunday review so she was also present for the ordeal that was this edition.) and then? she covered three items from democracy now, covered janet coleman's cat radio cafe, noted two other details about iraq and goes to publish only to find the dumb ass blogger/blogspot has lost her post. she gets 'page cannot be displayed.'
she is so mad right now. i don't blame her. four hours working on a post? c.i. can do that but i don't know that any of us do that ourselves at our own sites (i'm not talking about group efforts).
i'm not going to post long because mike just called and said he went to publish and he's having problems too. he's got his post on his end. he can see it's not lost. but when he goes to publish it, blogger/blogspot gets hung up and it won't publish. so with both of them having problems, i'm not going to invest much in this post.
i will note that dennis bernstein interviewed greg palast on flashpoints tonight and that palast's book armed madhouse comes out tomorrow. there was also a report on the upcoming mexico elections and how the zapatistas are considering a day of protest on july 2nd (that's the day of the election) because the 3 parties refuse to recognize and represent the people of the countryside.
read ava and c.i.'s 'TV: TESR Investigates' it's hilarious. and if you are reading this on a monday night, consider yourself lucky. i saved after 'hilarious' and had no problem. (mike said to save every few paragraphs after what just happened to elaine - and as usal blogger/blogspots 'recover post' option is a sick joke that never works.) but i then thought i'd see if it would publish. if it did, i'd come back in and add some more. but it wouldn't publish.
usually, when there's a problem you get a 'test connection' now message, you click on it and blogger tells you whether or not it can connect. that's not happened but there's some screwy problem. oh, if you don't see entries tomorrow morning at the common ills, check the mirror site because if this problem continues and is universal, it may prevent posting tomorrow morning. (i'll call c.i. in a bit to give a warning.)
i'll note this by c.i. because it's worth noting and elaine was upset that she didn't have time to at least copy and paste this:
Iraq snapshot. As Amy Goodman noted, more than 85 people died from violence in Iraq over the weekend. In Baghdad today, 'commandos' raided bus stations kidnapping "at least 50 people," the Associated Press reports. The AFP notes that Major General Rashid Fulayah "contradicted earlier reports that the operation was officially sanctioned." The assailants wore "commando uniforms" and were originally thought to be part of the police commandos (militias) -- Rashid Fulayah is the "commander of the police commandos in Baghdad." Both Sandra Lupien (on KPFA's The Morning Show) and Reuters noted that 'commando' initiated kidnappings were seen as coordinated.
Also in Baghdad, the AFP reports that eleven students were killed by assailants who stopped their bus and "riddled it with bullets." Two brothers traveling to college were also gunned down in a separate attack reports CBS and AP. In a separate report, AP notes the two Sunni brothers' names were Ahmed and Arkan Sarhan and that they "were in their early 20s." Reuters reports that "the head of the local municipal council" Ghalib Ali Abdullah and his driver were killed by assailants in Baghdad. And the Associated Press notes that assailants "in two cars" killed Kadim Falhi Hussein al-Saedi "near his home in western Baghdad."
In Ramadi, CBS and the AP report, artillery was fired by "U.S.-led forces" and the "the U.S.-Iraqi Joint Operations Center" states the targets were "four military-aged males unloading a weapons cache" while Dr. Omar al-Duleimi notes that "five civilians were killed and 15 wounded."
Speaking to the hosts of Law and Disorder on WBAI this morning, Anthony Arnove (author of IRAQ: The Logic of Withdrawal) noted of the illegal occupation, "The longer the US stays the worse things will get . . . The United States has no right to be in Iraq. They used a series of lie [to wage an illegal war]. . . All those lies have now been exposed. . . . Every day the occupation is engaging in collective punishment of the Iraqi people."*
Throughout Iraq, corpses were found. In Suwayra, Reuters reports, four corpses ("stab wounds") were discovered "in the Tigris River." The AFP notes that seven corpses were discovered in Baghdad. The AP notes two of the corpses and that one "had been shot in the head" and the other was also shot in the head as well as the chest and was blindfolded.
Margaret Hassan was kidnapped in October of 2004 and assumed dead in November of 2004 (her body was never found -- her husband remains in Iraq until her body is found). Today, the BBC reports, Mustafa Salman al-Jubouri "has been jailed for life for his role in the abudction and murder of aid worker Margaret Hassan." Reuters notes that "[t]wo other defendents in the case were freed" and that "[m]ore than 200 foreigners and thousands of Iraqis have been kidnapped since U.S.-led forces invaded in 2003" and that "[m]ore than 40" of tose kidnapped were killed. Hassan, who had "British, Iraqi and Irish nationality," had been the "head of the Iraqi operation of the CARE International charity." In January of 2003, Hassan went to the United Nations and spoke with a number of people including UN Deputy Secretary-General Louise Frechette -- a visit she summarized on CNN as, "My message to the United Nations was . . . this is an impoverished nation over 12 years. They have not got what it takes to withstand a further crisis." Margaret Hassan met her husband Tahseen Ali Hassan in England and then moved to Iraq in 1972.
Though CARE played down her political stance, as her family notes, she "was vocally opposed to the war in Iraq." Speaking to Daniel McGrory (Times of London), her family blames the British government for Hassan's death noting "the refusal by the British Government to open a dialogue with the kidnappers." Her brother and three sisters revealed that the kidnappers had contacted Tahseen Ali Hassan repeatedly using his wife's cell phone, each time demanding a dialogue with the British Embassy for her relase; however, the British Embassy, according to Tahseen Ali Hassan, refused to contact the kidnappers (repeatedly refused, there were at least four calls and each one was passed on the British Embassy according to Hassan, the Times confirms the first call was passed on).
In the United States, CNN notes that Joe Biden called for Donald Rumsfeld (sec. of Defense, US) to step down as a rsult of the incidents in Haditha and the cover up. The senator appeared on NBC's Meet the Press and stated: "When you make serious mistakes, you step forward and you acknowledge them and you walk away. . . . [Rumsfeld] should be gone; he shouldn't be in his office tomorrow morning."
And Rumsfeld wasn't in his office Monday morning. Rumsfeld is in Vietnam. Sunday began a three day visit where he's meeting with "his Vietnamese counterpart Pham Van Tra."
CBS and the AP report that CBS reporter Kimberly Dozier will not be returning to the United States on Tuesday as had been expected. On May 29th, a roadside bomb in Baghdad injured Dozier and took the lives of Paul Douglas and James Brolan. In their joint story, CBS and the AP note: "Scores of journalists -- nearly 75 percent of them Iraqis -- have been injured, killed or kidnapped in Iraq since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion." Many are also missing including French cameraman Frederic Nerac who has been missing since March 22, 2003 and German cameraman Isam Hadi Muhsin Al-Shumary who has been missince August 15, 2004. Reporters Without Borders' places the figure for journalists and media assistants killed since the illegal 2003 invasion at 97. In addition Iraqi reporter Reem Zeid and Marwan Khazaal, who were kidnapped Feb. 1, 2006 remain missing as does Agence France-Presse's accountant Salah Jali al-Gharrawi who was kidnapped April 4, 2006. (All three kidnappings took place in Baghdad.) Reporters Without Borders has an online petition that they intend to deliver "to Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki to encourage him to do everything necessary to find them."
*Ruth read the Arnove quote used over the phone and will be covering Arnove's appearance in her next Ruth's Public Radio Report. (Thank you, Ruth.)
this wasn't a normal post. she spent at least two hours talking to people for this post. she wrote 12 paragraphs based on the conversations. (and this was about the latest third estate sunday review so she was also present for the ordeal that was this edition.) and then? she covered three items from democracy now, covered janet coleman's cat radio cafe, noted two other details about iraq and goes to publish only to find the dumb ass blogger/blogspot has lost her post. she gets 'page cannot be displayed.'
she is so mad right now. i don't blame her. four hours working on a post? c.i. can do that but i don't know that any of us do that ourselves at our own sites (i'm not talking about group efforts).
i'm not going to post long because mike just called and said he went to publish and he's having problems too. he's got his post on his end. he can see it's not lost. but when he goes to publish it, blogger/blogspot gets hung up and it won't publish. so with both of them having problems, i'm not going to invest much in this post.
i will note that dennis bernstein interviewed greg palast on flashpoints tonight and that palast's book armed madhouse comes out tomorrow. there was also a report on the upcoming mexico elections and how the zapatistas are considering a day of protest on july 2nd (that's the day of the election) because the 3 parties refuse to recognize and represent the people of the countryside.
read ava and c.i.'s 'TV: TESR Investigates' it's hilarious. and if you are reading this on a monday night, consider yourself lucky. i saved after 'hilarious' and had no problem. (mike said to save every few paragraphs after what just happened to elaine - and as usal blogger/blogspots 'recover post' option is a sick joke that never works.) but i then thought i'd see if it would publish. if it did, i'd come back in and add some more. but it wouldn't publish.
usually, when there's a problem you get a 'test connection' now message, you click on it and blogger tells you whether or not it can connect. that's not happened but there's some screwy problem. oh, if you don't see entries tomorrow morning at the common ills, check the mirror site because if this problem continues and is universal, it may prevent posting tomorrow morning. (i'll call c.i. in a bit to give a warning.)
i'll note this by c.i. because it's worth noting and elaine was upset that she didn't have time to at least copy and paste this:
Iraq snapshot. As Amy Goodman noted, more than 85 people died from violence in Iraq over the weekend. In Baghdad today, 'commandos' raided bus stations kidnapping "at least 50 people," the Associated Press reports. The AFP notes that Major General Rashid Fulayah "contradicted earlier reports that the operation was officially sanctioned." The assailants wore "commando uniforms" and were originally thought to be part of the police commandos (militias) -- Rashid Fulayah is the "commander of the police commandos in Baghdad." Both Sandra Lupien (on KPFA's The Morning Show) and Reuters noted that 'commando' initiated kidnappings were seen as coordinated.
Also in Baghdad, the AFP reports that eleven students were killed by assailants who stopped their bus and "riddled it with bullets." Two brothers traveling to college were also gunned down in a separate attack reports CBS and AP. In a separate report, AP notes the two Sunni brothers' names were Ahmed and Arkan Sarhan and that they "were in their early 20s." Reuters reports that "the head of the local municipal council" Ghalib Ali Abdullah and his driver were killed by assailants in Baghdad. And the Associated Press notes that assailants "in two cars" killed Kadim Falhi Hussein al-Saedi "near his home in western Baghdad."
In Ramadi, CBS and the AP report, artillery was fired by "U.S.-led forces" and the "the U.S.-Iraqi Joint Operations Center" states the targets were "four military-aged males unloading a weapons cache" while Dr. Omar al-Duleimi notes that "five civilians were killed and 15 wounded."
Speaking to the hosts of Law and Disorder on WBAI this morning, Anthony Arnove (author of IRAQ: The Logic of Withdrawal) noted of the illegal occupation, "The longer the US stays the worse things will get . . . The United States has no right to be in Iraq. They used a series of lie [to wage an illegal war]. . . All those lies have now been exposed. . . . Every day the occupation is engaging in collective punishment of the Iraqi people."*
Throughout Iraq, corpses were found. In Suwayra, Reuters reports, four corpses ("stab wounds") were discovered "in the Tigris River." The AFP notes that seven corpses were discovered in Baghdad. The AP notes two of the corpses and that one "had been shot in the head" and the other was also shot in the head as well as the chest and was blindfolded.
Margaret Hassan was kidnapped in October of 2004 and assumed dead in November of 2004 (her body was never found -- her husband remains in Iraq until her body is found). Today, the BBC reports, Mustafa Salman al-Jubouri "has been jailed for life for his role in the abudction and murder of aid worker Margaret Hassan." Reuters notes that "[t]wo other defendents in the case were freed" and that "[m]ore than 200 foreigners and thousands of Iraqis have been kidnapped since U.S.-led forces invaded in 2003" and that "[m]ore than 40" of tose kidnapped were killed. Hassan, who had "British, Iraqi and Irish nationality," had been the "head of the Iraqi operation of the CARE International charity." In January of 2003, Hassan went to the United Nations and spoke with a number of people including UN Deputy Secretary-General Louise Frechette -- a visit she summarized on CNN as, "My message to the United Nations was . . . this is an impoverished nation over 12 years. They have not got what it takes to withstand a further crisis." Margaret Hassan met her husband Tahseen Ali Hassan in England and then moved to Iraq in 1972.
Though CARE played down her political stance, as her family notes, she "was vocally opposed to the war in Iraq." Speaking to Daniel McGrory (Times of London), her family blames the British government for Hassan's death noting "the refusal by the British Government to open a dialogue with the kidnappers." Her brother and three sisters revealed that the kidnappers had contacted Tahseen Ali Hassan repeatedly using his wife's cell phone, each time demanding a dialogue with the British Embassy for her relase; however, the British Embassy, according to Tahseen Ali Hassan, refused to contact the kidnappers (repeatedly refused, there were at least four calls and each one was passed on the British Embassy according to Hassan, the Times confirms the first call was passed on).
In the United States, CNN notes that Joe Biden called for Donald Rumsfeld (sec. of Defense, US) to step down as a rsult of the incidents in Haditha and the cover up. The senator appeared on NBC's Meet the Press and stated: "When you make serious mistakes, you step forward and you acknowledge them and you walk away. . . . [Rumsfeld] should be gone; he shouldn't be in his office tomorrow morning."
And Rumsfeld wasn't in his office Monday morning. Rumsfeld is in Vietnam. Sunday began a three day visit where he's meeting with "his Vietnamese counterpart Pham Van Tra."
CBS and the AP report that CBS reporter Kimberly Dozier will not be returning to the United States on Tuesday as had been expected. On May 29th, a roadside bomb in Baghdad injured Dozier and took the lives of Paul Douglas and James Brolan. In their joint story, CBS and the AP note: "Scores of journalists -- nearly 75 percent of them Iraqis -- have been injured, killed or kidnapped in Iraq since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion." Many are also missing including French cameraman Frederic Nerac who has been missing since March 22, 2003 and German cameraman Isam Hadi Muhsin Al-Shumary who has been missince August 15, 2004. Reporters Without Borders' places the figure for journalists and media assistants killed since the illegal 2003 invasion at 97. In addition Iraqi reporter Reem Zeid and Marwan Khazaal, who were kidnapped Feb. 1, 2006 remain missing as does Agence France-Presse's accountant Salah Jali al-Gharrawi who was kidnapped April 4, 2006. (All three kidnappings took place in Baghdad.) Reporters Without Borders has an online petition that they intend to deliver "to Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki to encourage him to do everything necessary to find them."
*Ruth read the Arnove quote used over the phone and will be covering Arnove's appearance in her next Ruth's Public Radio Report. (Thank you, Ruth.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)