democracy now is in london this week. it's always a show you should watch but if you've put it off and said, 'i'll watch it some day,' well, here's your reason to tune in. want to know what's going on in england. what the british are thinking without the new york times' alan cowell stamping his filter on it? tune in to democracy now.
by the way, am i the only 1 who misses pru's regular feature in the round-robin where she'd ask cowell a basic question about england and he'd have no clue? i love her new target but it was just so much more fun to laugh at alan cowell.
so let's dish the news. 1st 2 items from democracy now.
South Dakota Gov. Signs Near-Total Abortion Ban
In South Dakota, Governor Mike Rounds has signed legislation to ban all abortions in the state, unless they're performed to save the life of the woman. Rounds said he expects a lengthy court battle over the new law. The measure comes as a similar effort is moving ahead in the state of Mississippi.
well, i know nina simone's 'mississippi goddamn' and phil ochs' 'here's to the state of mississippi' but i don't know any south dakota songs. any 1?
the republicans think they'll have another appointment to the supreme court by next year, they actually think it will be by this summer. the senate should have fought alito, they should have fought roberts. instead, they went along. i'm so sick of the senate and so sick of having to beg for my rights to be protected.
you saw what happened with the patriot act. they objected for a little bit and then went along.
and the house just passed it tonight so it's time for bully boy to sign it. we have a congress that's afraid to take a stand and afraid to fight. that's republicans and democrats. (and, yes, there are exceptions.) i used to think, when i was in jr. high, that being in congress required smarts and strength. now i know it just requires lobbyists pumping money into your campaign. and apparently it requires that you never make waves, never fight for anything.
it's rather sad what we've come to in this country. but note, while women (and some men) have to scream for our reproductive rights to be protected by congress, congress abandons their own powers. they're letting bully boy trample on them as much as on the constitution.
in the meantime, women lose ground while bully boy gives lip service to the notion of equality.
Khalilzad Warns of Iraq Civil War
In comments the Los Angeles Times calls "among the frankest and bleakest public assessments of the Iraq situation by a high-level American official," U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad has warned of a full-blown civil war. Referring to the recent bombing of a Shiite shrine in Sammara, Khalilzad said: "If another incident [occurs], Iraq is really vulnerable to it at this time." Khalilzad went on to say: "We have opened the Pandora's box and the question is, what is the way forward?" His comments come just days after General Peter Pace, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said things were "going very, very well" in Iraq.
if you missed it, rumsfeld's been busy today. 1st he accused the media of being the 1 to hype that iraq is in crisis and may head towards civil war - does zalmay work for the administration or for the press? 2nd, he's dismissing reports of a civil war in iraq, take that zalmay!
olympia snowe is a hack of the 1st degree. she's joining with mike dewine, lindsey graham and chuck-i-didn't-see-nothing-hagel to make bully boy's 4 year illegal spying now legal - according to the ap. oh, olympia, isn't there some constitutents you can have arrested?
she must be bored. which would explain the hair.
pat roberts is rail roading his intel committee to do bully boy's bidding:
Meanwhile, Democrats on the Intelligence Committee expressed outrage after a meeting Tuesday that senators voted -- along party lines -- to reject an investigation of the surveillance proposed by West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the committee's top Democrat.
"The committee -- to put it bluntly -- basically is in the control of the White House," a visibly angry Rockefeller said.
republican motto: ask not what you can do for your country, ask what you can can do for your bully boy!
in good news, the town of newfane, vermont voted to impeach bully boy today.
thank god we've got a happy note to go out on.
3/06/2006
oscar blahs
well blogger/blogspot certainly has a mind of it's own, doesn't it?
i've added a blog to the blog roll, american tonic. support women bloggers and check it out.
sherry wondered what i thought of the oscars? 1st off, this weekend cedric wrote and entry that everyone should check out 'The Oscars'. reading it made me handle the oscars better.
why? i wanted jake to win. i love george clooney but i really wanted to see jake win. no 1 won that i was rooting for.
reese witherspoon? well, didn't doris day win an oscar once too?
i mean, we're not talking a real actress here. in that film with matthew broadrick years ago, her quirks seemed fresh and you thought they were part of the character. election was the name of that film. since then, it's been the same old, same old. i'm not real fond of perky.
sally field had to really stretch to get her oscars. i didn't think the johnny cash film was a good film and i didn't think she was good in it. i had a party here and a number of people were booing when reese won.
t said it best, 'duckface! they just gave it to duckface!'
but it wasn't really a year about inclusion. cedric got that right. what was it? awarding the usual people.
i thought jon stewart was funny. but the show was dragging from the start. and i wasn't pleased with the award winners.
people make fun of marisa tomei, but she created a character for her oscar win. reese tossed on a wig and acted like ... reese.
after she won, people were betting on how long before her marriage busted up because when the woman wins the oscar and the husband's career is in the toilet, the marriage is in trouble.
i don't wish a divorce upon her but i would have picked any of the 4 other actresses. i was really rooting for felicity because i thought she gave an incredible performance but i would have been fine with any 1 but reese.
my hope is that she'll suffer the 'i won the oscar' curse and start doing serious roles, heavy dramas, first lady of the screen roles, kill off her career and we'll all be spared legally blonde XXII.
i was going to do a rundown on the news but ...
need news, check out 'And The War Drags On.'
i've added a blog to the blog roll, american tonic. support women bloggers and check it out.
sherry wondered what i thought of the oscars? 1st off, this weekend cedric wrote and entry that everyone should check out 'The Oscars'. reading it made me handle the oscars better.
why? i wanted jake to win. i love george clooney but i really wanted to see jake win. no 1 won that i was rooting for.
reese witherspoon? well, didn't doris day win an oscar once too?
i mean, we're not talking a real actress here. in that film with matthew broadrick years ago, her quirks seemed fresh and you thought they were part of the character. election was the name of that film. since then, it's been the same old, same old. i'm not real fond of perky.
sally field had to really stretch to get her oscars. i didn't think the johnny cash film was a good film and i didn't think she was good in it. i had a party here and a number of people were booing when reese won.
t said it best, 'duckface! they just gave it to duckface!'
but it wasn't really a year about inclusion. cedric got that right. what was it? awarding the usual people.
i thought jon stewart was funny. but the show was dragging from the start. and i wasn't pleased with the award winners.
people make fun of marisa tomei, but she created a character for her oscar win. reese tossed on a wig and acted like ... reese.
after she won, people were betting on how long before her marriage busted up because when the woman wins the oscar and the husband's career is in the toilet, the marriage is in trouble.
i don't wish a divorce upon her but i would have picked any of the 4 other actresses. i was really rooting for felicity because i thought she gave an incredible performance but i would have been fine with any 1 but reese.
my hope is that she'll suffer the 'i won the oscar' curse and start doing serious roles, heavy dramas, first lady of the screen roles, kill off her career and we'll all be spared legally blonde XXII.
i was going to do a rundown on the news but ...
need news, check out 'And The War Drags On.'
3/04/2006
from the house on boo corner to the world itself, bully boy sells fear
from the prophethic pens and pencils of isaiah, his most recent the world today just nuts entitled 'the house on boo corner.' when the polls drop what does bully boy do? start talking 'osama' start talking '9-11' ... it's old, it's tired but he still does it. poor winnie, piglet and eeyore.
prophetic? this went up yesterday but was supposed to go up last sunday. that's when blogger/blogspot decided to 'white list' the common ills. sound like the days of joe mccarthy? yep, to me too. so while c.i. had to fight the 'white list' there was no way for posts to be e-mailed to the site. to put up new art work, the program 'hello' is used by all of us. 'hello' just sends it to your site. (after it's at a site, like 'the house on boo corner' is, you can carry it to another site without having to e-mail).
if you missed it the administration and the bully boy have been rumbling (like a distended stomach) about catching osama. now for 5 years, he's been the last thing on their mind. but bully boy's polls have dropped, yet again, and it's the only trick they have to play.
i didn't blog last night, you're not missing a post. fly boy surprised me yesterday afternoon with tickets to a play so we went to see that and had a very long night.
sherry e-mailed wondering why i don't link (in posts) to robert parry? i usually forget, to be honest. i see them up at the common ills, usually when i'm having my morning coffeee and watching democracy now, and then, when evening rolls around, i'm thinking about something else.
i do read him, he's 1 of my favorites. he may be number 1 on my list of favorites.
but i'm usually rushing to get the things done. but here's a piece of his latest called 'Bush Flummoxes Kafka, Orwell:'
Bush, of course, insists that the United States does not torture despite extensive evidence that detainees in the Iraq War and the War on Terror have been subjected to simulated drowning by "water-boarding," beatings to death, suffocations, coffin-like confinements, painful stress positions, naked exposure to heat and cold, anal rape, sleep deprivation, dog bites, and psychological ploys involving sexual and religious humiliation.
But Bush says none of this amounts to torture, even as his protection of abusive practices now ventures beyond word games into mind-bending legal rationalizations.
Bush's lawyers went into federal court in Washington on March 2 and argued that a new law that specifically prohibits cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees -- known as the McCain Amendment after its sponsor, Sen. John McCain -- can't be enforced at Guantanamo Bay because another clause of the law grants these prisoners only limited access to U.S. courts.
In other words, the Bush administration is contending that the McCain Amendment might make it illegal to abuse the Guantanamo prisoners, but that the inmates have no legal recourse to enforce the law by going to court and getting an order for the abuses to end.
the torture issue is something that elaine and c.i. have hit hard on repeatedly. i'm not sure that i have much to say on it that they haven't already covered. i think our reaction ties into isaiah's cartoon above, where we let some idiot so scare us that we stop caring about what we're supposed to stand for or what humanity is supposed to mean. it helps that they are 'detainees' (prisoners as elaine and c.i. have pointed out). we don't see them, we don't know about them so we, as a country, don't care too much. and when a 'soft,' little word like 'detainees' is used over and over, it doesn't seem all that important. if they were called prisoners, we might care more. but by calling them 'detainees' ... well they're just detained, right. 'detainees' sounds short term.
this administration has broken more laws and moral codes than any of us could count. but give them credit for knowing how to market their schemes and scams. as some 1 who worked in public relations, and worked successfully in my field, i'm amazed that so many people latch on to their jargon. they keep an eye on marketing. they don't care what they do as long as they can sell it to the american people.
thinking people need to stop using the administration's terms. that's how they set the agenda and control it. your average american, scared to death by the bully boy's fear mongering or not, is not going to be comfortable with prisoners being held without trial for years and years. but call them 'detainees' and you're deflating the balloon. 'detainee' implies temporary. as c.i. noted once, it makes it sound like you've been stopped while going through customs because you forgot to declare something.
in marketing, you sell the product by making it appealing. some of you may be too young to remember the early days of tampon commercials (they haven't changed that much). it was thought that talking about periods was just 'too much' for the average american to handle. so what to do? set up a commercial with clouds and horses and smiling faces and then mention the product a few times. you're selling a lifestyle because you can't sell the product.
so the woman at home is thinking 'if i use kotex, i'll be just as happy as that woman! my period usually hurts like hell! but look, she uses kotex and she's riding a horse!'
they can't sell prisoners. so the administration uses another word (like 'feminine napkin') that sounds softer. and when asked about these prisoners, they always go to 9-11. they can't sell prisoners to americans, but they can sell the 'lifestyle' factor. they can use a mild word ('detainees') and put it in their context (world trade center, pentagon, et al) so that the 'audience' is thinking 'oh my god!' and the discussion is derailed.
the fact of the matter is that if any 1 at guantanamo was involved in 9-11, there would have been a very public show trial a long time ago. they're not involved. they are prisoners of war. afghanistan did not declare war on us. they were 'guilty' of the fact that osama was in their country. when we asked them to turn him over to us, they responded (as we would), show us the proof and we will.
we wouldn't. we said 'turn him over now, proof comes later.' if another country did that to the u.s., there would be a huge outcry. so we go to war with afghanistan and, like in any war, the people fight, on both sides. we, the 'victors,' imprison the captured and bought (you can make a healthy living rounding up people and selling them to unquestioning american forces if you tell them that the people are 'taliban' or 'al quaeda').
so what we have is prisoners, and they're prisoners of war. that's the reality. and every time john mccain wants to play his 'i was a prisoner of war' card, no 1 ever asks him, 'well, as a prisoner of war, how do feel about the prisoners in guantanamo?'
that's where we are. we hold prisoners of war for years and years. we torture them and we never get honest about it. we use soft sounding terms to disguise reality.
here's some more reality from democracy now:
Study: Antartic Ice Sheet Shrinking Significantly
In environmental news, the Washington Post is reporting scientists have found the Antartic ice sheet is shrinking by as much as 36 cubic miles a year. Researchers say the results, published in the journal Science, provide the first evidence that the sheet's total mass is shrinking significantly. Scientists said the decrease is likely linked to global warming.
we've done that too. and what does bully boy call it 'climate' something. we're all aware of the term 'global warming.' but he comes into office and the order is use the milder term. so most reporters and news orgs. follow his edict as though they're working for him.
if we don't the shrinking of the artic ice seriously, no 1 will be working for any 1.
bully boy can plan all the trips to mars he wants, but if the earth becomes unable to support life systems, we've got nowhere to go. we've really trashed our home. if al gore was in the white house, we might be trying to address the issue of global warming. but bully boy is the oil man who could never find oil. he kept drilling and drilling and coming up dry (there's a sexual metaphor there, for any 1 who wants to explore). so now he's the 'big boy' who brags about how his old friends have to call him 'mr. president.' all part of proving his manhood - like strutting around on a carrier with a stuffed crotch or cozying up to big oil, where he never made it, and letting them trash our only environment.
well, hopefully it did enough for him that laura got a little action. the rest of us got screwed as well but not in the good way.
for humor and commentary check out c.i.'s 'other items' and 'NYT: The paper sends Linda Lavin to report on the Katrina tapes.' who knew they were hiring linda lavin at the paper of record? i hope they'll hire bonnie franklin next because she was always my favorite of the women on cbs' sunday nights.
3/02/2006
news wrap up?
so the cowards (of both parties) in the senate fell over itself to extend the patriot act. army major general geoffery miller won't testify in the case of army sgt. michael smith who was 'creative' with the use of dogs and prisoners. presumably, miller would have either have had to discuss the actual policy or lied. 'cheney urges americans' should save more but you can only stretch a mcdollar so far, dick. in reply, america urged the administration to create some actual jobs and to raise the minimum wage. and bully boy appears to be confessing that osama was part of team bush in 2004! - wonder if karl rove brought him on board?
in the world of media, the new york times has apparently hired linda lavin and america's funniest videos has had to outsource to the czech republic. in entertainment, kat has 2 new reviews completed: "Kat's Korner: Nina Simone -- Golden" and "Kat's Korner: Cat Power's Greatness."
but most of all, and why i delayed my post for later tonight, betty has a new chapter. c.i. had an idea for a way that might help her struggle less with each chapter and betty's really excited about it. though you'll laugh when you read the latest chapter, you won't get why or what's coming up until the next 2 chapters. i think this is what is known as a 'plot point' (check with c.i. on the term).
people are coming to life these days. can you believe the change from two years ago? this is from democracy now:
Bolton Speech Disrupted in New York
And in New York, a group of protesters stood up and held signs as UN Ambassador John Bolton gave a speech at New York University Wednesday. One sign read: "US interests -- torture, illegal war, secret abductions, racial profiling, war crimes," among others, and quoted Bolton's infamous statement that: "Diplomacy is not an end [in] itself if it does not advance U.S. interests."
must have been a shock to him, a week after time magazine fawned all over him.
elaine's got something you should go read right away - if you haven't already read "No quote tonight -- it's already too long." sherry said reading it was like looking at old photographs with friends. i think that's a great way to look at it.
last thought for tonight: have i plugged trina's kitchen? i'm not sure if i have or not. i don't blog on saturdays or sundays and by monday, i'm usually focused on something else. but trina's kitchen is trina's site and trina's offering commentary and recipes. trina's mike's mother and a longterm member of the common ills community so make a point to check out her site. she posts on saturdays.
this is brief, i know. i was wanting to be sure to know betty's latest and it was a long day long before that. though this is brief, i'm kind of shocked by the amount of items we noted. bully boy and osama, dick cheney's foolish economics, go down the list.
in the world of media, the new york times has apparently hired linda lavin and america's funniest videos has had to outsource to the czech republic. in entertainment, kat has 2 new reviews completed: "Kat's Korner: Nina Simone -- Golden" and "Kat's Korner: Cat Power's Greatness."
but most of all, and why i delayed my post for later tonight, betty has a new chapter. c.i. had an idea for a way that might help her struggle less with each chapter and betty's really excited about it. though you'll laugh when you read the latest chapter, you won't get why or what's coming up until the next 2 chapters. i think this is what is known as a 'plot point' (check with c.i. on the term).
people are coming to life these days. can you believe the change from two years ago? this is from democracy now:
Bolton Speech Disrupted in New York
And in New York, a group of protesters stood up and held signs as UN Ambassador John Bolton gave a speech at New York University Wednesday. One sign read: "US interests -- torture, illegal war, secret abductions, racial profiling, war crimes," among others, and quoted Bolton's infamous statement that: "Diplomacy is not an end [in] itself if it does not advance U.S. interests."
must have been a shock to him, a week after time magazine fawned all over him.
elaine's got something you should go read right away - if you haven't already read "No quote tonight -- it's already too long." sherry said reading it was like looking at old photographs with friends. i think that's a great way to look at it.
last thought for tonight: have i plugged trina's kitchen? i'm not sure if i have or not. i don't blog on saturdays or sundays and by monday, i'm usually focused on something else. but trina's kitchen is trina's site and trina's offering commentary and recipes. trina's mike's mother and a longterm member of the common ills community so make a point to check out her site. she posts on saturdays.
this is brief, i know. i was wanting to be sure to know betty's latest and it was a long day long before that. though this is brief, i'm kind of shocked by the amount of items we noted. bully boy and osama, dick cheney's foolish economics, go down the list.
3/01/2006
tongue biting
As we approach the third anniversary of Bush's invasion of Iraq, with domestic spending being gutted, tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans being extended, and the Bush administration submitting a request for an additional $72.4 billion in war-related funding, the National Priorities Project (NPP) has issued an invaluable new report demonstrating the financial impact of the war on taxpayers in every state.
Upon approval of the supplemental funding bill, total spending on the war and occupation in Iraq will exceed $315 billion. Nobel Prize-winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz, estimates that when all is said and done the final price tag will reach somewhere between $1 trillion and $2 trillion.The NPP highlights the unfathomable trade-offs our nation is making in order to continue funding the Iraq occupation -- other spending priorities that are being missed -- both at the state and national levels.
that's from katrina vande heuvel's "The Costs of War." i noted harper's magazine yesterday and would've noted her piece if i'd known of it. there are a number of figures worth knowing, so if you haven't already checked it out, please do. also check out the common ills tonight. c.i. and ava will have a joint entry and that's all i can say or i'll spill the beans. check out "Kat's Korner: Cat Power's Greatness." kat's review made me buy the cd today. read the review and you may as well. more tomorrow night. i'm biting my tongue tonight and every 1 knows i'm lousy at keeping a secret so that's it.
Upon approval of the supplemental funding bill, total spending on the war and occupation in Iraq will exceed $315 billion. Nobel Prize-winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz, estimates that when all is said and done the final price tag will reach somewhere between $1 trillion and $2 trillion.The NPP highlights the unfathomable trade-offs our nation is making in order to continue funding the Iraq occupation -- other spending priorities that are being missed -- both at the state and national levels.
that's from katrina vande heuvel's "The Costs of War." i noted harper's magazine yesterday and would've noted her piece if i'd known of it. there are a number of figures worth knowing, so if you haven't already checked it out, please do. also check out the common ills tonight. c.i. and ava will have a joint entry and that's all i can say or i'll spill the beans. check out "Kat's Korner: Cat Power's Greatness." kat's review made me buy the cd today. read the review and you may as well. more tomorrow night. i'm biting my tongue tonight and every 1 knows i'm lousy at keeping a secret so that's it.
2/28/2006
russ comes out swinging, you just wish joe would finish and get off of you
here's a fact for you: total projected cost of the war per u.s. household, based on a january estimate: $19,600.
how's that feel? it's from the 'harper's index' page nine of the current issue of harper's magazine. c.i. did an excerpt from lewis lapham's 'The Case For Impeachment' and that hooked me on getting this issue.
$19,600. if you live in apartment complex, think about how everyone unit is paying $19,600. if you live in a home in a residential area, look up and down the block and realize that every home is paying $19,600. not putting it away for a child's college tuition or using it to pay the bills right now, but for an illegal war.
bully boy took a gamble (an illegal 1) and now we're all paying his debt.
that just amazes me.
okay, nsa hearings.
what can i say but 'thank god for russ feingold.' seriously. oh, i can say something else, 'thank god i didn't have to hear dianne feinstein.' i had to answer the door and sign for a delivery at 1 point and maybe she was on for that brief moment, but i don't think so. i did hear her laugh at 1 of arlen specter's 'jokes' near the end. i think it was her. it was a female's laugh and she was the only woman on the committee. but maybe it was a staffer?
did every 1 who wanted to follow the hearing listen via pacifica?
russ had the fight in him today. i'm not sure every 1 else did. it's amazing that while bully boy's tanking in the polls and getting only a 34% approval rating from the american people that democrats and republicans on the committee can't do any better than they did today.
i thought pacifica did a great job and gave a lot of information. i had no idea that 15 of the 18 senators serving on the committee were lawyers. (we all know feinstein isn't a lawyer because she can never speak without reminding every 1 of that.)
i thought biden . . .
biden.
joe biden is the guy you think you want to have sex with. you're going at it and about 30 seconds in, you suddenly realize, 'he is awful at this!' and you're just praying that he's a premature ejaculator so you can be done with the whole thing quickly. only thing is, he's not. so you're stuck going through the motions while he does his mechanical love making.
he showed promise for about 30 seconds and then started yammering on and on.
i loved pacifica's wrap up and think larry bensky did a wonderful job throughout. i also loved c.i.'s take on what had to be the most insane moment, when orrin hatch started whining about how tough it was to get a fisa warrant. fisa's the easiest to get a warrant from. not just because they rarely turn any request down, but also because they have been set up to be an easy court. can't get a warrant through the regular court system, go to fisa.
but there was orrin whining about how hard it was and how they might have to explain why ___ has them suspicious.
what world does he live in?
the government wants a warrant to spy on some 1. you're going to have to offer more than 'because i say so.'
c.i. has a whole thing on that moment where 'miss priss instant cuckoo: o hatch!' looked like the biggest fool to sit on the judiciary committe. no easy task but he was helped by the fact that john coryn didn't speak.
bully boy broke the law. he admits to his actions.
he needs to be impeached.
that's my thought for the night. that and that while russ was a fighter, joe was really bad sex.
how's that feel? it's from the 'harper's index' page nine of the current issue of harper's magazine. c.i. did an excerpt from lewis lapham's 'The Case For Impeachment' and that hooked me on getting this issue.
$19,600. if you live in apartment complex, think about how everyone unit is paying $19,600. if you live in a home in a residential area, look up and down the block and realize that every home is paying $19,600. not putting it away for a child's college tuition or using it to pay the bills right now, but for an illegal war.
bully boy took a gamble (an illegal 1) and now we're all paying his debt.
that just amazes me.
okay, nsa hearings.
what can i say but 'thank god for russ feingold.' seriously. oh, i can say something else, 'thank god i didn't have to hear dianne feinstein.' i had to answer the door and sign for a delivery at 1 point and maybe she was on for that brief moment, but i don't think so. i did hear her laugh at 1 of arlen specter's 'jokes' near the end. i think it was her. it was a female's laugh and she was the only woman on the committee. but maybe it was a staffer?
did every 1 who wanted to follow the hearing listen via pacifica?
russ had the fight in him today. i'm not sure every 1 else did. it's amazing that while bully boy's tanking in the polls and getting only a 34% approval rating from the american people that democrats and republicans on the committee can't do any better than they did today.
i thought pacifica did a great job and gave a lot of information. i had no idea that 15 of the 18 senators serving on the committee were lawyers. (we all know feinstein isn't a lawyer because she can never speak without reminding every 1 of that.)
i thought biden . . .
biden.
joe biden is the guy you think you want to have sex with. you're going at it and about 30 seconds in, you suddenly realize, 'he is awful at this!' and you're just praying that he's a premature ejaculator so you can be done with the whole thing quickly. only thing is, he's not. so you're stuck going through the motions while he does his mechanical love making.
he showed promise for about 30 seconds and then started yammering on and on.
i loved pacifica's wrap up and think larry bensky did a wonderful job throughout. i also loved c.i.'s take on what had to be the most insane moment, when orrin hatch started whining about how tough it was to get a fisa warrant. fisa's the easiest to get a warrant from. not just because they rarely turn any request down, but also because they have been set up to be an easy court. can't get a warrant through the regular court system, go to fisa.
but there was orrin whining about how hard it was and how they might have to explain why ___ has them suspicious.
what world does he live in?
the government wants a warrant to spy on some 1. you're going to have to offer more than 'because i say so.'
c.i. has a whole thing on that moment where 'miss priss instant cuckoo: o hatch!' looked like the biggest fool to sit on the judiciary committe. no easy task but he was helped by the fact that john coryn didn't speak.
bully boy broke the law. he admits to his actions.
he needs to be impeached.
that's my thought for the night. that and that while russ was a fighter, joe was really bad sex.
2/27/2006
are you trying to be you or some 1 else? if the latter, why?
late. thought about not posting. i've never done anything for that many hours straight as i did helping out on sunday's the third estate sunday review. i'm not griping. dona was telling all of us that we could go ahead and go as sun up approached. but there was 1 problem after another. we lost whole features and had to redo them. go down the list and make it of any and everything you think could have happened.
it was an endurance test. wally had it in him to stay until the end but he also had college work to focus on (a test on monday and a paper due as well). i called him to see if my posting would make him feel like he had to. he said he couldn't believe how tired he was (he's not crazy about his paper but he thinks he aced his test). mike had told him to just chill tonight and that's what he's ended up doing. (he was on his way to bed after we got off the phone.)
i called because every 1 already has enough pressure on them and if i was adding to wally's pressure by posting, i wouldn't be posting tonight. a lot of us try to live up to the example c.i. sets at the common ills. i don't. elaine doesn't. that's because we've know c.i. forever and we're quite aware that c.i. can outlast us. in college, c.i. could party all night, turn around and go to a 1st of the morning class, make incredible points, and move on to the next class. c.i. is an insomniac, true. but it's also true that we're talking incredible endurance, incredible focus and an ability to juggle that exceeds what you'd find in a circus tent.
we know c.i. brings that same 'can do' attitude to the common ills. we love it. we love the site, we love c.i. but we knew long ago that we couldn't do that. but for others, it's the example, the standard. c.i. doesn't encourage that. doesn't push it. tells people to take time for themselves.
plus, the common ills community is huge. so there are more demands there than any of us have. when c.i. says 'write it but do it without me' on something we're all working on, it's because it's a sensitive subject for a member. which member? c.i. can tell you. c.i.'s always been able to do that. 1 nickname was 'the journal' because it was like having a journal recording everything. if elaine and i had a disagreement, we'd call c.i. and say 'what happened? who is right here?'
i can keep a few of my readers straight. i can tell you a ton about sherry because she's been reading since i started this site and she's become some 1 i think of as a friend. anytime i check the e-mails, the 1st thing i look for is to see if sherry's written. but i can probably only keep track of 15 of my readers in terms of being able to spit out their most important issues.
c.i. is not competative. you'll never meet any 1 less competative. if you've got something you're doing, it's yours. c.i.'s not going to do it. in college, c.i. was being asked to run for a student office 1 year. for obvious reasons. the person running for re-election comes up and explains how 'important' the position is to them. so c.i. doesn't run. (c.i. won as a write in.) in classes where the prof would tell you your grade before the final so you'd know how well you needed to do, c.i. wouldn't let the prof say it. why? c.i. was always the a student. every 1 knew it because after any test, if the prof went over them in class, he or she would tell you the true or false answers, the multiple choice answers and then, on the essay section, say 'for an example of the perfect essay see' c.i. other people would bask in that. i would. c.i. would slink in the chair.
i do anything, half-assed or full on, and c.i. is there with praise. try to praise c.i. and you'll get 'oh please' or something else dismissive. there is no complimenting c.i. (ask elaine if you don't believe me.)
i bet some of you reading this know some 1 like that. i hope you do anyway. i know a lot of talented people who are extremely conceited. i know very few who are modest like c.i. if you do know someone who is talented and gifted and modest, you know you're lucky to have them as a friend and you learn quickly that there's no point in using them as a measuring stick because you'll come up short every time.
i'm writing this for people who are trying to 'keep up.' i doubt any 1 who blogs in the community is competative with c.i. because when you get to know c.i., you realize that competition is not an option and that it only makes c.i. feel awkward (and start offering self-put downs or being self-negative). but i do think a few people are looking and thinking 'geez, c.i.'s posting 3 to 4 times a day. i should be able to manage at least once.'
when a similar thought was voiced to c.i. all it did was make c.i. feel bad and feel like the fault belonged to guess who. (no, not me. c.i. grabs none of the glory but will gobble up all the blame and guilt.)
it's not worth it to measure yourself against any 1. the few times c.i. has rallied competition wise is when some 1's tried to steal something. i remember a really sick, twisted lover in college trying to steal c.i.'s idea for a creative writing assignment. that's 1 time i saw c.i. really angry about something other than a social justice issue.
and what did c.i. do? stuck with the same original idea. and ended up getting the highest grade in the class. why? here's the lesson folks. because the jerk could rip off c.i.'s idea but not write what c.i. lived as well as c.i.
sherry could create a site called politics and sex and attitude and screeds tomorrow and try to do what i do the way i do and she'd fail. she could create a site tomorrow and write in her voice and be a huge success. (she's very gifted and i've repeatedly told her to start a site.)
sherry can be the best sherry. i can be the best rebecca (or the best i can be). but i'd be a lousy elaine copy or c.i. copy. the lesson here is to be you. if you speak in your own voice, you're going to win in the long run.
it reminds me of a huge battle c.i. had with a racist and sexist prof. so sexist, have i told this story before?, that he would say things like the wacs weren't interested in helping the country out in wwii, just in getting laid. say that in a lecture to the class. the professor did a lot of academic studies. co-authored them. people hated him but were intimidated by him, students were. so he got away with that crap.
until c.i. ended up in his class. c.i. aced the class and did it by being c.i. others tried to echo the prof and spit back whatever he spewed. not c.i.
or, a philosophy prof. he had an idol among philosophers. 1 class, on plato, had very little plato in it because the prof would always go back to his idol. anyway, c.i. wrote an incredible paper which was 1/3 of the grade. the prof didn't like it. (c.i. didn't care for the prof's idol.) he refused to accept it. he gave it back with all these remarks that were non-academic scribbled on it and told c.i. to redo it. said 'do it this way and you'll have an a.'
c.i. didn't do that. instead, c.i. took the paper to the dean, showed how unprofessional (and personal) the remarks the prof had written were, showed up with all the index cards and research backing up each point. the prof was told he had to accept the paper and the dean said he'd be looking over the grading of it.
this took up a lot of time, this battle. and the easiest thing to do would have been to just redo the paper the way the prof wanted and get the easy a. but c.i. said 'if i do it his way and fail, i've failed twice, on the grade and failed myself by not being true to myself.' every 1 on campus that knew c.i. was saying 'just do it the prof's way.' c.i. would rather have taken a failing grade than tried to 'write like' the prof.
i've come out of my own shell. i used to be so scared of speaking out. (i know that's hard to believe if you've read this site very often.) a lot of that is the personal issues i've had to deal with shortly before beginning this site. but it's also true that due to those issues, i realized that how little so much i thought mattered actually did.
i get credited by elaine and c.i. for my 'strength.' i think a lot of it is due to finally having enough and seeing how little surface things matter added in with seeing c.i. over the years.
like i said, in college, i learned quickly that i couldn't compete with c.i.'s endurance. but what i did learn in the last few years, and hopefully there's some 1 around you that you've learned this from or that you will learn this from, is that in the end, you have to answer for what you did. not who liked you, not who thought highly of you. c.i. demonstrated that then and demonstrates it now.
when the freak got pissed that c.i. linked to joan mellen and defended her (mellen wrote an incredible book, read it), there was a lot of 'oh my god!' from people. c.i. couldn't care less. truly. there are times, if c.i. thinks someone's been hurt, that it is an issue. but there will be no guilt attached to a slam for being true to yourself.
there's a scene in the pelican brief that elaine and i always tease c.i. about. julia roberts is in class and being asked about a court decision on gays and lesbians. julia says something about every 1 is equal and the prof says something like 'well the court felt differently' and julia responds evenly and calmly something like 'well they're wrong.'
that is any course we've taken with c.i.
dexter filkins gets criticized for his phoney reporting now. a little. and it's picking up still. the criticism. but there are people who are still shocked that in real time, november 2004 during falluja, c.i. would criticize dexy. they shouldn't be. c.i.'s not interested in being 'right' today. c.i. has and will take people saying 'you are wrong' and the attitude is always 'i'll be right in the long run.'
i'm stronger these days and a part of that is because of the example i've seen from c.i. over the years. money, relationships, go down the list, none of it is important enough to sell yourself out and i've seen an example of that up close. are there rocky times as a result? yeah, usually there are. but you win in the end. the 'win' is that you stayed true. you didn't water yourself down to please some 1 else. take it from some 1 who spent most of her life, too many years, watering herself down to be liked, there's no point in that. there's no long term reward.
in the end, you actually end up feeling very hollow.
there are 3 points to tonight's entry. the first, already noted, is to encourage every 1 to realize they need to do their best, not some 1 else's. the 2nd is dexy and i'll get to him in a minute. the 3rd is that march is coming up on us.
on that. it's the 3rd anniversary. what are you going to do. are you going to find your voice now and speak out against the war? if you already have your voice, are you going to speak out more? if you're saying 'well i don't know what to do' are you actually looking for things to do?
here's something you can do, danny schechter, "Why Protest Media Coverage March 15?"
The national day for local media protest announced last week on Mediachannel.org received such a positive response that the organizers of United For Peace and Justice, the country's largest anti-war coalition, decided to change the date from March 21 to March 15 to make a focus on the media the kickoff event for this years week-long "spring offensive" against the war to mark the third anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq.
Activists, peace groups and media reformers are being encouraged to organize protests in every city and community.
I wanted to add some personal comments to this campaign because journalists as a rule and Mediachannel until now has reported on protests, not helped organize them. Usually, media people are not activists but this case is different. Here the issue is not about politicians or causes, but our own profession and industry.
If we are not willing to speak out on a problem so close to home, who will? If we don't stand up for media freedom and against deceptive news practices, how can we lecture or editorializes other institutions to practice ethical standards, accountability and transparency?
I know there are colleagues of ours who find protests, well, unseemly, and likely to do no good. Some readers feel that way too. To these "nattering nabobs of negativity," to quote the late and great Spiro T Agnew, a politician with loose standards but clever language, I would respond, it is the duty of all of us who believe in the need for honest journalism to say so publicly.
Remember the phrase "my country right or wrong, my country!" The response is always "My country right or wrong, but when wrong, set it right." The same goes for the press.
I have been fighting this media battle for a long time. In his foreword to my book WHEN NEWS LIES on media complicity and the Iraq War, Michael Wolff calls me "the 2000 year old" media critic in the spirit of Mel Brooks and Carl Reiner’s hysterical 2000 year old man shtick.
Yes, I have been doing it a while but mostly in the media, dissecting news on the radio or producing TV and films. In the case of Iraq, I have written two books and made the documentary WMD (Weapons of Mass Deception). I think I know what I am talking about.I have spoken on the issue all over this country and throughout the world. And yes, I know from painful personal experience, how easy it is to be ignored, or patronized and marginalized.
but you know what? given the choice between doing what he believe and staying silent, danny schechter would choose doing what he believe in. so should you. (i don't know danny schechter, by the way. i have read his books and his website and c.i. speaks highly of him.) 30 years from now, people will still be talking about danny schechter. other 'names' even 1s on tv currently? we'll have forgotten them. they've done nothing. they've done the job that causes no waves and makes no impressions other than to their bosses who are so amazed how well trained the clapping seals have turned out to be.
the people you remember are the 1s who stand up. the 1s with courage. the 1s who don't sit on the sidelines waiting for some 1 else to act. think of your life as a movie. shouldn't you be starring in your own movie? otherwise, you're just a supporting character. you're there to say 'really, and then what happened?' and serve as recap for events that others did. don't you want to be the star of your own movie?
now for c.i.'s "And the war drags on . . ." because c.i. took on dexy again:
Now for the New York Times. Prepare to chuckle (and thanks to Rob for pointing it out, I often skip the book section and had intended this to be one of those days):
But [Paul L.] Bremer bears a heavy responsibility for keeping silent -- and so does General Sanchez. If we can ssume that Bremer's recollection is correct, then General Sanchez's remarks indicate that Baghdad was indeed out of control, that both he and Bremer knew it and that without more troops, it was likely to stay out of control. [. . .]
By staying silent, Bremer ensured that there would be no public debate on the merits of deploying more Americans troops. By staying silent, he ensured that there would be little public discussion over the condition of the Iraqi security forces, whose quality he doubted. [. . . .]
What do we learn from the above? It's by an in-house writer at the paper so it's safe to assume (no surprise) that the Times argument remains "Stay until more are slaughtered!" Yeah, they're making the idiotic argument that "more troops" are needed. Got to protect those foreign investments, got to protect that "free market," no need to leave until we've privatized everything. That's their real argument. The Times can support human rights . . . to a point. The point is where human rights intersects with a "healthy" profit motive. At that point, the paper tosses human rights out the window.
Listening to the scolding of Bremer (who deserves it) for his silence is anyone else thinking of all that the paper of record has been silent on? The Bully Boy hump? The NSA warrantless and illegal spying that they sat on for a year. And so much more. (For years and years and years.)
If you're thinking, "Who is the Times to scold anyone for staying silent?" wait, it's about to get a whole lot funnier (and more hypocritical). The review is entitled "Desert Sturm" (oh, aren't they cute -- in their minds). And the writer? Dexter Filkins.
Dexter Filkins who stayed silent on the slaughter he should have witnessed in Falluja. Supposedly he was there in November 2004. But to read his rah-rah, video game reporting, it was all, people killed, people who had it coming to them. And it was so 'totally cool' judging by his breathless reporting. (Did the American troops have to swat him on the snout to get him to stop huming their legs?) It was all so glorious, so wonderous to read Dexy's "award winning" "reporting." The piece that took over six days to make it into print. Who edited that report? Who had to clear it? Why did it take so long to make it into the paper?
Those are questions Dexy may have to answer someday (probably sooner than he thinks). But the man who couldn't report the truth on Iraq (not just on Falluja, on the entire occupation) now wants to scold Bremer for staying silent. It's interesting to watch the liars turn on one another.
As the Judith Miller controversy was in its final stages, I said repeatedly that if she helped get us into war (she was part of a large number of helpers -- she didn't do it alone), it's the "reporters" like Dexter Filkins who keep us over there by refusing to report the truth. Now Dexter wants to scold Bremer for "staying silent"? Filkins' press releases live from the Green Zone will not be forgotten. He can pretend like the only one staying silent was Bremer but it was him too. Had the Times written the truth about the occupation long ago, America might have woken up sooner.
that's the c.i. who has inspired me for years and continues to inspire me. but i couldn't write that. for 1 thing, i loathe the times too much to go through it the way c.i. does. for another, in november 2004, i'm not sure i would have gotten how silly dexy's 'award winning' report was. or the problems with it. but mainly, i'm not c.i. i can do a full rebecca on dexy. and if i approach it that way, i'm the only 1 who can.
so the point is, you've been given a voice, are you going to use it? march is coming up. the 3rd anniversary. are you going to be silent (a silent extra in your own movie of your life - worse than a supporting player)? or are you going to speak out?
dexter filkins
the new york times
danny schechter
united for peace and justice
the common ills
it was an endurance test. wally had it in him to stay until the end but he also had college work to focus on (a test on monday and a paper due as well). i called him to see if my posting would make him feel like he had to. he said he couldn't believe how tired he was (he's not crazy about his paper but he thinks he aced his test). mike had told him to just chill tonight and that's what he's ended up doing. (he was on his way to bed after we got off the phone.)
i called because every 1 already has enough pressure on them and if i was adding to wally's pressure by posting, i wouldn't be posting tonight. a lot of us try to live up to the example c.i. sets at the common ills. i don't. elaine doesn't. that's because we've know c.i. forever and we're quite aware that c.i. can outlast us. in college, c.i. could party all night, turn around and go to a 1st of the morning class, make incredible points, and move on to the next class. c.i. is an insomniac, true. but it's also true that we're talking incredible endurance, incredible focus and an ability to juggle that exceeds what you'd find in a circus tent.
we know c.i. brings that same 'can do' attitude to the common ills. we love it. we love the site, we love c.i. but we knew long ago that we couldn't do that. but for others, it's the example, the standard. c.i. doesn't encourage that. doesn't push it. tells people to take time for themselves.
plus, the common ills community is huge. so there are more demands there than any of us have. when c.i. says 'write it but do it without me' on something we're all working on, it's because it's a sensitive subject for a member. which member? c.i. can tell you. c.i.'s always been able to do that. 1 nickname was 'the journal' because it was like having a journal recording everything. if elaine and i had a disagreement, we'd call c.i. and say 'what happened? who is right here?'
i can keep a few of my readers straight. i can tell you a ton about sherry because she's been reading since i started this site and she's become some 1 i think of as a friend. anytime i check the e-mails, the 1st thing i look for is to see if sherry's written. but i can probably only keep track of 15 of my readers in terms of being able to spit out their most important issues.
c.i. is not competative. you'll never meet any 1 less competative. if you've got something you're doing, it's yours. c.i.'s not going to do it. in college, c.i. was being asked to run for a student office 1 year. for obvious reasons. the person running for re-election comes up and explains how 'important' the position is to them. so c.i. doesn't run. (c.i. won as a write in.) in classes where the prof would tell you your grade before the final so you'd know how well you needed to do, c.i. wouldn't let the prof say it. why? c.i. was always the a student. every 1 knew it because after any test, if the prof went over them in class, he or she would tell you the true or false answers, the multiple choice answers and then, on the essay section, say 'for an example of the perfect essay see' c.i. other people would bask in that. i would. c.i. would slink in the chair.
i do anything, half-assed or full on, and c.i. is there with praise. try to praise c.i. and you'll get 'oh please' or something else dismissive. there is no complimenting c.i. (ask elaine if you don't believe me.)
i bet some of you reading this know some 1 like that. i hope you do anyway. i know a lot of talented people who are extremely conceited. i know very few who are modest like c.i. if you do know someone who is talented and gifted and modest, you know you're lucky to have them as a friend and you learn quickly that there's no point in using them as a measuring stick because you'll come up short every time.
i'm writing this for people who are trying to 'keep up.' i doubt any 1 who blogs in the community is competative with c.i. because when you get to know c.i., you realize that competition is not an option and that it only makes c.i. feel awkward (and start offering self-put downs or being self-negative). but i do think a few people are looking and thinking 'geez, c.i.'s posting 3 to 4 times a day. i should be able to manage at least once.'
when a similar thought was voiced to c.i. all it did was make c.i. feel bad and feel like the fault belonged to guess who. (no, not me. c.i. grabs none of the glory but will gobble up all the blame and guilt.)
it's not worth it to measure yourself against any 1. the few times c.i. has rallied competition wise is when some 1's tried to steal something. i remember a really sick, twisted lover in college trying to steal c.i.'s idea for a creative writing assignment. that's 1 time i saw c.i. really angry about something other than a social justice issue.
and what did c.i. do? stuck with the same original idea. and ended up getting the highest grade in the class. why? here's the lesson folks. because the jerk could rip off c.i.'s idea but not write what c.i. lived as well as c.i.
sherry could create a site called politics and sex and attitude and screeds tomorrow and try to do what i do the way i do and she'd fail. she could create a site tomorrow and write in her voice and be a huge success. (she's very gifted and i've repeatedly told her to start a site.)
sherry can be the best sherry. i can be the best rebecca (or the best i can be). but i'd be a lousy elaine copy or c.i. copy. the lesson here is to be you. if you speak in your own voice, you're going to win in the long run.
it reminds me of a huge battle c.i. had with a racist and sexist prof. so sexist, have i told this story before?, that he would say things like the wacs weren't interested in helping the country out in wwii, just in getting laid. say that in a lecture to the class. the professor did a lot of academic studies. co-authored them. people hated him but were intimidated by him, students were. so he got away with that crap.
until c.i. ended up in his class. c.i. aced the class and did it by being c.i. others tried to echo the prof and spit back whatever he spewed. not c.i.
or, a philosophy prof. he had an idol among philosophers. 1 class, on plato, had very little plato in it because the prof would always go back to his idol. anyway, c.i. wrote an incredible paper which was 1/3 of the grade. the prof didn't like it. (c.i. didn't care for the prof's idol.) he refused to accept it. he gave it back with all these remarks that were non-academic scribbled on it and told c.i. to redo it. said 'do it this way and you'll have an a.'
c.i. didn't do that. instead, c.i. took the paper to the dean, showed how unprofessional (and personal) the remarks the prof had written were, showed up with all the index cards and research backing up each point. the prof was told he had to accept the paper and the dean said he'd be looking over the grading of it.
this took up a lot of time, this battle. and the easiest thing to do would have been to just redo the paper the way the prof wanted and get the easy a. but c.i. said 'if i do it his way and fail, i've failed twice, on the grade and failed myself by not being true to myself.' every 1 on campus that knew c.i. was saying 'just do it the prof's way.' c.i. would rather have taken a failing grade than tried to 'write like' the prof.
i've come out of my own shell. i used to be so scared of speaking out. (i know that's hard to believe if you've read this site very often.) a lot of that is the personal issues i've had to deal with shortly before beginning this site. but it's also true that due to those issues, i realized that how little so much i thought mattered actually did.
i get credited by elaine and c.i. for my 'strength.' i think a lot of it is due to finally having enough and seeing how little surface things matter added in with seeing c.i. over the years.
like i said, in college, i learned quickly that i couldn't compete with c.i.'s endurance. but what i did learn in the last few years, and hopefully there's some 1 around you that you've learned this from or that you will learn this from, is that in the end, you have to answer for what you did. not who liked you, not who thought highly of you. c.i. demonstrated that then and demonstrates it now.
when the freak got pissed that c.i. linked to joan mellen and defended her (mellen wrote an incredible book, read it), there was a lot of 'oh my god!' from people. c.i. couldn't care less. truly. there are times, if c.i. thinks someone's been hurt, that it is an issue. but there will be no guilt attached to a slam for being true to yourself.
there's a scene in the pelican brief that elaine and i always tease c.i. about. julia roberts is in class and being asked about a court decision on gays and lesbians. julia says something about every 1 is equal and the prof says something like 'well the court felt differently' and julia responds evenly and calmly something like 'well they're wrong.'
that is any course we've taken with c.i.
dexter filkins gets criticized for his phoney reporting now. a little. and it's picking up still. the criticism. but there are people who are still shocked that in real time, november 2004 during falluja, c.i. would criticize dexy. they shouldn't be. c.i.'s not interested in being 'right' today. c.i. has and will take people saying 'you are wrong' and the attitude is always 'i'll be right in the long run.'
i'm stronger these days and a part of that is because of the example i've seen from c.i. over the years. money, relationships, go down the list, none of it is important enough to sell yourself out and i've seen an example of that up close. are there rocky times as a result? yeah, usually there are. but you win in the end. the 'win' is that you stayed true. you didn't water yourself down to please some 1 else. take it from some 1 who spent most of her life, too many years, watering herself down to be liked, there's no point in that. there's no long term reward.
in the end, you actually end up feeling very hollow.
there are 3 points to tonight's entry. the first, already noted, is to encourage every 1 to realize they need to do their best, not some 1 else's. the 2nd is dexy and i'll get to him in a minute. the 3rd is that march is coming up on us.
on that. it's the 3rd anniversary. what are you going to do. are you going to find your voice now and speak out against the war? if you already have your voice, are you going to speak out more? if you're saying 'well i don't know what to do' are you actually looking for things to do?
here's something you can do, danny schechter, "Why Protest Media Coverage March 15?"
The national day for local media protest announced last week on Mediachannel.org received such a positive response that the organizers of United For Peace and Justice, the country's largest anti-war coalition, decided to change the date from March 21 to March 15 to make a focus on the media the kickoff event for this years week-long "spring offensive" against the war to mark the third anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq.
Activists, peace groups and media reformers are being encouraged to organize protests in every city and community.
I wanted to add some personal comments to this campaign because journalists as a rule and Mediachannel until now has reported on protests, not helped organize them. Usually, media people are not activists but this case is different. Here the issue is not about politicians or causes, but our own profession and industry.
If we are not willing to speak out on a problem so close to home, who will? If we don't stand up for media freedom and against deceptive news practices, how can we lecture or editorializes other institutions to practice ethical standards, accountability and transparency?
I know there are colleagues of ours who find protests, well, unseemly, and likely to do no good. Some readers feel that way too. To these "nattering nabobs of negativity," to quote the late and great Spiro T Agnew, a politician with loose standards but clever language, I would respond, it is the duty of all of us who believe in the need for honest journalism to say so publicly.
Remember the phrase "my country right or wrong, my country!" The response is always "My country right or wrong, but when wrong, set it right." The same goes for the press.
I have been fighting this media battle for a long time. In his foreword to my book WHEN NEWS LIES on media complicity and the Iraq War, Michael Wolff calls me "the 2000 year old" media critic in the spirit of Mel Brooks and Carl Reiner’s hysterical 2000 year old man shtick.
Yes, I have been doing it a while but mostly in the media, dissecting news on the radio or producing TV and films. In the case of Iraq, I have written two books and made the documentary WMD (Weapons of Mass Deception). I think I know what I am talking about.I have spoken on the issue all over this country and throughout the world. And yes, I know from painful personal experience, how easy it is to be ignored, or patronized and marginalized.
but you know what? given the choice between doing what he believe and staying silent, danny schechter would choose doing what he believe in. so should you. (i don't know danny schechter, by the way. i have read his books and his website and c.i. speaks highly of him.) 30 years from now, people will still be talking about danny schechter. other 'names' even 1s on tv currently? we'll have forgotten them. they've done nothing. they've done the job that causes no waves and makes no impressions other than to their bosses who are so amazed how well trained the clapping seals have turned out to be.
the people you remember are the 1s who stand up. the 1s with courage. the 1s who don't sit on the sidelines waiting for some 1 else to act. think of your life as a movie. shouldn't you be starring in your own movie? otherwise, you're just a supporting character. you're there to say 'really, and then what happened?' and serve as recap for events that others did. don't you want to be the star of your own movie?
now for c.i.'s "And the war drags on . . ." because c.i. took on dexy again:
Now for the New York Times. Prepare to chuckle (and thanks to Rob for pointing it out, I often skip the book section and had intended this to be one of those days):
But [Paul L.] Bremer bears a heavy responsibility for keeping silent -- and so does General Sanchez. If we can ssume that Bremer's recollection is correct, then General Sanchez's remarks indicate that Baghdad was indeed out of control, that both he and Bremer knew it and that without more troops, it was likely to stay out of control. [. . .]
By staying silent, Bremer ensured that there would be no public debate on the merits of deploying more Americans troops. By staying silent, he ensured that there would be little public discussion over the condition of the Iraqi security forces, whose quality he doubted. [. . . .]
What do we learn from the above? It's by an in-house writer at the paper so it's safe to assume (no surprise) that the Times argument remains "Stay until more are slaughtered!" Yeah, they're making the idiotic argument that "more troops" are needed. Got to protect those foreign investments, got to protect that "free market," no need to leave until we've privatized everything. That's their real argument. The Times can support human rights . . . to a point. The point is where human rights intersects with a "healthy" profit motive. At that point, the paper tosses human rights out the window.
Listening to the scolding of Bremer (who deserves it) for his silence is anyone else thinking of all that the paper of record has been silent on? The Bully Boy hump? The NSA warrantless and illegal spying that they sat on for a year. And so much more. (For years and years and years.)
If you're thinking, "Who is the Times to scold anyone for staying silent?" wait, it's about to get a whole lot funnier (and more hypocritical). The review is entitled "Desert Sturm" (oh, aren't they cute -- in their minds). And the writer? Dexter Filkins.
Dexter Filkins who stayed silent on the slaughter he should have witnessed in Falluja. Supposedly he was there in November 2004. But to read his rah-rah, video game reporting, it was all, people killed, people who had it coming to them. And it was so 'totally cool' judging by his breathless reporting. (Did the American troops have to swat him on the snout to get him to stop huming their legs?) It was all so glorious, so wonderous to read Dexy's "award winning" "reporting." The piece that took over six days to make it into print. Who edited that report? Who had to clear it? Why did it take so long to make it into the paper?
Those are questions Dexy may have to answer someday (probably sooner than he thinks). But the man who couldn't report the truth on Iraq (not just on Falluja, on the entire occupation) now wants to scold Bremer for staying silent. It's interesting to watch the liars turn on one another.
As the Judith Miller controversy was in its final stages, I said repeatedly that if she helped get us into war (she was part of a large number of helpers -- she didn't do it alone), it's the "reporters" like Dexter Filkins who keep us over there by refusing to report the truth. Now Dexter wants to scold Bremer for "staying silent"? Filkins' press releases live from the Green Zone will not be forgotten. He can pretend like the only one staying silent was Bremer but it was him too. Had the Times written the truth about the occupation long ago, America might have woken up sooner.
that's the c.i. who has inspired me for years and continues to inspire me. but i couldn't write that. for 1 thing, i loathe the times too much to go through it the way c.i. does. for another, in november 2004, i'm not sure i would have gotten how silly dexy's 'award winning' report was. or the problems with it. but mainly, i'm not c.i. i can do a full rebecca on dexy. and if i approach it that way, i'm the only 1 who can.
so the point is, you've been given a voice, are you going to use it? march is coming up. the 3rd anniversary. are you going to be silent (a silent extra in your own movie of your life - worse than a supporting player)? or are you going to speak out?
dexter filkins
the new york times
danny schechter
united for peace and justice
the common ills
2/24/2006
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
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
2/23/2006
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.
2/22/2006
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 . . .
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 . . .
2/21/2006
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.
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
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
2/20/2006
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)