'black heritage' is what the stamps are called. it's 'black history' month. i'll fix that after i get this entry up but with almost every 1 in the air now and elaine counseling her therapy group tonight, i'm all you got, community. so let me get something posted.
it's thursday and i want to note flashpoints each thursday as part of the effort to get the word out on pacifica radio. flashpoints airs monday through fridays and is an hour long. dennis bernstein is the anchor. i say 'anchor' not host because it is a news program. you can listen to it over the airwaves on many stations or you can listen to it online at the flashpoints website or at kpfa and kpft online. other stations as well and if you listen on a station i didn't mention, drop me a line at sexandpoliticsandscreeds@yahoo.com and I'll include it.
'he has lied on issues both big and small. he's lied sometimes when he didn't have to. other times i think he's lied because he wants to make his actions, his behaviors, more reasonable than they were. . . . he's gone out of his way to say things that we now know are false.'
who said that? robert parry on tonight's flashpoints. he's talking about the bully boy. such as bully boy's lie that saddam wouldn't let un inspectors in when we all know they went in and remember them rushing out, on tv, in march 2003 as bully boy geared up for the invasion. to this day 'he has made these claims about saddam hussein choosing war, saddam hussein wouldn't let the inspectors in... another quick example is his claim in 2004 which he brought up unpressured to a crowd in buffalo... where he said any wiretap required getting permission from a court, nothing had changed, when 2 years earlier he had authorized a change.'
'here's a guy who on very significant issues, when he knew he could get away with it, has lied.'
only the great robert parry could have me ape ruth and include direct quotes. i love robert parry, he's 1 of the few brave reporters left. and like the other braves 1s, he's part of the alternative scene. consortium news is the website he created, after too many hassles in the mainstream, and you will find great reporting there so check it out. and check out his books. he's my favorite book author.
maria told me that flashpoints, on friday, has news in spanish so that's another feature to check out. friday's are usually 'date night' and the show airs, in my area, starting at 8:00 pm so that's date time. i always hope to catch up on the weekend, but let's be honest, i never do. saturday nights and sunday mornings are marathon sessions with everyone to work on the third estate sunday review and when that's done most of us are wiped out. i usually miss thursdays live (but listen via archives) due to volunteer work but with everyone delayed in posting due to flying back from california, i cut short my volunteer hours this evening.
tuesday, dennis interviewed greg palast (i wrote about some of that here) and the parents of rachel corrie, young woman killed by israelies, in the occupied terrorties, while attempting to protect a palestinian family. isreal and palestine are regular topics on flashpoints.
yesterday larry johnson was interviewed about the leaking of valerie plame and that was a topic tonight as well. robert parry said that patrick fitzgerald's case against scooter libby is not due to go to trial until 2007 and that the american people deserve answers before the october elections.
fly boy and i were going wild trying to find his stamp collection among the boxes that he's just piled in a closet so i missed the name of a guest on tonight's program but he did an excellent job critiquing the administration and noting how what we're hearing with iran is an echo of what we heard prior to the 2002 elections on iraq and served to distract us on administration scandals including enron.
on that, c.i. asked this weekend while we were working on the third estate sunday review edition if any 1 was hearing much on that trial? it's finally going forward in houston. the defense is presenting their testimony now. there's so much going on that it's hard to keep track of every story but it is amazing how enron has left the front pages. (i'm going by three daily papers i read - the new york times did front page at least 1 article last week.)
matt e-mailed me to say he was listening to flashpoints now (and that he didn't know he had a pacifica in his area until ruth started covering it) and wondered what i was hoping for with this emphasis?
a number of things. 1st, i want to give ruth a damn break. that woman works her butt off trying to listen to as many programs as she can and then trying to pull together her report on saturday mornings. there is way too much worth covering for her to do it all by herself. i told her i'd cover a program and asked her which 1 did she always wants to cover but never had time? it's flashpoints because it airs when she's eating dinner and she'll be listening but think, 'oh, i'll write that in a second' and then something else comes up. the thought that she was about to start eating with a fork in one hand and a pen in another made this my program. ruth really needs a break. i worry that she's always jotting down notes and not able to enjoy listening to shows. it's like every hour is a lecture and saturdays are the finals, week after week.
[correction made friday - day after this posted. 'her' butt off. thanks to sherry for catching that, apologies to ruth. i was rushing through this post when i wrote it to get something up.]
so i'm grabbing flashpoints for that personal reason.
2nd, i want to be sure people are aware of it. if, like matt (who listens to kpft by the way), you are some 1 who reads about it here and checks it out, that's great. but like c.i. always says, you should know it's out there. maybe it's for you, maybe it's not. but you need to know what is out there because it's past time to stop relying on the mainstream media.
maybe you'll listen once and maybe you won't. maybe you'll become a dedicated listener the way matt is. maybe you'll just know it's out there. and maybe you'll hear of a story in the mainstream, say something on israel, and think, 'i want another view. i know, i'll listen to flashpoints!'
3rd, pacifica radio is doing what we supposedly want our mainstream media to do. you hear a lot of whining about 'this didn't get covered' or 'that didn't get covered.' after awhile, the question has to be, 'why are you still trusting those news sources?' we're wanting a strong media that tells the truth or tries its damndest, we'll we got it. we already have it. it's called pacifica. so instead of whining that this didn't make cnn or that didn't make abc, are you doing anything? are you using alternative media? are you supporting it?
i think you should give to pacifica. c.i. always makes the point that just getting the word out is enough. that is a huge step, yes. and c.i.'s very sensitive to the fact that many people do not have money to donate. if that's you, this doesn't apply. if putting food on your table is enough of a task, this doesn't apply. but if you're some 1 who has the money to waste on a subscription to newsweek, people magazine or whatever, you have the money to put into real media, independent media. i'll probably piss some 1 off with that but if you are pissed off, think about it, and i think you'll get my point.
but getting the word out is huge. i've got a little platform here with a nice number of readers and i could jerk off over whatever mainstream press or i can use the space to note something that can really help inform you. for those reasons and more, i'll be noting flashpoints on thursdays.
there are people who can't listen online. i seriously didn't grasp that. c.i. had to point that out to me. that includes people on public computers at libraries and people who are on older computers or have slower connections. the internet highway is leaving many off on the service roads. so another reason is to let people who won't be able to listen to flashpoints know the sort of things it covers.
when i'm at t's salon, i talk up pacifica and there are huge numbers of people who don't know about it. many of those are people who surf the net and know a great deal. when c.i. said, over a year ago, that members could endorse candidates but 'i won't' i thought, 'come on.' but in the months since, i've gotten the point. besides the fact that c.i. isn't try to be a leader or gasbag pundit, there's the fact that a lot of people are fretting over 2006's elections. they matter. but they will be over and we still have the world around us. the common ills, as c.i. has defined it, is a resource/review. it's not an elections update. there are very real issues. if the common ills is doing the job c.i.'s set for it (i think it is) then people will have the information they need to vote and, if they don't, they will know where to go (trusted voices) for help in finding out about candidates.
informing people of pacifica radio would be doing a wonderful service. but pacifica is not a democratic party organ and possibly that's why it's not covered the way it should be online? maybe there's fear that pacifica wouldn't just provide a dem candidate with coverage but also a third party candidate (which is correct)?
i don't know. i do know that there's a lot going on that the democratic party refuses to address. i do know that on key issues like reproductive rights, the dems are failing. while some of them may garner my votes, i'm not running a site that acts as a democratic party organ. if i think ralph nader says something stupid, i'll say so. i won't join in an attack on him just because he decides to run for an office that some people feel the democratics are entitled to.
you hear a lot of people whine 'we need to build an independent media!' i say 'whine' because that's all it is. we have an independent media. we have pacifica and robert parry's site and a lot more. but are we noting them? are we telling people they're out there? i don't think we are.
i'll give an example and i'll use a site i like. buzzflash is a great site. you look at their links and there's pbs, there's this, there's that. yes, democracy now is linked to but where's pacifica? i see air america radio - huge disappointment. when janeane stopped being on the majority report night after night, i stopped listening. i'll listen to laura flanders and i'll listen to randi rhodes and mike malloy but otherwise, i have no need for it. i have no need for baby cries a lot and his aei friends and rush limbaugh loving friends. he really is disgusting and the failure of his last book is fitting. i once asked c.i., who's always great with a phrase, why he's dubbed baby cries a lot instead of 'bob hope'? reason? bob hope could actually be funny.
baby cries a lot has cast himself as the new bob hope (without the early movies that were funny). and he would insist, through tears, that we have to stay in iraq. bring up leaving, on his blog or via a guest, and it was time for him to turn on the tears and talk about how he has kids (none of whom serve in iraq but whatever). congress doesn't want to talk about leaving iraq? how about baby cries a lot?
as the overly promoted host of an air america radio show, he had a platform. he didn't use it. his show is like the dlc with training wheels. they could have promoted randi heavily or laura but they went with baby cries a lot and who on the left needs that? it's a platform for the party leaders in the democratic party and that's all it is. hour after hour of putting forth democratic talking points - from the center of the party. which is why he'll trash palestinians with such delight and why he'll avoid any other real issue. god save us all from centrist, white, overweight, middle aged males who can only relate to their own kind. his playing a 'lech' whenever a woman was a guest (i think he thought it passed for flirting and probably it does - in the playboy mansion) had me ditching that show early on. but i do remember things like jeremy glick not being able to speak. he didn't scream 'shut up!' like bill o'lielly, he just kept changing the topic. we can't talk about what glick never got to say because that makes baby cries a lot uncomfortable. so why bring him on the show? because baby cries a lot wanted to beat up on bill o'lielly. thanks for that, it's a real public service and we're surely all now hugely informed.
so i don't do shout outs or links for the useless. that's why i'm covering a show that matters: flashpoints. i'm only 1 voice. but if you do your part and get the word out as well, we'll quit asking why we don't have a broadcast media we can count on and realize that pacifica is already out there just waiting for you to seek it out. (many wise people already do seek it out.)
last thing, sherry wrote that ava and c.i.'s draft of their latest commentary is 'perfect.' i love it too but it's going to be changed. they wouldn't have circulated it throughout the community if it wasn't - they'd be scooping themselves. consider this the research paper. what will go up sunday will be quite different, less footnotes for 1, and a more humorous look at what's been going on. i do love the title and will lobby both of them to please keep it but i know they're going to rip that thing apart and start from scratch. be sure to check out the third estate sunday review sunday for the final version.
adding this. fly boy reminded me that there were a number of e-mails about the june pointer post. i'm glad so many of you wrote to say you enjoyed it. and i'm glad that so many of us have fond memories of the music of the pointer sisters.
4/13/2006
marian anderson
i am blogging tonight. c.i. called because cedric needed a copy of a stamp released last year and c.i. knows fly boy collects stamps. he did have his collection here in some of the boxes he's brought over in our whatever it is phase we're in now but it took us time to locate it. i've scanned it and i know cedric's still in the air. i don't know if he's planning to blog tonight but i'm putting this up for when he does blog next. the stamps are of marian anderson and they were the stamps released last year as part of the united states postal services salute to black heritage for last year's black history month.
democracy now today takes a hard hitting look at the village voice
dona just called. she asked me for a favor and i said, 'dona, anything for you.' which i mean because she's become a great friend and because she's not 1 to ask for favors. she asked if i'd watched democracy now and i had because that's how start my day (that and coffee and cigarettes and save the speeches on smoking). it's a great episode and she asked if i could post something about it.
my brain doesn't work until noon. truly. when i was doing p.r. i would never take a meeting earlier than 10 and i would do everything i could to avoid 1 that early. i need to ease into the day. so i'll just say it's a great broadcast with some debate (and some sparks flying at 1 point) on what the changes at the village voice mean in terms of alternative media.
if you watch it on dish tv like i do, it airs next at 7 and that's on the east coast, don't make me try to do the time zones, i haven't had a whole pot of coffee yet. you can also check it out online at democracy now or at a radio station you listen to the program on or a local tv channel you watch it on or direct tv but i have dish so i have no idea when direct tv airs it. and i can do something else, i can note c.i.'s entry - yes, guys and gals, this episode is so important that c.i. has already done a thing to note it. so make a point to watch. unless you listen, in which case listen. and if you can't listen or watch, you can go to the web site and read transcripts (you can also watch or listen online). and happy birthday to amy goodman, today's her birthday.
'Democary Now!: The Death of the Village Voice?'
We're at Kat's and were planning to pick her up and head out but as we listened to headlines in the car (on Democracy Now!) we made the decision to start later today. Why Democracy Now! is covering the Village Voice. The decay of the Voice. I logged on (to Kat's computer) to do this and give a heads up to Micah (he, regrettably, called the death for this community a few weeks back) but he'd already written to note the topic and to ask that we note today is Amy Goodman's birthday.
If alternative weekly means something other than free paper and "lifestyle" reporting (and it does to this community), you need to make a point to check out today's Democracy Now! James Ridgeway is a guest and this is an indepth look at what's going on at what, for many, was the alternative weekly.
Sydney H. Schanberg states the new owner told him, "If he wanted to read daily critiques of the Bush administration, he'd read the New York Times."Ridgeway notes that the new 'direction' doesn't appear to have a place for stories on abortion or the Minute Men. Ridgeway notes, "It seems to me that the paper is kind of . . . shutting down the national coverage."
Speaking on why what's happening is a national issue, Tim Redmond (editor of San Francisco Bay Guardian) stated, "The alternative press has always been about, independent media, about independent media voices." Noting New Times consolidation efforts Redomond also stated, "if we go that way in the alternative media, that's going to be bad."
Jim just pointed out that it's Thursday, when we note indymedia in our nightly roundup, so we'll go into this more this evening. This isn't the DN! entry for the day. We'll note it again later today. But this is an important issue to the community, especially to members who suffer from New Times' weeklies -- with their teens on drugs! teens on steroids! and other lifestyle "scoops" that pass for investigative journalism, feature writing that they then congratulate themselves over as though they broke hard news.Mark Jacobson is also a guest as is Jeff Chester of the Center for Digital Democracy.
James Ridgeway notes that he can't imagine anyone covering NYC and not noting politics. Juan Gonzalez and Amy Goodman are taking an indepth look at this. Redmond notes the big chain New Times doesn't believe in diversity or in competition. Media does matter and Jim asks that I add, "This is a much more worthy topic than beat-up-on-Katie." And Mike and Wally say to put in, "Happy birthday to Amy Goodman!" (New Times Media is now known as Village Voice Media.)
democracy now
amy goodman
juan gonzalez
the village voice
james ridgeway
tim redmond
mark jacobson
syndey schanberg
jeff chester
the third estate sunday review
kats korner
mikey likes it
the daily jot
my brain doesn't work until noon. truly. when i was doing p.r. i would never take a meeting earlier than 10 and i would do everything i could to avoid 1 that early. i need to ease into the day. so i'll just say it's a great broadcast with some debate (and some sparks flying at 1 point) on what the changes at the village voice mean in terms of alternative media.
if you watch it on dish tv like i do, it airs next at 7 and that's on the east coast, don't make me try to do the time zones, i haven't had a whole pot of coffee yet. you can also check it out online at democracy now or at a radio station you listen to the program on or a local tv channel you watch it on or direct tv but i have dish so i have no idea when direct tv airs it. and i can do something else, i can note c.i.'s entry - yes, guys and gals, this episode is so important that c.i. has already done a thing to note it. so make a point to watch. unless you listen, in which case listen. and if you can't listen or watch, you can go to the web site and read transcripts (you can also watch or listen online). and happy birthday to amy goodman, today's her birthday.
'Democary Now!: The Death of the Village Voice?'
We're at Kat's and were planning to pick her up and head out but as we listened to headlines in the car (on Democracy Now!) we made the decision to start later today. Why Democracy Now! is covering the Village Voice. The decay of the Voice. I logged on (to Kat's computer) to do this and give a heads up to Micah (he, regrettably, called the death for this community a few weeks back) but he'd already written to note the topic and to ask that we note today is Amy Goodman's birthday.
If alternative weekly means something other than free paper and "lifestyle" reporting (and it does to this community), you need to make a point to check out today's Democracy Now! James Ridgeway is a guest and this is an indepth look at what's going on at what, for many, was the alternative weekly.
Sydney H. Schanberg states the new owner told him, "If he wanted to read daily critiques of the Bush administration, he'd read the New York Times."Ridgeway notes that the new 'direction' doesn't appear to have a place for stories on abortion or the Minute Men. Ridgeway notes, "It seems to me that the paper is kind of . . . shutting down the national coverage."
Speaking on why what's happening is a national issue, Tim Redmond (editor of San Francisco Bay Guardian) stated, "The alternative press has always been about, independent media, about independent media voices." Noting New Times consolidation efforts Redomond also stated, "if we go that way in the alternative media, that's going to be bad."
Jim just pointed out that it's Thursday, when we note indymedia in our nightly roundup, so we'll go into this more this evening. This isn't the DN! entry for the day. We'll note it again later today. But this is an important issue to the community, especially to members who suffer from New Times' weeklies -- with their teens on drugs! teens on steroids! and other lifestyle "scoops" that pass for investigative journalism, feature writing that they then congratulate themselves over as though they broke hard news.Mark Jacobson is also a guest as is Jeff Chester of the Center for Digital Democracy.
James Ridgeway notes that he can't imagine anyone covering NYC and not noting politics. Juan Gonzalez and Amy Goodman are taking an indepth look at this. Redmond notes the big chain New Times doesn't believe in diversity or in competition. Media does matter and Jim asks that I add, "This is a much more worthy topic than beat-up-on-Katie." And Mike and Wally say to put in, "Happy birthday to Amy Goodman!" (New Times Media is now known as Village Voice Media.)
democracy now
amy goodman
juan gonzalez
the village voice
james ridgeway
tim redmond
mark jacobson
syndey schanberg
jeff chester
the third estate sunday review
kats korner
mikey likes it
the daily jot
4/12/2006
june pointer 1953-2006
june pointer died. you probably have to be a certain age or else you say 'who?'
june pointer was the youngest member of the pointer sisters. they started out as four sisters (bonnie, ruth, anita and june) then 1 left (bonnie). the three sang together, they were a vocal group.
the 1st song i knew was their hit 'fire' which was written by bruce springsteen.
romeo and juliet
sampson and delilah
if you don't know it by those 2 lines, you don't know it.
they were good for songs and that was really it for most of their career.
'american music' was a hit they had and 'he's so shy' was a mega hit for them.
he's so shy
that's why i love my baby
he's so shy
it's driving me crazy
that sweet little boy who caught my eye
they had a hit with 'slow hand' and maybe some will know that:
i want a lover with a slow hand
i want a lover with an easy touch
i want a man who can spend some time
not come and go in a heated rush
then came 'i'm so excited' which was a hit twice.
it was a hit in the early 80s and then, when they were on a hot streak with break out, it was a hit again.
break out?
their best album. the 1 time they made a real album. richard perry was their producer on almost everything. he produced carly simon (hotcakes, no secrets, playing possum) and barbra streisand (stoney end) among others.
break out was a favorite cassette for me (back then, we bought albums on cassette). i always bought every 1 of their cassettes and was usually disappointed because they had 1/2 an album or less. a lot of filler. break out was great.
and it was a huge hit. so somebody decided, 'hey, they had a hit with "i'm so excited" awhile back, let's put it on the album!' and they reissued the album. on cd you can only get that version.
break out was when they moved away from the pop sound and went after more of a dance feel.
'telgraph your love' was 1 of my favorites on the cd but i also loved 'i need you' and 'easy persuasion.' guess what? those weren't hit singles.
this was a great album. i can't remember but i think 'automatic' was the 1st single. this 1 had ruth on lead and there was a big controversy over whether or not it was ruth's voice natural or manipulated because her voice was so deep. it's a great song and was a huge hit. if that wasn't the 1st single, it was 'jump (for my love)' which was also a huge hit. i loved that song. jump - jump - for my love. so they had 2 hits and 'i'm so excited' got added on for 3. it was re-released and a hit again. 'neturon dance' waas a huge hit from the album and it was also in the movie beverly hills cop. for that video, they were usherettes with flashlights while clips from the movie played. but that wasn't it. 'baby come and get it' was also a hit on dance and urban charts. i believe it also crossed over to pop. five hits off 1 album. it was really big. it came out in 1983 and was still on the charts in 1984.
in the summer of 1985, they came out with contact and the 1st single was 'dare me.' that was a hit as well and had a video with a young model as a boxer. he was hot. i believe he had red boxing shorts but that was so long ago. i just remember thinking 'hot!'
as always, i rushed out and got the album as soon as it came out. the 2nd single was a mistake. they went with a ballad. 'freedom.' it was a hit but i think it killed the enthusiasm for the album.
i liked the song but they really needed to go with something more up tempo. i remember people complaining about 'freedom.' i would defend it and say 'wait for the next 1.'
but that really was it. 'pound pound' was great and should have been the follow up to 'dare me.'
they did another album with richard perry producing and it didn't do very well. they had a hit on the urban charts with the lead single, i don't even remember it.
and that was really it.
they could really sing. they sang with bruce springsteen on the first merry christmas album in 1985 or 1986 (charity album for special olympics). they also performed on 'we are the world.'
of the non singles, i think my favorite song was 'i need you.'
something's wrong (something's wrong)
things ain't right (things ain't right)
and it turns into a silly fight
i walk out (i walk out)
you get mad (you get mad)
and we both just seem to feeling bad
the way their voices mixed on that song just gave me chills.
if you're wondering about song writing credit, they worked with outside song writers. the only hit they had that they wrote was 'i'm so exicted' (with trevor lawrence).
that's a song that always pops up in movies. (the fabulous baker boys, working girl, etc.)
as a 4-some (with bonnie) they had a hit with 'the fairytale' but i never knew that song. when i was buying cassettes, they never had that at any store i went to. i always wanted to hear that song during the 80s but by the time the 90s rolled around, there had been too many bad albums.
break out was their best 1. and they are a part of 80s popular music.
i was really sad to see the news online this evening that june pointer died.
they had at least 14 hits, that i know of, from the 70s to the 80s ('yes we can' was a hit before 'the fairytale') and that may not seem like a huge number today when you put out an album and get the 1st hit, then the 2nd, then the 3rd, then the 4th ... but back then it wasn't uncommon (sad but true) for acts trying to have hits to end up with only 1 or 2 hits per album.
to put break out into perspective it came out after thriller and before tina turner's private dancer and bruce springsteen's born in the u.s.a. music had been a slump, sales were down - so of course the labels were whining 'piracy!'
reality was a recession, rising prices and really bad vinyl. every time i bought a vinyl album, it was like placing a bet. when i got it home, maybe it would play without skips, maybe it wouldn't.
i returned linda ronstadt's living in the u.s.a 4 times before i got 1 that would play correctly.
then came the walkman in the 80s and cassettes became the rage. michael jackson and others revived interest in music (stevie nicks' belladonna was 1 of the huge albums of the early 80s). donna summer had re-discovered god and lost her talent.
along came the pointer sisters.
break out stayed on the charts forever. if you're looking for some where to start with their music, get that on cd.
june pointer was the youngest member of the pointer sisters. they started out as four sisters (bonnie, ruth, anita and june) then 1 left (bonnie). the three sang together, they were a vocal group.
the 1st song i knew was their hit 'fire' which was written by bruce springsteen.
romeo and juliet
sampson and delilah
if you don't know it by those 2 lines, you don't know it.
they were good for songs and that was really it for most of their career.
'american music' was a hit they had and 'he's so shy' was a mega hit for them.
he's so shy
that's why i love my baby
he's so shy
it's driving me crazy
that sweet little boy who caught my eye
they had a hit with 'slow hand' and maybe some will know that:
i want a lover with a slow hand
i want a lover with an easy touch
i want a man who can spend some time
not come and go in a heated rush
then came 'i'm so excited' which was a hit twice.
it was a hit in the early 80s and then, when they were on a hot streak with break out, it was a hit again.
break out?
their best album. the 1 time they made a real album. richard perry was their producer on almost everything. he produced carly simon (hotcakes, no secrets, playing possum) and barbra streisand (stoney end) among others.
break out was a favorite cassette for me (back then, we bought albums on cassette). i always bought every 1 of their cassettes and was usually disappointed because they had 1/2 an album or less. a lot of filler. break out was great.
and it was a huge hit. so somebody decided, 'hey, they had a hit with "i'm so excited" awhile back, let's put it on the album!' and they reissued the album. on cd you can only get that version.
break out was when they moved away from the pop sound and went after more of a dance feel.
'telgraph your love' was 1 of my favorites on the cd but i also loved 'i need you' and 'easy persuasion.' guess what? those weren't hit singles.
this was a great album. i can't remember but i think 'automatic' was the 1st single. this 1 had ruth on lead and there was a big controversy over whether or not it was ruth's voice natural or manipulated because her voice was so deep. it's a great song and was a huge hit. if that wasn't the 1st single, it was 'jump (for my love)' which was also a huge hit. i loved that song. jump - jump - for my love. so they had 2 hits and 'i'm so excited' got added on for 3. it was re-released and a hit again. 'neturon dance' waas a huge hit from the album and it was also in the movie beverly hills cop. for that video, they were usherettes with flashlights while clips from the movie played. but that wasn't it. 'baby come and get it' was also a hit on dance and urban charts. i believe it also crossed over to pop. five hits off 1 album. it was really big. it came out in 1983 and was still on the charts in 1984.
in the summer of 1985, they came out with contact and the 1st single was 'dare me.' that was a hit as well and had a video with a young model as a boxer. he was hot. i believe he had red boxing shorts but that was so long ago. i just remember thinking 'hot!'
as always, i rushed out and got the album as soon as it came out. the 2nd single was a mistake. they went with a ballad. 'freedom.' it was a hit but i think it killed the enthusiasm for the album.
i liked the song but they really needed to go with something more up tempo. i remember people complaining about 'freedom.' i would defend it and say 'wait for the next 1.'
but that really was it. 'pound pound' was great and should have been the follow up to 'dare me.'
they did another album with richard perry producing and it didn't do very well. they had a hit on the urban charts with the lead single, i don't even remember it.
and that was really it.
they could really sing. they sang with bruce springsteen on the first merry christmas album in 1985 or 1986 (charity album for special olympics). they also performed on 'we are the world.'
of the non singles, i think my favorite song was 'i need you.'
something's wrong (something's wrong)
things ain't right (things ain't right)
and it turns into a silly fight
i walk out (i walk out)
you get mad (you get mad)
and we both just seem to feeling bad
the way their voices mixed on that song just gave me chills.
if you're wondering about song writing credit, they worked with outside song writers. the only hit they had that they wrote was 'i'm so exicted' (with trevor lawrence).
that's a song that always pops up in movies. (the fabulous baker boys, working girl, etc.)
as a 4-some (with bonnie) they had a hit with 'the fairytale' but i never knew that song. when i was buying cassettes, they never had that at any store i went to. i always wanted to hear that song during the 80s but by the time the 90s rolled around, there had been too many bad albums.
break out was their best 1. and they are a part of 80s popular music.
i was really sad to see the news online this evening that june pointer died.
they had at least 14 hits, that i know of, from the 70s to the 80s ('yes we can' was a hit before 'the fairytale') and that may not seem like a huge number today when you put out an album and get the 1st hit, then the 2nd, then the 3rd, then the 4th ... but back then it wasn't uncommon (sad but true) for acts trying to have hits to end up with only 1 or 2 hits per album.
to put break out into perspective it came out after thriller and before tina turner's private dancer and bruce springsteen's born in the u.s.a. music had been a slump, sales were down - so of course the labels were whining 'piracy!'
reality was a recession, rising prices and really bad vinyl. every time i bought a vinyl album, it was like placing a bet. when i got it home, maybe it would play without skips, maybe it wouldn't.
i returned linda ronstadt's living in the u.s.a 4 times before i got 1 that would play correctly.
then came the walkman in the 80s and cassettes became the rage. michael jackson and others revived interest in music (stevie nicks' belladonna was 1 of the huge albums of the early 80s). donna summer had re-discovered god and lost her talent.
along came the pointer sisters.
break out stayed on the charts forever. if you're looking for some where to start with their music, get that on cd.
4/11/2006
greg palast on flashpoints
each week, i listen to kpfa to catch flashpoints and i blog on it on thursdays.
i'm jumping in to say you really have to hear tonight's (i don't think it was 'tonight' there) broadcast. there's an interview that dennis does with greg palast that i think most people will enjoy for a number of reasons.
npr hater that i am, i enjoyed it for that reason as greg and dennis discussed 'national petroleum radio.' i think greg's correct, if you're public radio (or television), you're public. you're not taking corporate sponsorship.
he talked about how he was going to be on a media program (it airs saturdays on some npr stations and i believe it's called media matters). he was going to discuss the issue of cynthia mckinney and how the new york times and others had made up a quote for her. (this is covered by greg in his book the best democracy money can buy - i think the chapter is called 'the lynching of cynthia mckinney.') so they bring him on to discuss it and how the times lied. then as he's being miked, they learn that npr also created the quote and they say, 'oh, you've criticized npr, we can't have you on the show. how would that look?' (that's a paraphrase.) and he responds that it will look great and enlarge the discussion and show that npr can critique and welcome other voices but they take off his mike.
that's npr. you can go public radio npr to slam the new york times for lying but if you've also criticized npr for doing the same thing, it's 'you're outta here.'
they also discussed venezuela and issues of class (as well as the fact that greg has a new book coming out). so if it sounds interesting, give it a listen.
i hope you're giving flashpoints a chance because i really do think it's a great show. but if you're not. i know some people don't have the option of listening because they have older systems or they are online at libraries (often with severe time limits like 15 minutes). so if you're not able to listen, i hope i'm giving you enough of a taste that you can get an idea of the show. probably won't happen in 1 entry but over time.
i'll make this the show i follow but if i've got tickets to the theater, i'm using them.
and if i'm wiped out, i'm not forcing myself to blog. god bless c.i. but i will not try to be all things to every 1 offline and on. this weekend, cedric was just shocked by how much is going on in c.i.'s life and i said, 'cedric, think about it - this is the weekend.'
want to know about strong radio you should be aware of? read cedric's 'Law and Disorder addressed covert racism' and mike's 'Leaky Bully Boy, Immigration and Law and Disorder.'
and if you need a laugh - who doesn't - go check out betty's latest chapter "My 'caring' husband Thomas Friedman worries I don't have time to appreciate his 'genius'."
i'm jumping in to say you really have to hear tonight's (i don't think it was 'tonight' there) broadcast. there's an interview that dennis does with greg palast that i think most people will enjoy for a number of reasons.
npr hater that i am, i enjoyed it for that reason as greg and dennis discussed 'national petroleum radio.' i think greg's correct, if you're public radio (or television), you're public. you're not taking corporate sponsorship.
he talked about how he was going to be on a media program (it airs saturdays on some npr stations and i believe it's called media matters). he was going to discuss the issue of cynthia mckinney and how the new york times and others had made up a quote for her. (this is covered by greg in his book the best democracy money can buy - i think the chapter is called 'the lynching of cynthia mckinney.') so they bring him on to discuss it and how the times lied. then as he's being miked, they learn that npr also created the quote and they say, 'oh, you've criticized npr, we can't have you on the show. how would that look?' (that's a paraphrase.) and he responds that it will look great and enlarge the discussion and show that npr can critique and welcome other voices but they take off his mike.
that's npr. you can go public radio npr to slam the new york times for lying but if you've also criticized npr for doing the same thing, it's 'you're outta here.'
they also discussed venezuela and issues of class (as well as the fact that greg has a new book coming out). so if it sounds interesting, give it a listen.
i hope you're giving flashpoints a chance because i really do think it's a great show. but if you're not. i know some people don't have the option of listening because they have older systems or they are online at libraries (often with severe time limits like 15 minutes). so if you're not able to listen, i hope i'm giving you enough of a taste that you can get an idea of the show. probably won't happen in 1 entry but over time.
i'll make this the show i follow but if i've got tickets to the theater, i'm using them.
and if i'm wiped out, i'm not forcing myself to blog. god bless c.i. but i will not try to be all things to every 1 offline and on. this weekend, cedric was just shocked by how much is going on in c.i.'s life and i said, 'cedric, think about it - this is the weekend.'
want to know about strong radio you should be aware of? read cedric's 'Law and Disorder addressed covert racism' and mike's 'Leaky Bully Boy, Immigration and Law and Disorder.'
and if you need a laugh - who doesn't - go check out betty's latest chapter "My 'caring' husband Thomas Friedman worries I don't have time to appreciate his 'genius'."
4/10/2006
waiting for godot on wbai right now
SAMUEL BECKETT 100:
A Special Presentation [on WBAI]
Monday, April 10, from 9:00-11:00 pm: Commemorate Beckett's centenary and the 50th anniversary of the American premiere of his masterpiece, Waiting for Godot, by listening to a special broadcast of the play featuring the original Broadway cast: Burt Lahr, E.G. Marshall, Alvin Epstein and Kurt Kasner. Hosted and with an introduction by Simon Loekle.Heads up to the above.
On WBAI which you can listen to for free online.
i'm posting in parts but elaine just called to ask me if i was listening to the broadcast. i'd forgotten. i'm swiping the announcement above from her and there will be more below this. but i want to remind every 1 of it. the introduction has just started and the play hasn't. so you can turn on the radio and listen right now if you're not already without missing anything.
i'm listening now. of non comedy and non musical plays, waiting for godot is 1 of my favorites. i also enjoy, of the 'classics', edward albee's tiny alice and bernard shaw's saint joan. i also like ibsen and hat tip to c.i. for that. i knew of ibsen in college but wasn't too keen on it because they were set so far in the past - come on, cut me some slack, i was a college freshwoman, and then c.i. demanded that i go see ghosts. we ended up seeing a wonderful production of it and i was hooked.
whenever some 1 says, 'i don't want to rent that, it's a period film' i can understand where they're coming from; however, there are films worth seeing that are 'period films' and if you're lucky enough to see a revival of a great play, regardless of when it was written or what time period it's set in, you should do so.
i want to note that wbai also broadcast a reading of war and peace this year. now you're getting waiting for godot. do you really get that from npr? i don't think so. so if you're not familiar with wbai or the other pacifica radio stations, make a point to be. kpfa does theatre performances each sunday night.
i really want to enjoy this and my typing continues to cease as i attempt to listen. so i'm going to recommend c.i.'s "NYT: Mel's Diner is back in business" (hilarious!) and i'm going to note this from democracy now:
Mass Protests Continue Around the US For Immigrant Rights
Hundreds of thousands of people demonstrated in cities across the country Sunday urging Congress to pass legislation that would legalize the estimated 12 million undocumented workers in the US. An estimated 500,000 people took to the streets in Dallas. The marchers filled the downtown streets with chants of "Si Se Puede!" -- Spanish for "Yes, we can!". In St. Paul, Minnesota, 30,000 people rallied at the state capitol. In Birmingham, Alabama, demonstrators marched along the same streets where activists clashed with police in the civil rights struggle of the 1960s. Other protests were held in New Mexico, Michigan, Iowa, Alabama, Utah, Oregon, Idaho and California. Michael Martinez, who attended a rally in San Diego, said: "It's not about flags, it's not really about race. It's about just equal opportunities for everybody and nobody being above or below the law and nobody being exploited by the law. It's that simple." More protests are planned for today in nearly 100 cities across the country.
good for every 1 making a difference and great for dallas. i will blog tomorrow night. if you miss the broadcast and want to catch it, remember that programs are briefly archived so check out the wbai archive.
A Special Presentation [on WBAI]
Monday, April 10, from 9:00-11:00 pm: Commemorate Beckett's centenary and the 50th anniversary of the American premiere of his masterpiece, Waiting for Godot, by listening to a special broadcast of the play featuring the original Broadway cast: Burt Lahr, E.G. Marshall, Alvin Epstein and Kurt Kasner. Hosted and with an introduction by Simon Loekle.Heads up to the above.
On WBAI which you can listen to for free online.
i'm posting in parts but elaine just called to ask me if i was listening to the broadcast. i'd forgotten. i'm swiping the announcement above from her and there will be more below this. but i want to remind every 1 of it. the introduction has just started and the play hasn't. so you can turn on the radio and listen right now if you're not already without missing anything.
i'm listening now. of non comedy and non musical plays, waiting for godot is 1 of my favorites. i also enjoy, of the 'classics', edward albee's tiny alice and bernard shaw's saint joan. i also like ibsen and hat tip to c.i. for that. i knew of ibsen in college but wasn't too keen on it because they were set so far in the past - come on, cut me some slack, i was a college freshwoman, and then c.i. demanded that i go see ghosts. we ended up seeing a wonderful production of it and i was hooked.
whenever some 1 says, 'i don't want to rent that, it's a period film' i can understand where they're coming from; however, there are films worth seeing that are 'period films' and if you're lucky enough to see a revival of a great play, regardless of when it was written or what time period it's set in, you should do so.
i want to note that wbai also broadcast a reading of war and peace this year. now you're getting waiting for godot. do you really get that from npr? i don't think so. so if you're not familiar with wbai or the other pacifica radio stations, make a point to be. kpfa does theatre performances each sunday night.
i really want to enjoy this and my typing continues to cease as i attempt to listen. so i'm going to recommend c.i.'s "NYT: Mel's Diner is back in business" (hilarious!) and i'm going to note this from democracy now:
Mass Protests Continue Around the US For Immigrant Rights
Hundreds of thousands of people demonstrated in cities across the country Sunday urging Congress to pass legislation that would legalize the estimated 12 million undocumented workers in the US. An estimated 500,000 people took to the streets in Dallas. The marchers filled the downtown streets with chants of "Si Se Puede!" -- Spanish for "Yes, we can!". In St. Paul, Minnesota, 30,000 people rallied at the state capitol. In Birmingham, Alabama, demonstrators marched along the same streets where activists clashed with police in the civil rights struggle of the 1960s. Other protests were held in New Mexico, Michigan, Iowa, Alabama, Utah, Oregon, Idaho and California. Michael Martinez, who attended a rally in San Diego, said: "It's not about flags, it's not really about race. It's about just equal opportunities for everybody and nobody being above or below the law and nobody being exploited by the law. It's that simple." More protests are planned for today in nearly 100 cities across the country.
good for every 1 making a difference and great for dallas. i will blog tomorrow night. if you miss the broadcast and want to catch it, remember that programs are briefly archived so check out the wbai archive.
4/06/2006
flashpoints, jeremy scahill on john f. burns, and more
did i note ava and c.i's review of las vegas? i think i did but it's worth noting twice.
i was reminded of that when i was reading seth's latest. if you haven't checked it out yet, please make a point to read "Some Highlights."
on kpfa this week, there was a lot coming out of flashpoints.
sherry e-mailed me a heads up to thursday's episode. i wasn't on when it was broadcast so i'm listening to it now. jeremy scahill gives an incredible speech about the way journalists are targeted in iraq and especially arab journalists. of course, the 1s targeted are the unembed journalists. not the dexy filkins who reportedly cancel interviews if the military gives him a cross look. but the 1s who are trying to get the story and report it.
'that's what's most threatening' to bully boy and the democrats who go along, witnesses.
what wasn't threatening were the people like john f. burns. 'he was a terrible propagandist for the war,' jeremy scahill said.
he spoke of how in october of 2002, he was at a museum in iraq and seeing gold spurs that ronald reagan had given saddam, seeing photos of saddam hussein and chirac drinking milk. and all the sudden they were told that saddam would be making a big announcement. since this was october 2002, and war was on the horizon, they were curious what the announcement was?
it was that all prisoners would be released except those thought to be spying for israel. jeremy was at a prison, i believe abu ghraib, and it was a big moment as families lined up to greet the people who had been imprisoned.
there was a lot of happiness and a lot of tears. but when john f. burns writes it up in the new york time, 'he wrote for the new york times that many of the prisoners thanked george w. bush' for releasing them from prison. many? approximately 30-40,000 people were released. jeremy didn't hear any of them thanking bully boy.
so he goes up to john f. burns and pulls out his pad and pen and asks '"many"? are we talking like 1,000s that said that.'
burns made it up. but instead of answering jeremy, he has a snit fit and starts screaming 'are you saying that pulitzer committee twice erred' when they gave him prizes.
yes, john f. burns, they did make a mistake. jeremy doesn't say that but i will. they made a mistake because they thought you were a journalist. you aren't. a journalist doesn't go bad overnight. you didn't just get it wrong, you penned propaganda. so yes, john, the pulitizer board made a mistake. as shameful as roxanne's later escpades?
no, more shameful because this had to do with integrity.
i loved hearing that speech, so let's thank sherry because due to volunteer work, i usually am not able to hear thursday's flashpoints.
i'll also say 'way to go c.i.' because c.i.'s been all over the new york times' nonsense from iraq and didn't let up. even when people would write and say 'how can you say that!' when people were averting their eyes online and acting like dexy filkins was a real journalist, c.i. was noting reality.
last week, i quoted c.i. writing about dexy's 'award winning reporting' and i want to note that this was in real time. c.i. wrote about the problems with that 'reporting' the morning it ran in the paper. the site wasn't even a week old, the common ills, but c.i. didn't shirk responsibility or look the other way. if other people had done the same, we'd be out of iraq now.
c.i. got some really rude e-mails, especially when dexy won his award (a polk i think) for his propaganda on the slaughter of falluja in november of 2004. terry gross kissed dexy's ass on fresh air. so she's just as bad as dexy. she brought him on and let him issue his propaganda.
when npr's willing to put an end to terry gross' stale gas and provide listeners with something of actual value, we'll know npr has changed. but the thing is that they will never change.
online, a lot of people wanted to dog pile judy miller but they kept their mouths shut about dexy. and they really kept their mouth shut about judy's coverage of the u.n. c.i. didn't. in the infamous rudith miller post (which i.d.ed scoots libby as the source months before the investigation, in case you missed that) c.i. dubbed it her 'grudge f--k against the u.n.'
c.i. got ripped off weeks later when a print writer basically cribbed those parts of the entry. i bet he feels bad now that he didn't pick up on the clue as to who leaked to judy. if he had, he could have stolen that from c.i. as well. he might look really informed today - to those who didn't realize that he was a thief stealing from c.i. c.i.'s attitude then was 'oh who cares' and c.i. even highlighted the rip-off without saying 'hey doesn't this look familiar?' that's why a number of us were so furious when c.i. got ripped off on the miller story last summer because it's become a pattern. yesterday, today and tomorrow, if you want to know about the times, you're better off reading c.i. the common ills could be all about the new york times. c.i. has friends there and knows all the gossip. (i'm always saying 'write about that!' when c.i. passes on a tidbit. but c.i. tries to avoid the office gossip.)
but that's why c.i. never suffered from the mistaken belief that judith miller was the problem at the paper. she wasn't. she was 1 problem. she wasn't the only 1 and she wasn't the only 1 who was 'reporting' with regards to iraq. judith miller wrote bad reporting. did she do it intentionally? i don't know.
she may have just been a poor journalist who wrote what she was fed without having the brains to question. i doubt it, but that's possible.
it's not possible that john f. burns was just fed information. or dexy filkins. they wrote up fantasies in the paper, fantasies that bore no reality to what they saw.
it really amazes me that, to this day, the strongest critique of filkins comes from c.i. and that most other sites continue to refuse to cover what filkins did. c.i.'s said repeatedly 'if judith miller was one who got us over there, dexter filkins is one who keeps us over there.'
maybe it's just easier or more fun to beat up on a woman?
or maybe some suffer clinton-on-the-brain (like our latter day dylan) and they think it's more productive to turn their sites over to 'they distorted bill!' or 'they distorted hillary!' on a daily basis. maybe some can't look at the calendars and see that the years is 2006, not 1996?
it's past time that the net jumped in on dexy. but it will probably take 6 more months before any 1 will question the 'award winning' dexy. anyone but c.i. that is. (i'm talking online. dahr jamail, christian parenti and jeremy scahill have questioned dexy's 'reporting.')
too bad because if they'd jumped on it while judy was under the gun, we might be more informed. at least we're informed in this community. outside? well the daily bulletins from the clinton fan club must serve some value. i can't imagine what, but some 1 must be pleased.
i searched my links and i see that rudith's been ripped off even more than i knew. it must be 'brave' 10 months later to rip off a well known entry without giving credit - even using the name c.i. dubbed her 'rudith.' i also found it cute how 'reading press releases live from the green zone' was ripped off by some 1 elaine and c.i. loathe. i'll call elaine later tonight to tell her i added the links to her post and that the creep, as elaine calls him, ripped off 'reading press releases live from the green zone.' and it only took the creep a month or so to rip it off.
robert parry will be on a kpfa show called the living room tomorrow night. i don't know that show but c.i. just phoned to tell me (i love robert parry). if you want to listen live, it airs at 3:00 pm my time - eastern, so that's 2 in central time zone and noon in pacific. if you can't listen live, remember that kpfa has archives of their broadcasts. i'm so excited. seriously, robert parry is like my idea of a rock star.
back to flashpoints so i can finish this up. wednesday there was a great interview with father gerad jean jerad juste. monday there was a great interview with ray mcgovern about the bully boy's war crimes and tuesday a report from the occupied territories.
if you're not checking out flashpoints, you're missing a lot. and the hour long program moves really quick. i never knew of this program until i called ruth and asked her to give me a show that she always wants to write about but never gets the time to. ruth has so much to cover and it's asking a lot to expect her to cover all the radio programs so, if you missed it last week, i'm covering flashpoints and i'll probably continue to do that on tuesdays.
begging forgiveness to ruth. elaine had her to be linked to and when i added links to elaine's post earlier, i don't think i did that.
i was reminded of that when i was reading seth's latest. if you haven't checked it out yet, please make a point to read "Some Highlights."
on kpfa this week, there was a lot coming out of flashpoints.
sherry e-mailed me a heads up to thursday's episode. i wasn't on when it was broadcast so i'm listening to it now. jeremy scahill gives an incredible speech about the way journalists are targeted in iraq and especially arab journalists. of course, the 1s targeted are the unembed journalists. not the dexy filkins who reportedly cancel interviews if the military gives him a cross look. but the 1s who are trying to get the story and report it.
'that's what's most threatening' to bully boy and the democrats who go along, witnesses.
what wasn't threatening were the people like john f. burns. 'he was a terrible propagandist for the war,' jeremy scahill said.
he spoke of how in october of 2002, he was at a museum in iraq and seeing gold spurs that ronald reagan had given saddam, seeing photos of saddam hussein and chirac drinking milk. and all the sudden they were told that saddam would be making a big announcement. since this was october 2002, and war was on the horizon, they were curious what the announcement was?
it was that all prisoners would be released except those thought to be spying for israel. jeremy was at a prison, i believe abu ghraib, and it was a big moment as families lined up to greet the people who had been imprisoned.
there was a lot of happiness and a lot of tears. but when john f. burns writes it up in the new york time, 'he wrote for the new york times that many of the prisoners thanked george w. bush' for releasing them from prison. many? approximately 30-40,000 people were released. jeremy didn't hear any of them thanking bully boy.
so he goes up to john f. burns and pulls out his pad and pen and asks '"many"? are we talking like 1,000s that said that.'
burns made it up. but instead of answering jeremy, he has a snit fit and starts screaming 'are you saying that pulitzer committee twice erred' when they gave him prizes.
yes, john f. burns, they did make a mistake. jeremy doesn't say that but i will. they made a mistake because they thought you were a journalist. you aren't. a journalist doesn't go bad overnight. you didn't just get it wrong, you penned propaganda. so yes, john, the pulitizer board made a mistake. as shameful as roxanne's later escpades?
no, more shameful because this had to do with integrity.
i loved hearing that speech, so let's thank sherry because due to volunteer work, i usually am not able to hear thursday's flashpoints.
i'll also say 'way to go c.i.' because c.i.'s been all over the new york times' nonsense from iraq and didn't let up. even when people would write and say 'how can you say that!' when people were averting their eyes online and acting like dexy filkins was a real journalist, c.i. was noting reality.
last week, i quoted c.i. writing about dexy's 'award winning reporting' and i want to note that this was in real time. c.i. wrote about the problems with that 'reporting' the morning it ran in the paper. the site wasn't even a week old, the common ills, but c.i. didn't shirk responsibility or look the other way. if other people had done the same, we'd be out of iraq now.
c.i. got some really rude e-mails, especially when dexy won his award (a polk i think) for his propaganda on the slaughter of falluja in november of 2004. terry gross kissed dexy's ass on fresh air. so she's just as bad as dexy. she brought him on and let him issue his propaganda.
when npr's willing to put an end to terry gross' stale gas and provide listeners with something of actual value, we'll know npr has changed. but the thing is that they will never change.
online, a lot of people wanted to dog pile judy miller but they kept their mouths shut about dexy. and they really kept their mouth shut about judy's coverage of the u.n. c.i. didn't. in the infamous rudith miller post (which i.d.ed scoots libby as the source months before the investigation, in case you missed that) c.i. dubbed it her 'grudge f--k against the u.n.'
c.i. got ripped off weeks later when a print writer basically cribbed those parts of the entry. i bet he feels bad now that he didn't pick up on the clue as to who leaked to judy. if he had, he could have stolen that from c.i. as well. he might look really informed today - to those who didn't realize that he was a thief stealing from c.i. c.i.'s attitude then was 'oh who cares' and c.i. even highlighted the rip-off without saying 'hey doesn't this look familiar?' that's why a number of us were so furious when c.i. got ripped off on the miller story last summer because it's become a pattern. yesterday, today and tomorrow, if you want to know about the times, you're better off reading c.i. the common ills could be all about the new york times. c.i. has friends there and knows all the gossip. (i'm always saying 'write about that!' when c.i. passes on a tidbit. but c.i. tries to avoid the office gossip.)
but that's why c.i. never suffered from the mistaken belief that judith miller was the problem at the paper. she wasn't. she was 1 problem. she wasn't the only 1 and she wasn't the only 1 who was 'reporting' with regards to iraq. judith miller wrote bad reporting. did she do it intentionally? i don't know.
she may have just been a poor journalist who wrote what she was fed without having the brains to question. i doubt it, but that's possible.
it's not possible that john f. burns was just fed information. or dexy filkins. they wrote up fantasies in the paper, fantasies that bore no reality to what they saw.
it really amazes me that, to this day, the strongest critique of filkins comes from c.i. and that most other sites continue to refuse to cover what filkins did. c.i.'s said repeatedly 'if judith miller was one who got us over there, dexter filkins is one who keeps us over there.'
maybe it's just easier or more fun to beat up on a woman?
or maybe some suffer clinton-on-the-brain (like our latter day dylan) and they think it's more productive to turn their sites over to 'they distorted bill!' or 'they distorted hillary!' on a daily basis. maybe some can't look at the calendars and see that the years is 2006, not 1996?
it's past time that the net jumped in on dexy. but it will probably take 6 more months before any 1 will question the 'award winning' dexy. anyone but c.i. that is. (i'm talking online. dahr jamail, christian parenti and jeremy scahill have questioned dexy's 'reporting.')
too bad because if they'd jumped on it while judy was under the gun, we might be more informed. at least we're informed in this community. outside? well the daily bulletins from the clinton fan club must serve some value. i can't imagine what, but some 1 must be pleased.
i searched my links and i see that rudith's been ripped off even more than i knew. it must be 'brave' 10 months later to rip off a well known entry without giving credit - even using the name c.i. dubbed her 'rudith.' i also found it cute how 'reading press releases live from the green zone' was ripped off by some 1 elaine and c.i. loathe. i'll call elaine later tonight to tell her i added the links to her post and that the creep, as elaine calls him, ripped off 'reading press releases live from the green zone.' and it only took the creep a month or so to rip it off.
robert parry will be on a kpfa show called the living room tomorrow night. i don't know that show but c.i. just phoned to tell me (i love robert parry). if you want to listen live, it airs at 3:00 pm my time - eastern, so that's 2 in central time zone and noon in pacific. if you can't listen live, remember that kpfa has archives of their broadcasts. i'm so excited. seriously, robert parry is like my idea of a rock star.
back to flashpoints so i can finish this up. wednesday there was a great interview with father gerad jean jerad juste. monday there was a great interview with ray mcgovern about the bully boy's war crimes and tuesday a report from the occupied territories.
if you're not checking out flashpoints, you're missing a lot. and the hour long program moves really quick. i never knew of this program until i called ruth and asked her to give me a show that she always wants to write about but never gets the time to. ruth has so much to cover and it's asking a lot to expect her to cover all the radio programs so, if you missed it last week, i'm covering flashpoints and i'll probably continue to do that on tuesdays.
begging forgiveness to ruth. elaine had her to be linked to and when i added links to elaine's post earlier, i don't think i did that.
4/05/2006
mini essay
great response to yesterday's post. a few of you wanted me to stay on the same topic a bit more so i will.
i don't think the pragmatic realist in the democratic party, armed with polling, accomplishes much. i think they dumb down the public and they avoid dealing with real issues because that might take political capitol. they're always saving it. they're never using it.
that's why i have no desire to vote for hillary clinton. bill clinton, as a president, was largely npr. npr wants us to fight for it. npr wants us to do their battles. but after we've saved their ass, pulled it from the fire yet again, they turn around and veer right. bill clinton did the same thing.
save me from the mean republicans. and we would. we'd defend him and we'd be rewarded with attacks on the poor (welfare reform) and other goodies - many of which the right wing couldn't get when reagan was president but under a democratic president, they did get it. under a democratic president, they did get it. i repeated that because it bears repeating.
i'm not interested in 4 more years of dem-lite and that's all hillary has to offer. she has nothing to say on the war other than to play more-hawk-than-thou. she's retreated from abortion so quickly that she probably performed a few evacutations in the rush to create a vaccum.
if all we're going to see from a hillary presidency is that she does what it's easy, the country doesn't need it. i love how the 'tough talkers' have no spine. they fall into the law & order trap and start talking tough but they're not tough enough to seriously discuss the issue of execution. the most we can hope for from them on that is 'well i think research needs to be done'. research?
or polling?
they won't fight but they will compromise with the right wing. it's as though robbers break in and bill clinton is saying, 'you can take whatever you want, just leave me my tv!' i'm sorry but there are a number of things in my home that i would like to keep. in fact, things handed down to me are far more important than some flashy tv.
but that's what it was for 8 years. 'take abortion, take poverty, take gays,' bill clinton cried, 'but leave me my nafta.'
nafta was 1 of the worst economic programs. it shouldn't have passed and it did nothing to help people. it did help corporations. helping corporations bill clinton could do. helping the people?
he gave some wonderful speeches. i was at the 1992 inauguration. (i got to see barbra streisand rehearsing which was more amazing than anything that followed him for 8 years.) he was likeable.
he just didn't do anything.
having destroyed the chance of universal health care (and hillary did that with her secrecy - the sort of secrecy we object with dick cheney now), hillary now makes health care noises as she gets ready for her 2008 run.
are we supposed to trust her?
what we were given the impression of getting during the 1992 campaign was not what she offered. (though the insurance companies were very pleased with her proposal.)
i don't want to make a hero out of russ feingold (who i like) but i'd rather have some 1 like him who fights. who fights for something other than himself.
i think it was 1993, early 1993, when c.i. said 'bill clinton was raised in chaos and he can't do anything without chaos.' by the end of the 90s, c.i. was comparing bill clinton to jalen rose of the indiana pacers and saying that bill clinton, like rose, had to go out on the court and bury himself because the only role he was comfortable in was 'the comeback kid.'
so we got 8 years of bill clinton's personal struggels, 8 years of bill clinton's america when, in fact, it was the people's country.
there were attacks from the right and from the press. i'm not ignoring that. but unlike the online dylan, i don't feel the need to whore myself out and play like bill clinton was god, jesus christ and buddah rolled into 1.
the press (and the right wing) tried to take him out. he helped them along the way. that's part of the story even if someone still sending his yearly dues into the bill clinton fan club can't grasp that.
i'm also sick of the myth that we were so much better off ecnomically under bill clinton. every 1 wasn't. was it better than under the bully boy? yes.
but that's it choice wise? we can either have nation completely screwed over or nation treading water?
i'm not willing to accept that.
i want some 1 who will fight for the people. some 1 who wants to represent them. that may be a pipe dream. but don't tell me bill clinton is the best we could get. i'll take jimmy carter over bill clinton and i had huge problems with carter's foreign policies.
to hear the right scream their fantasies of how liberal bill clinton was could have only induced gails of laughter from actual liberals. he wasn't liberal.
and if we're going to act as though he was, if we're going to make him the baseline, then get ready for evan blah.
dukakis wasn't a liberal. we get dukakis and others thrown in our faces and are told 'see, a liberal can't win.' how long has it been since a liberal got the democractic nomination?
but these centrists/realists want to move the party to the center. they want to do that because it's easy. i don't think some 1 who's battle plan is 'do what's easy' belongs in the white house.
after bully boy leaves (impeach, impeach, impeach), our country's going to be in a huge mess and some 1 who's just going to do a little light dusting and maybe move the couch around isn't going to fix the problems.
hillary can't even address the problems so the idea that she's the candidate we should all drool over is hard to stomach.
we're seeing the problems with this choose evil or just bad right now as our elected officials talk immigration. undocumented workers aren't being helped by what's going on. corporations are being helped. i'd like to see an issue approached from the perspective of how it will help people - not from how it will help corporations while doing the least damage to people.
we're given these false choices and encouraged to believe that it's this or it's that. life is generally quite a bit more complex as are the issues.
joan baez has a great version of steve earle's 'christmas in washington' on her live album (kat reviewed it here) where she sings about how democrats means '4 more years of things not getting worse.' that's a perfect description by steve earle. i don't think we have to settle for hideous or not worse. i think there are other options.
and the press desire to sell us on candidates is insane. we're not getting any news. we're getting handicapping of the horse race. mark warner 'dark horse' screams the new york times. if 2 years before the primaries the times is going to jerk off over handicapping, exactly when will we get to know what issues people stand for? i am so sick of the corporate press treating it all as a horse race. i want to see more substance in the reporting and in the candidates.
and it would be really great if the new york times, ted koppel and others could avoid trying to shame people over endorsements or encouraging them to drop out of a race and instead start tackling some real issues. i don't expect that to happen.
kat wrote a really wonderful post last night, so please check that out. sherry noted the columns c.i. wrote for the gina & krista round-robin and for polly's brew last weekend and wondered why c.i. wasn't writing about the issue at the common ills?
because c.i.'s sick of crap. and the big question this morning when c.i. called was, 'rebecca, i didn't have a swear word in there, did i?' no. but there are some issues that c.i. knows won't be calm discussions or funny 1s. that's why there's been nothing other than news on jose padilla's case at the common ills. c.i. hasn't made a comment on that due to the level of anger at the supreme court's decision to turn down the case.
c.i. did tackle the new york times continual ignoring of realities in ireland. i know dominick wrote c.i. to ask for that because i got an e-mail from dominick praising the post. i'm not sure people get that (i know sherry does). i've discussed here before but i'll repeat, if c.i.'s writing about something, it's because the members want it covered.
so c.i. does a post that speaks for the community. this morning's was wonderful.
c.i. tackled the times on that and on the realities of uganda. if you missed it, go read it.
it's why jim always knows that if every 1 else is falling asleep, he and c.i. can go on. you just sit there and say 'give a speech on this' and, no matter how tired, c.i. will. that's really what the common ills is, c.i. speaking for members. i was really glad that c.i. announced that next year on water rights day, the common ills was going to be covering that topic. that's a huge topic to c.i. and if it was about 'i'll write what i want to,' that topic would have been covered over and over. instead, the community is like jim saying 'come on talk about this.'
and when it's a time like right now, where c.i.'s pouring hours into activism, i really do worry because there's little to no sleep, there's no down time and the only down time there might be is spent getting things written for the site.
i wouldn't want that responsibility. i'm perfectly fine with writing about what i want.
but in terms of something like the immigration issue or abortion or jose padilla, c.i.'s not going to put it up at the common ills. there's no time. it's a huge headache to write about something like that. and with calls of 'write about this' or 'write about that' or 'please address this' there's no time for it. that's why it goes into columns.
the columns are c.i. speaking about what c.i. wants to. and on issues that are too close to the bone, too important, it's too difficult to try to dash off a paragraph or 2 in the midst of covering what the community wants covered.
by the way, ava and jess are being active on the immigration issue as well.
elaine just called. she's upset because she can't log in to fix her post. those who tried to post early tonight found out they couldn't or had to do so quickly because blogger was going down. it's back up, obviously, but elaine can't log in. she keeps getting an error message of 'down for maintenance' even though that's over. i told her betty wasn't able to log in before going to church. i told her the same thing i told betty, when this happens, it's not your fault and it's not your problem. don't worry about it. and i mean that. betty and elaine need to not guilt over the fact that blogger had problems. i told elaine i would go in tomorrow night and add in the links for her. it's the least i can do after she filled in for weeks and weeks for me. (she doesn't blog thursday nights because she's got group.)
i don't think the pragmatic realist in the democratic party, armed with polling, accomplishes much. i think they dumb down the public and they avoid dealing with real issues because that might take political capitol. they're always saving it. they're never using it.
that's why i have no desire to vote for hillary clinton. bill clinton, as a president, was largely npr. npr wants us to fight for it. npr wants us to do their battles. but after we've saved their ass, pulled it from the fire yet again, they turn around and veer right. bill clinton did the same thing.
save me from the mean republicans. and we would. we'd defend him and we'd be rewarded with attacks on the poor (welfare reform) and other goodies - many of which the right wing couldn't get when reagan was president but under a democratic president, they did get it. under a democratic president, they did get it. i repeated that because it bears repeating.
i'm not interested in 4 more years of dem-lite and that's all hillary has to offer. she has nothing to say on the war other than to play more-hawk-than-thou. she's retreated from abortion so quickly that she probably performed a few evacutations in the rush to create a vaccum.
if all we're going to see from a hillary presidency is that she does what it's easy, the country doesn't need it. i love how the 'tough talkers' have no spine. they fall into the law & order trap and start talking tough but they're not tough enough to seriously discuss the issue of execution. the most we can hope for from them on that is 'well i think research needs to be done'. research?
or polling?
they won't fight but they will compromise with the right wing. it's as though robbers break in and bill clinton is saying, 'you can take whatever you want, just leave me my tv!' i'm sorry but there are a number of things in my home that i would like to keep. in fact, things handed down to me are far more important than some flashy tv.
but that's what it was for 8 years. 'take abortion, take poverty, take gays,' bill clinton cried, 'but leave me my nafta.'
nafta was 1 of the worst economic programs. it shouldn't have passed and it did nothing to help people. it did help corporations. helping corporations bill clinton could do. helping the people?
he gave some wonderful speeches. i was at the 1992 inauguration. (i got to see barbra streisand rehearsing which was more amazing than anything that followed him for 8 years.) he was likeable.
he just didn't do anything.
having destroyed the chance of universal health care (and hillary did that with her secrecy - the sort of secrecy we object with dick cheney now), hillary now makes health care noises as she gets ready for her 2008 run.
are we supposed to trust her?
what we were given the impression of getting during the 1992 campaign was not what she offered. (though the insurance companies were very pleased with her proposal.)
i don't want to make a hero out of russ feingold (who i like) but i'd rather have some 1 like him who fights. who fights for something other than himself.
i think it was 1993, early 1993, when c.i. said 'bill clinton was raised in chaos and he can't do anything without chaos.' by the end of the 90s, c.i. was comparing bill clinton to jalen rose of the indiana pacers and saying that bill clinton, like rose, had to go out on the court and bury himself because the only role he was comfortable in was 'the comeback kid.'
so we got 8 years of bill clinton's personal struggels, 8 years of bill clinton's america when, in fact, it was the people's country.
there were attacks from the right and from the press. i'm not ignoring that. but unlike the online dylan, i don't feel the need to whore myself out and play like bill clinton was god, jesus christ and buddah rolled into 1.
the press (and the right wing) tried to take him out. he helped them along the way. that's part of the story even if someone still sending his yearly dues into the bill clinton fan club can't grasp that.
i'm also sick of the myth that we were so much better off ecnomically under bill clinton. every 1 wasn't. was it better than under the bully boy? yes.
but that's it choice wise? we can either have nation completely screwed over or nation treading water?
i'm not willing to accept that.
i want some 1 who will fight for the people. some 1 who wants to represent them. that may be a pipe dream. but don't tell me bill clinton is the best we could get. i'll take jimmy carter over bill clinton and i had huge problems with carter's foreign policies.
to hear the right scream their fantasies of how liberal bill clinton was could have only induced gails of laughter from actual liberals. he wasn't liberal.
and if we're going to act as though he was, if we're going to make him the baseline, then get ready for evan blah.
dukakis wasn't a liberal. we get dukakis and others thrown in our faces and are told 'see, a liberal can't win.' how long has it been since a liberal got the democractic nomination?
but these centrists/realists want to move the party to the center. they want to do that because it's easy. i don't think some 1 who's battle plan is 'do what's easy' belongs in the white house.
after bully boy leaves (impeach, impeach, impeach), our country's going to be in a huge mess and some 1 who's just going to do a little light dusting and maybe move the couch around isn't going to fix the problems.
hillary can't even address the problems so the idea that she's the candidate we should all drool over is hard to stomach.
we're seeing the problems with this choose evil or just bad right now as our elected officials talk immigration. undocumented workers aren't being helped by what's going on. corporations are being helped. i'd like to see an issue approached from the perspective of how it will help people - not from how it will help corporations while doing the least damage to people.
we're given these false choices and encouraged to believe that it's this or it's that. life is generally quite a bit more complex as are the issues.
joan baez has a great version of steve earle's 'christmas in washington' on her live album (kat reviewed it here) where she sings about how democrats means '4 more years of things not getting worse.' that's a perfect description by steve earle. i don't think we have to settle for hideous or not worse. i think there are other options.
and the press desire to sell us on candidates is insane. we're not getting any news. we're getting handicapping of the horse race. mark warner 'dark horse' screams the new york times. if 2 years before the primaries the times is going to jerk off over handicapping, exactly when will we get to know what issues people stand for? i am so sick of the corporate press treating it all as a horse race. i want to see more substance in the reporting and in the candidates.
and it would be really great if the new york times, ted koppel and others could avoid trying to shame people over endorsements or encouraging them to drop out of a race and instead start tackling some real issues. i don't expect that to happen.
kat wrote a really wonderful post last night, so please check that out. sherry noted the columns c.i. wrote for the gina & krista round-robin and for polly's brew last weekend and wondered why c.i. wasn't writing about the issue at the common ills?
because c.i.'s sick of crap. and the big question this morning when c.i. called was, 'rebecca, i didn't have a swear word in there, did i?' no. but there are some issues that c.i. knows won't be calm discussions or funny 1s. that's why there's been nothing other than news on jose padilla's case at the common ills. c.i. hasn't made a comment on that due to the level of anger at the supreme court's decision to turn down the case.
c.i. did tackle the new york times continual ignoring of realities in ireland. i know dominick wrote c.i. to ask for that because i got an e-mail from dominick praising the post. i'm not sure people get that (i know sherry does). i've discussed here before but i'll repeat, if c.i.'s writing about something, it's because the members want it covered.
so c.i. does a post that speaks for the community. this morning's was wonderful.
c.i. tackled the times on that and on the realities of uganda. if you missed it, go read it.
it's why jim always knows that if every 1 else is falling asleep, he and c.i. can go on. you just sit there and say 'give a speech on this' and, no matter how tired, c.i. will. that's really what the common ills is, c.i. speaking for members. i was really glad that c.i. announced that next year on water rights day, the common ills was going to be covering that topic. that's a huge topic to c.i. and if it was about 'i'll write what i want to,' that topic would have been covered over and over. instead, the community is like jim saying 'come on talk about this.'
and when it's a time like right now, where c.i.'s pouring hours into activism, i really do worry because there's little to no sleep, there's no down time and the only down time there might be is spent getting things written for the site.
i wouldn't want that responsibility. i'm perfectly fine with writing about what i want.
but in terms of something like the immigration issue or abortion or jose padilla, c.i.'s not going to put it up at the common ills. there's no time. it's a huge headache to write about something like that. and with calls of 'write about this' or 'write about that' or 'please address this' there's no time for it. that's why it goes into columns.
the columns are c.i. speaking about what c.i. wants to. and on issues that are too close to the bone, too important, it's too difficult to try to dash off a paragraph or 2 in the midst of covering what the community wants covered.
by the way, ava and jess are being active on the immigration issue as well.
elaine just called. she's upset because she can't log in to fix her post. those who tried to post early tonight found out they couldn't or had to do so quickly because blogger was going down. it's back up, obviously, but elaine can't log in. she keeps getting an error message of 'down for maintenance' even though that's over. i told her betty wasn't able to log in before going to church. i told her the same thing i told betty, when this happens, it's not your fault and it's not your problem. don't worry about it. and i mean that. betty and elaine need to not guilt over the fact that blogger had problems. i told elaine i would go in tomorrow night and add in the links for her. it's the least i can do after she filled in for weeks and weeks for me. (she doesn't blog thursday nights because she's got group.)
4/04/2006
what c.i. said
give it up for c.i. if you missed it, read this entry.
jim called and told me i had to read it. he said there were probably 8 ideas for sunday's the third estate sunday review alone.
he's not kidding.
if i didn't know c.i. was beyond busy, beyond overbooked today, i would call and say 'f-ing great post.' i'll pass that on tomorrow over the phone, but i'll note it here tonight.
'the obgyn jesus' made me laugh. and the 'ohio?' line as well. jim said, 'i could just hear c.i. giving that as a speech' to which i replied, 'you've been reading mike!'
but seriously, it is like 1 of c.i.'s 'okay, let's all get real people' speeches.
and it's correct. a) don't talk about jill carroll this week and go into what the son of 'midget' said. midget's son didn't write articles floating that jill carroll might be the new patti hearst in the new york times or for the associated press.
sorry, elaine and c.i. covered that last week. pick up the pace, people.
b) abc forced a producer to apologize for a private e-mail where he criticized fearful leader bully boy's repeated use of the same phrase. that's all over the web. but less noted is that the network also apologized to maddy albright. maybe people don't read the washington post? i saw that story on monday.
as c.i. pointed out this isn't 'suck up to bully' it's suck up to the powerful. haven't people read amy good and david goodman's exception to the rulers: exposing oily politicians, war profiteers, and the media that love them? if they have and they're focusing only on bully boy, that's like reading a college text and then returning to see spot run books. let's move the criticism forward, let's build on our knowledge base.
c) a woman wrote that sensible advice was suggesting that waiting periods be imposed upon women wanting abortions, they they view ultrasounds and that parental notification be used. this was supposed to be a pro-choice column. i didn't know that anne archer's character from fatal attraction wrote columns.
c.i. said that if you wanted to see some 1 pissed, forward the column to me or elaine. sherry copied and pasted it and sent it to me.
i am pissed.
and i'm a little sick of women selling out our rights. i'm a little sick of women who do not need the medical procedure offering concessions that aren't their concessions to give.
the woman pissed off t with a column awhile back. t was furious. the woman wrote about two female neighbors in a way that t felt was 'look we have 2 sparrows in our neighborhood' or, more likely, a more exotic bird.
look, if you've got your little family nest, your children and are of a certain age, you probably don't need the procedure. and you probably don't understand why some women do. so do all women a favor and shut the hell up.
i'm serious. i am so pissed when i think about that column. i was pissed at the 1 that used 'exotic' neighbors to make a point when the only point appeared to be 'look how wonderful i am, i grow lesbians and roses in my garden!' but t didn't want me to 'blow a gasket' so she asked me not to write about it.
i'll note it now. and i'll say to donna stone, shut the hell up.
i'm real glad that jeff and mary do so well in school and i know that alex is on his way and you have to go check on the roast in the oven, but before you do that and slip on your hostess dress, take a moment to realize that your life isn't the life of every 1 and that it bears little resemblance to the lives of most women who are currently considering abortions.
maybe she's being hanging out with the weak dems in the senate so long she felt the need to channel them for her column? i don't know, i just know that this pro-choice woman, who has had an abortion, found her column offensive to the extreme.
you know what, she's not donna stone. she's the insufferable hope from 30-something.
that's what she is. she's happily nesting and she wants to lecture ellen and melissa about how to live their lives 'morally.' that's the attitude that comes to me from the column.
if she thought bravery was sticking up for choice while selling it out by agreeing to all the right wing demands, then she's not only not brave, she's crazy.
abortion rights advocates have been 'reasonable' enough. in fact, had they not been reasonable for so long, the current attack wouldn't have gotten so far.
but there's this need to look and see the other side.
guess what, there aren't 2 sides to this issue. there's not my side and then that idiot ralph reed's side. why? because ralph reed can't have an abortion or give birth.
the new york times couldn't have editorialized more weakly on abortion than the way that woman wrote about it. it's disgusting.
i guess we're left with just katha to count on. (and as c.i. has noted, she's finishing her book right now.) that's it in our liberal press (print edition)? (i should say in the liberal press that doesn't have a feminist perspective for the entire magazine.)
so there's katha pollitt to fight for abortion rights and that's it from the non-feminist publications. (in terms of columnists.)
the column couldn't have been weaker or more offensive if she'd written it from an anti-choice perspective.
i might have respected that more, in fact. i can handle the crazies, but god save us from the 'helpers' preaching their compromises.
the 'reasonables' who always skip down easy path and abandon the fight.
they truly disgust me.
they're the sort, that if elected, say 'well i know we need ___ but we're going to focus on this because it's easiest.'
they'll never attempt a political battle, they'll never take a stand.
they will chip away at abortion. they'll say 'well there's more support on this aspect so i'll conceed on the other aspects.'
i don't think that's true (about the support) but what they do damages abortion rights.
think of abortion rights as a square. hope steadman sees a bully coming over saying i want to take '1/4 of that square.' hope steadman hands it over (and is left with a rectangle) and argues, 'but i saved this much.' you didn't save anything, you handed over what they wanted. you surrendered instead of fighting.
and by surrending, you gave them the idea that you'd back down every time so now they're back to grab more from the rectangle, formerly a square. maybe in 3 years we'll be left with a triangle. 3 more years and it may be a tiny dot (circle).
and you'll say 'i fought.' you didn't fight. you handed over. and that's disgusting.
jim called and told me i had to read it. he said there were probably 8 ideas for sunday's the third estate sunday review alone.
he's not kidding.
if i didn't know c.i. was beyond busy, beyond overbooked today, i would call and say 'f-ing great post.' i'll pass that on tomorrow over the phone, but i'll note it here tonight.
'the obgyn jesus' made me laugh. and the 'ohio?' line as well. jim said, 'i could just hear c.i. giving that as a speech' to which i replied, 'you've been reading mike!'
but seriously, it is like 1 of c.i.'s 'okay, let's all get real people' speeches.
and it's correct. a) don't talk about jill carroll this week and go into what the son of 'midget' said. midget's son didn't write articles floating that jill carroll might be the new patti hearst in the new york times or for the associated press.
sorry, elaine and c.i. covered that last week. pick up the pace, people.
b) abc forced a producer to apologize for a private e-mail where he criticized fearful leader bully boy's repeated use of the same phrase. that's all over the web. but less noted is that the network also apologized to maddy albright. maybe people don't read the washington post? i saw that story on monday.
as c.i. pointed out this isn't 'suck up to bully' it's suck up to the powerful. haven't people read amy good and david goodman's exception to the rulers: exposing oily politicians, war profiteers, and the media that love them? if they have and they're focusing only on bully boy, that's like reading a college text and then returning to see spot run books. let's move the criticism forward, let's build on our knowledge base.
c) a woman wrote that sensible advice was suggesting that waiting periods be imposed upon women wanting abortions, they they view ultrasounds and that parental notification be used. this was supposed to be a pro-choice column. i didn't know that anne archer's character from fatal attraction wrote columns.
c.i. said that if you wanted to see some 1 pissed, forward the column to me or elaine. sherry copied and pasted it and sent it to me.
i am pissed.
and i'm a little sick of women selling out our rights. i'm a little sick of women who do not need the medical procedure offering concessions that aren't their concessions to give.
the woman pissed off t with a column awhile back. t was furious. the woman wrote about two female neighbors in a way that t felt was 'look we have 2 sparrows in our neighborhood' or, more likely, a more exotic bird.
look, if you've got your little family nest, your children and are of a certain age, you probably don't need the procedure. and you probably don't understand why some women do. so do all women a favor and shut the hell up.
i'm serious. i am so pissed when i think about that column. i was pissed at the 1 that used 'exotic' neighbors to make a point when the only point appeared to be 'look how wonderful i am, i grow lesbians and roses in my garden!' but t didn't want me to 'blow a gasket' so she asked me not to write about it.
i'll note it now. and i'll say to donna stone, shut the hell up.
i'm real glad that jeff and mary do so well in school and i know that alex is on his way and you have to go check on the roast in the oven, but before you do that and slip on your hostess dress, take a moment to realize that your life isn't the life of every 1 and that it bears little resemblance to the lives of most women who are currently considering abortions.
maybe she's being hanging out with the weak dems in the senate so long she felt the need to channel them for her column? i don't know, i just know that this pro-choice woman, who has had an abortion, found her column offensive to the extreme.
you know what, she's not donna stone. she's the insufferable hope from 30-something.
that's what she is. she's happily nesting and she wants to lecture ellen and melissa about how to live their lives 'morally.' that's the attitude that comes to me from the column.
if she thought bravery was sticking up for choice while selling it out by agreeing to all the right wing demands, then she's not only not brave, she's crazy.
abortion rights advocates have been 'reasonable' enough. in fact, had they not been reasonable for so long, the current attack wouldn't have gotten so far.
but there's this need to look and see the other side.
guess what, there aren't 2 sides to this issue. there's not my side and then that idiot ralph reed's side. why? because ralph reed can't have an abortion or give birth.
the new york times couldn't have editorialized more weakly on abortion than the way that woman wrote about it. it's disgusting.
i guess we're left with just katha to count on. (and as c.i. has noted, she's finishing her book right now.) that's it in our liberal press (print edition)? (i should say in the liberal press that doesn't have a feminist perspective for the entire magazine.)
so there's katha pollitt to fight for abortion rights and that's it from the non-feminist publications. (in terms of columnists.)
the column couldn't have been weaker or more offensive if she'd written it from an anti-choice perspective.
i might have respected that more, in fact. i can handle the crazies, but god save us from the 'helpers' preaching their compromises.
the 'reasonables' who always skip down easy path and abandon the fight.
they truly disgust me.
they're the sort, that if elected, say 'well i know we need ___ but we're going to focus on this because it's easiest.'
they'll never attempt a political battle, they'll never take a stand.
they will chip away at abortion. they'll say 'well there's more support on this aspect so i'll conceed on the other aspects.'
i don't think that's true (about the support) but what they do damages abortion rights.
think of abortion rights as a square. hope steadman sees a bully coming over saying i want to take '1/4 of that square.' hope steadman hands it over (and is left with a rectangle) and argues, 'but i saved this much.' you didn't save anything, you handed over what they wanted. you surrendered instead of fighting.
and by surrending, you gave them the idea that you'd back down every time so now they're back to grab more from the rectangle, formerly a square. maybe in 3 years we'll be left with a triangle. 3 more years and it may be a tiny dot (circle).
and you'll say 'i fought.' you didn't fight. you handed over. and that's disgusting.
4/03/2006
tv, movies, jose padilla, hottie jake and more
elaine and i are on the phone, watching the new adventures of old christine together. trina really likes the show and ava and c.i. reviewed it a few weeks back :"TV Review: Don't call her Elaine." so elaine and i figured we'd catch it tonight.
julia louis-dreyfus is funny. the show works best when the kid's not around.
brokeback mountain comes out tomorrow on dvd. i didn't know that. there was a commercial for it just now and elaine hasn't seen it. she's not really a movie person. if you can get a crowd together, she'll go see 1. or if it's a foreign film or a documentary. or that's how she 'presents' to use her jargon. however, i once did find a dvd of miss congeniality at her place. she swore some 1 had brought it over and left it but i still tease her about it.
she'll watch anything if she's got some 1 to watch it with, however. if you show up with a dvd, she'll watch it.
i told her she has to see brokeback. if you haven't seen it, you should too. it's a great movie and jake gyllenhaal is hot.
i had an e-mail about flashpoints - or about what i wrote last week. i was asked why i was trying to be part of the 9-11 coverup? i didn't know i was but the angry e-mail made me wonder, 'rebecca, did you sit on the 9-11 commission and forget?' see on thursday's flashpoints david ray griffin was the guest and i didn't write about that when i wrote about flashpoints on thursday.
the reason i didn't mention is that i didn't hear it. thursdays i do some volunteer/organization work. i have my morning coffee during democracy now and then i'm gone for the day. c.i.'s talk about how we all needed to be increasing our efforts to stop the war made me decided to do more work there. and that's thursday. i've been doing that for some time. i also didn't hear
flashpoints friday because i was traveling then.
but i wasn't trying to be part of a coverup. if i'd heard the interview, i would have noted it. i'm not ruth. she does really detailed reports but i'm not going to note every thing each week. (and i'll never note a thursday show because i won't be able to hear it.) but the interview, as described in the e-mail, is about something you don't hear much about, so i would've noted it if i had heard it.
i wish mike was gay. elaine just got off the phone. college basketball's on and the only 1 i know who is home right now is mike and i know he's watching. but i also know he doesn't want to hear me say/scream, 'check out the bounce on that boy!' and there's a hottie on ucla. i have 2 friends who would watch and enjoy with me (making their own comments) but i didn't know this was on and i doubt they did (so they're probably out still).
if you didn't hear already, the surpreme court refused to hear jose padilla's appeal. adam cohen had a thing in the new york times this morning and i thought at the time 'well that's a pretty way to see the court.' he's calling it 'the kennedy court' and has high hopes for kennedy being a moderate who takes his responsibility serious. if so, we didn't see that today.
and when you get held for no reason, for years and years, by the bully boy and you have no legal recourse, remember that you can think the supreme court for that. souter, ginsburg and breyer were the only 3 justices willing to hear the case.
that really pissed me off. we know the congress won't do anything because republicans control it and so many democrats are happy not to fight, just to roll over. but there's always the hope that the court will represent you. probably because we hear that all the time in films and tv shows, 'well i'll take this all the way to the supreme court if i have to!' you can try but the surpreme court has to want to hear your case.
julia louis-dreyfus is funny. the show works best when the kid's not around.
brokeback mountain comes out tomorrow on dvd. i didn't know that. there was a commercial for it just now and elaine hasn't seen it. she's not really a movie person. if you can get a crowd together, she'll go see 1. or if it's a foreign film or a documentary. or that's how she 'presents' to use her jargon. however, i once did find a dvd of miss congeniality at her place. she swore some 1 had brought it over and left it but i still tease her about it.
she'll watch anything if she's got some 1 to watch it with, however. if you show up with a dvd, she'll watch it.
i told her she has to see brokeback. if you haven't seen it, you should too. it's a great movie and jake gyllenhaal is hot.
i had an e-mail about flashpoints - or about what i wrote last week. i was asked why i was trying to be part of the 9-11 coverup? i didn't know i was but the angry e-mail made me wonder, 'rebecca, did you sit on the 9-11 commission and forget?' see on thursday's flashpoints david ray griffin was the guest and i didn't write about that when i wrote about flashpoints on thursday.
the reason i didn't mention is that i didn't hear it. thursdays i do some volunteer/organization work. i have my morning coffee during democracy now and then i'm gone for the day. c.i.'s talk about how we all needed to be increasing our efforts to stop the war made me decided to do more work there. and that's thursday. i've been doing that for some time. i also didn't hear
flashpoints friday because i was traveling then.
but i wasn't trying to be part of a coverup. if i'd heard the interview, i would have noted it. i'm not ruth. she does really detailed reports but i'm not going to note every thing each week. (and i'll never note a thursday show because i won't be able to hear it.) but the interview, as described in the e-mail, is about something you don't hear much about, so i would've noted it if i had heard it.
i wish mike was gay. elaine just got off the phone. college basketball's on and the only 1 i know who is home right now is mike and i know he's watching. but i also know he doesn't want to hear me say/scream, 'check out the bounce on that boy!' and there's a hottie on ucla. i have 2 friends who would watch and enjoy with me (making their own comments) but i didn't know this was on and i doubt they did (so they're probably out still).
if you didn't hear already, the surpreme court refused to hear jose padilla's appeal. adam cohen had a thing in the new york times this morning and i thought at the time 'well that's a pretty way to see the court.' he's calling it 'the kennedy court' and has high hopes for kennedy being a moderate who takes his responsibility serious. if so, we didn't see that today.
and when you get held for no reason, for years and years, by the bully boy and you have no legal recourse, remember that you can think the supreme court for that. souter, ginsburg and breyer were the only 3 justices willing to hear the case.
that really pissed me off. we know the congress won't do anything because republicans control it and so many democrats are happy not to fight, just to roll over. but there's always the hope that the court will represent you. probably because we hear that all the time in films and tv shows, 'well i'll take this all the way to the supreme court if i have to!' you can try but the surpreme court has to want to hear your case.
4/02/2006
that's mark warner a 'centrist' and he's on my blog not as endorsement but because we need it for a thing at the third estate sunday review. the scan is a ny times sunday mag cover that we've photoshopped only to add a border to, to add a shadow to and to slighlty defocus ("old photo" is the process on the last)
4/01/2006
short 1 mainly on the media and jill carroll
i'm at the mckinnon's home this weekend because we all went to a play last night. i'm in the kitchen and trina and i are on dueling computers. (i'm on my laptop.) we're going to see who can finish 1st. also, blame me if the recipe sucks, the 1 trina's sharing tonight. it's mine and we'll be eating it shortly - another reason we are having speed drills on our blogging tonight.
be sure to check out cedric's 'Harry Belafonte's Calypso' - calypso is 1 of my favorites. please read elaine's "The first principle of non-violent action is that of non-cooperation" as well as this and this by c.i. about the way the right wing echo chamber doesn't act alone.
democracy now noted this on friday:
Carroll Criticized For Saying Captors Treated Her Well
Meanwhile, Jill Carroll is already coming under attack for saying that she was treated well by her captors. Writing for the National Review, John Podhoretz wrote: "It's wonderful that she’s free, but after watching someone who was a hostage for three months say on television she was well-treated because she wasn’t beaten or killed -- while being dressed in the garb of a modest Muslim woman rather than the non-Muslim woman she actually is -- I expect there will be some Stockholm Syndrome talk in the coming days."
that explains how the right got ramped up, it does not explain why mainstream media organizations like the new york times and the associated press put forward the same talking points.
and trina's announcing that she's already posting so let me post as well. soup's almost ready anyway.
be sure to check out cedric's 'Harry Belafonte's Calypso' - calypso is 1 of my favorites. please read elaine's "The first principle of non-violent action is that of non-cooperation" as well as this and this by c.i. about the way the right wing echo chamber doesn't act alone.
democracy now noted this on friday:
Carroll Criticized For Saying Captors Treated Her Well
Meanwhile, Jill Carroll is already coming under attack for saying that she was treated well by her captors. Writing for the National Review, John Podhoretz wrote: "It's wonderful that she’s free, but after watching someone who was a hostage for three months say on television she was well-treated because she wasn’t beaten or killed -- while being dressed in the garb of a modest Muslim woman rather than the non-Muslim woman she actually is -- I expect there will be some Stockholm Syndrome talk in the coming days."
that explains how the right got ramped up, it does not explain why mainstream media organizations like the new york times and the associated press put forward the same talking points.
and trina's announcing that she's already posting so let me post as well. soup's almost ready anyway.
posting this for cedric so he can use it as cedric's big mix. if you don't know this cd, you should. it's 1 of the all time bestsellers: harry belafonte's calypso
3/30/2006
jill carroll freed, iraqis still under bully boy & flashpoints
be sure to check out betty's 'Thomas Friedman's Frostings and Facials' and cedric's 'Afghanistan the forgotten "liberation".' mike and i both delayed blogging tonight to make sure that when we did, we'd be able to note the latest from them. and kat's posted yesterday with 'Etta James and Bonnie Faulkner' and tonight with 'The downward spiral of democracy under the Bully Boy' so check out those as well. and if you're a music lover, be sure to check out 'Kat's Korner: Etta James Takes It All The Way.' i really love etta james' all the way. read kat's review and see if you're not interested in getting the cd too.
since mike and i were on the phone, i told him i'd grab headlines with him the way elaine normally does (she's off thursdays because she has to do group sessions). so these items are from democracy now.
Kidnapped Reporter Jill Carroll Freed in Iraq
After nearly three months in captivity, kidnapped U.S. reporter Jill Carroll has been released. Carroll is a freelance reporter working for the Christian Science Monitor in Iraq. She was seized in January outside the offices of a prominent Sunni politician in Baghdad. In a brief television interview in Baghdad, Carroll said she is in good condition and had been treated well by her captors. Her captors freed her by leaving her in a street near the offices of the Iraqi Islamic Party. She walked inside, and people there called US officials. Although her captors threatened twice in videotapes to kill her, Carroll said they never hit her or threatened to do so. Carroll said she was kept in a room with a window and a shower, but she did not know where she was. She went on to say: "I'm just happy to be free. I want to be with my family." On Wednesday, Jill Carroll’s sister, Katie Carroll, had read a statement on Arab television pleading for her sister's safe release. There had been no word from Carroll's captors in nearly two months. They had demanded the release of all women detainees in Iraqi prisons. Five out of an estimated nine women prisoners were released in January.
i didn't think we'd see her alive. when i was writing last night about the liars who didn't tell you what it was like and didn't do anything but hang around the green zone while others did all the work, i was thinking of what i would write about her when the bad news came? i'm so glad that it didn't come. jill carroll showed more some common sense and more bravery then the entire bylined staff of the new york times stationed in iraq. after she's had time to process what she's been through, i hope she starts talking about what she saw in iraq. i don't think many people over there now could tell you a thing about the iraqis themselves because it's hard to get to know the people waiting on you at the hotel. if she doesn't go on the lecture circuit, i hope she'll give a series of interviews.
Iraqi PM Criticizes US Over Resignation Pressure
In news from Iraq, Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari has lashed out at growing US pressure to block him from serving a second term as prime minister. U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad has asked Iraqi Shiite politicians to seek the withdrawal of al-Jaafari's nomination for a second term. In an interview with the New York Times, al-Jaafari said: "[There's] concern among the Iraqi people that the democratic process is being threatened."
we want a "democratic" Iraq - as long as the iraqis don't think they can decide for themselves. don't they know that bully boy is the 'death force' and, like many mythical gods, requires human sacrifices? the iraqis just had the election that the administration tried to sell as 'freedom's on the march.' but when the march doesn't take the route we had scheduled, we want to pull the permit. it's all so very mayor bloomerg.
i was talking to ruth this week to see what show i could grab from pacifica radio that she's not able to cover. one such show is flashpoints which comes on when she's eating dinner and can't catch all the remarks. i'm not going to do flashpoints every day. (i fear committment!) but i will notice it at least once a week. flashpoints airs on kpfa monday through friday and is hosted by
dennis bernstein. it's an hourly broadcast.
what stood out yesterday was the interview with the father of a young teenager who was taking part in the protests against the legislation to turn immigrants into felons and to criminalize any 1 who attempted to provide any to aid to some 1 in need without demanding 'let me see your papers.' (seriously, we've become south africa at the height of apartheid.)he was an intelligent man and very proud of his daughter. (now watch, it will turn out it was a son. if so, write me and i will correct it.) he spoke of how the police, in california, were around the school fences to prevent any 1 from walking out to protest.
he sounded like a caring parent. and that's the main thing that stood out to me on wednesday.
on tuesday, there was a show that you should really listen to. you had patrick cockburn reporting the realities on the ground in iraq and if operation happy talk had any life left in it, it died in the ears of every 1 who heard his report.
you also got to hear jeremy scahill (who i know from democracy now) and dahr jamail giving speeches. what stood out about dahr's speech was his end question about what are you prepared to do to stop the war? jeremy schaill spoke of the illegal invasion in terms of the history of it. for those who wonder why hillary won't speak out against the war, listen to his speech. bill clinton had a hand in setting up this war.
jeremy pointed out that it's easy to protest an illegal war when it's overseen by some 1 as hated as the bully boy but where was the huge protest when bill clinton was playing war monger? hillary, jeremy didn't speak of her that i remember, won't speak out because her husband's so tied up in this. and she probabl is as well. the congressional authorization for regime change came under bill clinton, it set the stage for today.
jeremy also spoke of what c.i. has, the 'protest pens' in boston at the dnc convention. i didn't go to the convention. i heard about them from c.i. who found them disgusting. (c.i.'s noted that at the common ills many times and also disgust over the fact that the democrats had medea benjamin pulled from the floor for unfurling her anti-war banner.) (any 1 else ever wonder if that's not what the leadership would like to do to the grassroots of the party? by the way, i'll be writing about evan blah tomorrow night.)
jeremy was very outspoken about how disgusting that was and how disgusting the use of the military to 'maintain order' was.
it was a very powerful speech.
if this is new to you, the democratic party supported protest at their convention. as long as you were willing to step into a little pen to do it. now you might think, free speech being a constitutional right, that protests could happen anywhere. you would be wrong. if i'm remembering correctly what c.i. told me when the convention was going on, the pen wasn't even near a place where most people would see it. it was off to the side and i want to see near 1 of the back entrances/exits where most people would never pass. (just to clarify, c.i. didn't get into the protest pen.)
jeremy talked about the tone of the speeches and noted john kerry and john edwards. kerry just looked silly, to me, saying 'reporting for duty.' john edwards, and maybe it was because he never served in the military, came off like the bully boy.
now this week, elaine's written about home fries, kat's written about guns and butter and i've written about flashpoints. don't ask ruth to cover those in her report because they've been covered. there are hours and hours and hours of programming each week, each day, and there's only so much 1 person can even try to cover. if it ever looks like i'm going a week without covering flashpoints, drop me an e-mail to remind me. there was a feature with some 1 (i think his name was kyle) that i really enjoyed but i'm learning the regulars' names still so, until i do learn their names, i'll probably just focus on the guests.
since mike and i were on the phone, i told him i'd grab headlines with him the way elaine normally does (she's off thursdays because she has to do group sessions). so these items are from democracy now.
Kidnapped Reporter Jill Carroll Freed in Iraq
After nearly three months in captivity, kidnapped U.S. reporter Jill Carroll has been released. Carroll is a freelance reporter working for the Christian Science Monitor in Iraq. She was seized in January outside the offices of a prominent Sunni politician in Baghdad. In a brief television interview in Baghdad, Carroll said she is in good condition and had been treated well by her captors. Her captors freed her by leaving her in a street near the offices of the Iraqi Islamic Party. She walked inside, and people there called US officials. Although her captors threatened twice in videotapes to kill her, Carroll said they never hit her or threatened to do so. Carroll said she was kept in a room with a window and a shower, but she did not know where she was. She went on to say: "I'm just happy to be free. I want to be with my family." On Wednesday, Jill Carroll’s sister, Katie Carroll, had read a statement on Arab television pleading for her sister's safe release. There had been no word from Carroll's captors in nearly two months. They had demanded the release of all women detainees in Iraqi prisons. Five out of an estimated nine women prisoners were released in January.
i didn't think we'd see her alive. when i was writing last night about the liars who didn't tell you what it was like and didn't do anything but hang around the green zone while others did all the work, i was thinking of what i would write about her when the bad news came? i'm so glad that it didn't come. jill carroll showed more some common sense and more bravery then the entire bylined staff of the new york times stationed in iraq. after she's had time to process what she's been through, i hope she starts talking about what she saw in iraq. i don't think many people over there now could tell you a thing about the iraqis themselves because it's hard to get to know the people waiting on you at the hotel. if she doesn't go on the lecture circuit, i hope she'll give a series of interviews.
Iraqi PM Criticizes US Over Resignation Pressure
In news from Iraq, Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari has lashed out at growing US pressure to block him from serving a second term as prime minister. U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad has asked Iraqi Shiite politicians to seek the withdrawal of al-Jaafari's nomination for a second term. In an interview with the New York Times, al-Jaafari said: "[There's] concern among the Iraqi people that the democratic process is being threatened."
we want a "democratic" Iraq - as long as the iraqis don't think they can decide for themselves. don't they know that bully boy is the 'death force' and, like many mythical gods, requires human sacrifices? the iraqis just had the election that the administration tried to sell as 'freedom's on the march.' but when the march doesn't take the route we had scheduled, we want to pull the permit. it's all so very mayor bloomerg.
i was talking to ruth this week to see what show i could grab from pacifica radio that she's not able to cover. one such show is flashpoints which comes on when she's eating dinner and can't catch all the remarks. i'm not going to do flashpoints every day. (i fear committment!) but i will notice it at least once a week. flashpoints airs on kpfa monday through friday and is hosted by
dennis bernstein. it's an hourly broadcast.
what stood out yesterday was the interview with the father of a young teenager who was taking part in the protests against the legislation to turn immigrants into felons and to criminalize any 1 who attempted to provide any to aid to some 1 in need without demanding 'let me see your papers.' (seriously, we've become south africa at the height of apartheid.)he was an intelligent man and very proud of his daughter. (now watch, it will turn out it was a son. if so, write me and i will correct it.) he spoke of how the police, in california, were around the school fences to prevent any 1 from walking out to protest.
he sounded like a caring parent. and that's the main thing that stood out to me on wednesday.
on tuesday, there was a show that you should really listen to. you had patrick cockburn reporting the realities on the ground in iraq and if operation happy talk had any life left in it, it died in the ears of every 1 who heard his report.
you also got to hear jeremy scahill (who i know from democracy now) and dahr jamail giving speeches. what stood out about dahr's speech was his end question about what are you prepared to do to stop the war? jeremy schaill spoke of the illegal invasion in terms of the history of it. for those who wonder why hillary won't speak out against the war, listen to his speech. bill clinton had a hand in setting up this war.
jeremy pointed out that it's easy to protest an illegal war when it's overseen by some 1 as hated as the bully boy but where was the huge protest when bill clinton was playing war monger? hillary, jeremy didn't speak of her that i remember, won't speak out because her husband's so tied up in this. and she probabl is as well. the congressional authorization for regime change came under bill clinton, it set the stage for today.
jeremy also spoke of what c.i. has, the 'protest pens' in boston at the dnc convention. i didn't go to the convention. i heard about them from c.i. who found them disgusting. (c.i.'s noted that at the common ills many times and also disgust over the fact that the democrats had medea benjamin pulled from the floor for unfurling her anti-war banner.) (any 1 else ever wonder if that's not what the leadership would like to do to the grassroots of the party? by the way, i'll be writing about evan blah tomorrow night.)
jeremy was very outspoken about how disgusting that was and how disgusting the use of the military to 'maintain order' was.
it was a very powerful speech.
if this is new to you, the democratic party supported protest at their convention. as long as you were willing to step into a little pen to do it. now you might think, free speech being a constitutional right, that protests could happen anywhere. you would be wrong. if i'm remembering correctly what c.i. told me when the convention was going on, the pen wasn't even near a place where most people would see it. it was off to the side and i want to see near 1 of the back entrances/exits where most people would never pass. (just to clarify, c.i. didn't get into the protest pen.)
jeremy talked about the tone of the speeches and noted john kerry and john edwards. kerry just looked silly, to me, saying 'reporting for duty.' john edwards, and maybe it was because he never served in the military, came off like the bully boy.
now this week, elaine's written about home fries, kat's written about guns and butter and i've written about flashpoints. don't ask ruth to cover those in her report because they've been covered. there are hours and hours and hours of programming each week, each day, and there's only so much 1 person can even try to cover. if it ever looks like i'm going a week without covering flashpoints, drop me an e-mail to remind me. there was a feature with some 1 (i think his name was kyle) that i really enjoyed but i'm learning the regulars' names still so, until i do learn their names, i'll probably just focus on the guests.
3/29/2006
iraq in crisis and chaos - the us continuing the occupation will destroy the country
25,000 Iraqis Displaced Since Mosque Bombing
In Iraq, a relief agency says more than 25,000 Iraqis have fled their homes since last month's bombing of a holy Shiite shrine in Sammara. The International Organization for Migration says scores of shelters and tent cities are housing increasing numbers of displaced Sunni and Shiite families. Aid officials say the internal migration is only continuing.
do you think bully boy frets or worries about that. (it's from democracy now, by the way.)
i don't think so. not when he's blaming the chaos, the chaos he created, on saddam hussein.
are people aware of what happened in fallujah? either time but especially in november of 2004 when the second wave of destruction (including white phosophorus) hit the city? where do people think the victims of that massacre live? not the 1s slaughtered but the 1s who managed to get out. what do people think they had to return to? houses were leveled. the city was in ruins. dexy filkins was getting a chubby just watching it all go blow to the heavens but the reality (always in short supply when filkins 'reports') is that what happened was a tragedy and a war crime and dexy filkins is as much a war criminal as the administration because he sold it as entertainment. he should be ashamed of himself.
and so should any 1 else who's still holding on to the idea that we're somehow 'liberating' any 1. we aren't doing any such thing. we are contributing to the violence with our presence.
i want to call attention to c.i.'s post from nov. 21, 2004 (when dexy's 'award winning' war porn ran):
The rah-rah piece carries the dateline "Nov. 18" in this story published in the November 21st edition. Allowing for the time needed to put together a Sunday edition, I'm still questioning that. The story was filed on the 18th (Thursday) and pops up on the 21st (Sunday). And there's the added detail, not provided in Dexter Filkins story, that Lance Cpl. William Miller died November 15th (http://icasualties.org/oif/prdDetails.aspx?hndRef=11-2004).
Perhaps we're all supposed to count the "eight days after the Americans entered the city on foot?"
If so The Guardian places that as November 8th (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1346721,00.html) and eight days later would be the sixteenth -- well Times reporters aren't necessarily noted for their math.The point here is that the story on today's front page (November 21, 2004) begins with a battle from November 15th without ever alerting the reader to this fact. An occurence six days prior is their front page Iraq story. (Which makes one think of Chris Hedges' comments on the nature of war correspondence.)
Was the story "cleared" -- is that the reason for the long delay in the Times reporting on events from the 15th?
Is anyone else bothered by the rah-rah nature of this report that reads like the plot to a video game? After reading the article is anyone else feeling like Filkins is a lot like Bob Dylan's "Mr. Jones" -- "Something is happening, but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Filkins?"
before the 'award winning' dexy became award winning with his war porn, c.i. was questioning him and his reporting in real time.
i'm still bothered by the poll on aol last week. we're supposed to either believe the media is too liberal or else belive they're doing a great job, based upon the way that poll was set up. there are more choices than that. that's not reality and you and i know that.
i'm also real tired of hearing corporate reporters defend themselves and speak of danger that they've been under. you know what? you should have written about it. instead of pretending like everything was wonderful in iraq, you should have written that you couldn't leave the green zone. and this nonsense about even though you didn't leave the green zone, your articles were strong because a stringer or 2 gave you the information? you didn't do the reporting. they did the reporting. you put your anglo name on it and you took the credit.
did you write 'i am a prisoner of the green zone, unable to leave and this report is me writing information that stringers are giving me because it's not safe for me to leave the green zone'?
no. so you lied.
you lied to the readers. you let them think that you had mobility and could go anywhere. while iraq was falling to pieces, you lied.
now you want our sympathies? oh how awful it is for you. because YOU are the story, right? not the iraqis you are supposed to be reporting on. not the iraqis who live in danger every day the illegal occupation continues.
and you want to snap things like 'you weren't there!' guess what, you weren't there either. you were in a hotel or villa, heavily guarded. don't lecture critics on what you know when you didn't bother to report the very little that you knew.
robert fisk did. robert fisk also spoke about it.
but the american embeds stayed silent on reality and acted like things were hunky dorky in terms of their travel. the inability to travel didn't happen last month or the month before. this has been a long process and only now are they beginning to speak about it publicly.
i have no sympathy. i have sympathy for jill carrol and others who tried to get reality out of ira. dahr jamail, to name 1. patrick cockburn and robert fisk. i have sympathy for them and admiration for them.
but the rest? the 1s who stayed silent about reality the same way they stayed silent on the attacks on al jazeera?
i don't care that maybe it was real hard ordering room service and sitting around the green zone.
you wanted to report from a war zone, you knew the problems. you went there and you refused to report on reality. don't come back to the united states and expect a lot of sympathy when your lies allowed the occupation to continue and the american people who only follow corporate media to think things were much better than they were.
that's my gripe tonight.
a 'jim' wrote in. i'm not really sure why. it appears to be a pick up e-mail (offering relationship or just e-mails). jim, i'm involved with my ex-husband currently. you sound like a wonderful man with your likes and dislikes list. but i'm in a relationship right now, so thank you all the same.
i also got e-mails wondering if c.i. 'ripped you a new 1'? that's in ref to what i wrote last night. 1st, c.i. was yelling on the phone. but that was due to the fact that c.i. was at a rally and using a cell phone. c.i. didn't 'rip' into me. c.i. wanted to know why i hadn't linked to some 1 who was linking to me. after that was addressed, c.i. wanted to talk about what kind of support we're giving to the community.
c.i. had hard questions for me and hard self-questions as well. because we're long term friends, there is no need to pussy foot around the issue. this wasn't griping (and c.i. was far tougher on self than on me). c.i. noted that i do a great job of noting cedric, for instance.
c.i.'s concern was whether we were all doing our part to promote 1 another? due to the way the common ills is set up, c.i.'s not always noting every 1. (also due to time issues.) elaine and i can be noted very easily there because we're always calling c.i. about something. (we have always spoken to 1 another a great deal but once the invasion started we started speaking much more often. it probably went from twice a week most weeks to 5 to 7 times a week or more.) so if 1 of us says something on the phone, it's very easy for c.i., in the middle of an entry, to say 'rebecca pointed out' or whatever. but are we promoting trina enough? (trina's got a great recipe for mexican rice. even i was able to cook it without any problems.) or any of the other sites?
you all are wonderful readers and share great e-mails. i know you're smart and dedicated. and i'm thankful for you and know i'm lucky to be 2nd to the common ills in most read. but as the top 2 most read online (if you count their print edition, the third estate sunday review, they're probably ahead of me), are we doing our part to promote the ocmmunity enough?
that's a valid question. and we discussed it. it wasn't about 'rebecca, i'm going to scream at you.' i'm sorry if my word choice gave that impression. what i meant by mike getting it easier was that c.i. wouldn't address mike in the same way. it wouldn't be, 'mike, are we doing enough?' it would be 'mike, could you spotlight cedric [or whomever] a little more?'
c.i. and i are both older than mike and we've known each other for years. what i was trying to express is that we don't have to be 'if i could, please, just maybe make a point, if that's okay' with each other.
now, does gail collins of the new york times grate on your last nerve? if so go read mike on gail collins the self-amused. want a breakdown on england and to find out what's coming up in the gina & krista round-robin and polly's newsletter? go read elaine's post from this evening.
want to read about the marathon edition that seemed like it would never end sunday? read cedric's comments on it.
that's the sort of thing c.i. was talking about. (i've already linked to wally earlier in this post.) what we were talking about, trying to figure out, was how to be sure we were noting the newer site and being sure that people knew what was going on at them.
i'll close by uring every 1 to check out c.i.'s "NYT: Eric Lichtblau covers the hearing on NSA spying by focusing on Robertson's letter" even though c.i. wasn't talking about highlights for the common ills.
In Iraq, a relief agency says more than 25,000 Iraqis have fled their homes since last month's bombing of a holy Shiite shrine in Sammara. The International Organization for Migration says scores of shelters and tent cities are housing increasing numbers of displaced Sunni and Shiite families. Aid officials say the internal migration is only continuing.
do you think bully boy frets or worries about that. (it's from democracy now, by the way.)
i don't think so. not when he's blaming the chaos, the chaos he created, on saddam hussein.
are people aware of what happened in fallujah? either time but especially in november of 2004 when the second wave of destruction (including white phosophorus) hit the city? where do people think the victims of that massacre live? not the 1s slaughtered but the 1s who managed to get out. what do people think they had to return to? houses were leveled. the city was in ruins. dexy filkins was getting a chubby just watching it all go blow to the heavens but the reality (always in short supply when filkins 'reports') is that what happened was a tragedy and a war crime and dexy filkins is as much a war criminal as the administration because he sold it as entertainment. he should be ashamed of himself.
and so should any 1 else who's still holding on to the idea that we're somehow 'liberating' any 1. we aren't doing any such thing. we are contributing to the violence with our presence.
i want to call attention to c.i.'s post from nov. 21, 2004 (when dexy's 'award winning' war porn ran):
The rah-rah piece carries the dateline "Nov. 18" in this story published in the November 21st edition. Allowing for the time needed to put together a Sunday edition, I'm still questioning that. The story was filed on the 18th (Thursday) and pops up on the 21st (Sunday). And there's the added detail, not provided in Dexter Filkins story, that Lance Cpl. William Miller died November 15th (http://icasualties.org/oif/prdDetails.aspx?hndRef=11-2004).
Perhaps we're all supposed to count the "eight days after the Americans entered the city on foot?"
If so The Guardian places that as November 8th (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1346721,00.html) and eight days later would be the sixteenth -- well Times reporters aren't necessarily noted for their math.The point here is that the story on today's front page (November 21, 2004) begins with a battle from November 15th without ever alerting the reader to this fact. An occurence six days prior is their front page Iraq story. (Which makes one think of Chris Hedges' comments on the nature of war correspondence.)
Was the story "cleared" -- is that the reason for the long delay in the Times reporting on events from the 15th?
Is anyone else bothered by the rah-rah nature of this report that reads like the plot to a video game? After reading the article is anyone else feeling like Filkins is a lot like Bob Dylan's "Mr. Jones" -- "Something is happening, but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Filkins?"
before the 'award winning' dexy became award winning with his war porn, c.i. was questioning him and his reporting in real time.
i'm still bothered by the poll on aol last week. we're supposed to either believe the media is too liberal or else belive they're doing a great job, based upon the way that poll was set up. there are more choices than that. that's not reality and you and i know that.
i'm also real tired of hearing corporate reporters defend themselves and speak of danger that they've been under. you know what? you should have written about it. instead of pretending like everything was wonderful in iraq, you should have written that you couldn't leave the green zone. and this nonsense about even though you didn't leave the green zone, your articles were strong because a stringer or 2 gave you the information? you didn't do the reporting. they did the reporting. you put your anglo name on it and you took the credit.
did you write 'i am a prisoner of the green zone, unable to leave and this report is me writing information that stringers are giving me because it's not safe for me to leave the green zone'?
no. so you lied.
you lied to the readers. you let them think that you had mobility and could go anywhere. while iraq was falling to pieces, you lied.
now you want our sympathies? oh how awful it is for you. because YOU are the story, right? not the iraqis you are supposed to be reporting on. not the iraqis who live in danger every day the illegal occupation continues.
and you want to snap things like 'you weren't there!' guess what, you weren't there either. you were in a hotel or villa, heavily guarded. don't lecture critics on what you know when you didn't bother to report the very little that you knew.
robert fisk did. robert fisk also spoke about it.
but the american embeds stayed silent on reality and acted like things were hunky dorky in terms of their travel. the inability to travel didn't happen last month or the month before. this has been a long process and only now are they beginning to speak about it publicly.
i have no sympathy. i have sympathy for jill carrol and others who tried to get reality out of ira. dahr jamail, to name 1. patrick cockburn and robert fisk. i have sympathy for them and admiration for them.
but the rest? the 1s who stayed silent about reality the same way they stayed silent on the attacks on al jazeera?
i don't care that maybe it was real hard ordering room service and sitting around the green zone.
you wanted to report from a war zone, you knew the problems. you went there and you refused to report on reality. don't come back to the united states and expect a lot of sympathy when your lies allowed the occupation to continue and the american people who only follow corporate media to think things were much better than they were.
that's my gripe tonight.
a 'jim' wrote in. i'm not really sure why. it appears to be a pick up e-mail (offering relationship or just e-mails). jim, i'm involved with my ex-husband currently. you sound like a wonderful man with your likes and dislikes list. but i'm in a relationship right now, so thank you all the same.
i also got e-mails wondering if c.i. 'ripped you a new 1'? that's in ref to what i wrote last night. 1st, c.i. was yelling on the phone. but that was due to the fact that c.i. was at a rally and using a cell phone. c.i. didn't 'rip' into me. c.i. wanted to know why i hadn't linked to some 1 who was linking to me. after that was addressed, c.i. wanted to talk about what kind of support we're giving to the community.
c.i. had hard questions for me and hard self-questions as well. because we're long term friends, there is no need to pussy foot around the issue. this wasn't griping (and c.i. was far tougher on self than on me). c.i. noted that i do a great job of noting cedric, for instance.
c.i.'s concern was whether we were all doing our part to promote 1 another? due to the way the common ills is set up, c.i.'s not always noting every 1. (also due to time issues.) elaine and i can be noted very easily there because we're always calling c.i. about something. (we have always spoken to 1 another a great deal but once the invasion started we started speaking much more often. it probably went from twice a week most weeks to 5 to 7 times a week or more.) so if 1 of us says something on the phone, it's very easy for c.i., in the middle of an entry, to say 'rebecca pointed out' or whatever. but are we promoting trina enough? (trina's got a great recipe for mexican rice. even i was able to cook it without any problems.) or any of the other sites?
you all are wonderful readers and share great e-mails. i know you're smart and dedicated. and i'm thankful for you and know i'm lucky to be 2nd to the common ills in most read. but as the top 2 most read online (if you count their print edition, the third estate sunday review, they're probably ahead of me), are we doing our part to promote the ocmmunity enough?
that's a valid question. and we discussed it. it wasn't about 'rebecca, i'm going to scream at you.' i'm sorry if my word choice gave that impression. what i meant by mike getting it easier was that c.i. wouldn't address mike in the same way. it wouldn't be, 'mike, are we doing enough?' it would be 'mike, could you spotlight cedric [or whomever] a little more?'
c.i. and i are both older than mike and we've known each other for years. what i was trying to express is that we don't have to be 'if i could, please, just maybe make a point, if that's okay' with each other.
now, does gail collins of the new york times grate on your last nerve? if so go read mike on gail collins the self-amused. want a breakdown on england and to find out what's coming up in the gina & krista round-robin and polly's newsletter? go read elaine's post from this evening.
want to read about the marathon edition that seemed like it would never end sunday? read cedric's comments on it.
that's the sort of thing c.i. was talking about. (i've already linked to wally earlier in this post.) what we were talking about, trying to figure out, was how to be sure we were noting the newer site and being sure that people knew what was going on at them.
i'll close by uring every 1 to check out c.i.'s "NYT: Eric Lichtblau covers the hearing on NSA spying by focusing on Robertson's letter" even though c.i. wasn't talking about highlights for the common ills.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)