roundtable

Joint entry that you will see at a number of sites. We're doing a roundtable on a number of issues. C.I. made me laugh with an e-mail comparing me to Liz Smith. When I called to talk about the e-mail we ended up discussing a number of things and I thought, "Okay, we can bring this up here." We will touch on Iraq but we're going to be dealing with a number of issues.

Participating are:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Ava
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man;
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review;
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ils);
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix;
and Mike of Mikey Likes It!;

Rebecca: Okay, I'm going to start the topic off with Tom Cruise. Ava?

Ava: We actually attempted to work this in two reviews, the slaughtering of Tom, two of the TV reviews we did this week. But we weren't able to.

Mike: She means her and C.I. and I'll toss out that what we're talking about is the coverage of Tom Cruise. I noted a recent Zogby poll, that Zogby did just on Cruise. It's crazy. The kind of coverage this has gotten is crazy.

C.I.: I'm going to jump in here and will probably say the most on this of anything.

Rebecca: You don't know the topic list!

C.I.: No, I don't. But this is such nonsense. A fuzzy, overly ripe peach fell to the ground and his name is Bummer Redstone. Bummer Redstone doesn't know crap about entertainment. He knows how to please Wall Street. That's all this is about. Wall Street is upset with the box office returns of the last few years. Wall Street wants heads to roll. This happened before. Marilyn Monroe was made an example of to please Wall Street. At the same time she was filming Something's Got To Give --

Betty: Which was never completed.

C.I.: Which was never completed, Fox was in trouble with the overruns of Cleopatra. They intended to fire Elizabeth Taylor. They couldn't get away with that. This wasn't about what Fox wanted for entertainment, it was about what Fox wanted for Wall Street. Paramount is in a free fall. Paramount needs to do something quick to show they're serious. So they do a show-firing of Tom Cruise. This doesn't have to do with Tom Cruise other than he was made the example, the same way Monroe was. This has to do with the investors. Disclosure, I like Paula [Wagner] and Rick [Nicita]. I'm netural on for Tom Cruise. I'm not saying what I'm saying to defend Tom Cruise. We're not friends, I don't care for his acting, I never have. This isn't about his acting. This is about a war on talent. They're also tossing out Lindsey Lohan. It's not about Cruise about her. Redstone wanted to put the blame for the box office of Mission Impossible III on Cruise's personal life. It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with you don't hire a shitty TV director to do on the big screen the same meandering crap he does on the small screen. It's a testament to Cruise's box office power that the film made what it did. With the first two MI's, you had a directors, film directors, making pop corn features. With MI: III, you had a touchy-feely TV director trying to turn in Felecity Learns To Spy. It wasn't going to play, it wasn't going to draw in a huge audience. The fact that it did, the film was a hit, one of the bigger ones of this summer, is a testament to Cruise's box office.

Cedric: I hope all that got down.

C.I.: Sorry. I am talking very fast but this isn't a topic I care to discuss. However, it's one I feel I have to because I am so sick of the New York Times and everyone else lining up to take their shots. Of course the Times is applauding. They applauded the firing of Monroe. They always applaud when money boys try to throw around what they think is their 'power.' Redstone has no power. He can claim all the phone calls he wants and he may have gotten a few but he's damaged the studio. And the pip squeak running it or 'running it' . . . If Sherry Lansing were still heading things, this wouldn't have happened. But it's the difference between someone who knows movies and someone who knows how to do one deal. If you're in the deal business, get your ass back to managing or agenting. Don't try to run a studio. Let me take a breath. Rebecca had a point she wanted to make.

Rebecca: Well, what's hurting the most, what's allowing the garbage to stick, is the fact that media press, not the Times, isn't eager to rush in and defend and that's because they're still smarting over the fact that they can't get a photo of his child. As someone who used to be in p.r., the smartest thing he can do is to immediately grant a photo-op with him, Katie Holmes and the child.

C.I.: Right. At this point, it probably has to be done which is too bad because it shouldn't have to be. But Cruise isn't unbankable. He's still bankable. He's a man and they have a longer shelf life or a perception of a longer shelf life. For a leading man, he's young.

Betty: I didn't understand the criticism of Lohan.

C.I.: That made no sense. She's not a producer, she's not a writer. She starred in what was offered and though she should have picked better, Scarlett Johansson does, blaming her for box office in crap you cast in her is insane. She's starred in some awful movies. Her fan base gave those movies some sort of an audience. She's a very young woman, still finding her way.

Rebecca: Is Hillary Clinton going to take her to Iraq?

C.I.: No. And she needs to let go of that fantasy. Hillary going to Iraq with Lindsey Lohan has "Hollywood" written all over it at a time when Hillary's trying to avoid anything that might get her dubbed "liberal." If we were talking about someone with less publicized personal drama, it might be a go but right now, there's no Iraq trip. If Loham wants to go, she'd be wise to look to the House and not to the Senate period.

Rebecca: In the Times today there was an article on the guy who wrote The Player --

C.I.: Michael Tolkin.

Rebecca: Thank you, did you read it?

C.I.: No. I'm avoiding their arts coverage. They're trying to pull a corpse into Wall Street so they can all stomp it.

Rebecca: Did you see it, Ava?

Ava: I try to avoid that paper period.

Rebecca: Well Tolkin was talking about how film was suffering from a hero track. I'm trying to think . . .

C.I.: Joseph Campbell?

Rebecca: Yes.

C.I.: Campbell's hero's journey has been used in a number of films including Terminator II. I didn't read the article. Was he saying it was too predictable?

Rebecca: Yes.

C.I.: Well he's fairly attuned and ahead of the curve which is why he's a strong writer. You can't be a strong writer if today you sit down to write what's on the screen right now. Geez, I can see his point but --

Ava: I think it's more than that. I haven't read the article though.

C.I.: Right. Did he talk about the format of scripts themselves?

Rebecca: No, but that's what I thought about because we've sat through enough films in the last ten years where you've been bored out of your mind.

C.I.: Because they think they seized on the formula. So now everyone does it. By the eighth minute, you've got that turning point after the set up, you've got your first act turning point, you've got your mid-point, you've got the second end turning point that's supposed to speed the last thirty minutes along. Everything is done by this formula and it's so obvious, the formula, that there's no thrill, there's no surprise. We really are seeing the same movie over and over. Sometimes it is well acted and/or has strong dialogue, but it's the same damn movie over and over.

Ava: Right. If you know the formula, you know the movie in ten minutes. You've got everything there but the supporting characters. Once you know the formula, there's no point in sitting through most movies because they're so obvious and the surprises to come have been set up in the ten minutes that started the film.

Cedric: What damages someone's box office?

Ava: A woman? Just about everything you can think of. A man? Hardly anything.

C.I.: Harrison Ford isn't unbankable but how he is bankable has changed and there doesn't appear to be any awareness of that thus far. His biggest hit since his divorce was when he played Michelle Pfieffer's evil husband in What Lies Beneath. Ford's image was as a family man, devoted husband. That marriage didn't last. When it didn't and he ended up with the younger Calista Flockhart, there was fallout. He can't play the usual character in a caper right now and get the usual audience. There's got to be some strong recognition of the change in audiences perception. But it didn't make him unbankable. It just meant that more care needed to be taken with roles selected.

Cedric: Well then what about Tom Cruise. He broke up with Penelope Cruz and he divorced Nicole Kidman before that.

C.I.: His box office didn't depend on an image. By the time he married Kidman, he'd already divorced Mimi Rogers. He'd married Rogers when he was a star. He's not marketed his personal life in a confessional. He's marketed it in the most general terms.

Ava: This is the man who was on the cover of Time and other magazines talking about his love for then wife Mimi Rogers when news broke that they were divorcing.

C.I.: Right.

Ava: The conflict with Brooke Shields isn't that big of thing. Sean Connery's done worse and gotten away with it. The couch hopping was extreme but consider the show. You're practically begged to make a fool of yourself and when you don't, Meg Ryan didn't, it's obvious that the big O isn't pleased.

Rebecca: But all of that could be wiped away with some photos of him with child and Holmes.

Ava: I think so. It's more a puzzlement than a turning away. It's more a "What's up with Tom Cruise?" than a Michael Jackson.

Cedric: So why Cruise?

Ava: You want bragging rights.

C.I.: Redstone's got nothing if he did that to Lohan. In fact, he'd look like the prick he is, my opinion, if he did it to Lohan because she is so young. It would create a sympathy factor. Cruise was selected to make an example of and by choosing someone with that big of a name, he gets to look like he's whipping the entertainment industry into shape when all he's doing is driving people away, predominately to Warner Bros. which has had nonstop meetings.

Rebecca: Talk about that.

C.I.: You're not going to set up shop with some asshole that's going to stab you in the back. What Redstone did is appalling. The entertainment industry works on perception to a great degree, he's attempting to destroy the reality of Cruise's box office with this perception that his career is over. Long after Redstone's name is forgotten by all but the Times, Cruise will still be known. Most don't remember the name of the man who fired Marilyn Monroe. This is the same thing that happened then and I'm about to get really long winded. We're seeing a fundamental shift and people want to pin it off on techonology. It's not about technology. It's about a shift in mood in the country.

Rebecca: Tolkin talked about that.

C.I.: Again, he's very attuned. But this is the shift that the entertainment industry spent much of the sixties trying to address. Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper tapped into something and then, realizing they knew nothing, studios started letting others have that opportunity. Some succeeded, some failed. But the traditional fare had gotten moldy and people weren't lining up for it. It's the same thing today. The three act structure is as predictable as any Doris Day & Rock Hudson sex comedy was then. None of this has anything to do with Cruise. But it lets Redstone look "tough" on Wall Street while driving away a lot of people who will not work for that studio as their first choice. There's talk of "I'll never work for them again." That's true until they offer the better dea, for most people. But Paramount is damaged and Wall Street can do cart wheels and the Times can cheer Redstone on, but they'd do well to remember that Darryl Zanuck ended up back in charge at Fox following the firing on Monroe. But, Mike, you go to movies, do you find them exciting?

Mike: Not really. I love V is for Vendetta and wish I'd gone to see that at the movies. But most of the movies are just boring. Superman was boring and too sweet, like I was getting a cavity just from watching.

Betty: Well, I don't see anything at the movies except animated films, I only go with my kids, but, I'd say when Quentin Tarantino came along, it seemed like there was going to be some life but what I got instead were a lot of bad rip-offs.

Cedric: Rip-offs of the stories. There was none of the excitement of Pulp Fiction. I wouldn't have put it the way you did, C.I. did, but thinking about it now, it is the same story. I'm not talking about the story of the hero as much as I am that I can see those breaks you're talking about and I know instinctively when I can go to the bathroom and not worry about missing anything.

Ava: Right. Because everyone's following Syd Field's three act structure. It's supposed to have been the miracle cure the: Do this and even you can write a script. And it should be noted that a lot of the edges that would make it onscreen get destroyed in test screenings that lead to reshoots.

Rebecca: Anything else before we move to the next topic? No. Okay, next up, and I'm sure C.I. will sit this one out --

C.I.: Unless it's Iraq, I will. Otherwise I'll take notes.

Rebecca: It's not Iraq. Cedric, Betty and Ty responded to an e-mail to Cedric in Cedric's "Noel, who's not in the US military, wants to send them to fight his war." As someone whose own posts led to Cedric be put on the spot, my apologies.

Cedric: No need for that. I was glad to weigh in. Noel tried to make an appeal to me that, as an African-American, I should be on his side regarding Darfur and want the US military over there.

Betty: As a rule, I tend to get nervous when White people are rushing to 'save' Black people. As a Black women, if the 'saving' isn't being advocated by reliable Black voices, I'm already suspicious and the Out of Iraq Into Darfur groupies are White. You can call me racist if that makes you feel better, but this Black woman has seen too many White 'saviors' that have only made things worse.

Cedric: And it's a one-note story that doesn't go into the historical or even recent events. And if you can meet with Bully Boy before your mini-demonstration in March, you're really not a protest group, you're an extension of the administration.

Kat: Good point. What I liked about that response, well what I liked most, was the fact that it was turned back on Noel. The military isn't his toy to be sent here and there whenever he wants. And military solutions are not diplomatic ones. I really enjoyed what the three of you wrote.

Betty: Well, Cedric wrote it up. We all talked about it, but give Cedric the credit for writing it up.
Mike's "Lotta Links pushes Voice of America -- the war crimes of indymedia" tonight made me laugh. Mike usually cracks me up. But I thought that was an important point to make, that the Darfur movement/craze must be supported, a website seems to suggest, and proves it by linking to a story from Voice of America.

Kat: I didn't see that yet. Fill me in.

Mike: Lotta Links linked to a Voice of America story on Darfur.

Kat: What?

Mike: Yeah, I was shocked too. They're linking to a propaganda news organization that if legally forbidden to broadcast in this country because it's a propaganda unit of the government and Congress said American citizens could not be propagandized by their government.

Cedric: I'm sorry, Mike, I hadn't read it either. I was just getting home from visiting Three Cool Old Guys when the roundtable was about to start. But they really did that?

Mike: Yep.

Cedric: Then let me you and say, "And this is why the left sucks."

Mike: The Sammy Powers movement, I understand what Betty's saying and agree, but if you ask me, they're nothing but this centuries Carrie Nations. Samantha Powers, grab your axe.

Kat: That is a hilarious comparison.

Rebecca: We're all opposed to sending US troops into Darfur. Do we want to stay on this topic or move on?

Betty: Well, before we do, Guns and Butter, as Kat's noted, did a wonderful two part discussion on Darfur.

Kat: They actually did a show while I was gone, while I was in Ireland, as well. July 17th, I think. I haven't had a chance to listen to it yet but a lot of e-mails say I need to recommend that as well as the two-parter.

Cedric: And I want to back Mike up. Independent media should not be providing the same voice, Eric what's his name, that's all over the mainstream. There are independent journalists, have them on. Have on Keith Harmon Snow or Joshua Frank or . . . .

Betty: Sara Flounders. And it's Eric Reeves.

Cedric: Thank you.

Kat: And to be clear, Z-Net and others have covered this. This Sammy Powers craze is not representative of all of the left. I don't think it's representative of even most of the left. It's made up of a lot of evangical right wingers which is why I find the Carrie Nations comparison so humorus.

Rebecca: Okay, now we're turning to The New Yorker. See, I really did make a list of topics. The August 28th issue had two features that I thought somebody might want to comment on. For the record, I hated them both. First up, George Saunders "Proclamation." In this piece, Saunders attempt to comment on Iran with humor and to do so from the perspective of their president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Kat: I know that article. I picked up the issue at C.I.'s. Did you want to comment on it?

C.I.: No, you go.

Kat: I just found it offensive. It's supposed to be making fun of the president but I felt like it made fun of Iranians, made fun of people who didn't speak English, go down the list. I found it insulting, not funny and thought, "Oh look, The New Yorker's doing 'shit' jokes now. And using the word 'shit.'" This probably can't go up at The Common Ills now.

C.I.: It was already iffy. It'll go up at the mirror site.

Rebecca: Well I agree. It just seemed so pompous, so ha-ha, let me make fun of how the foreigners talk. I wouldn't have cared if the president was a fool, any president of any country, but that really did seem to treat Iranians as backwater, undeveloped, unthinking, simple-minded fools. I found it very offensive too. Anyone else?

Mike: I don't read the magazine unless Seymour Hersh or Jane Mayer have an article in it.

Rebecca: Then you can't comment on the next article, also from that issue, Malcolm Gladwell's "The Risk Pool." Anybody?

Ava: I actually read that because Jess was outraged by it. I was as well. We're in a crisis. I love how we're always in a crisis. But Gladwell tells you we're in a health care crisis and a pension crisis and he pins it on the fact that, he says, there are more retirees than workers. Didn't Paul Krugman already tackle that myth and disprove it? More importantly, people didn't go from 31 to retirement age. Big business doesn't need bail outs, they need to be asked what they were doing all those years when they should have been preparing for retirements. People pay into pensions. Where did the money go? I know where it went, it went to stock points and bonuses.
Gladwell wants to act as though the number of people hitting retirement age was an unknown. It was a known, it could be calculated and planned for. If the same companies, he focuses on GM, had forecast so poorly regarding a product, Wall Street would be up in arms. Instead, what you get is, "These things happen and the population bulge is so big" and wah, wah, wah. The bulge was big when those workers started, the bulge was big when those workers were ten years away from retirement. To ignore the bulge was bad planning on the part of big business unless the plan all along was to deny promised benefits.

Cedric: I wish I'd read the article because I'm sitting here nodding along with everything Ava's saying.

Rebecca: Kat?

Kat: No. I read the Saunders thing mistakenly thinking it would be funny. I was so disgusted with it, I had no interest in the rest of the issue.

Rebecca: Okay, we're turning to The Progressive. Ava wanted one thing put on here. Ava?

Ava: I just wanted to say that while I appreciated what Luis J. Rodriquez was saying, he overlooks a perceived threat and if the immigration rights movement is going to confront the obstacles being put in front of the movement, then what people see as threats need to be noted.

Betty: And The Nation had an article on that very topic recently.

Ava: I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but could you talk about that. I haven't read that issue yet. We're all at C.I.'s -- Dona, Jess, Ty, Jim and I -- and the magazines tend to make there way from person to person slowly.

Betty: Okay. It was written by Bob Moser. I don't know the title.

C.I.: "White Heat."

Betty: Thank you. I'm looking for my copy. Moser went to Nashville to attempt to grasp where this anger/fear was coming from. He met a woman who saw herself as a free spirit and she felt she'd usually supported the 'right' left causes but on immgiration, she was vocally and actively opposed to it. He spoke with her, Bob Moser, and to other people as well. Including a dee jay who'd joked that the answer was to "shoot them." The dee jay, and I've got the issue now, so I'm flipping, said his remark was meant as a joke and just off the top of my head but the response at the rally he was attending to his remark was positive. Okay, his name is Phil Valentine. It's the August 28/ September 4, 2006 issue and the article starts on page eleven. He speaks with Stephen Fotopulos who is there trying to create a dialogue and get people to move beyond fear. He says, "What I really value about being in Tennessee right now is that this is Middle America, and there's no winning this immigration debate without understanding what people think here." Here is Nashville which has had a very vocal segment opposed to immigration.

Ava: I think that's a strong point. My point with regards to Rodriguez' article on pages seveteen and eighteen of the September 2006 issue of The Progressive is that I'm not sure whom he's talking to. He's addressing the English only movement. Now, we were all speaking on Tuesday and a number of people my age, we were talking to students, wanted us to speak to some of their parents groups so we stayed over an extra day. I'm Latina so maybe that's why middle-aged women felt that they could raise the issue with me, I hadn't spoken about immigration, we were largely speaking about the war --

C.I.: Jess had spoken about immigration.

Ava: Right, Jess had. But I was approached, at three different events, by three different women, White Anglo women, who felt they were really wronged. Their issue was that they worked in offices, all three did, I don't think they worked at the same offices, but they told the same story. They felt that in their offices, co-workers spoke Spanish to talk about them with others who spoke Spanish. Now, we were in New Mexico by the way, they felt the need to tell me that while they were not in favor of building a wall between the US and Mexico or in turning immigrants into endentured servants, they were in favor of English Only because they felt such a policy would make their office lives run more smoothly. When we got back to California, we were talking to some friends in the immigration and the anti-war movement and I brought that up and was surprised that so many had heard similar stories. I'm not passing a judgement on the women in this roundtable, I'm just noting that this was their fear and it was apparently a not uncommon fear. I wasn't aware of that until we got back to California, that it wasn't that uncommon. If you're addressing the English Only push, if you're responding to it or trying to help people see that this is not an attack on English, I think you need to be aware of it. I wasn't until this week. I was surprised. Then we got back and I heard everyone saying, "Oh yeah, I've been told that." Then I was shocked. I don't cover English Only, I would assume someone who did would be aware of this. There were other issues as well that they raised but I feel llike I've talked too long.

Betty: I will note that I had a supervisor who attempted three years ago to implement an English only in our office for that reason. It only caused more problems. But there were a number of people, Black and Anglo White, who felt that when people were speaking Spanish, they were talking about them.

Ava: Did you ever feel that way?

Betty: No, but I was friends with most of them. I knew them. And when we'd all go out to lunch, they'd mix the two languages and I knew that it wasn't to talk about me but because they were bilingual and it was sometimes a word that came to mind quickest, or a phrase, and sometimes it would be that they weren't sure of the phrase in English, and would say that to me, and other times it's just that it's part of who you are. If you know how to speak another language and someone else does, of course you're going to want to speak it with them.

Ava: But there were tensions in the office for others?

Betty: Yes, a number of people were convinced that anytime something was said in Spanish, especially if laughter followed, they were being talked about. This wasn't true of every Anglo White or Black person in my office but it was true of enough of them that they got together and complained to the supervisor.

Mike: So what happened?

Betty: She implemented a policy. I was outraged. Especially since some people were dealing with people who only spoke Spanish. That was their job. If you've hired someone for that as their job, I don't see how you can then tell them, "Well don't do it." If you have a skill, you need to practice it. But, long story short, too late, upper management got a complaint and the policy was dropped.

Mike: Then what happened?

Betty: It really wasn't an issue after that. I don't know why. Maybe because those complaining about the Spanish in the office realized upper management wasn't going to support them, maybe because while it was briefly in place, they heard that they weren't the topic of conversation. But it went from about nine people being really angry and mad to just one. But it was fear based and I agree with you that it's something, if you're trying to help people get over their unreasonable fears, that you need to be aware of.

Rebecca: Anything else?

C.I.: I'll just add that Rodriguez makes the point that the second generation, the first born of immigrants, tend to immerse in the dominant culture and that is true but it's also true that, regardless of what ethnic or racial group you're talking about, the third and fourth generations tend to have a reclaiming of heritage. The reclaiming isn't noted. But you're avarage majority-minority relations sociology class addresses that in the first weeks of the class.

Cedric: I'll offer my opinion on that, and I did learn that in sociology, when we discussed it, the feeling of the class was that when you're first generation born in America, your like every other kid in America wondering if your parents are embarrassing you? Are they hugging you too much? Are they babying you? Go down the list. So it's part of the growing process that every generation has. And when you add in that you're dealing with language and other issues, that's just more that you're moving from to establish who you are. Your children are, the grandchildren of immigrants, coming at it differently because they have assimilated parents so there's not the same concern when they're attempting to define themselves plus we all love hearing our grandparents stories. That was our spit balling of it.

Rebecca: Our second article from The Progressive, September 2006, is Adolph L. Reed Jr.'s "When Government Shurgs: Lessons of Katrina." By the way, Bety can't italicize at her site without it running together into the next word. Are we using quotation marks?

Kat: Not in sections I've typed.

Rebecca: Okay, well we'll all just not itacilize and assume that people are smart enough to grasp. We have very smart readers.

Cedric: I loved that article. It was my favorite in the magazine. I felt it was the best look at the realities of Katrina. Race is involved but there's class and other issues that factored in as well. I really enjoyed the information and the way that was written.

Betty: He did have an engaging writing style. And what's been done to the evacuees could not have been done without assiatance from Blacks. There's always going to be some who will stab their brothers and sisters in the back and that's been true forever and a day. In New Orleans, they sided with the establishment Whites to do away with public housing and reasonable rents.

Cedric: And the whole concept of who was a 'stakeholder' and how the ones in charge based it upon ownership.

Mike: But it's Bully Boy's method. I'm not giving the ones in New Orleans a pass, but I'm saying it could only happen under Bully Boy. He's done the same thing with Iraq, turned it into a 'free marketers' wet dream. With a real president, the actions taken in New Orleans could not have been taken because a president who truly represents the people would have been disgusted by the choices made and hesitant to rely on big business as the almighty savior.

Betty: Absolutely. He set the tone. And the decision makers knew they had not only a free hand but encouragement. They acted accordingly and it's the people who suffered in the hurricane and in the wake of it that are still suffering.

Kat: The poor. And what stood out to me the most was that section on the distribution of the DVDs. That might have been covered a year ago by the news media, but if it was, I had forgotten it. But, I'm going to quote here because I think this is really important: "Two months before Katrina, Mayor Ray Nagin's administration determined that it couldn't afford to provide public transportation to evacuate residents in the event of a major storm. So the city produced DVDs to distribute in poor neighborhoods, alerting residents that they would be on their own. There was no attempt, as part of the evacuation plan, to promvide transportation for the nearly 100,000 New Orleanians who didn't own dependable cars and couldn't afford to pay their way out of the city. This was triage without the name or the courage of its convictions." Reed goes on to write that this determination is at the heart of the Katrina tragedy because issues of public good always took a back seat to cost ratios. The government's first job is to protect its citizens. If it's not maintaining that, then it's not doing anything.

Cedric: Right, he writes: "The Nagin administration couldn't afford to deploy enough buses as part of its evacuation plan because it gave higher priority to dedicating funds to other purposes -- such as subsidizing development and keeping taxes and fees low."

Rebecca: Which brings us back to the point C.I. made in real time about the difference between tragedy, the hurricane, and injustice, the response.

C.I.: I was noting Judith N. Shklar's The Faces of Injustice. That's was her concept. Just to give credit where it's due.

Rebecca: Okay, great roundtable and C.I.'s got to do "And the war drags on" still so my apologies for breaking the agreed upon half-hour. Cedric upped his participation via Katrina, but Mike, you're lagging!

Mike: I'm sorry, it's the heat and it's past eleven my time. I'll try to participate more.

Rebecca: You're forgiven. By the way, everyone was invited but this was last minute and Wally, Jim, Ty, Jess and Dona had plans to see a concert and, of course, Elaine has group on Thursday nights and I didn't invite her for that reason. She would have tried to participate but after doing therapy all day and then doing it at night, she is wiped out. She would have been here and I'll hear tomorrow that I should have invited her but she would have been exhausted before we started and I wasn't going to do that to her when she still has to go into work tomorrow. But we're in the home stretch, boys and girls, and we're finally on Iraq. "There Is Silence in the Streets; Where Have All the Protesters Gone?" by Andrew Rosenthal ran in this morning's New York Times and, C.I., I don't want to hear that it's an op-ed because this isn't going up at the main site for The Common Ills so you can engage in this conversation.

C.I.: But I haven't read it. I don't usually read the opinions.

Rebecca: Grab the paper, I know you've probably go the main section by the computer in the bedroom still.

Kat: Well, I did read it because Jess and I discussed it. I'll note that it doesn't perpetuate the lie that people are streaming out of the Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young concerts when "Let's Impeach the President" is played. They didn't when I saw them live. But there's this myth, sort of a Pearl Jam redux, that says it is happening. That's the only thing nice I can say about it.

Ava: That was the only nice thing Jess could say as well. He kept trying to get me to read it and I kept saying, "Get that crap away from me."

Mike: So --

Rebecca: We've just delted a lengthy section that I wish we could keep because C.I. had a funny line about Fleetwood Mac. But we'll go back to the Rosenthal column.

Mike: He's basically saying that the generation, younger, of today isn't active and doesn't care to be. He makes comments and comparisons to his day and I don't think he's bothered to look around, he's another desk jockey who didn't see a story in the New York Times so he's convinced nothing must be happening because action is ike a tree falling in the forest, if the paper didn't write about it, did it happen?

C.I.: It's an opinion piece. While I strongly disagree with it, it's also true that he's expressing frustration and on some level may be attempting to goad people into activity, or shame them. Obviously, there's action in the peace movement, whether or not the paper covers it, but I'm not so sure the article wasn't a prove-me-wrong type piece on some level. I'd also add that his comparisons have a built-in problem because he's comparing today to, largely 1968 and after, and we're really just recently arriving at the point where a groundswell could effect in a similar way.

Kat: That's a good point. Kent State is 1970 and it's after other protests have taken place. That's why the National Guard was sent in by Nixon to begin with.

Ava: And if Elaine were here, she's make the point that the peace movement has existed without mainstream support and that it's existed with very little independent media support.

Cedric: Never more so than in the last two months.

Betty: Amen.

Ava: So, it's foolish to compare the two.

C.I.: Today's movement will be led by the people of today. He's staring in the rear view mirror and people are ahead of him on the crosswalks. The sixties had a youth culture before it had an anti-war movement because the youth culture began in the fifties as the baby boom came of age. College students and high school students are involved and their involvement will only grow. Only someone who was out of it at the beginning and out of it now would think that there's been no measurable progess.

Ava: And look at what we had to go up against.

Kat: Like Baby Cries a Lot. Annointed as our liberal voice on radio and he still can't call for the troops to come home.

Rebecca: Exactly. And when C.I. made that point a long time ago, it was considered controversial. Now it's accepted and you can read it in most places. But he did hurt the movement. Now he's not taken seriously and who cares what he thinks. But a lot of people with microphones and platforms were clamping down and saying, "Oh, we've got to stay over there."

Cedric: Well, let me say The Common Ills because I know C.I.'s going to get ticked off, but the community did address the war in the post-election 2004 period and most people didn't. Most people were off drooling over ways to gather up the mythical 'vangical voters. When you think of what we've had to overcome not only from outside the left but from within the left, it's amazing that it's progressed as far as it has.

Betty: And talk about the distractions. We're trying to end the war and the Sammy Powers are trying to pull the troops out so they can go to Darfur. We're up against a lot and the Bully Boy doesn't meet with us and we don't get fawning coverage from the media and we can have 300,000 rally last March --

Ava: At least 300,000.

Betty: At least, and we're treated to less mainstream attention than the small number of Darfurian Saviors. And on Democracy Now, we're presented as the same because we're given the same amount of time, a headline, in the Monday after the protests. Mike?

Mike: And let's be real, independent media lost interest in Iraq for over two months. There has been little support for the movement and the support that it has gotten has been from very few but that was appreciated. But really, dropping Ehren Watada, not going to Camp Casey, that's nonsense. The independent media failed. Plain and simple. There were exceptions. But collectively they failed. C.I.?

C.I.: I don't disagree with you on that. They dropped the ball. Iraq vanished completely. You could go whole weeks listening to independent media and never hear a thing about Iraq beyond headlines. It is very sad. I'm saddened by it. I think those who dropped it should ask themselves some serious questions. It shouldn't have happened, it shouldn't happen again and it shouldn't be the case that the coverage has still not picked back up -- however, the coverage has still not picked back up. I was on the phone with Rebecca's grandmother today and I agree with her completely, when your country goes to war, you don't drop the coverage to grab every other topic in the world. When most people are finally at a place where they want to talk about the war, you don't say, "Oh, okay, we did that now let's move on." But that's what's happened. It's very sad. And don't think Bully Boy didn't know he could divert attention by encouraging and approving of Israel's armed aggression and war crimes. He knew that would defocus attention from him. He or someone with a brain in his inner circle. It was a perfect play in that regard and people got played because instead of offering that story, which did matter, in balance with coverage of Iraq, we got that story wall-to-wall and little else.

Mike: Will you be promiting the upcoming book by --

C.I.: Don't say their names. No, I won't be. Why would I promote them and their book when one of the writers elected to ignore Iraq and still largely ignores it? We won't be noting the book, we won't be noting personal appearances, we don't even note the program. The community turned on it. As I said, I'm not the Bully Boy. I grasp that when opinion has hardened, there's nothing you can accomplish by ignoring it. But more to the point, when someone drops Iraq, they're not someone I'm interested in getting the word out on. Even were we covering the program today, which we no longer do, I wouldn't be promoting the book. Independent media rode Iraq to a larger audience and then, this summer, they turned their back on the war. Overt or not, a pact was made with the audience, you support me and get the word out because I will cover Iraq, I will address it seriously, blah, blah, blah. That pact was broken. I hope that answers your question.

Mike: It does. But I was worried we'd see upcoming appearances and the book noted.

C.I.: Worry no more, it's not happening. If you don't treat the war seriously, the community has no interest in you. There's no point in publicizing something the community doesn't care about. I know you've expressed that you hope the book does poorly. I don't share that wish but I won't be surprised if, as with Baby Cries a Lot, the authors find a smaller audience this go round at publishing. What passed for bravery in 2003 and 2004 doesn't cut it today and, honestly, that program isn't even maintaining that level, they've fallen. As Ann Wright said in July, we have to be upping the ante.

Rebecca: And on that note, I'm calling this to a close. I know C.I.'s still got an entry to do. Thank you to everyone who participated. Thank you to Kat, Ava and C.I. who typed up the transcript throughout. Cedric, do the summary.

Cedric: We started out with Tom Cruise as an example of when big business attacks. We also addressed the so-called unexpected 'crisis' in pensions, Hurricane Katrina, immigration, English only, bad humor and Iraq. See, you can cover more than one topic.

C.I.: Jumping in, Camp Democracy starts next week in DC, September 5th.

here's c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Thursday, August 31, 2006. Chaos and violence continue, another war resister goes public and Dr. John Gee accuses the CIA of interfering with the work of the Iraqi Survey Group and points fingers at others who couldn't grasp that "there was no WMD in Iraq."

Starting in Australia. Dr. John Gee is considered "an expert on chemical weapons" and was part of the Iraq Survey group (a group of scientists made of British, Australian and American scientists sent into Iraq to attempt to find the WMDs). Gee and other Australians have been truth telling with little attention from the US domestic press. Rod Barton, who resigned in March 2004 from the Iraq Survey Group at the same time as Gee, has published The Weapons Detective which, UPI reported, maintained that: "British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Australian Prime Minister John Howard both knew before the invasion that the intelligence on Iraqi WMDs was false. . . . When shown the pre-war Iraqi WMD Australian intelligence assessment, Howard even asked, 'Is that all there is?'" Peggy Lee remix: "Is That All There Is To A War?"

Apparently so. Lies and more lies.

Speaking to Samantha Hawley on PM, Gee stated: "There were no WMD in Iraq and we were all wasting our time pursuing the illusion that there was something there." Australia's ABC reports that Gee "says he quit his job in 2004 because the group was focusing on trying to justify pre-war judgements rather than establish facts." Appearing on the 7:30 Report, Gee discussed his interaction with Australia's Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer which was dismissive. Appearing on the show, Rod Barton backed up Gee's account. Alexander Downer states that Gee is "a scientist and we took his advice very seriously."

That's one issue. Samantha Hawley (PM) noted another: "At the time of his resignation, Doctor Gee was serving under a contract with the Defence Department. He claims his resignation letter never even made it to his superiors there, because it was stopped by the Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer." Downer denies blocking the resignation letter, which included references to CIA interference, and states that he "raised it [the issue] with Mr. [Charles] Duelfer himself."

Australia's Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Security, Kevin Rudd states, "The Australian weapons expert sent in to help came back and told Mr Downer to his face that there were no WMD there at all. What did Mr Downer do? He covered it up. He didn't want that message to get out to the Australian public before the 2004 Federal elections. That's where this thing stinks." Rudd is also calling on Downer to release the six-page resignation letter Gee wrote.

On the letter that Downer denies suppressing, Marian Wilkinson (Sydney Morning Herald) reports that it "outlines in detail interference by the CIA and the Bush Administration in first reports abou tthe weapons hunt to avoid finding that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction."

The Scotsman notes: "The CIA analysts in teams searching for chemical and biological weapons were the same ones who concluded before the invasion -- officially called Operation Iraqi Freedmon -- that they must exist, Gee wrote in his resignation letter. 'Much of the two teams' work is geared to trying to justify pre-OIF judgements rather than any attempt to establish the facts surrounding Iraq's WMD programs,' Gee wrote in March 2004."

Gee and Barton resigned in March of 2004. In the United States, members may be more aware of David Kay who resigned January 23, 2004 and stated that he didn't believe WMD "existed." Kay headed the Iraq Survey Group. When he resigned, Charles Duelfer took over after being appointed by the then-CIA director George Tenet.
The Duelfer Report would come out in September 2004 and an 'epilogue' in March of 2005. No WMD were ever found. However, despite admitting that Gee informed of the fact that there were no WMDs in Iraq, Downer still stood side by side at a press conference with Charles Duelfer in April of 2004 and called the search "a work in progress."

Possibly, instead of scientists, they should have sent Donald Rumsfeld who claimed, to George Stephanopoulus on ABC's This Week, "We know where they are. They're in Tikrit and Baghdad and East, West, South and North somewhat." (March 30, 2003.)?

As with the Downing Street Memos, this story may have trouble getting traction in the United States. Two dailies are apparently having a real struggle dotting their "I"s and crossing their "T"s which would explain why, though they were made aware of this story on Tuesday evening, there's still been no report of it.


Turning to Iraq, where the chaos and violence continues.

Bombings?

CNN reports a car bombing "in a southeastern Baghdad neighborhood" ("near a gas station") that took the lives of two and left at least thirteen wounded, one in the eastern section of the capital ("near a restaurant") that wounded three and a car bomb in Harthiya that left two civilians and two police officers injured. On the bomb near a gas station, Reuters notes that "four police commandos" were killed and 11 other people were injured. (Which may mean two of the injured in the CNN report may have died.) Also in Baghdad, AFP notes that six children were wounded by mortar rounds and roadside bomb injured eight "travelling in a minibus." Baghdad. The site of the 'crackdown.' Is it time for another of US spinmeister William Caldwell IV's "three-day 'quick look'"s? Reuters reports: "A convoy of British diplomats and guards was blasted by a roadside bomb in western Baghdad on Thursday but the British embassy said no one was injured." Rebecca Santana (AP) reports on a bomb "at a popular market" in Baghdad, that combined with two other bombings in the capital, has led to at least 20 people dead and at least 75 wounded.



Shootings?

Rebecca Santana (AP) reports that, in Mosul, "[a]n Iraqi soldier wearing civilian clothing was shot and killed while walking". Reuters notes that in Samawa four people were wounded by gunfire; in Ramadi, "[a] former Iraqi Air Force commander" was shot dead; and, in Mosul, two police officers were killed by gun fire and two more were wounded. AFP reports: "Police from the Diyala province, of which Baquba is the capital, said that at least nine people were killed in the province on Thursday" including two borthers when a store was attacked. AP identifies the store as "a cotton shop" and notes that, in Baghdad, a security guard for the oil ministry was shot dead and another was wounded.



Corpses?

AP reports that a woman's corpses ("riddled with bullets") was discovered "dumped on a main road." Retuers reports that, after four days missing, Turkey al-Duleimi ("a civilian judge") was discovered in Samarra.

In the most recent report, Rebecca Santana (AP) reports: "A series of attacks killed at least 46 people across Iraq Thursday, including 39 within a half hour in a Shiite section of Baghdad, officials said. At least 118 people were wounded."

In peace news, following Ricky Clousing's lead, another AWOL soldier has come forward. Speaking at Camp Casey III, Angela K. Brown (AP) reports, Mark Wilkerson announced that, after "a year and a half" of being AWOL, he would be turning himself in. Brown reports: "Wilkerson said his views of the war changed and he realized he could no longer stay in the military, so he applied for conscientious objector status. But his request was denied a month before his unit was to return to Iraq. He said he was told his appeal would not be considered until after he came back. So Wilkerson then decided not to return from the two weeks of approved leave before the January 2005 deployment."

On August 11, Mike Barber (Seattle Post-Intelligencer) broke the news that Ricky Clousing, who also checked himself out after returning from Iraq, would be turning himself in. As the war drags on, the resistance grows with the Pentagon estimating that 40,000 have deserted or checked themselves out of the military since 2000.
Michelle Mason's documentary Breaking Ranks covers the stories of some war resisters, including Jeremy Hinzman and Kyle Snyder, who've gone to Canada and it will air on Global TV October 7th.

Meanwhile in the United States, Ehren Watada awaits the military determining what they will do (the recommendation has been court-martial). Watada is the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq. Like Clousing and Wilkerson, Watada sees the war as illegal.

Speaking to Caroline Aoyai-Stom (Pacific Citizen), Watada explains his duty: "Despite conflicting loyalties, I am fighting for the allegiance to which I swore an oath to uphold and defend -- the Constitutional laws and principles of democracy. My decision brings honor to veteran JAs. Instead of perpetuating war crimes and a war of aggression, I am actively trying to put a stop to it. Instead of being the 'quiet, obedient Japanese,' I am fulfilling my oath to protect my soldiers and this country from our government. This is all at great expense -- when the easier, safer path would have been to do my tour in Iraq."

Susan Palmer (The Register-Guard) reports that Ehren Watada's father Bob Watada "spoke at a Eugene [Oregon] peace rally on Tuesday in support of his son and called for change in Washington, D.C." Bob Watada tells Palmer, "My son has taken a stand for a very good reason and he is willing to suffer the consequences that the military wants to mete out."

More information can be found at Courage to Resist and ThankYouLt.org. and Cedric (Cedric's Big Mix) is advising those calling Donald Rumsfeld (703-545-6700) or mailing him (1000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1000) to say: "Hands off Ehren Watada! Let him go." Billie advises that you can use public@defenselink.mil to e-mail the Pentagon. She suggests "Re: Ehren Watad" or "ATTN: DONALD RUMSFELD."

In Australia, the military inquiry into the April 21st Baghdad death of Jake Kovco is on hold as the attorneys and those on sitting on the board of inquiry practice shooting guns. Luke McIIveen and Gemma Jones (PerthNow) recap some of the hearing's moments of this week. They also note that Soldier 14 has claimed to be in the room after hearing a shot -- strange since the unit's commander didn't testify to that.

e-mails and iraq

i was on the phone with mike (several times a day, the jokes about me and the phone are true) and please read mike's 'Watch the Breaking Ranks trailer.' i love mike. so does fly boy. (he's taken to mike like no 1. but like i always say, mike's like a puppy.) no 1 wrote me to ask if i was mad at him so i'll assume every 1 reading here knew that wasn't the case. as he said tonight, we've been dialoguing on independent media.

i want to answer a few questions in the e-mails first.

1) 'flyboy's working.' he's actually agreed with me. he's going to reduce his hours. if we were living in the city, it might be different. but i'm not interested in living there. i love my house and the commute is just taking too much time. that's why we missed the irag discussion group last week. i said i'd come in and meet him and we'd go from there. but he was convinced if he just left 90 minutes early, he could come home, grab a quick shower, change and we could go. it's never that easy. there's always something that's going to cause a delay. so he's halfing (halving?) his hours. that will also allow him to have more input on some changes we're making around here. i want to expand 1 of the bedrooms and i'm not in the mood to deal with contractors all by myself.

2) c.i.'s different drum brought up many comments. most favorable from readers and/or community members but there was a visitor who thinks c.i. has had it easy and that i have. i wasn't born into money. i didn't have it easy. i got into college on a 'pretty scholarship' (that's how i always refer to it). but c.i. didn't sit around between classes. i don't just mean activism. if c.i. had gone along with family wishes, college would have been paid for. instead, c.i. gets there with the understanding that it will be. the logic on the parental end was once c.i. was there, they'd lower the boom and say 'journalism major if you want our money' and c.i. would go along. they did say 'journalism major if you want us to pay.' c.i. didn't go along.

until it was time for the masters, c.i. paid and had scholarships. it would have been really easy, especially 1 semester when c.i. worked 3 jobs, to say, 'fine, i'll do journalism.' but that didn't happen. college is expensive anywhere but it was especially expensive where we went. i had a scholarship and my grandmother and my parents helped out with the bills. all i had to do was go to class. elaine didn't have to work either. c.i. didn't have to work. c.i. chose to work because freedom was more important than 'easy.'

when it was time for grad school, a grandparent did say, 'ill pay.' c.i. had 1 or more scholarships by that time so it wasn't really needed. but c.i. had demonstrated that there was no purchasing, there was no sale on beliefs. and 1 grandparent respected that.

but for 4 years, it was a scramble. that meant working, that meant selling things. i remember for a rally once there was some security deposit needed and the group didn't have money. c.i. went to the pawn shop and got rid of something that had been in the family for years. did it without blinking. did it without whining. did it without telling any 1. (i knew what was about to happen and went along to say 'don't do it' the entire way.) but don't talk about easy when you don't know about it.

if you talk to c.i.'s family today, they'll all talk about how c.i. did it without help and that is so true. and that didn't end with college. c.i. has repeatedly walked away from situations where beliefs would be compromised. c.i. has very strong core beliefs and will not compromise them. it's always amazed me. i remember junior year, c.i.'s parents showing up 1 fall day with a brand new car and 'all you have to do is go meet ...' nope. no car.

i always thought, and this is my opinion only, had they given c.i. the car and then said, 'could you stop by and see ...' the answer would have been 'sure.' but you don't bribe c.i. (or threaten.) today, c.i. could have an easy life. i've noted i'd be staying by the pool every day if that was my house. but c.i.'s here, there and everywhere (like the beatles song) speaking out against the war and has sacrificed a lot to do so. and continues to sacrifice.

the visitor talked about the parties every 1 wrote about when we were all with c.i. if you've seen the film shampoo, that's the sort of parties. people just dropping by, people wandering around. but c.i.'s working those parties. c.i.'s raising the issue of the war (most care about it without it being raised) and other issues. and there's not a day that goes by that c.i.'s not using every media contact (including old lovers) to try to push for more coverage, more bravery in the coverage.

so when you don't know what you're talking about, you probably shouldn't judge someone's life as 'easy.' i was talking to jim right before i got online and tuesday they'd gone out of state to speak. on the 2nd to last 'gig,' they were asked if they could do something the next day? so they ended up making it a 2 day thing. 1 thing turned into 6 and they only got back late this afternoon. jim told me he was so tired he didn't want to move. he asked if c.i. ever gets tired? yes. but c.i. knows how to reach for that 2nd wind, that 3rd wind, that 4th wind ...

does c.i. get tired? c.i.'s tired now. but that doesn't matter (to c.i.) i kidded jim, 'you're an old man!' and we laughed about that.

easy? no.

now let's talk about iraq. another visitor writes that he's a republican who woke up to the realities of the war in april and is now against it (congratulations - that's not sarcasm) but he doesn't think we need to hear about because 'we're all against it and know the war is wrong.'

i disagree. the realities that make him uncomfortable hearing about are the 1s iraqis have to live with, troops stationed there have to live with, so i don't think it's asking too much for americans to pay attention to a war their government started.

i spent 4 hours today with my grandmother and we were talking about the (lack of) coverage. i wished i'd read the e-mail from the republican against the war before i visited her. but i will tell you what i think she'd say: 'suck it up.' seriously. she lived through wwii. she knows what war coverage is supposed to be when a nation is at war and she knows we're not getting it.

if you're tired about hearing about the war in iraq, then start working hard to end it. the coverage shouldn't disappear. the war should. as long as the war goes on, the coverage should as well. (it should go on after as well.)

robert knight's knight report on Flashpoints had some good coverage of iraq tonight. there was also a report on haiti that you should make a point to check out.

this is from ryan clark's 'Hebron Marine killed in Iraq' (cincinnati enquirer):

A Hebron Marine died Tuesday while serving in Iraq's western Anbar Province, family members said Wednesday.
U.S. Marine Cpl. Tyler Warndorf, 21, gained local fame in June when Associated Press photographers took a picture of him and other soldiers in combat. The Enquirer then provided the photographs to the Warndorf family, who enjoyed seeing him for the first time in months.
Tuesday night, Marines told the family of his death.
"Obviously, we're devastated," said Lillian Warndorf, Tyler's grandmother. "We never could have imagined this."
But in June, when Lillian and Tyler's grandfather, Gerald, saw the pictures, they expressed concern for their grandson, who had returned to Iraq for a second tour of duty. "He's going to get himself killed over there," Gerald Warndorf said at the time.Warndorf was serving in and around Ramadi, a dangerous area for insurgent attacks.

tyler warndorf is dead. if you're for the war or against it, that should matter. and if that news 'bums' you out, well imagine how it is for his family. we don't need less coverage of iraq (i can't imagine how we could have 'less' at this point - especially from independent media), we need more. he is 1 of 61 u.s. soldiers who have died in iraq this month. i don't think you look away from that and call yourself a grown up. you can be in favor of the war, you can be opposed to it, but since america declared this war, started it, it's your job to know what's going on. if that bums you out and you're too busy waiting for the fall tv season to start or obsessing over jonbenet, too bad. this is reality and if you're a grown up, you follow it. it may cheer you, it may dismay you, but you follow it. and if you think 'oh this is too much,' you need to get real. you're just having to hear about it, you're not living there.

read danny schechter's 'America is losing Iraq: Is anybody watching?'

here's c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Wednesday, August 30, 2006. Violence and chaos continue with CBS and the AP calling the fatalities at 52 and the AFP going with 77. The blink-and-you-missed-it truce (with one militia, the Mahdi Army) is off less than 24 hours after it began reports AFP, South Korea's numbers in the so-called coalition drop, in Australia the Jake Kovco inquiry takes shooting lessons, and the Bully Boy has explained to Brian Williams for NBC Nightly News the key to his failure -- Reuters: "Let me, let me . . . look, the key for me is to keep expectations low."


At that, if nothing else, the Bully Boy has succeeded. Equally disappointing is the puppet of the occpuation, Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, who spent much of Sunday swearing there was and would be no civil war. Reality has a a way of slapping the Operation Happy Talkers in the face. Where have you gone Spinmeister William Caldwell IV, an administration turns its frantic eyes to you?

In Baghdad, an explosion at a market has killed at least 24 and left at least 35 wounded. CBS and AP report that the bomb went off at "one of Iraq's largest markets, where wholesalers sell food, clothing and house products to businessmen and shopper." AFP notes that "[b]ody parts and the remains of those killed and wounded were strewn across the area. Windows of nearby shops were shattered, two cars were ripped apart and popular restaurant blown open."

The bombing of the market wasn't the only Baghdad bombing today. The BBC notes that three people are dead and 21 injured as a result of a a car bomb "near a petrol station". CBS and AP identify the three dead from that bombing as Iraqi police officers. Before the market blast in Baghdad, a bomb was hidden on a bicycle in Hilla, AFP reports, "that exploded outside the army recruitment centre" killing at least twelve people and leaving 38 wounded. Reuters notes that five members of a family were killed (three women, a man and a child) and two members wounded from a roadside bomb in Buhriz. Southeast of Baghdad, the AP notes: "An Iraqi army major was killed in Kut . . . by a roadside bomb." Reuters notes "two border guards" are dead in Badara from a roadside bomb. The Financial Times of London notes two dead from a bomb in Karrada. Sabah Jerges (Australia's Herald Sun) reports "a bombing in the oil city of Kirkuk" that took three lives.

Check the math, but that should be 52 killed by bombs today. Shootings?

CBS and AP note that Nadiya Mohammed Hassan and her bodyguard and driver were shot-dead in Baghdad. Reuters notes three brothers were shot dead in Numaniya. The BBC reports that, in Baghdad: "Gunmen shot dead three textile workers travelling to work in a taxi". And CBS and AP note: "a civilian driving in his car in northern Mosul was apparently shot and killed by American troops who opened fire when the man's vehicle came too close to them."

Stonings?

You read that right. Possibly, it's Shirley Jackson time. AFP reports that one person is dead in Samawa and ten wounded after "hundreds of young men" seeking jobs "pelted stones at the building and burnt tyres when clashes broke out between them and the police." Reuters notes the police fired at the crowd. Bullets, stones? Someone is dead. AFP identifies the person as "a volunteer." The Finanical Times (with a Reuters report) notes a witness who says that the person was shot by the police.

Sabah Jerges (Herald Sun) estimates that today's violence resulted in "at least 77 Iraqis" dead. AFP goes with "at least 77" as well.

Corpses?

AFP notes: "five bodies washed up on the banks of the Tigris south of the capital . . . . blindfolded and shot in the head" while Reuters notes two corpses were found ("gunshot wounds . . . torture marks") in Qaim as well as, in Falluja, the corpse "of a civilian . . . found three days after he was kidnapped" and one in Numaniya "bearing signs of torture."

Of course, on Tuesday, a torture czar could be found in Baghdad. The BBC reports that on the question of torture (which is illegal, though he and the administration appear to have forgotten), Gonzales stated "it is difficult to decide what is appropriate" and that it's "a difficult decision as to where to draw the line" but that "decision will be made by the Iraqi government". So exactly why did he waste US tax payer money going to Baghdad? To meet with "officials at the Iraqi High Tribunal . . . trying ex-leader Saddam Hussein and six others on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity." Possibly he wanted to try out the defense he'll mount in US courts should he ever be held accountable?

Danny Schechter (MediaChannel.org) notes, "One recent report placed the costs of the war at $1.75 billion per week. The Cost of Iraq War calculator is set to reach $318.5 billion September 30, 2006. With the skyrocketing costs of the war in Iraq, worldwide military spending soared. Wouldn't you think that that alone would have our news media all over the story? If you think that, think again."

Sadly, he is correct. It's been a summer of chasing after a lot of stories, giving wall to wall coverage, and letting a lot drop through the cracks -- mainly Iraq -- and that's true of all media, big and small.

Along with the dropping Iraq coverage, the numbers in the so-called coalition continue to drop as well. The Korea Times reports that, on Tuesday, people gathered to see off the 1,179 (South) Korean troops headed to Iraq to replace the 1,8000 (South) Korean soldiers who will be returning home. That's 621 more soldiers leaving Iraq then are headed to it.

In peace news, Sandip Roy (New America Media) spoke with Bob Watada. Bob Watada is the father of Ehren, the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq. On the issue of Ehren Watada's refusal to serve in the illegal war, his father stated: "It's in the code of military justice, it's in the field manuals that you have a dut to disobey an unlawful order. The Nuremberg Tribunal which we signed on to and probaly drafted parts of, clearly says any military official can be prosecuted if they are complicit in war crimes and clearly we have massive war crimes going on in Iraq today."

Last Thursday night, a military spokesperson noted the recommendation forthcoming re: Ehren Watada's Article 32 hearing: court-martial. That recommendation is now working its way through the chain of command. To weigh in with support for Ehren Watada, Cedric (Cedric's Big Mix) is advising those calling Donald Rumsfeld (703-545-6700) or mailing him (1000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1000) to say: "Hands off Ehren Watada! Let him go." Billie advises that you can use public@defenselink.mil to e-mail the Pentagon. She suggests "Re: Ehren Watad" or "ATTN: DONALD RUMSFELD." Courage to Resist and ThankYouLt.org. will continue to offer resources, ideas and inspiration. Get the word out.

In other peace news Michelle Mason has made a documentary entitled Breaking Ranks. The film premieres tonight at the Montreal World Film Festival. The festival notes: "Breaking Ranks examines the incidence of U.S. soldiers seeking refuge in Canada as part of their objections to the war effort in Iraq. The film documents the experiences of several American army deserters who face one-to-five years prison time if they are deported and convicted of desertion. If however, Canada refuses to deport the soldiers, it faces considerable friction in its relations with the U.S. Filmed in cinema verite style, the film combines personal stories with political, cultural and historical analysis of the issues these soldiers' actions raise for Candada and for its current policies."

Breaking Ranks plays at 9:30 pm at the Cinema Quartier Latin 13 tonight and at 10:00 am at the same location on September 1st. Nelson Wyatt (Candian Press) spoke to filmmaker Mason as well as war resister Kyle Snyder. Mason noted that she had intended to focus on the Vietnam era but when Jeremy Hinzman sought refugee status that changed -- "I realized that was the story to pursue." Snyder tells Kyle Snyder tells Wyatt, "I would rather take jail than go back to Iraq and fight for something that I don't believe in. If I could avoid jail, that's what I'm going to do and I'm going to whatever it takes to do that."

CODEPINK's Troops Home Fast action continues on its 58th day today with at least 4,833 people participating. The action continues through September 21st (International Peace Day) and those who would like to take part can grab a one-day only fast, a one-day a week fast or a mutli-day fast (seek health advice from your provider before embarking on any long term strike). More information at Troops Home Fast. If anyone's suddenly realizing summer is coming to an end and looking for something to do that you can point to with pride and say, "This summer I . . ." consider taking part in the action.

And Indybay Media notes that the World Can't Wait has a full page ad in today's New York Times for the October 5Th action. The ad, on page A9, reads: "ENDLESS WARS! TORTURE! KATRINA! THEOCRACY! BRING THIS TO A HALT!" For more, visit World Can't Wait.


In Australia, the military inquiry into the April 21st Baghdad death of Jake Kovco is on hold. Belinda Tasker (The Age) reports that those sitting on the inquiry's board as well as the attorneys were busy today receiving gun lessons to attempt to increase their knowledge on some of the issues (such as silent cocking) that have been raised during the hearing. Tasker notes that Thursday, they will be at a shooting range and that the head of the inquiry is upset that images of Soldier 14 were shown on Australia's Nine Networks. For those wishing to see the video, this page has a link. (Soldier 14 is a witness. He's not a victim. We'll put the link up here.) On the issue of Australia's Nine Networks, in May the network conducted a poll and "found 83 percent believe there had been an intentional cover-up over the details of" Jake Kovco's death.


iraq
ehren watada
cedrics big mix
jacob bruce kovco
jake kovco
bob watada
danny schechter
kyle snyder
jeremy hinzman
codepink
troops home fast

the mood

a lot of positive e-mails on yesterday's post and one who didn't enjoy it and felt i was griping about the girly-girls unfairly. i've waited over a year to say anything. i stand by what i said. they wanted to trade links, i was happy to support other women, but then they got their links and didn't want to make good on their offer. (their offer, i didn't contact them.) i have 4 readers who are in some state of considering to start their own sites.

my readers are more important to me then some huffy visitor. people need to know what happens. goldie would like to start a site now but marlene (her mother) doesn't want her having to put up with the bullies online. so she's doing her weekly column in polly's brew instead. i know goldie will start a site someday and i know it will be incredible. she needs to know, and others who are considering as well, what's what.

also, elaine talked about it here last summer and at least once at her site. when e-mails ask for tips or advice about blogs, that's 1 right there: don't believe what people say in their e-mails. and if you do link to some 1 who writes and offers to trade links - if they don't link to you, pull it immediately.

c.i. doesn't trade links but c.i.'s whole life has been about marching to a different drum. (that's not an insult.) a lot of readers, like billy, see what c.i. does and think 'i can do that too.' they may be able to. but they need to realize that a site is what you put into it. c.i. puts a lot of time and energy into that site. and it reflects c.i.'s personality. it was going to be a hit off the ground. (and when i found out around thanksgiving 2004, i said so. and it did end up a hit off the bat.)
there have been times when other people have wondered what they have to do? c.i.'s advice is always speak in your own voice.

that's really what you should do. i should have never traded links - and turned down offers from men. but i'd get that 'we gals got to stick together' e-mail and i do belive in supporting other women. but the reality is that the girly-girls don't. so if that helps goldie, great. if billy, a guy, can get a lesson from it, great.

but it's what happened. and it will happen again. you can be like c.i. and not care about it or you might get upset about it, like elaine did for me (so did c.i. when elaine informed - i hadn't passed it on).

i actually think that carries over to iraq where you've got a lot of people presenting themselves as brave voices and then they do nothing all summer long. they aren't brave voices. and you shouldn't be surprised when that happens.

mike wrote about his disenchantment with amy goodman tonight. we talked about that on the phone and i reminded him of when we did the discussion on her book at the third estate sunday review. c.i. was very positive to the book but did point out some issues with the book. mike was upset. not to the point where he said anything but c.i. could tell and then they talked a few days later and c.i. said, 'it's my opinion. we've both read the same book. you may be right and i may be wrong.' mike said tonight that he wished he'd used that moment as a wake up call but instead he really wanted to believe every thing said in that book.

as a general rule, never believe everything in a book that uses 'i' statements. people are rarely the best judge of themselves. but while others are mad, c.i.'s not. take it for what you can.

so we discussed that and mike said 'maybe someday, but i doubt it.' he just feels betrayed. (he wrote about this tonight before we spoke on the phone.) i understand that. and i don't think he's wrong to feel the way he does.

i don't think he's wrong at all because the reality is that the public mood has shifted against the war and if we had the kind of media coverage we need, the war would be closer to ending. but we don't have the kind of media we need. most aren't interested in covering iraq.

so the administration's lies will get out there and stand. and a few more weeks from now, some 1 will do 1 story (only 1) about how the lies have been accepted. no shit they've been accepted. you didn't offer alternative coverage.

so i do understand where mike's coming from.

and the community certainly does. if you're a community member, you've seen the anger at the independent media all summer long reflected in the polls gina & krista have been doing in their round-robin. mike's not alone on this.

a lot of people feel disappointed and/or betrayed. and it's only grown each week in the polling.

that's for this community but i can't image it's not the same outside it among people who are trying to follow the real news.

people are bothered by this. they're bothered that the mainstream went into a jon benet circus and that indepedent media went into an israel circus.

it has nothing to do with the fact that independent media covered israel. it had to do with the fact that they made it the only story and that they let iraq fall off the map.

that's not just democracy now. that's counterspin and every 1 else as well. it's why a program that addresses and covers iraq is needed. there needs to be a show that takes the war seriously and doesn't drop the coverage the minute another hot spot flares up.

so that's it for tonight. here's c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

August 29, 2006, chaos and violence continue in Iraq -- and Alberto Gonzales only just got there, the AFP is reporting a peace deal with one militia group, Camp Democracy gears up for the September 5th opening, and, in Australia, Soldier 14 is asked if he shot Jake Kovco.


Starting in Iraq, the AFP reports that the Madhi Army forces have agreed to some sort of peace deal (that's one out of countless groups) and that "a few hours after a peace deal was reached" 74 were dead from a pipeline explosion. The explosion was not caused by Alberto Gonzales (at least not as far as anyone knows), however he is in Iraq and, CNN reports, he intends to impart the importance of "rule of law" to Iraqis who, hopefully, will turn around and teach him a few things about "rule of law" since his actions as US Attorney General and, earlier, as Bully Boy's "hard-on with a suitcase," would indicate the concept confuses him greatly.

Gangsta' Gonzales should feel right at home in Iraq amidst the chaos and violence.


Bombings?

Reuters notes that five people were wounded by mortar rounds in Baghdad and that, in Kirkuk, a roadside bomb claimed the life of a police officer and wounded nine people.



Shootings?

Reuters reports that, in Baquba, "[f]ifteen people were gunned down"; a bakery worker was shot to death in Baiji with another one wounded; a civilian was shot in Mosul; and an attack (by "gunmen") an office of Moqtada al-Sadr left two bodyguards dead and five wounded. AP notes that the office was attacked with more than guns ("three mortar shells, two rocket-propelled grenades and a bomb") and that the building was demolished.

Corpses?

Reuters reports 20 corpses ("gunshot wounds") were discovered in Baghdad, a corpse ("gunshot wounds" as well) was discovered in Balad, and four corpses were discovered ("handcuffed and blindfolded") near Baquba. CBS and AP note the 20 corpses in Baghdad rose to 24.


In the United States, Cindy Sheehan remains at Camp Casey III in Crawford, Texas. On Wednesday, August 30th, she plans to join Salt Lake City mayor Rocky Anderson for a demonstration against the Bully Boy in Salt Lake City. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 30th, not Thursday 31st, as noted here before. More information at Utah Voices. The prospects so overjoy the Repubes that they've launched an ad, as John Daley (KSL) points out, that includes: "Now Rocky Anderson has invited her to Utah." Don't make the Repubes do all the work getting the word out.

Sheehan's attendance may depend upon her health (she recently had surgery). Responding to the charge of 'irrelevancy' (by the Waco Tribune), Sheehan (Truthout) notes: "Peace will never be irrelevant as long as war is used as a diplomatic tool" and discusses her plans for The Camp Casey Peace Institute as "a force for real peace."

Sheehan will be moving Camp Casey to DC for Camp Democracy. Kevin Zeese (American Chronicle) interviewed David Swanson about the upcoming Camp Democracy which Swanson states "will bring together movements for peace, Katrina recovery, immigrants rights, labor rights, electoral reform, women's rights, environmental sanity, accountability and impeachment. We'll open the camp in Washington D.C., on September 5th and run at least until September 21, the International Day of Peace, when a movement called Declaration of Peace has planned massive civil disobedience."

Turning to the topic of Ehren Watada, Charles Burress (San Francisco Chronicle) reports that Sarah Olson will not assist the military investigation of Watada: "I declined because I don't think that it's right for the Army to be asking me to help them prosecute Lt. Watada" Olson has reported on Watada at Truthout and on Free Speech Radio News (among other outlets). Ehren Watada was the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq. More information can be found at Courage to Resist and ThankYouLt.org.


Meanwhile, in Australia, the military inquiry into the April 21st Baghdad death of Jake Kovco continues. Today Soldier 14 took the stand. On Monday, Michelle Franco (forensic expert with the NSW Department of Health's Analytical Laboratories) refuted Soldier 14's previous claims that his DNA ended up on the slide of Jake Kovco's gun as a result of their shared use of a radio, megaphone, etc., from when they were both on duty the day of Kovco's death. Noting the concentration of Soldier 14's DNA on the pistol's slide and the fact that, were DNA transferred by such means, "after 30 minutes it would be virturally all gone." When asked point blank if she was saying that the Soldier 14 would have had to handle Jake Kovco's pistol to have left the DNA that was found on the slide, Franco testified, "It is consistent with that."

Soldier 14 had previous testified August 25th, August 21st and as he did on August 18th that he did not touch Jake Kovco's gun. Soldier 14 has been in Australia and complained that he wanted to return to Baghdad (also testified that 'many people' told him Shelley Kovco, widow of Jake Kovco and mother of their two children, was out to get him). Michael Edwards reported on PM that in testimony on Tuesday, Soldier 14 stated: "We've had discussions on a numerous occassions trying to work out what happened." He's speaking of Soldiers 17 and 19 who were Jake Kovco's roommates.

Attorneys for Judy and Martin Kovco (Jake Kovco's parents) and Shelley Kovco may want the Soldiers 17 and 19 to testify (by video-link or in person). Soldier 17 testified to hearsay on August 2nd, floating the rumor that Jake Kovco was a 'cowboy' with guns." At that time, he based that 'testimony' on what "others" had told him but he wouldn't name the others (and shot off a whiny "I don't have to if I don't want to" type of remark). Frank Holles (Judy and Martin Kovco's attorney) responded then: "I put it to you when it suits you, you will not provide information." No he won't. As Conor Duffy reported that day to Eleanor Hall of Soldier 17's claims, "He said he never saw this . . . He said that he didn't see it . . ." "It" was Soldier's 17's vivid testimony of how Kovco would allegedly play with his gun: "Like quick draw and you spin it around all that sort of s[**t]." His testimony to something he did not see, something he was told of by "others" whom he wouldn't name. Now Soldier 14 has admitted that he and Soldiers 17 and 19 discussed the case prior to their testimony. Soldier 17 should be forced to name the "others" and to testify as to his version of what the three of them discussed.


The "cowboy" claim made all the papers that day (in Australia) based on Soldier 17's vivid testimony . . . based on, admittedly, hearsay. And today Soldier 14 admits that they (he, Soldiers 17 and 19) attempted to 'sort it out'.


On July 24th, Detective Sergeant Phillip Elliott took the stand and noted that the clothes were destroyed, the roomates had showered, Jake Kovco's body had been washed all before he could begin his investigation. Elliott also noted that Soldiers 17 and 19 (Jake Kovco's roommates, in the room when he died) differed on where Soldier 17 was located in the room, on where Jake Kovco "lay after he fell" and that Jake Kovco's body had been turned over after he fell.

Belinda Tasker (The Courier-Mail) reports that Soldier 14 continues to insist that he never touched Jake Kovco's pistol. Dan Box (The Australian) reports that Soldier 14 told the inquiry "he wished his friend [Jake Kovco] was still alive to explain how his [Soldier 14's] DNA came to be on the gun." What a buddy, what a pal, what a mate. He wishes the late Jake Kovco were alive, why? To explain how his [Soldier 14] DNA was found on Jake Kovco's gun. What a selfish (and stupid) remark. Presuming Soldier 14's telling the truth about not touching Jake Kovco's gun, what makes him think Jake Kovco could explain it when (the living) Soldier 14 can't?

As previously noted, Jake Kovco and his two roommates were listening to music before Jake Kovco died (Cranberries) and Soldier 14 has tetified before about being bothered by the volume. AAP reports that Frank Holles asked him if he "had stormed into Pte Kovco's room because he was angry about the loud music he and his two roommates were playing." Michael Edwards reported it to Eleanor Hall (The World Today) like this: "Basically what the lawyer for the Kovco family, Lieutenant Colonel Frank Holles, said was that Private Kovco had been playing loud music in his room, which is adjoining that of Soldier 14 in the barracks in Baghdad, and that Soldier 14 went into Private Kovco's room, took hold of his . . . of Private Kovco's 9mm pistol and then shot him in the head."

Soldier 14 denied that he shot Jake Kovco; however, as Eleanor Hall pointed out, "But Soldier 14 has not denied being in the room, or the possibility that he may have been in the room when Private Kovco was shot?" To which Michael Edwards replied, "What he did today, he didn't deny being in the room. He said . . . it was put to him that hypothetically it wouldn't have taken him long to reach the room. And he agreed that hypothetically, yes, he said his room was adjoining Private Kovco's." It's interesting that it would hypothetically take two seconds for Soldier 14 to get to the room. Soldier Two (the platoon sergeant) testified on July 25th that he heard the shot and went to Kovco's room where he found Soldiers 17 and 19 beside Jake Kovco's body. Where was Soldier 14? Two seconds to get to the room, the platoon sergeant has made it to the room, where was Solider 14?

In other news of the Kovco trial, the AAP reports: "Meanwhile, the chief of staff at joint task force headquarters in Iraq, codenamed Soldier 39, has rejected as 'utter bulls**t" claims by military police that he ignored advice to keep Pte Kovco's body in Baghdad until investigators arrived to examine it." On the subject of the body, Jake Kovco was supposed to arrive in Australia's April 26th. He did not. Juso Sinanovic, a Bosnian carpenter, arrived instead. The company handling the transportation of Jake Kovco and Juso Sinanovic's bodies was Kenyon International. As Brooke Shelby Biggs (CorpWatch) has noted: "Kenyon International Emergency Services is a wholly owned subsidary of Service Corporation International (SCI), a funer services firm based in Texas. SCI is helmed by Robert Waltrip, a close family friend of the Bush clan and a major donor to George W. Bush's gubenatorial and presidential campaigns. SCI has been embroiled in a number of high-profile scandals in recent years, including one in which a subsidiary was discovered to be recycling crypts and dumping bodies in a wooded area behind a Jewish cemetery in Florida."


iraq
ehren watada
jacob bruce kovco
jake kovco
cindy sheehan
gold star families for peace
free speech radio news
sarah olson

call it like you see it

1st off, there seems to be a little confusion about bully boy's 9-11 face. the new york times wrote about how there were dueling images of his image 'after' 9-11 versus his image in hurricane katrina. as wally's 'THIS JUST IN! THE REAL 9-11 MOMENT!' wonderfully points out, it's the same damn face. the only difference is that the news media didn't want you to see his face on 9/11. most people had to wait for michael moore's film to see the face of bully boy. he did nothing. he sat and he did nothing. nothing too different from his response to katrina. so let's all get clear on that.

in 2001, near the end of his 1st year, he did nothing. in 2005, near the end of his 1st year of his second term, he did nothing. it's 2006 and that means 2007 is war with iran. he just repeats himself. (2003, for any who've forgotten, is when the illegal war with iraq began.)

2nd, required reading, c.i.'s 'It takes a War Pornographer.' oh my god. i read that and thought, 'this is over 24 hours after c.i. got up.' i mean we're talking 24 hours with no sleep. we're talking a very difficult edition during which ava & c.i. repeatedly said they didn't think they could write even 1 tv commentary. they were tired. they were tired 1/2 way into the edition.

but they wrote 3 tv commentaries:

TV: Washington Weak
TV: Make Room For Bully peters out
TV: Vanishing

they did other stuff as well, participated in the writing of other pieces, but writing 3 was something they didn't want to do, they were tired, they were both falling asleep during the edition (ava started drinking coffee, c.i. started eating chocolate - and they were still tired and yawning throughout the edition). and then, c.i. turns around, at the end of 24 hours plus with no sleep and writes 'It takes a War Pornographer'? that still amazes me. it's the best thing you'll see on the topic though elaine and i both think most won't bother to weigh in.

what's it about? sexually exciting u.s. armed forces in iraq with little outlet (other than rosy palm). the 'answer' for the troops today is to give them a t&a show. good thing no troops have been accused of raping civilians, right? is there a more idiotic thing? it was idiotic during vietnam, it's idiotic today. but some 1 had the bright idea that cock teases needed to go into iraq. they'll tease and tease but who's going to be there when the 'gun' goes off?

and exactly how does this help us women serving in iraq? as c.i. pointed out, if they're lesbians (and might be turned on), they can't acknowledge that unless they want to be drummed out of the service under don't ask-don't tell. if they're straight, not only are they going to have to put up with 'jokes' that probably border on or are sexual harrassment (think of what suzanne swift went through) but they're also going to have to wonder where the beefcake is?

if you're going to exploit, do it equally.

by the way, 53 u.s. troops have died in iraq thus far in august. not that many pay attention to it. they're dabblers. looking for the latest cause bandwagon to jump onto. they got bored with iraq. they wanted the war to end, but goodness, golly, it's such work. so better that they move on and independent media has moved on. from amy goodman on down (or on up), they've moved on. 69 iraqi deaths made it into this morning's paper (for sunday) today and you know there were more. but 69 made it in and where the hell is independent media? darfur? israel?
they're a bunch of dabblers. they can't follow through.

they lose interest and move on to something else. to them 'eye on the prize' is just a mini-series they can't get due to copyright issues. they're bored, so they don't cover it.

what is it amy goodman ridiculed the new york times on? their response about to the misreporting on the anti-war protests against the war in iraq: 'it's a matter of emphasis.' well amy goodman and company have demonstrated that their own 'matter of emphasis' is seriously flawed. a dabbler, that's what she's become. you've got an ongoing fast, you've got people dying in iraq, you've got ehren watada, you've got a whole host of things to report on but she's bored with iraq and needs to dabble elsewhere. dabble, dabble, dabble.

what a joke she's become. people used to really look up to her and think, 'here's some 1 who takes the war seriously.' for 2 months now, she's demonstrated how unseriously she takes the iraq war. that ought to help the sales of her new book!

i asked c.i., who still listens to the show, 'are you going to buy the book?' the reply, 'i don't think so.' if any 1 doing a site in this community was going to buy the book, it would be c.i. my next question was, 'are you not buying it because you'll end up getting it for free?' no. not buying, not receiving and not reading.

like the last one, this 1 is credited to 'amy and david goodman' which always made me wonder about the last book. it's written by the sister and the brother so why does it use 'i' all the time? is it 'as told to david goodman'? i've heard of the royal 'we,' but never a royal 'i.'

she had her day in the sun. those days appear to be over and it's her own fault. she could cover iraq and i think even mike would overlook the last 2 months when war was treated as an after thought. (that's my opinion, mike might disagree.) but that hasn't happened.

dabble, dabble, dabble.

and we wonder why the war drags on?

what else? let me note ruth's 'Ruth's Report' and betty's 'On Our Vacation, Thomas Friedman Got Burned' and trina's 'Mixed Greens with Honey and Oranges in the Kitchen.' those went up this weekend, in case you missed them.

steve young's got a post entitled 'Note to Air America: Watch The Daily Show,' and while i agree with his critique of air america radio in some instances, i was also left to wonder if he knew that air america already attempted humor in its early days. for the 1st year, unfiltered attempted to do just what he suggests. janeane also attempted to do humor. then the majority report turned into non-stop screaming and ranting (and squealing) from sam seder. but lizz winstead actually attempted this with many of the shows (she was more than a co-host of unfiltered). it's ratings were higher then so i'm not suggesting it didn't work. but i am saying, it's not that they need to try something new, it's that they need to get back to their original formula.

i don't think he realizes that lizz (who was a creator of the original daily show) did start the shows off that way. as i've noted before, i'll listen to randi and to laura. mike if i've got time. (and can remember. before the majority report became the sam seder show, i could listen all the way through.) oh, the majority report? right now not on the fall schedule.

ha-ha!

who would want to listen to sam seder for five minutes let alone an hour? (no 1 judging by the ratings. and they'll only get worse now that janeane's gone.)

as long as people are discussing what to do with air america, let me bring up something i've brought up before (and i believe we've addressed it at the third estate sunday review as well), does any 1 notice that beside laura's show, women aren't guests? sam seder could go a week with 2 women and how many men? the network is too white and too male. the problem's only gotten worse. i never did understand why fair, which studies race and gender ratios on guests, never felt the need to study air america.

is the point to improve things for women and people of all colors? if that's the point, then they need to study the air america guests. if it's just about sticking it to the big tv networks and cable channels, then just admit that you don't give a damn about representation, you just want to needle cable and networks.

but that appears to be the state of the left today, everywhere, it's not just 1 organization or group, there can be no critiques of it from the left. maybe if there were, maybe if fair turned their eye to the left, we could get iraq covered again? as it is, the left should be ashamed (not just amy goodman) because the coverage of iraq has gotten so rare that you'd think it was the invasion of grenada and not a war going on it's 4th year, started by the u.s. government.

bobby e-mailed me and i did make a point to try to catch up on e-mails from people who aren't regular readers of this site. (i failed, but i read bobby's.) he wanted to know if i felt i was hurting myself by critiquing the left?

how? i like fair. if they're offended by my comments, oh well (as cedric would say). i mean, it's not like they've ever linked to me. they're not as bad as some of the girly-girls posing as feminists (if feminism means you repeat the mainstream critiques and babble on about about shopping - feminism is supposed to critique consumerism). elaine won't link to most woman who writes to her for a link. there's a reason for that.

i did. i gave out 41 links in the time i've done this site, according to elaine who kept track, to the girly-girls. 'rebecca, i love your site. let's exchange links.' i'd write back, 'great, we need more women online and we need to be aware of them.' they'd write back that they hadn't linked to me yet but they were about to. they were always about to. when elaine substituted for me in the summer of 2005, the 1st thing she did was drop 13 girly-girls who had many months to link to me but never did. i guess writing about your vacations takes a lot of time?

elaine said, before she filled in for me, 'rebecca, you're being just like c.i.!' and i was. c.i. doesn't care. that stuff doesn't matter. if it happens to a friend, it matters, if it happens to c.i., it doesn't. i've lectured c.i. for years (decades) that 'you need to fight for yourself as much as you fight for every 1 else.' and i mean that (even now).

but i didn't do that with the links. it took elaine to pull the last of them. they'd write and sometimes say something like 'you know, right now, i can't link to you but i will soon.' apparently i was too controversial. no problem. but if i'm so controversial (elaine's point) then you probably don't want a link from me for fear of being tarred by association.

i have susan (random thoughts) on my links and she may be the only 1. she never wrote. she never said, 'link to me and i'll link to you.' sherry pointed out to me that susan linked to me so i thought 'thank you!' (and i mean that.) i don't know her, i've never e-mailed her and she's never e-mailed me. but i've got a link and she's got a link.

but elaine gets about 7 requests for link exchanges lately. (last month it was 10.) from the girly-girls. she doesn't even reply. she knows the sites that burned me. she knows they'll probably burn her too.

it's my site. if i'm going to do it, i'm going to say something. it's worked well enough that i've got some really great and loyal readers. and it didn't come from 'links.'

i have what i need. so, no, i don't worry about losing anything that i don't have. (the support has always come from the community. they've given me support, they've given me word of mouth.)
so i'll speak my mind.

there's no support from the girly-girls. (among men outside the community, i've had support. i am aware of that and thankful for that.) but, hey, they were nowhere to be found when sandra day o'connor retired. all of them. big girly-girls, little girly-girls. they were off writing about vacations or cats or silly tv shows they were shakespeare. so it's not like we'd have the same audience. (1 wrote about it, later in the day. i enjoyed that post. of course i enjoyed it several hours before when c.i. had posted it. if you're going to steal, probably shouldn't do it word for word. but that gives you an idea of the girly-girls.) i don't even remember the girly-girls noting the death of molly yard. they probably didn't know who she was.

like when they were all, panties in a wad, screaming 'newsweek owes susan faludi an apology.' let me go to ava & c.i.'s 'about the women' because i thought they 'served' the girly-girls up perfectly with that:


Take one site which actually blogged on Iraq this week (for a change). They did it about an Abu Ghraib trial and only because a female carried a book to the trial with a one word title that rhymes with "runt," but hey, they're doing their part, right? No comments on Iraq or even Abu Ghraib but that book title, gotta' love it!
Why they're so on top of things they also noted the 'clarification' Newsweek offered last week for creating a "fact" about a woman being more likely to be killed by a terrorist than married after a certain age. They even noted that Susan Faludi revealed (in 1991) that the claim wasn't true. After that, it got a little confusing for them. They started wondering if now Newsweek would apologize to Susan Faludi?
For what exactly? They ran a story in 1986 and she debunked it in 1991 (in Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women). Why does the magazine owe her an apology? They may owe everyone, male and female, who read the article in 1986 an apology, but why would they owe Faludi an apology? It makes no sense (neither does ignoring the war). But for the sake of argument, let's defy logic and just nod and say, "Newsweek owes Susan Faludi an apology!" Well it's a shame they waited so long, a little while ago and they could have just written "I'm sorry" on her paycheck. (The screamers for an apology to Faludi from Newsweek are aware that Newsweek hired Faludi as a contributing editor in the late nineties and that she worked for the publication until recently, right?)

no, they weren't. it's the difference between knowing what you're writing about and just offering hot air. the girly-girls usually offer a lot of hot air.

as i've said before, i think we've allowed feminism to be far too elastic. there are no 'pro-life feminists' - not if they're advocating taking the rights away from women. that's not feminism. you can be against abortion for yourself but when you advocate that no woman should have an abortion, you've left the feminist world.

i'll stop here but may pick up tomorrow on this topic. trina had a wonderful point, early on, about the girly-girls and how they love to flaunt their ignorance. i'm going to call her and see if she remembers when that post was. i think it was her 3rd or 4th post. but i want to talk to her and see if she has anything to add. (i'm betting she does.)

here's c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Monday, August 28, 2006 and chaos and violence continue in Iraq, England's defense minister attempts to bring back Top Of Pops -- live from Baghdad -- as Operation Happy Talk continues to reject reality, eight US soldiers died on Saturday and Sundy, and, in Australia, Soldier 14's DNA argument is rejected by a forensic expert in the military inquiry into the April 21st death of Jake Kovco.

On Sunday, as Ellen Knickmeyer (Washington Post) reported, "Gunmen and bombers claimed at least 69 lives in Iraq". That would be the same Sunday that puppet of the occupation (officially billed as prime minister) Nouri al-Maliki declared on CNN, "In Iraq we'll never be in a civil war." Downplaying "unemployment as high as 40 percent,"
al-Maliki stuck to the Operation Happy Talk latest wave, "But this is a new Iraq."
Speaking Sunday on The KPFA Evening News, Antonia Juhasz responded to the latest wave of Happy Talk by noting, "The statements run counter to the facts that, well have been on display every day on our televisions, but even in mainstream media, of violence increasing between Iraqis, between the Shia and Sunni, but also violence increasing tremendously against the presence of the occupation, against US forces. Security is definitely down in Iraq, as are basic services. What is, what is up is Bush administration pressure on the Maliki government to put up a better public face."
Juhasz, the author of The BU$H Agenda: Invading the World One Economy At A Time, will be at Camp Democracy in DC on September 5th and, Texas community members, she will begin a Texas speaking tour on September 26th.

On Monday, Des Browne, the British defense secretary, wanted to duet with his Iraqi counterpart Abdul Qader Jassim. Reuters reports the two held a publicity conference where they dueted on how things were looking up, things were looking up, things were looking up . . . They spoke in the heavily secure Green Zone, the bunker-like compound in the midst of Baghdad -- Baghdad being the site of the 'crackdown' with the huge influx of US soldiers since the 'crackdown' began on June 14th. Things are looking up? Apparently that means next week they might step a toe outside the Green Zone. Maybe just half a toe. In the meantime, possibly they could consider recording a duet of Ashford & Simpson penned Motown classics? "Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing?"

The real thing? CNN reports that, when not dueting with Des Browne, Jassim was busy today "sending reinforcements to the Shiite city of Diwaniya to try to stem ongoing clashes that have resulted in the deaths of 23 Iraqi soldiers and 38 militia fighters". Reuters reports that: "Ahmed al-Haji, in charge of the town's main hospital, said the bodies of 25 soldiers and ine civilians have been brought in."



Bombings?

Sudarsan Raghavan and Ellen Knickmeyer (Washington Post) report that a car bomb went off "at a checkpoint leading into the Ministry of Interior" in Baghdad. Reuters puts the dead at 16 and the wounded at 47. AFP notes that, "The blast and the carnage in Diwaniya were [the] latest blow to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's campaign to convince Iraqis and the world that his government and security forces are up to the tast of restoring order in Iraq." The BBC reports that the Ministry was "frequently targeted in the past and is heavily guarded." In addition to that car bomb, Reuters reports that a roadside bomb in Baghdad claimed the life of one police officer and left two others wounded while, still in Baghdad, a civilian was injured by a roadside bomb. Another civilian was killed in western Baghdad, according to the AP, who notes the dead was in "a car transporting five barbershop workers" and that four were wounded.

Today, Reuters reports, the US military announced six US soldiers died from bombings in Baghdad yesterday: "Four . . . killed by one roadside bomb north of Baghdad and two others killed by separate devices around the capital". AP notes that if you put together Saturday and Sunday's count, eight US soldiers "in and around Baghdad." 8 US troops dead and US military flack wants to brag, "We have reduced the amount of violence. We are actually seeing progress out there."? Try "Iraq: This is what failure looks like" (The Third Estate Sunday Review).


Shootings?

Reuters reports a a police officer was shot dead in front of his house in Mosul, that three other police officers were shot dead "in separate attacks", and that "two women and one man" were shot dead ("members of the same family). AFP reports: "A security official says gunmen have also killed four of former Sunni deputy prime minister Abd Mutlaq al-Juburi's bodyguards in an ambus on their car in Baghdad's Ameriyah neighborhood."

Corpses?

Reuters reports four corpses were discovered in Baghdad ("gunshot wounds").

Maybe Caldwell can join Browne and Jassim as some sort of power-trio? They couldn't cut it as Cream or The Jimi Hendrix Experience, but possibly as some sort of homage to Grand Funk Railroad they could have some chart success? There first single could be "Ride That Wave (Of Happy Talk)".

They might want to review, before warbeling again, what Nancy A. Youssef and Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reported Sunday: that families are swapping houses in Baghdad "as Iraqis find themselves searching for ways to avoid becoming vitctim to Baghdad's increasingly vicious cycle of sectarian violence. Shiite families in Sunni neighborhoods and Sunni families in Shiite neighborhoods change places."

In peace news, Ehren Watada's case was addressed by Charles Burress (San Francisco Chronicle) this weekend and he noted that some Japanese-American war vets were against Watada and, as Joan noted this morning, so is Daneil Inouye.
Speaking on Sunday's The KPFA Evening News, Bob Watada (father of Ehren) explained that people need "to get behind him so that the military knows that what he did, the steps he has taken, and why he's taken these steps is-is-is for democracy, he refused to kill Iraqis, innocent Iraqis, and he's spoken out on it and we're talking about free speech so we need people to support Ehren for standing up [for] the Constitution." Jim McMahan (Workers World) notes, "Many people now consider Watada's statements to be not only his right but his duty."

Again: Cedric (Cedric's Big Mix) is advising those calling Donald Rumsfeld (703-545-6700) or mailing him (1000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1000) to say: "Hands off Ehren Watada! Let him go." Billie advises that you can use public@defenselink.mil to e-mail the Pentagon. She suggests "Re: Ehren Watad" or "ATTN: DONALD RUMSFELD." Courage to Resist and ThankYouLt.org. will continue to offer resources, ideas and inspiration. Get the word out.

Ehren Watada refused to deploy to Iraq (the first officer to have done so publicly) because it is an illegal war. Other resisters have found other ways of refusing. Peter Laufer (Times of London) reports on four who went to Canada: Darrell Anderson: "Soldiers were describing to me how they had beaten prisoners to death."; Joshua Key: ""We was going along the Euphrates river. It's a road right in the city of Ramadi. We turned a sharp right and all I seen was decapitated bodies. The heads laying over here and the bodies over there and US troops in between them."; Ryan Johnson: "I had two choices: go to Iraq and have my life messed up, or go to jail and have my life messed up. So I came here to try this out."; Ivan Brobeck: "I have seen the beating of innocent prisoners. I remember hearing something get thrown off the back of a seven-ton truck. The bed of a seven-ton is probably something like 7 or 8ft high. They threw a detainee off the back, his hands tied behind his back and a sandbag over his head, so he couldn't brace for the impact." Peter Laufer's most recent book is Mission Rejected: U.S. Soldiers Who Say No to Iraq.


In other news of resistance, Bully Boy's latest vacation didn't go as quietly as he might have hoped. From Sunday's The KPFA Evening News, Vanessa Tait: "Anti-war protestors have followed President Bush to Maine at his summer house in Kennebunkport. An estimated 700 anti-war demonstrators got to within an half-mile of the Bush compound in Kennebunkport yesterday before being stopped at a security checkpoint. They sang, chanted, beat drums and waves signs calling on the president to bring US troops home from Iraq." AFP reported Saturday that Jamilla El-Shafei stated: "Our message to President Bush is: We want the troops brought back home, we want democracy to be restored, we want you to stop trampling on our civil rights."

Things were chilly for US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as well when he was in Alaska Saturday meeting with military families. Kristin Roberts (Reuters) reports that the questioning got a little intense in a closed-to-the-press encounter. Roberts quotes Jennifer Davis, "wife of one soldier in Iraq," as stating, "I think it was a show."

Cindy Sheehan remains in Crawford, Texas at Camp Casey III and notes "and hoping to be back on my feet . . . to go and protest George with Mayor Rocky [Anderson] in Salt Lake City and be up and about when he comes back to Crawford for the Labor Day Weekend. Apparently George Bush is a 'regular guy' who meets with his constituents, so I am looking forward to finally getting the meeting with him that I have been asking for all year long." Sheehan recently had surgery ("hoping to be back on my feet"). August 31st is the day of action in Salt Lake City, when Bully Boy (who arrives August 30th) make a speech there.

And CODEPINK's Troops Home Fast is on the fifty-fifth day of action with at least 4,833 people participating (that's how many have registered their participation at the site). The action continues up to September 21st. Those wanting to take part can grab a one-day only fast, a one-day a week fast or something longer (on longer, seek advice from your medical adviser).



In Australia, the military inquiry into the April 21st Bagdad death of Jake Kovco continues. To recap in light of today's issue, Soldier 14 testified Friday and denied 'silent cocking' Jake Kovco's gun. Soldier 14 also continued to maintain (as he did on August 21st and as he did on August 18th ) that he did not touch Jake Kovco's gun the day Kovco died. On Kovco's gun, which is thought to have been the gun that killed him, DNA other than Jake Kovco's was found. Soldier 14 has suggested that a share radio, megaphone, etc. may have led to his DNA being transferred to Jake Kovco and Jake Kovco then transferred Soldier 14's DNA to the Kovco gun. On August 18th, the results of DNA analysis were testified to in the hearing by Michelle Fanco, forensic biologist, who stated that a match could be made of Soldier 14's DNA and the DNA found on the slide of Jake Kovco's gun. Other DNA may have matched Soldier 14 as well and some press reports stated it did; however, Franco testified that only the DNA on the gun's slide could be considered a conclusive match.

Today, Michelle Franco testified to the hearing again.Australia's ABC notes "forensic expert Michelle Franco told the inquiry it was more likely that the presence of Soldier 14's DNA on Private Kovco's gun was from direct contact." Malcolm Brown (Sydney Morning Herald) reports that Michelle Franco ("of the NSW Department of Health's Analytical Laboratories) rejected the idea that one person's DNA could transfer via an object to another person and then to an object required a very specific time frame and stated "[a]fter 10 minutes it could probably be found but after 30 minutes it would be virtually all gone." Belinda Tasker (The Age) reports that although Jake Kovco and Soldier 14 were on duty together the day of his death: "Given Private Kovco had changed out of his combat gear after finishing duty with Soldier 14 at the Australiam embassy compound in Baghdad, any traces of Soldier 14's DNA on his hands probably would have been wiped off, she said." In addition to the issue of timing, there is the DNA found on the slide which matched Soldier 14's DNA. The Australian reports that Franco also noted the "concentration" of Soldier's 14 DNA on the gun's slide. Malcolm Brown reports: "Had Soldier 14's DNA been deposited onto the pistol in the way he suggested, she would not have expected it to be the major component of the DNA." Meaning it would be secondary and not "a greater concentration" than Jake Kovco's. Belinda Tasker reports that when Jake Kovco's parents' attorney Lt. Col. Frank Holles asked Franco if her testimony meant that Soldier 14 handled Jake Kovco's gun and Franco responded, "It is consistent with that." Jake Kovco's parents are Judy and Martin Kovco, his widow is Shelley Kovco. Soldier 14 is expected to be called to testify re: the latest DNA testimony. Tasker closes with: "Soldier 14, who has refused to be interviewed by police about the DNA tests, will return to the Syndey inquiry tomorrow for more cross-examination."

Friday, we noted the burial of British soldier Jason Chelsea who took his own life (he was nineteen) "because he feared . . he might have to shoot children" (BBC) as he maintained he'd been told during his military training. Felicity Arbuthnot (Palestine Chronicle) provides more details of Jason Chelsea which include that he "joined the Regiment at sixteen" and that, in his final moments, he told his mother, "I can't go out there and shoot at young children. I just can't go to Iraq. I don't care what side they are on. I can't do it."