are you trying to be you or some 1 else? if the latter, why?

late. thought about not posting. i've never done anything for that many hours straight as i did helping out on sunday's the third estate sunday review. i'm not griping. dona was telling all of us that we could go ahead and go as sun up approached. but there was 1 problem after another. we lost whole features and had to redo them. go down the list and make it of any and everything you think could have happened.

it was an endurance test. wally had it in him to stay until the end but he also had college work to focus on (a test on monday and a paper due as well). i called him to see if my posting would make him feel like he had to. he said he couldn't believe how tired he was (he's not crazy about his paper but he thinks he aced his test). mike had told him to just chill tonight and that's what he's ended up doing. (he was on his way to bed after we got off the phone.)

i called because every 1 already has enough pressure on them and if i was adding to wally's pressure by posting, i wouldn't be posting tonight. a lot of us try to live up to the example c.i. sets at the common ills. i don't. elaine doesn't. that's because we've know c.i. forever and we're quite aware that c.i. can outlast us. in college, c.i. could party all night, turn around and go to a 1st of the morning class, make incredible points, and move on to the next class. c.i. is an insomniac, true. but it's also true that we're talking incredible endurance, incredible focus and an ability to juggle that exceeds what you'd find in a circus tent.

we know c.i. brings that same 'can do' attitude to the common ills. we love it. we love the site, we love c.i. but we knew long ago that we couldn't do that. but for others, it's the example, the standard. c.i. doesn't encourage that. doesn't push it. tells people to take time for themselves.
plus, the common ills community is huge. so there are more demands there than any of us have. when c.i. says 'write it but do it without me' on something we're all working on, it's because it's a sensitive subject for a member. which member? c.i. can tell you. c.i.'s always been able to do that. 1 nickname was 'the journal' because it was like having a journal recording everything. if elaine and i had a disagreement, we'd call c.i. and say 'what happened? who is right here?'

i can keep a few of my readers straight. i can tell you a ton about sherry because she's been reading since i started this site and she's become some 1 i think of as a friend. anytime i check the e-mails, the 1st thing i look for is to see if sherry's written. but i can probably only keep track of 15 of my readers in terms of being able to spit out their most important issues.

c.i. is not competative. you'll never meet any 1 less competative. if you've got something you're doing, it's yours. c.i.'s not going to do it. in college, c.i. was being asked to run for a student office 1 year. for obvious reasons. the person running for re-election comes up and explains how 'important' the position is to them. so c.i. doesn't run. (c.i. won as a write in.) in classes where the prof would tell you your grade before the final so you'd know how well you needed to do, c.i. wouldn't let the prof say it. why? c.i. was always the a student. every 1 knew it because after any test, if the prof went over them in class, he or she would tell you the true or false answers, the multiple choice answers and then, on the essay section, say 'for an example of the perfect essay see' c.i. other people would bask in that. i would. c.i. would slink in the chair.

i do anything, half-assed or full on, and c.i. is there with praise. try to praise c.i. and you'll get 'oh please' or something else dismissive. there is no complimenting c.i. (ask elaine if you don't believe me.)

i bet some of you reading this know some 1 like that. i hope you do anyway. i know a lot of talented people who are extremely conceited. i know very few who are modest like c.i. if you do know someone who is talented and gifted and modest, you know you're lucky to have them as a friend and you learn quickly that there's no point in using them as a measuring stick because you'll come up short every time.

i'm writing this for people who are trying to 'keep up.' i doubt any 1 who blogs in the community is competative with c.i. because when you get to know c.i., you realize that competition is not an option and that it only makes c.i. feel awkward (and start offering self-put downs or being self-negative). but i do think a few people are looking and thinking 'geez, c.i.'s posting 3 to 4 times a day. i should be able to manage at least once.'

when a similar thought was voiced to c.i. all it did was make c.i. feel bad and feel like the fault belonged to guess who. (no, not me. c.i. grabs none of the glory but will gobble up all the blame and guilt.)

it's not worth it to measure yourself against any 1. the few times c.i. has rallied competition wise is when some 1's tried to steal something. i remember a really sick, twisted lover in college trying to steal c.i.'s idea for a creative writing assignment. that's 1 time i saw c.i. really angry about something other than a social justice issue.

and what did c.i. do? stuck with the same original idea. and ended up getting the highest grade in the class. why? here's the lesson folks. because the jerk could rip off c.i.'s idea but not write what c.i. lived as well as c.i.

sherry could create a site called politics and sex and attitude and screeds tomorrow and try to do what i do the way i do and she'd fail. she could create a site tomorrow and write in her voice and be a huge success. (she's very gifted and i've repeatedly told her to start a site.)

sherry can be the best sherry. i can be the best rebecca (or the best i can be). but i'd be a lousy elaine copy or c.i. copy. the lesson here is to be you. if you speak in your own voice, you're going to win in the long run.

it reminds me of a huge battle c.i. had with a racist and sexist prof. so sexist, have i told this story before?, that he would say things like the wacs weren't interested in helping the country out in wwii, just in getting laid. say that in a lecture to the class. the professor did a lot of academic studies. co-authored them. people hated him but were intimidated by him, students were. so he got away with that crap.

until c.i. ended up in his class. c.i. aced the class and did it by being c.i. others tried to echo the prof and spit back whatever he spewed. not c.i.

or, a philosophy prof. he had an idol among philosophers. 1 class, on plato, had very little plato in it because the prof would always go back to his idol. anyway, c.i. wrote an incredible paper which was 1/3 of the grade. the prof didn't like it. (c.i. didn't care for the prof's idol.) he refused to accept it. he gave it back with all these remarks that were non-academic scribbled on it and told c.i. to redo it. said 'do it this way and you'll have an a.'

c.i. didn't do that. instead, c.i. took the paper to the dean, showed how unprofessional (and personal) the remarks the prof had written were, showed up with all the index cards and research backing up each point. the prof was told he had to accept the paper and the dean said he'd be looking over the grading of it.

this took up a lot of time, this battle. and the easiest thing to do would have been to just redo the paper the way the prof wanted and get the easy a. but c.i. said 'if i do it his way and fail, i've failed twice, on the grade and failed myself by not being true to myself.' every 1 on campus that knew c.i. was saying 'just do it the prof's way.' c.i. would rather have taken a failing grade than tried to 'write like' the prof.

i've come out of my own shell. i used to be so scared of speaking out. (i know that's hard to believe if you've read this site very often.) a lot of that is the personal issues i've had to deal with shortly before beginning this site. but it's also true that due to those issues, i realized that how little so much i thought mattered actually did.

i get credited by elaine and c.i. for my 'strength.' i think a lot of it is due to finally having enough and seeing how little surface things matter added in with seeing c.i. over the years.

like i said, in college, i learned quickly that i couldn't compete with c.i.'s endurance. but what i did learn in the last few years, and hopefully there's some 1 around you that you've learned this from or that you will learn this from, is that in the end, you have to answer for what you did. not who liked you, not who thought highly of you. c.i. demonstrated that then and demonstrates it now.

when the freak got pissed that c.i. linked to joan mellen and defended her (mellen wrote an incredible book, read it), there was a lot of 'oh my god!' from people. c.i. couldn't care less. truly. there are times, if c.i. thinks someone's been hurt, that it is an issue. but there will be no guilt attached to a slam for being true to yourself.

there's a scene in the pelican brief that elaine and i always tease c.i. about. julia roberts is in class and being asked about a court decision on gays and lesbians. julia says something about every 1 is equal and the prof says something like 'well the court felt differently' and julia responds evenly and calmly something like 'well they're wrong.'

that is any course we've taken with c.i.

dexter filkins gets criticized for his phoney reporting now. a little. and it's picking up still. the criticism. but there are people who are still shocked that in real time, november 2004 during falluja, c.i. would criticize dexy. they shouldn't be. c.i.'s not interested in being 'right' today. c.i. has and will take people saying 'you are wrong' and the attitude is always 'i'll be right in the long run.'

i'm stronger these days and a part of that is because of the example i've seen from c.i. over the years. money, relationships, go down the list, none of it is important enough to sell yourself out and i've seen an example of that up close. are there rocky times as a result? yeah, usually there are. but you win in the end. the 'win' is that you stayed true. you didn't water yourself down to please some 1 else. take it from some 1 who spent most of her life, too many years, watering herself down to be liked, there's no point in that. there's no long term reward.

in the end, you actually end up feeling very hollow.

there are 3 points to tonight's entry. the first, already noted, is to encourage every 1 to realize they need to do their best, not some 1 else's. the 2nd is dexy and i'll get to him in a minute. the 3rd is that march is coming up on us.

on that. it's the 3rd anniversary. what are you going to do. are you going to find your voice now and speak out against the war? if you already have your voice, are you going to speak out more? if you're saying 'well i don't know what to do' are you actually looking for things to do?

here's something you can do, danny schechter, "Why Protest Media Coverage March 15?"

The national day for local media protest announced last week on Mediachannel.org received such a positive response that the organizers of United For Peace and Justice, the country's largest anti-war coalition, decided to change the date from March 21 to March 15 to make a focus on the media the kickoff event for this years week-long "spring offensive" against the war to mark the third anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq.
Activists, peace groups and media reformers are being encouraged to organize protests in every city and community.
I wanted to add some personal comments to this campaign because journalists as a rule and Mediachannel until now has reported on protests, not helped organize them. Usually, media people are not activists but this case is different. Here the issue is not about politicians or causes, but our own profession and industry.
If we are not willing to speak out on a problem so close to home, who will? If we don't stand up for media freedom and against deceptive news practices, how can we lecture or editorializes other institutions to practice ethical standards, accountability and transparency?
I know there are colleagues of ours who find protests, well, unseemly, and likely to do no good. Some readers feel that way too. To these "nattering nabobs of negativity," to quote the late and great Spiro T Agnew, a politician with loose standards but clever language, I would respond, it is the duty of all of us who believe in the need for honest journalism to say so publicly.
Remember the phrase "my country right or wrong, my country!" The response is always "My country right or wrong, but when wrong, set it right." The same goes for the press.
I have been fighting this media battle for a long time. In his foreword to my book WHEN NEWS LIES on media complicity and the Iraq War, Michael Wolff calls me "the 2000 year old" media critic in the spirit of Mel Brooks and Carl Reiner’s hysterical 2000 year old man shtick.
Yes, I have been doing it a while but mostly in the media, dissecting news on the radio or producing TV and films. In the case of Iraq, I have written two books and made the documentary WMD (Weapons of Mass Deception). I think I know what I am talking about.I have spoken on the issue all over this country and throughout the world. And yes, I know from painful personal experience, how easy it is to be ignored, or patronized and marginalized.

but you know what? given the choice between doing what he believe and staying silent, danny schechter would choose doing what he believe in. so should you. (i don't know danny schechter, by the way. i have read his books and his website and c.i. speaks highly of him.) 30 years from now, people will still be talking about danny schechter. other 'names' even 1s on tv currently? we'll have forgotten them. they've done nothing. they've done the job that causes no waves and makes no impressions other than to their bosses who are so amazed how well trained the clapping seals have turned out to be.

the people you remember are the 1s who stand up. the 1s with courage. the 1s who don't sit on the sidelines waiting for some 1 else to act. think of your life as a movie. shouldn't you be starring in your own movie? otherwise, you're just a supporting character. you're there to say 'really, and then what happened?' and serve as recap for events that others did. don't you want to be the star of your own movie?

now for c.i.'s "And the war drags on . . ." because c.i. took on dexy again:

Now for the New York Times. Prepare to chuckle (and thanks to Rob for pointing it out, I often skip the book section and had intended this to be one of those days):
But [Paul L.] Bremer bears a heavy responsibility for keeping silent -- and so does General Sanchez. If we can ssume that Bremer's recollection is correct, then General Sanchez's remarks indicate that Baghdad was indeed out of control, that both he and Bremer knew it and that without more troops, it was likely to stay out of control. [. . .]
By staying silent, Bremer ensured that there would be no public debate on the merits of deploying more Americans troops. By staying silent, he ensured that there would be little public discussion over the condition of the Iraqi security forces, whose quality he doubted. [. . . .]
What do we learn from the above? It's by an in-house writer at the paper so it's safe to assume (no surprise) that the Times argument remains "Stay until more are slaughtered!" Yeah, they're making the idiotic argument that "more troops" are needed. Got to protect those foreign investments, got to protect that "free market," no need to leave until we've privatized everything. That's their real argument. The Times can support human rights . . . to a point. The point is where human rights intersects with a "healthy" profit motive. At that point, the paper tosses human rights out the window.
Listening to the scolding of Bremer (who deserves it) for his silence is anyone else thinking of all that the paper of record has been silent on? The Bully Boy hump? The NSA warrantless and illegal spying that they sat on for a year. And so much more. (For years and years and years.)
If you're thinking, "Who is the Times to scold anyone for staying silent?" wait, it's about to get a whole lot funnier (and more hypocritical). The review is entitled "Desert Sturm" (oh, aren't they cute -- in their minds). And the writer? Dexter Filkins.
Dexter Filkins who stayed silent on the slaughter he should have witnessed in Falluja. Supposedly he was there in November 2004. But to read his rah-rah, video game reporting, it was all, people killed, people who had it coming to them. And it was so 'totally cool' judging by his breathless reporting. (Did the American troops have to swat him on the snout to get him to stop huming their legs?) It was all so glorious, so wonderous to read Dexy's "award winning" "reporting." The piece that took over six days to make it into print. Who edited that report? Who had to clear it? Why did it take so long to make it into the paper?
Those are questions Dexy may have to answer someday (probably sooner than he thinks). But the man who couldn't report the truth on Iraq (not just on Falluja, on the entire occupation) now wants to scold Bremer for staying silent. It's interesting to watch the liars turn on one another.
As the Judith Miller controversy was in its final stages, I said repeatedly that if she helped get us into war (she was part of a large number of helpers -- she didn't do it alone), it's the "reporters" like Dexter Filkins who keep us over there by refusing to report the truth. Now Dexter wants to scold Bremer for "staying silent"? Filkins' press releases live from the Green Zone will not be forgotten. He can pretend like the only one staying silent was Bremer but it was him too. Had the Times written the truth about the occupation long ago, America might have woken up sooner.

that's the c.i. who has inspired me for years and continues to inspire me. but i couldn't write that. for 1 thing, i loathe the times too much to go through it the way c.i. does. for another, in november 2004, i'm not sure i would have gotten how silly dexy's 'award winning' report was. or the problems with it. but mainly, i'm not c.i. i can do a full rebecca on dexy. and if i approach it that way, i'm the only 1 who can.

so the point is, you've been given a voice, are you going to use it? march is coming up. the 3rd anniversary. are you going to be silent (a silent extra in your own movie of your life - worse than a supporting player)? or are you going to speak out?

dexter filkins
the new york times
danny schechter
united for peace and justice
the common ills

surreal

Environmental Activist Arrested For Giving Speech
In Arizona, an environmental activist is facing 25 years in jail and a $250,000 fine for a speech he gave in San Diego three years ago. The government charges the activist, Rodney Coronado, broke the law by urging people to commit arson and telling them how to build an incendiary device. The FBI has described Coronado as a leader of the Earth Liberation Front. His speech came just a day after the Earth Liberation Front claimed responsibility for burning down a new condominium complex in San Diego. Coronado has never been charged in connection with the fire -- just the speech he gave the next day.

that's a news headline from democracy now and my question is, don't you feel safer now? don't you?

someone's been stopped from using their free speech. another 'victory' in bully boy's phoney 'war' on terror.

and how great is the fbi? they arrested him ... 3 years after he gave a speech. probably would have nailed his ass sooner but they still haven't fixed the computer problems.

3 years after the fact, they arrest him for excercising his right to free speech.

did he even do what the fbi says he did? probably not. if he had, would it have taken them 3 years to charge him? probably not.

bully boy and his minions are like depraved barney fife's let loose on the world. daddy may have ensured bully boy failed upward but he's determined to make the nation fail downward.

can you believe how much this country has changed since the dry drunk took to steering it?

it's so surreal.

we've got prisoners held in guantamo without trial for years. and we call them 'detainees.' we're in the midst of a war that we know we were lied into but we're not supposed to talk about the downing street memos.

in 1999, could any of us have guessed we'd end up where we are now?

maybe in a 'worst case' kind of way.

it's like the david bowie song 'this is not america.' i wonder how they teach kids about this country now? i can't imagine patrick henry goes over to well with his 'give me liberty or give me death'. maybe they've changed it to 'give me phoney safety or give me death.' if that's the case, he'll find out he gets both.

we're in a war, we're told, a long war, but any 1 with information is gagged like sibel edmonds. and porter goss and john cornyn and all the other 1/2 wits scream about 'leaks!' but the people who should be talking are gagged.

it's insane.

my great grandmother says it reminds her of the hysteria at the start of the cold war. so what does that mean? that we have to live through 30 plus years of this crap?

i don't think so. bully boy's a liar and we need to say that as often as possible. we need to reject ari's 'watch what you say' edict.

we've gone from fdr's 'the only thing we have to fear is fear itself' to 'fear everyone unless they have money!' and it's so far from what we're told the country stands for that you really do have to wonder what kids are being taught now?

are they taught that the bill of rights are disposable? do they say prayers each morning for king george and lady laura?

are we rewriting the george washington fable? does he now say 'i cannot tell the truth' and kids are taught that it's okay to chop down the cherry tree as long as you remember to lie about it after?

his father should have been behind bars for iran-contra and 'neilsie' should be behind bars for the savings & loans crimes. bully boy should be behind bars for his insider trading with harkin.
but watch, in 2008, if we get a democratic president, they'll play 'nice' and say 'we need to focus on the future' and all the crimes of lying us into war will be swept aside.

it's bad for the country, to be sure. but it's also bad for the democrats. the bush family wants to be a dynasty - that doesn't work too hard - compare poppy's lengthy vacations to bully boys and you get that when we're stuck with president jenna, she'll probably only work 5 days a year. and when she does work, it will be from the french quarter in new orleans. instead of press conferences, she'll stage her own 'girl gone wild!' yee-haw bits.

democrats need to stop this now. if poppy's father had been punished for his business ties to the nazis, we wouldn't have gotten prescott, or poppy or bully boy.

the family is a disgrace and they need to be held accountable. until that day comes, they'll keep showing up in this race and that race.

instead, dems act like james bond villains always letting the bushes slip away.

the creep who lied to me, that's the title of the current nightmare we're featured in.

we get to pay all the costs but we don't get to star in it. instead, we're supposed to bask in the lush glow of the 1st couple. lady laura needs to invest in control top pantyhose and bully boy needs to be carted off to a prison.

i wish i had some good news to send you off to the weekend with. but maybe we don't need good news on friday? maybe we need reality on fridays?

you know when we need good news? on monday. monday's are a pain in the ass. we could all use some good news to start our weeks off with. by the end of the week, we know the score.

i'll wind down by noting this from now:

Tell Your Senators to Oppose the PATRIOT Act
Despite some minor tinkering, the PATRIOT Act violates our civil liberties. Please take action NOW to oppose its reauthorization in the current form. It's up for a Senate vote on Tuesday, Feb. 28. Take action!

i'd also recommend you check out c.i.'s 'and the war drags on (indymedia roundup)," cedric's "Move on when you need to,"elaine's "it's a blot" (she was writing with fire tonight) and wally's "THIS JUST IN! BULLY BOY PRACTICES PRE-EMPTION!" and fly boy says to check out mike's "Democracy Now! and Danny Schechter" which i haven't read yet. i checked mike this evening but he wasn't up at his usual time so i assumed he was taking a friday off. fly boy calls it a 'must read' so i'll be reading it right after i get this posted.

the common ills
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
mikey likes it
like maria said paz
cedrics big mix
the daily jot

abortion under siege and we're stuck with clowns

South Dakota Approves Near-Total Abortion Ban
In South Dakota, state legislators voted Wednesday to ban all abortions unless they’re performed to save the life of the woman. The New York Times notes the law makes South Dakota "the first state in 14 years to start a direct legal attack on Roe v. Wade." Some abortion opponents said the vote was motivated by recent changes to the Supreme Court, with two Bush nominees -- John Roberts and Samuel Alito -- having been appointed in recent months.

the above is a headline from today's democracy now and it's not a surprise.

the extreme right has wanted roe v. wade overturned for years. they've been foot soldiers in this battle. and, as democracy now noted, they now have some fruits for their labor: john roberts and samuel alito. this is their test case to begin destroying roe v. wade.

though you wouldn't know it from the genteel 'miss diane' and her performance at both confirmation hearings, how they will rule isn't considering a surprise or cliff hanger.

the dlc has wanted to ditch abortion for some time. they don't like fighting for anything. they want to turn the democratic party into a carbon copy of the republican party that differs not on principles but on ways of execution.

they think they can strip away principles and still have a party in place. that's not the case.

if roe goes down hold every senator who refused to filibuster alito accountable. they acted like it was no big deal. john kerry, out of the country at the time, was not the person to be leading a filibuster.

that's not me taking anything away from him. thank god he stepped up to the plate. but with senators in dc, they should have had someone willing to lead on that. (ted kennedy backed kerry up.)

dianne feinstein is a joke and she needs to be voted out. i wish cindy sheehan had declared and was running against feinstein.

di-fi likes to make statements about how 'serious' she takes her responsibility as the only woman on the judiciary committee. i didn't see it. i didn't see it in her questioning of roberts or alito. i saw a woman pushing the bounds of middle-age trying to act like a deb at a coming out party. i saw a foolish, dithering idiot.

she took her responsibility (and her re-election requirements) seriously enough to put on a show of asking questions but she didn't do her job. she needs to step down from the judiciary committee. and we need to stop accepting the mealy mouth words of senators who say they are for choice but never fight for it.

they've got their test case now, the extreme right, if roe goes down, we can thank the likes of di-fi.

every pro-choice american should know that di-fi stabbed us in the back. and she should be held accountable for her lame 'i don't know nothing 'bout no lawyering' because it reflects badly on women when the only woman sitting on the committee has to make excuses for herself repeatedly and seems more comfortable lapping up compliments from arlen specter than in doing her job.

she embarrassed herself in the nsa hearings as well. in fact, i'm going to add isaiah's the world today just nuts on that to the top of this post.

we need leaders and di-fi isn't a leader. from iraq to alito, she's shown a failure to lead.

for another woman who clowns, elisabeth bumiller, check out c.i.'s 'other items' this morning.

the world today just nuts

comic

the common ills

abortion

democracy now

dianne feinstein

more in the 'i could've guessed that' news dept.

Supreme Court To Reconsider Banning Late-Term Abortion
And the Supreme Court announced Tuesday it will consider reinstating a federal ban on late-term abortion. Recent President Bush appointee Samuel Alito could hold the tie-breaking vote when the court hears the case. The court last ruled on the issue in the year 2000, when Judge Sandra Day O’Connor cast the deciding vote to strike down a state law banning the procedure. Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said: "Today's action means the core principle of protecting women's health as guaranteed by Roe v. Wade is in clear and present danger."

the above is from today's democracy now and let me say, no, i'm not surprised by the court's decision. i am surprised that nancy keenan really thinks any 1 cares what she thinks.

maybe some people do? i'll note this from planned parenthood:

WASHINGTON, DC -- Today Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) called on the U.S. Supreme Court to protect women's health and safety after the court announced it will hear Gonzales v. Carhart, a case challenging the federal abortion ban. The ban, passed by Congress and signed by President Bush in 2003, would outlaw abortions as early as 12 to 15 weeks in pregnancy that doctors say are safe and the best to protect women's health. "The Supreme Court's decision to hear this case is a dangerous act of hostility aimed squarely at women's health and safety. Despite 33 years of Supreme Court precedent that women's health matters, the court has decided it will once again take up this issue," said Cecile Richards, president of PPFA. "Health care decisions should be made by women, with their doctors and families -- not politicians. Lawmakers should stop playing politics with women's health and lives."
Every court that has examined the federal abortion ban has struck it down because, among other things, the ban does not protect women's health. Just six years ago, the Supreme Court itself struck down an abortion ban passed by the state of Nebraska because it did not have a health exception, and Justice O'Connor's was the critical vote that upheld protections for women's health and safety. Of course, Justice O'Connor has retired and been replaced on the court by Justice Alito.
"Today's actions by the court are a shining example of why elections matter. When judges far outside the mainstream are nominated and confirmed to public office by anti-choice politicians, women's health and safety are put in danger," added Richards.

it's a battle. some people don't want to fight it. the right wing wants to fight it. some of us on the left are prepared to fight but you've got that soft, squishy democratic muddle that just wants to roll over time and again.

dianne feinstein only realized that she should get behind the filibuster when cindy sheehan was talking about running for the senate.

so what do we do? linda berg puts it pretty clear at now:

From the votes on the Supreme Court nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, it couldn't be clearer that we have to elect more feminists to the U.S. Senate. We must challenge those whose seats are up in 2006 and whose votes have eroded women's rights. On the other hand, we must make sure that our allies, like Senator Debbie Stabenow in Michigan, defeat their well-funded right wing opponents. To add to our electoral challenges, Senators Paul Sarbanes (D-Md.), Mark Dayton (D-Minn.) and Jim Jeffords (I-Vt.) are retiring and we must ensure that they are replaced with feminist allies--not right-wing zealots.


i'd add that we need to realize that the democrats have a few right-wing zealots who need to be shown the door.

make a point to check out the daily jot, wally will make you laugh and we all need laughter these days. and, if you can handle it, check out c.i.'s 'other items.' guantanamo is an important issue and i agree with elaine and c.i., 'detainees' is the wrong term for these people, locked away, violated . . .

alito surprises no 1 and mary matalin slides by with the help of 1 her friends

Alito Taps Ex-Ashcroft Aide to Serve as Law Clerk
New Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has hired a former top aide of Attorney General John Ashcroft to serve as his law clerk. The New York Times reports the selection of the 37-year-old Adam Ciongoli has startled many in Washington both because of his seniority and his political background -- he has been credited with being an architect of the Bush administration's legal strategy after the 9/11 attacks.

that's from democracy now and why is anyone surprised?

who didn't know that alito would be bully boy's puppet? maybe those who depended on reporting from the corporate news? the new york times was vocal on this nomination, towards the end, and on their editorial pages. their reporters? they covered it like it was a tennis match that had no impact on our lives.

now we're supposed to be shocked that someone who was always in the bully boy's pocket just made it public by picking adam ciongoli? is any 1 surprised? no, not at all.

this was argument against alito, that he was not a believer in checks and balances, that he thought the executive branch could act on its own without fear of being checked.

so we got what we knew we were getting.

and we get what we knew would get at the daily howler today as well. bob somerby's blasting maureen dowd yet again. was maureen the issue? i'm reading over the transcript (you couldn't pay me to watch that crap) and the issue's not maureen dowd. the issue is dick cheney. bob somerby's strangely silent on the talking points that the v.p. is above the law and normal rules that apply to all of us. why did somerby miss it?

maybe because the talking points were launched by the woman he's praised at his site, mary matalin.

matalin gets off 1 howler after another, though you wouldn't know it to read the daily howler.
here's a strong section for dowd:


MS. MAUREEN DOWD: Well, I think that the reason this story has evoked such fascination is because the vice president is like the phantom. You know, we hear the creak of the door as he passes, but we don’t really know what he’s up to. We don’t know his schedule. We don't always know where he is. We don't know what democratic institution he's blowing off at any given minute, and so this allowed us to see how his behavior and judgement operated pretty much in real time--with the delay, but pretty much in real time.
And it covered all the problems of the Bush/Cheney administration: secrecy and stonewalling, then blowing off the rules that are at the heart of our democracy, then using a filter to try and put the truth out in a way that would most suit their political needs, and then bad political judgement in bungling a crisis. I mean, if there's one thing the Republicans are great at since Reagan, it's damage control. But he is such a control freak, you know, he doesn't even care about the damage.

transcript via msnbc for nbc's meet the press. (they have a must credit note and apparently a link isn't enough for them.)

now that's not noted. none of dowd's points are. instead bob blows another gasket going after dowd while missing the larger picture. it's amazing that this continues to happen.

somerby may claim that dowd's comments re: the outing of valerie plame mattered but if he really thought they mattered, he would have revisited his own work a long time ago.

if you'll think about it, you'll realize that mary matalin makes huge howlers ... daily. but she gets a pass from somerby. so does james carville. for some 1 supposedly so concerned about our national dialogue, he's never taken on the sonny & cher aspect of their chat & chew appearnaces.
(c.i. has. bob somerby takes a pass.)

now some of you may say, 'hold on, rebecca! he's focused on education now, right?' sometimes. sometimes he is. but then he feels the need to weigh in and suddenly that all changes. apparently education had to wait until later in his entry today because 1st he had to prop up matalain (again!) by going after dowd.

bob's an old, old man with old, old man ideas. he's never found his voice on the war and he's never found a way to critique his friends. mary matalin lies on national tv sunday - lies! lies in the face of the official public record that bob somerby prizes so much. and his half-assed criticism is aimed at matalin? no, he goes after dowd.

it must be nice to be a friend of bob somerby's. it means never having to be held to the same standards that somerby holds others too. i'm not remembering that from philosophy classes but i didn't multi-major (check with c.i. who did). as he goes after dowd (again!) and lets matalin off (again!), maybe the name of the site should be changed from 'the daily howler' to 'the noble lie'?

mary matalin lied and lied on national television. 1 lie after another. if her name were ted koppel, somerby would have called her on it. because he thinks she's nice, she gets a pass. which, by the way, was the whole problem with his plamegate coverage or, as many see it, his war on joe wilson. (joe, you should have asked bob to tutor you in comedy - that gets you a pass.)

in the real world, read jimmy carter's op-ed from the washington post. there was a world before clintonista.

news you can use

In the United Kingdom today, over 200 people gathered at St Nicholas and Writhington Church, in Radstock, Somerset for the funeral of Corporal Gordon Pritchard who died in Basra on January 31, 2005 becoming the 100th British soldier to die in Iraq. 101 British troops have died in Iraq, official count. Gordon Pritchard, who was 31 years-old, is survived by his wife Julie-Ann and his children Stacey, Harrison and Summer.

Alexander Panetta, of the Associated Press, is reporting that Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay maintains that "latest intelligence" indicates that the four memebers of Christian Peacemaker Teams are still alive. The four members, kidnapped in November, were last seen in a January 29th videotape. The four members are:

James Loney, 41, of Toronto; Harmeet Singh Sooden, 32, a former Montreal resident; Tom Fox, 54, of Clear Brook, Va., and Norman Kember, 74, of
London [. . .]

Sunday's upsurge in violence continued on Monday. Reuters is reporting that bombings in Mosul and Baghdad today killed "at least 19 people." The Associated Press reports that in Karbala one American soldier was killed in a bombing and that in Mosul, a bomber killed himself in a "restaurant packed with policemen eating breakfast, killing at least five people and wounding 21, including 10 policemen". The Department of Defense has identified Capt. Anthony R. Garcia of Fort Worth, Texas as one of the 34 US military fatalities this month. Garcia died of from gunshot wounds after a February 17th shooting that took place on a military base in Tikrit. Garcia is survived by his wife Doris and his children Kelly and Garrick.

Brian Zimmerman, of Gannet News, is reporting that questions still surround the shooting death of Army Reservist David Douglas who died two weeks after returning to the United States from a one-year stint in Iraq. Commenting on the violent deaths of many returning veterans, National Guardsman Alfonso Williams told Zimmerman:

You have a whole lot of built-up anger from being over there. . . . You can't explain (what it's like) to anybody. And to them, what they may think is screaming and hollering to you is a normal tone.

In 2005, the military reports that 136 active duty personnel committed suicide. No figures are kept for those who are inactive. The current number for US military fatalities in Iraq stands at 2276.

As Jane Mayer reported in The New Yorker, early warnings were ignored by the administration about the environment created for abuse of prisoners in Guantanamo. Noting that "Human rights are under threat," Amnesty International is calling for the closing of Guantanamo. Tuesday, Amnesty International will host a live online discussion:

Live chat with Moazzam Begg, ex Guantánamo detainee, on 21 February, 6-7pm GMT

Moazzam Begg, British citizen, was held for "nearly three years," as noted on Democracy Now!. Amnesty International's call echoes the call of the UN investigation team as well as the prime ministers of Germany, France, England and Malaysia. U.S. Charm Minister Karen Hughes, speaking to Al Jazeera, rejected calls to close Gitmo and reportedly maintained that not only are the people imprisoned in Guantanamo wanting to kill Americans but that some released "have gone back to fighting and killing Americans." If the report is accurate, it is surprising that such an assertion would be made by the Minister of Charm and not Bully Boy himself.

In this country, the Associated Press is reporting that Republican governors George Pataki (New York) and Robert Ehrlich (Maryland) have joined the chorus of voices objecting by administration plans to turn over control of "six major U.S. ports" to Dubai Ports World. Senators Robert Menendez (New Jersey) and Hillary Clinton (New York) are also objecting to the proposed plan. Speaking out against the plan involving the Arab company, Mendendez stated today, "We wouldn't turn over our customs service or our border patrol to a foreign government. We shouldn't turn over the ports of the United States, either."

Feminist Wire Daily is reporting that CWIG (Center for Women in Government and Civil Society) has conducted a study on "the percentage of women in policy-making positions - such as state legislators, elected officials, high court judges, department heads, and top governor's advisors" for the years 1998 to 2005 and found that the rate of growth for women in those positions increased by only 1.6% -- "from 23.1 percent to 24.7 percent." FWD notes:

Slow progress for women in state government has national implications, says Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women in Politics at Rutgers. State and local office serve as a "pipeline" to draw women into national politics. Not to mention, adds Walsh, state legislatures themselves are "making a tremendous amount of policy" –- in 2005, 48 state legislatures considered over 500 anti-choice bills.

On the national level, NOW notes, that although "almost nine million more women voted than men" only fourteen women serve in the United States Senate and only sixty-seven in the House, while of the fifty governors in the United States, only eight are women.

As noted on Sunday's KPFA Evening News, Saturday Feb. 25th, a Counter-Recruiting workshop will be held, open to the public, from 2 to 5pm at the Veterans' Memorial Building, Room 219, 401 Van Ness Ave. March 1st is the National Law Student Day Against the Death Penalty (SDADP).

In other news, Philadelphia Indymedia is reporting that Governor Ed Rendell vetoed the Pennsylvania's Voter ID bill. Rendell, who spanked Casey Junior in the 2002 election race, stated, "I see no reason to enact laws that will result in voter confusion and disenfranchise legitimately registered voters." Member of Protect the Vote had successfully fought against the proposed legislation and were on hand for the veto ceromny.

In other civil liberties news, following what BuzzFlash has called "Just Your Average Week of the Bush Administration Betraying America," the ACLU features a snapshot of governmental spying/snooping in the form of Betty Ball who states:

It is true that I have become more motivated to work for justice and social change knowing that the government is abusing its powers like this. But I am worried about how far the government will go to squelch First Amendment rights and silence dissent. Will we all be rounded up and incarcerated? Already so many people have been frightened away from participating in our events, and have asked to have their names removed from our mailing lists, for fear of the consequences of associating with us. I hesitate to call people to discuss plans for rallies or protests because I don’t want them ending up in an FBI file labeled as a "domestic terrorist."

Meanwhile, author and activist Diane Wilson remains in a Victoria County jail in Texas. Wilson was arrested for unfurling a banner that read "Corporate Greed Kills--From Bhopal to Baghdad" at a Dick Cheney attended fundraiser in Houston on December 5, 2005. Wilson's banners are apparently too much for the delicate sensibilities of the foes of democracy. She is currently serving a 150 day sentence for a 2002 action where she climbed a Dow Jones tower and unfurled a banner which read "Justice For Bhopal." CODEPINK is calling for Wilson's release.
In other take action news, MediaChannel.org is asking you to Take Action: Demand Coverage of Able Danger (more info on the Able Danger program can be found at Able Danger Media Monitoring).

Finally, Monday's Democracy Now! featured:

"Readings From Howard Zinn's 'Voices of a People's History of the UnitedStates:'"
Today we spend the hour with readings from a Voices of a People's History of the United States edited by historian Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove. It is the companion volume to Zinn's legendary People's History of the United States ­ which has sold over a million copies.We will hear dramatic readings of speeches, letters, poems, songs, petitions, and manifestos. These are the voices of people throughout U.S.history who struggled against slavery, racism, and war, against oppression and exploitation, and who articulated a vision for a better world. Performances include Danny Glover as Frederick Douglass, Marisa Tomei as Cindy Sheehan, Floyd Red Crow Westerman as Tecumseh and Chief Joseph, Sandra Oh as Emma Goldman and Yuri Kochiyama, and Viggo Mortensen as Bartolomeo de Las Casas and Mark Twain.

This entry was compiled by:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim;
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 Ills);
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix;
Mike of Mikey Likes It!;
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz;
and Wally of The Daily Jot.

democracy now
news
iraq
the common ills
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
kats korner
the third estate sunday review
mikey likes it
like maria said paz
cedrics big mix
thomas friedman is a great man
the daily jot
feminist wire
jane mayer
the new yorker
codepink
diane wilson
guantanamo
national lawyers guild
amnesty international
aclu
counter-recruiting
able danger
buzzflash

when the professional liar met the professional stenographer ...

c.i. just called with a 'what you doing?' having my morning coffee, working my way through the washington post and watching democracy now. had i seen the new york times yet? no. in fact, i'd told fly boy he really could canel the subscription if he wanted because that paper is so useless to me.

while i was talking to c.i., i opened it up and noticed elisabeth bumiller's '
'Troubleshooting the Tale of a Hunt Gone Sour' and assumed c.i. had covered this. 'no,' i was told, 'it's a white house letter.' c.i. sees those at floating op-eds and doesn't cover the op-eds or editorials the way the main section, the reporting, is covered at the common ills.

so let me grab it. bumiller, who serves on the elite fluff patrol - hell, she commands the elite fluff patrol, has a warm and tender talk with professional liar mary matalin.

before any visiter thinks, 'you are slamming matalin because she's a republican' let me add that she's married to a professional liar - james carville.

i think they're both disgusting. they disgrace the national debate as they attempt to score points through spin. people always say things like, 'how can a democrat be married to a republican' as though they have no common ground. they have common ground: they both believe in lying. they trot out spin and pass it off as truth. i have no respect for either. (or for their sonny & cher like tv appearances.)

so mary matalin needs to get out a lame story that she had trouble getting out all last week. don imus roared at her when she attempted to lie/spin him last week. she needed an easier audience, so she went where every 1 goes when they need an unquestioning audience, to bumiller. you tell it to bumiller, she writes it down exactly as you tell her because she's apparently incapable of critical thought.

so matalin tells bumiller, and bumiller writes it up as fact, that there was a statement from dick cheney after the shooting of his friend on that hunting trip. matalin says she was awoken and it was read to her over the phone. now this statement, that no 1 ever heard of until matalin started her latest round of lying/spinning, naturally paints cheney in a good light. matalin says she killed it and that it was better to have no statement released than a bad statement.

funny thing is, cheney sat down with brit hume and never mentioned an attempted statement even when hume lightly grilled him. and katherine armstrong, who has turned out to be quite the chatty cathy, has never mentioned it.

so people can and should suspect that this is an attempt to lie/spin and rewrite history. when it's time for that, you call a mary matalin or james carville because ethics don't matter to those 2. they're all about tricks and manipulations. i actually think matalin has a little bit more integrity than carville. it's a teaspoon more, but it is a little more. carville's just a bean counter. for all her bean counting, matalin actually believes in something. it's a frightening and disgusting view of the world, but she believes in it.

today, she's doing what she does best in the paper of no record, creating myths and lies in support of what she believes in. (carville believes in winning elections. matalin believes in that as well as in a dark and oppressive way of life.)

will it work? it worked for bumiller but everything works on bumiller. you drop your ten dollars on the desk beside the bed on the way out and she writes it up.

i don't think any 1 takes bumiller seriously but if there's even 1 reader who does, note that this mythical statement, that matalin supposedly killed, has never been mentioned until the jokes didn't stop after cheney did his sit down with brit hume.

c.i. was wondering if i intended to post anything today? i was thinking about taking the day off. but i'll post early instead. i may end up working with c.i. and some others on a joint entry later today.

zach wrote me, and i see c.i. as well, asking that i note the contents of sunday's the third estate sunday review so here they are:


A Note to Our Readers
Editorial: No spine on no spying
TV Review: Close To Home (and floating in the toilet)
1 Book, 10 Minutes (Danny Schechter, The Death of Media)
Psst, here come the gatekeepers
Musings on the service economy



check out jane mayer's latest in the new yorker, 'THE MEMO: How an internal effort to ban the abuse and torture of detainees was thwarted' - which c.i.'s covered at length this morning in 'NYT: Golden reads Jane Mayer online (Guantanamo)' and 'other items.'


the common ills
the new york times
elisabeth bumiller
dick cheney
jane mayer
the new yorker
mary matalin

amy goodman and alfred mccoy discuss kubark

i want to note a long section from democracy now today. this is from "Professor McCoy Exposes the History of CIA Interrogation, From the Cold War to the War on Terror:"

ALFRED McCOY: Right, his son Eric Olson insists that his father was murdered by the C.I.A. Eric Olson believes that his father did a tour of Europe, and he visited the ultimate Anglo-American test site, black site near Frankfurt, where they were doing lethal experiments, fatal experiments, on double agents and suspected double agents, and that his father returned enormously upset by the discovery that this research was actually killing people, and that, therefore, Eric Olson argues his father was killed by the C.I.A., that he was pushed.
AMY GOODMAN: And didn't they do experiments in brothels in the San Francisco area?
ALFRED McCOY: They had two kind of party houses. They had one in the San Francisco Bay Area, another in New York City. And what they did in San Francisco was they had prostitutes who go out to the streets, get individuals, bring them back, give them a drink, and there would be a two-way mirror, and the C.I.A. would photograph these people.
AMY GOODMAN: So, the C.I.A. were running the brothel.
ALFRED McCOY: They were running the brothel. They were running all of these experiments, okay? They did that on Army soldiers through the Army Chemical Warfare Division.
AMY GOODMAN: What did they do there?
ALFRED McCOY: Again, they gave them LSD and other drugs to see what effect they would have.
AMY GOODMAN: And what did the soldiers think they were getting?
ALFRED McCOY: They were just told they were participating in an experiment for national defense.
AMY GOODMAN: Prisoners?
ALFRED McCOY: No, these were --
AMY GOODMAN: Right, but also on prisoners, were there experiments?
ALFRED McCOY: There were some in prisons in the United States and also the Drug Treatment Center in Lexington, Kentucky. The Federal Drug Treatment Center in Lexington, Kentucky, had this. All of this research, all this very elaborate research --
AMY GOODMAN: On unwitting Americans?
ALFRED McCOY: Unwitting Americans, produced nothing, okay? What they found time and time again is that electroshock didn't work, and sodium pentathol didn't work, LSD certainly didn't work. You scramble the brain. You got unreliable information. But what did work was the combination of these two rather boring, rather mundane behavioral techniques: sensory disorientation and self-inflicted pain.
And in 1963, the C.I.A. codified these results in the so-called KUBARK Counterintelligence Manual. If you just type the word "KUBARK" into Google, you will get the manual, an actual copy of it, on your computer screen, and you can read the techniques [Read the report.] But if you do, read the footnotes, because that's where the behavioral research is. Now, this produced a distinctively American form of torture, the first real revolution in the cruel science of pain in centuries, psychological torture, and it's the one that's with us today, and it's proved to be a very resilient, quite adaptable, and an enormously destructive paradigm.

there are a number of reasons to note the above including that it's a part of the united states' history that we should be aware of. but sherry e-mailed me about someone posting that kooks were drawn to impeachment rallies. the person who wrote that doesn't see himself as a kook. i don't see him as a kook either. i see him as destructive.

i'll leave it at that. this is a short entry because i've just deleted 9 paragraphs. a writer as worthless as the one sherry stumbled upon isn't worth me wasting my website on.

cowboy junkies and guantanamo prisoners

the amazing cedric has what should be the last word on 'no-manners.' i had a heads up to it and was waiting for it to go up before blogging tonight. it's called 'You drop the Trash at the curb and let it go.' well said.

i'm listening to the cowboy junkies right now. i mention that because i had 2 e-mails from people who went out and bought hair. great, it's a wonderful musical. now make a point to check out the cowboy junkies' early 21st century blues.

this is what kat wrote about the cd in her year-in-music-review:

Early 21st Century Blues. This Cowboy Junkies CD actually got national exposure . . . via The Laura Flanders Show. If others had followed Flanders' lead, this might have been one of the more talked about albums of 2005. The album features two original songs and nine covers. Among the covers are songs by Bob Dylan, from his pre-brand days. I have to be in the mood for their version of John Lennon's "I Don't Want To Be A Solider." Wally enjoyed this but Cedric and I felt that the combination of the Junkies' understated approach and Rebel's rap were an uneasy mix. The album ends on a high note, a cover of U2's "One." Unlike on Mary J. Blige's latest album, you don't wait for Bono to shut up and get out the way so that Blige can work her magic. That's because he's not featured. Margo Timmins' voice is haunting on this song and the covers of Bruce Springsteen's "You're Missing" and "Brothers Under The Bridge" should have resulted in saturation airplay. If you missed this CD, locate a copy and listen.

the link in the title takes you to a piece we all worked on.

i think most of my readers know that elaine has to take off thursday nights because she does group on that night. she called this afternoon and asked if i could note something for her. she said, 'if you can't, don't worry, and i'll try to find time to do it myself tonight.' i told her not to be silly, i'd be happy to do it. this is from democracy now.

UN Investigators Call on U.S. to Close Guantanamo
In other news, United Nations investigators have called on the Bush administration to immediately close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp in Cuba. The UN report urges the US government to "refrain from any practice amounting to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." The report goes on to state "In the case of the Guantanamo Bay detainees, the U.S. executive operates as judge, as prosecutor, and as defense council: this constitutes serious violations of various guarantees of the right to a fair trial before an independent tribunal." About 500 men are being held at the site. Charges have never been filed against most of them. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack dismissed the report. He said the U.N. information was based on "hearsay."

elaine and c.i. have both hit on hard this issue repeatedly. they don't think 'detainees' is a term that should be used. as c.i. said once, 'detainee? that makes it sound like you got stopped in customs for not declaring a taxable item.' they are prisoners. they have been held for years and years now. when does the outrage set in? we've all addressed the topic together at the third estate sunday review.

this is something you'll have to answer for. children in a generation or 2 will ask you, 'how were you able to just stay silent and look the other way?' so if that's your plan to keep on ignoring this, you might use that looking away time to come up with a good excuse. this is a sad thing, this is a tragedy.

being scared senseless immediately after 9-11 might have been understandable for some, goodness knows the bully boy was working overtime - the only time he ever works - to scare the nation. and you may have been grieving and felt like 'who cares?'

well it's past time to care. want to make money in afghanistan? kidnap some 1 and turn him over to the authorities telling them you've captured a terrorist.

some of them were children. they've spent 4 years locked away. if they had any information, it was old long ago. in the meantime, as many of the prisoners realize that they are never getting out, they go on a hunger strike. so we brutalize them. we force feed them in spite of the fact that every patient has the right to refuse treatment.

but we can't have them dying on us, not while the world's condemning us even if our own press isn't paying attention.

this is nonsense and it should have been addressed a long time ago. your children will study in this history classes, their children will study it. the matt dillon of the future will star in a film where he falls in love with 1 of the prisoners or the family of a prisoner (like golden gate). it's a travesty and we willingly tossed aside our own principles to feel 'safe'. then we left our principles in the trash can because it was too messy to deal with.


let me skate on c.i.'s coattails and recommend that you read danny schechter's 'JACK ABRAMOFF'S WHITE MAN'S BURDEN: How the Sleazy Republican Lobbyist Boosted Apartheid:'

Last week, pictures of Abramoff and President Bush, photos whose existence was first denied by the White House, turned up on the internet. Yes, they knew each other and met several times. Ambramoff claims Karl Rove was his buddy.
Still to come are images of Abramoff on his African "liberation" safari taking up the white man’s burden in the name of discrediting Nelson Mandela. The African National Congress leader's freedom was demanded by millions at the time, with the exception of politicians like then Congressman Dick Cheney who voted against a Congressional resolution calling for Mandela's release from prison. (Cheney also opposed overturning Ronald Reagan's ban on sanctions against South Africa, a ban Jack Abramoff personally worked in Hollywood to support as a Pretoria funded agent.)
Don't you think there must be a photo somewhere of young Jack with South Africa’s apartheid-era President, P.W. "The Crocodile" Botha. Putting those two presidential trophy shots side by side, Botha on one side, Bush on the other, will complete this connection between the ongoing fight for truth and racial justice and the Bush Administration's commitment to "Abramoff Family Values" (AFW) designed to enrich "just us." (The LA Times has since reported that Ambramoff considered Karl Rove a friend.)

this is a complicated story, jack abramoff and danny really is one of the few i've read (echoing c.i. here) who has written an easy to follow story on this that engages you as a reader.

lastly read this by wally for laughs and, remember, it is okay to laugh. humorless scolds may tell you otherwise, but it is okay to laugh. (love the martha mitchell appearance - wonder who she is based upon? i don't.)



danny schechter
the common ills
the third estate sunday review
like maria said paz
cedrics big mix
democracy now
kats korner
the cowboy junkies

on 'no-manners' and a story i hope we're following

elaine just called and filled me in on something while begging me to post now and not later because she was going to call mike back. mike's furious about something. he's like a bull seeing red right now.

here's the short version. no-manners, my name for the blogger, slammed the bloggers on the left for the attention to dick cheney shooting a man. she went further telling people who made jokes about the shooting that they should be "ashamed" (thanks to sherry for forwarding me the forward because i never go to no-manners' site). in that entry she says she's delinked from a number of blogs. then she lists a long list of what bloggers should be writing about, 'important stuff.' but the next day, when new abu ghraib photos are released, she's writing about ... a willie nelson country song.

no-manners should tsk-tsk at herself.

so why do i call her no-manners? wait, i'm getting ahead of myself.

among the sites (not blogs, no-manners, the common ills is a resource/review) she delinked from was the common ills. since she's on her huffy bike about dick cheney, i'll note (she has trouble comprehending) that c.i. has talked about the shooting. c.i. has made no joke about the shooting. c.i. has pointed out that overseas coverage notes that cheney has a medical team with him due to his health condition. american press is largely reluctant to note that. for the 1st three days c.i.'s noted the shooting, that's been the focus.

but no-manners has trouble reading the new york times as well. (whole other story.) maybe we should buy her some flash cards?

so this all starts months ago when c.i. makes the mistake of including a link to no-manners that a reader noted. c.i. gets the 1st name wrong and no-manners is in an uproar. so c.i. apologizes at the site and corrects it and notes her again the next day. because c.i. tries to support women bloggers, the community panel decides to include her on the links.

so you'd think she'd be happy that any 1 bothered to note her once let alone repeatedly. doesn't happen. she feels the need to e-mail c.i. and say she doesn't care for the look of the site.

that's why i call her no-manners.

i have enough brains and manners not to walk into some 1's home and say, 'oh i hate your couch.' no-manners has no taste and apparently no brains.

so a member wrote mike about no-manners post and mike's furious. he thinks, according to elaine, that no-manners thinks she's doing heavy lifting. well, if she wants to live in the land of delusion ...

mike's also angry that the only thing resembling a 'joke' about cheney has been c.i. steering readers to wally's stuff. c.i. hasn't quoted wally because c.i. always worries about spoiling a joke.
if that's all it took to set no-manners off, so be it.

but wally's doing great work and no-manners is ... writing about an old willie nelson song.

wally's hilarious. we're all proud of wally and we don't need ms. rudeness's judgement call since she's already demonstrated that she was raised in a manners-free zone.

i remember when c.i. called me and asked, 'rebecca, is this normal?' and then told me about no-manners begruding e-mail (don't like the look of your site). i think it goes to jealousy.

she also slammed an entry by c.i. and ava and c.i. took the high road on that. me, i would've pointed out that she didn't know the 1st thing she was talking about and might want to try reading before writing on something.

so yesterday's she's screaming at the left and telling them how awful they are and how ashamed they should be. if she read a joke she didn't like, anywhere, she didn't have to laugh. did cheney hold a pellet gun to her head? see, that's a joke. 'SOME 1 WAS SHOT!' she'd scream in her attempt to be barbra streisand in the way we were ('her husband is dead!'). as robert redford says in that movie, 'some 1 told a bad joke' that's all, no-manners. at the very worst they told a bad joke.

but wally didn't tell a bad joke. and the fact that he's getting more e-mails than he ever has indicates people are enjoying his humor.

here's a hard reality for no-manners, don't be cjr. don't write what people should be writing about unless you're then going to be writing about that. don't say 'what you should be focusing on is ...' and then jerk off to a post on willie nelson.

but, bloggers of the left be warned, no-manners is taking down names and sure to give you a firm tsk-tsk.

now let's talk about something that does matter. this is from democracy now today.

GAY BAR VICTIM FILES COMPLAINT OVER MEDICAL TREATMENT
Back in the United Sates, one of the men lfet injured in an attack on a Massachusetts gay bar has filed a complaint alleging paramedics gave him poor treatment because of his sexual orientation. Robert Perry was hit in the head and shot in the back when 18-year-old Jacob Robida attacked him and two others earlier this month. Robida later killed himself during a police chase. In his complaint, Perry says paramedics delayed taking him to a hospital, were physically and verbally abusive, and shared medical information without his permission. Perry, who himself directs an ambulance service in Boston, said he had never seen an ambulance crew acting "so cruel and hate-filled."

now, it's not a willie nelson song, but i think it's important.


i really am surprised that this hasn't gotten more attention. no, i'm not scolding bloggers. i'm talking about newspapers, i've got the washington post and the new york times here each day and this hasn't gotten any real attention. more was written over the attacker killing himself (several stories in the new york times) than on the victims. in fact, other than the original article on the attack, i'm not remembering a single article that dealt with the victims at all.

what's changed since matthew shepard died? or is it, as fair's extra wondered the fact that shepard was blond, young and his body found in a such a way that the writers could note 'scarecrow'? from extra's '20 stories that made a difference:'

15. Before Matthew Shepard was beaten and left for dead in Laramie, Wyoming on October 7, 1998, homophobic violence and discrimination received little serious attention in the news or the general public. But the attack on the 21-year-old gay man struck a media nerve -- starting with an AP story (10/9/88) whose lead memorably described Shepard as having been "tied to a wooden ranch fence like a scarecrow" -- marking the first time an anti-gay attack received extensive and sympathetic coverage.
His orientation aside, Shepard's story had many of the elements that commercial media look for in a crime story: a young, good-looking white victim with a dramatic death (whose crucifixion imagery added poignancy). [. . .]

so what's changed? are the victims not seen as sympathetic? if that's the answer, are they seen as less sympathetic because of the direction the bully boy has led the nation in? three men were assaulted in a club for no other reason except that they were gay. where's the press outrage? why the desire to look the other way?

thoughts on taking time

poor elaine and mike. i've heard from both of them, screaming on the phone, wondering 'what is going on!' they're both trying to post quickly and get out the door because it's valentine's day and they have plans. well c.i. noted this morning that blogger/blogspot was acting up. mike's getting the same screen c.i. got when the 2nd post was lost and elaine's trapped in forever publishing. so hopefully mike will be able to recover his post. with elaine? c.i. was trapped in publishing for a 1/2 hour this morning on an entry that never did publish.

for readers who don't blog, let me explain. if you're reading this at my site, it's published. when i'm writing it, i'm in a fairly small square. after a few paragraphs, i can't even see what i've already written. but when i'm done with my post i have 2 options:

1) save as draft
2) publish post

if i'm ready to publish, i click on publish post.

'that's pretty easy' you say.

no, it isn't. and fyi, i just got an error message at the bottom of the screen telling me i wasn't connected to blogger. so after i click on publish, i'm not done. i have to then republish index and republish blog. those are 2 options. the 1st 1 goes quick. the 2nd 1 can take a bit longer. (if you have almost 3,000 posts as c.i. does, it can take 20 minutes or more.) i could probably get away with just doing the 1st 1 (republish index) because technorati has never read my tags. but for mike and c.i., they have to republish blog to be read by technorati.

elaine just called again. she's still stuck in 'republish blog' it's never taken her more than 4 minutes before. i told her to turn the computer off and get her ass out the door. technorati doesn't read her site either. (they also don't reply to her e-mails despite twice sending out an automated message that they'd be contacting her in X number of business days. the 1st time she wrote them was in october. i'm having a hard time believing that they still haven't found time to reply and elaine writes nice e-mails unlike me.)

so there's the error message again. is this happening to everyone on blogger/blogspot or just sites in this community? i don't know. we had huge problems at 3rd estate sunday review in the early hours of the morning and had to call the uk computer gurus in and let them log into the account to see what was going on. they fixed something, not in the account but in the connection to the internet, that's supposed to have made it more secure to log in.

so it's v-day. i'm waiting on fly boy. he'll be late and i know that because he said he would when we made our plans saturday. my gift came mid-day. 4 people he hired to sing some selections from hair to me. i thought that was the nicest gift in the world. (i really do love that musical.)
i just sat on the front porch and enjoyed it.

last valentine's day i didn't have a 'date' and i had fun none the less. so if you don't have a date and you're feeling sorry for yourself, stop it. call up some friends. invite them over or go out. or maybe take some time for yourself. just enjoy some time alone. (c.i.'s got work stuff tonight but i bet if you asked the reply would be 'time alone would be the best gift in the world.')

oh gina called today about the entry c.i. did. she said, this will make members laugh, 'i have been wrong for over a year. c.i. is not oprah, c.i. is jeff probst." i had read the entry and that made me laugh so hard. you probably have to have watched survivor at least once.

c.i.'s writing about a really lame article (that everyone's seen repeatedly but for some reason the nation felt the need to pay the guy to write it 1 more time - i bet it would have been cheaper to have purchased the right to republish 1 of his older pieces) and it's because members were complaining about it. c.i. had some stuff that was important to the community and wasn't able to highlight it in the morning entries (did highlight it in the 2nd 1 but the whole post got lost). so the plan was to highlight it in the mid-day entry.

didn't happen. 43 e-mails had come in that morning about maxy holland's article in the nation. according to ava, the e-mails continued to come in until that entry went up. she's guessing it was 300. that's not even 10% of the community but if members are complaining, c.i. has to write something. so it has a very, the entry, 'the tribe has spoken' quality to it.

that's why gina's joke was so funny.

but, as gina pointed out, there were things planned for that entry. c.i. noted it in the 2nd entry of the morning. that all got scrapped due to the e-mails.

i never have to do that. i'm serving a community. i just write what i want and figure if people like it, cool. if they don't, no problem. that's not slapping c.i. down in any way. but it is noting that c.i. long ago had to become a spokesperson. there's more freedom at the third estate sunday review (for c.i.) but at the common ills, it's always about the community.

the 1 entry c.i. was sure would be written (we're going back to the end of november in 2004) was on privatizing water because c.i. is opposed to that (that's an understatement) and it's an important issue. it's not 1 that there's been time to write. because c.i.'s always writing about the issues that the community wants. i'm not knocking c.i. or the community but i am noting that i don't have that sort of responsibility. (or that mass love. the community loves c.i. they trust c.i. as well. and that comes from serving the needs of the community.)

it's an obligation. i'm sure there are many wonderful things that come with it, but don't kid that it also is an obligation.

i don't want to poke a bear here but the attack on c.i. last year was based on c.i. serving the community. the 2 people who were angry never seemed to get that c.i. was apologizing to the community for sending them, without a heads up, to a site that had features that members don't approve of. so c.i. writes that apology and makes sure not to attack either of the 2 but they seemed to think that they had a right to butt in on what was community business.

i personally think c.i. ate shit on that. both on apologizing to the community and from the response of the 2.

i'm not slamming c.i., i'm not slamming the community and i'm not even slamming the 2. i'm just making the obvious observation that the entry was written clearly to the community, the apology offered in that (by c.i.) was clearly to the community. it wasn't any 1 else business unless they were a community member (i am a community member).

i should note that these are my opinions so c.i. doesn't read this or hear about it and get pissed.
c.i. doesn't talk about. i know the whole thing was frustrating and a nightmare. but the way i see it, it was the business of the community only. no outsiders needed to butt in.

things were written about the community at those 2 sites which, c.i. would argue, is the business of those 2 people because it's their sites. but the thing i won't get over is that 1 of them felt the need to call c.i. a 'liar' for not posting something by that person. 1st off, you have your own site. it's not c.i.'s obligation to post anything by a non-member at the common ills. 2nd of all, i saw the e-mails, the person never asked for it to be posted. there were 2 e-mails in 1 night and there was no request in those 2 of 'please post this.'

it's not c.i.'s job to write a post you want. and this was in the middle of c.i.'s health crisis (knock wood because now things seem fine). but the thing is, that entry that so enraged was not anyone outside the community's business.

i say all that to make the point that most people outside the community don't get the common ills. they don't get what it's about. they'll say it's a 'blog.' it's not. i have a blog. i write what i want when i want. i don't have to do multiple entries each day. i don't have to figure out a way to address an issue that i may have no interest in.

c.i. thought it would be a blog. but that changed because readers weren't readers. they were saying, 'hey this is my issue and no 1 writes about it' or something similar. c.i. was opposed to the war, loudly and clearly, before it changed. the 1st real day of posting at the common ills was when the slaughter in falluja was starting and c.i. had posted 'here comes the madmen' so that was a known. any 1 who joined the community knew the site was going to be opposed to the war. and that's the reason a lot of members joined up to begin with because after the 2004 election, few people wanted to talk about the war.

if they did, on the left, they were often making weak ass statements about how we had to stay in or some such nonsense. they couldn't talk straight then. some of then couldn't a year later.

and that's partly why members expect c.i. to speak for the community. the common ills is always the voice when you've got some others being silent.

but there's not an entry that's gone up in the last month and a 1/2 that i think c.i.'s written for c.i. it's an obligation. c.i. would call it an honor but i would call it an obligation. c.i's a poster child for a movement and can live with that because c.i.'s always been outer-directed. but in july when c.i. announced the common ills would end after the 2008 election, a lot of us were shocked. i was shocked for about 3 minutes and then i thought, 'of course it will.' it's too much work. the e-mails flood the inboxes of both the private account and the public 1.

i told ava when we were talking on the phone today that if it were me, i'd be pulling my hair out and screaming 'what do you people want from me!' but that c.i.'s always been able to handle that kind of pressure. but i wasn't raised to believe that i had obligations. c.i. was raised with that instilled. obligations to others on every level.

the 1st time my mother met c.i., they spoke for 3 hours. afterwards, she said c.i. was 1 of the nicest and most polite people she'd ever met but she hadn't learned a thing about c.i. there's the privacy issue, to be sure, but there's also the fact that c.i. wasn't raised to talk about c.i. there were important topics and talking about yourself wasn't considered 1 of them.

so c.i. can handle this but if it were me, i would've gone crazy a long time ago. and i would have for sure have posted 'i am taking a day off!' each and every day since it began in november of 2004, there's been a post (there have been several actually). now sometimes, due to travel, c.i. can't get to the computer so there will be posts dictated but that's really not time off.

now maybe you're reading this and thinking 'that describes me.' if it does, take time for yourself tonight. if you're alone, think, 'thank god i'm alone' and enjoy the time to do what you want. without guilt.

and that seems like an ending note. i want to repeat i wasn't slamming c.i. (or any 1 else) in this post. c.i. can handle it and juggle a million and 1 things. i can't. i don't think most people could. if you can, i'm not slamming you. you have a great gift and we're all the better for it.

hopefully, you won't push yourself to the point of being burnt out. that's not a veiled warning to c.i. there's no burn out there. give c.i. 5 minutes of quiet and it's time to get going again. recently, on a dicated entry, c.i. quoted stevie nicks. the song 'alice.' about 'get some ribbons and some bows and get back out on the road again.' i couldn't do that. if you can, i'm not envious of you but i am thankful that people like you exist. you do the heavy lifting for the rest of us when we're tired and worn out. so if i've described you, and this was the point of this post, you may be alone tonight because you're always doing for others and tonight's a night where ever 1 plays noah's arc and joins up in 2 by 2s. so if you are like that and you are alone, you have done enough. (that's a reference to stevie nicks' 'jane.') so just kick back and relax for the evening.
(and no, that's not a hint to c.i. either. c.i.'s booked solid for this evening.)

isaiah on signging statements, alice walker and more

i love all of isaiah's the world today jut nuts but this one, from sunday, really made me laugh. hey, where's cokie roberts on signing statements? or lying us into war? remember her (as c.i. calls it) 'clutch the pearls journalism' as she went on and on about how bill clinton's lying about a blow job, 'as a mother', was just a shock to the nation's children and what kind of an example was he setting for children? so when i saw isaiah's latest, i was laughing my ass off. and, fyi, what a hotty daddy. truly, he's a hunk. even with that retro mustache.

if you're in the dark, when bully boy signed the overly applaueded mccain-bill-anti-torture-act, he also signed a statement that said 'we'll do what we want' basically. he'll follow that law of the land if he wants and if he doesn't want to, he won't.

it's a funny comic. and it's monday which is always a drag so let's have a good laugh.

and thank you for the e-mails. everyone wrote 'no, i get what you're saying.' i think what happened was that everyone was willing to 'add water.' but thank you.

back to the laughter, need more? check out wally's "THIS JUST IN! DICK CHENEY HAS A FISHING MISHAP!" i bring that up because sherry wondered why i and others hadn't been noting isaiah's last two comics (prior to the 1 above)?

we were all in disbelief that, given the chance to stand, democrats chose to collectively cave on the alito nomination. then coretta scott king passed away. it was a lot to deal with. and wally took it especially hard. really hard. and there was a feeling that he might stop blogging. c.i. told all of us to back off and give him space (good advice and we followed it) so he could sort things out. 1 thing he always did was note isaiah's comics and none of us wanted to risk posting 1 when he might be thinking 'okay, if nothing else i can post isaiah's comic'. we didn't want to risk stepping on his toes or him thinking 'well rebecca's already posted it so . . .'

wally took a week off and really was ready to go back to blogging on the 5th day but that ended up being the day he phoned c.i. and c.i. said 'kat and i are going to d.c., want to come?' so it got postponed, resuming blogging, until the monday after. at which point, he was still in d.c. and got to see some of the gonzales hearing on the bully boy's warrantless spying on americans. that, and a number of other things, led him to his return post with the dateline of 'd.c.' and the 'bully boy press' tag. (c.i. was pointing out the reporters running to 1 another asking 'what's the lead!' of each other which wally found pretty disgusting to witness.) that's what he's doing now, the bully boy press, at the daily jot but, as c.i. cautioned, that's what he's doing now. he may go with something else tomorrow, next week or next month.

enjoy it while we've got it and, trust me, cheney's latest mishap (wally's created the mishap, it didn't happen) is funny so read it.

here's another thing that's funny and worth reading, "Cowardly Journalism Review (Parody)" as karen would say on will & grace, it's funny because it's true. what sort of watchdog never barks while the house is being robbed? think of the house as our country and you'll see that it's cjr.
as noted in "A Note to Our Readers" ava and c.i. both objected to many features when they were proposed but then got into the swing of things. c.i.'s contributions on this were factual but they were also funny. when we thought something was funny and were all laughing, c.i. would either say (or jess or ava or 2 of them or 3 of them) 'uh-huh, but say it this way' or 'uh-huh, but add this' and then after we did and read back over it, we'd be laughing even harder.

this may end up being nothing but recommendations, but did you watch democracy now today?
if not, please check out:

"I am a Renegade, an Outlaw, a Pagan" - Author, Poet and Activist Alice Walker in Her Own Words
February is African-American History Month. To honor it, we bring you a conversation with the renowned author, poet and activist Alice Walker. She is perhaps best known for her book "The Color Purple" for which she won the Pulitzer Prize in 1983, becoming the first African-American woman to win the Pulitzer for fiction. The novel was adapted into an Oscar-nominated feature length film and has been recently made into a Broadway musical. Alice Walker's latest novel is "Now is the Time to Open Your Heart."
Last month, 1,000 people gathered in the First Congregational Church in Oakland to celebrate the 30th anniversary of Media Alliance. We spend the hour playing Amy Goodman's onstage interview with Alice Walker. [includes rush transcript - partial]

alice walker's a favorite writer of mine. that said, most of you are aware that i sat on reading possessing the secret of joy. c.i. gave me that in hardcover for christmas the year it came out. i did mean to read it, i just never got around to it until the end of last year. it's a great book. i think my favorite walker book, however, (after the color of purple, it's everyone's favorite) was her latest novel now is the time to open your heart. that's about the search for peace and justice and what does it mean. the main character learns early on that it doesn't mean doing yoga in nice environment. and that it doesn't mean denying a range of emotions. i really love that book and bet you will too.

also note robert parry's "Why U.S. Intelligence Failed, Redux:"

Some key officials in George W. Bush's administration -- from former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz to Vice President Dick Cheney -- have long been part of this trend toward seeing intelligence as an ideological weapon, rather than a way to inform a full debate. Other figures in Bush's circle of advisers, including his father, the former president and CIA director, have played perhaps even more central roles in this transformation. [More on this below. Also see Robert Parry's Secrecy & Privilege.]
For his part, the younger George Bush has shown little but disdain for any information that puts his policies or "gut" judgments in a negative light. In that sense, Bush's thin skin toward contradiction can’t be separated from the White House campaign, beginning in July 2003, to discredit retired Ambassador Joseph Wilson for publicly debunking the Bush administration's claim that Iraq had tried to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger. That retaliation included the exposure of Wilson's wife as an undercover CIA officer.
Dating Back to Watergate
Though one cost of corrupting U.S. intelligence can now be counted in the growing U.S. death toll in Iraq, the origins of the current problem can be traced back to the mid-1970s, when conservatives were engaged in fierce rear-guard defenses after the twin debacles of the Vietnam War and Watergate. In 1974, after Republican President Richard Nixon was driven from office over the Watergate political-spying scandal, the Republicans suffered heavy losses in congressional races. The next year, the U.S. -backed government in South Vietnam fell.
At this crucial juncture, a group of influential conservatives coalesced around a strategy of accusing the CIA's analytical division of growing soft on communism. These conservatives -- led by the likes of Richard Pipes, Paul Nitze, William Van Cleave, Max Kampelman, Eugene Rostow, Elmo Zumwalt and Richard Allen -- claimed that the CIA's Soviet analysts were ignoring Moscow’s aggressive strategy for world domination. This political assault put in play one of the CIA's founding principles -- objective analysis.

secrecy & privilege is a great book. all of robert parry's books are worth reading. he's probably my favorite author. in the article above, he's walking you through how intel was fixed.

last week, i did a dream entry about a dream (nightmare) i'd had and i've received a number of e-mails asking for more like that. the problem is that i usually don't remember my names. but i spoke to kat and she recommended a herbal mixture you drink as a tea so i'm headed to the health store tomorrow and hopefully that will help. but remember that the dream was inspired by reading joan mellen's a farewell to justice. that book is a must read but it's a frightening read so i'll repeat what i said before: read in broad daylight. but read it. if you're thinking, 'what's the point?' let me note 1 more time mellen's article "HOW THE FAILURE TO IDENTIFY, PROSECUTE AND CONVICT PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S ASSASSINS HAS LED TO TODAY'S CRISIS OF DEMOCRACY." if you're on the fence about reading a farewell to justice, read the article and see if it doesn't make you want to pick up the book.

last recommendation, i swear, c.i.'s "NYT: "Republicans on Hill Add Voice To Dissent Over Eavesdropping" (Sheryl Gay Stolberg)" which addresses more topics than can be named in a brief sentence. just read it.

dick cheney
the third estate sunday review
the common ills
the daily jot
robert parry
a farewell to justice
joan mellen