i want to note a long section from democracy now today. this is from "Professor McCoy Exposes the History of CIA Interrogation, From the Cold War to the War on Terror:"
ALFRED McCOY: Right, his son Eric Olson insists that his father was murdered by the C.I.A. Eric Olson believes that his father did a tour of Europe, and he visited the ultimate Anglo-American test site, black site near Frankfurt, where they were doing lethal experiments, fatal experiments, on double agents and suspected double agents, and that his father returned enormously upset by the discovery that this research was actually killing people, and that, therefore, Eric Olson argues his father was killed by the C.I.A., that he was pushed.
AMY GOODMAN: And didn't they do experiments in brothels in the San Francisco area?
ALFRED McCOY: They had two kind of party houses. They had one in the San Francisco Bay Area, another in New York City. And what they did in San Francisco was they had prostitutes who go out to the streets, get individuals, bring them back, give them a drink, and there would be a two-way mirror, and the C.I.A. would photograph these people.
AMY GOODMAN: So, the C.I.A. were running the brothel.
ALFRED McCOY: They were running the brothel. They were running all of these experiments, okay? They did that on Army soldiers through the Army Chemical Warfare Division.
AMY GOODMAN: What did they do there?
ALFRED McCOY: Again, they gave them LSD and other drugs to see what effect they would have.
AMY GOODMAN: And what did the soldiers think they were getting?
ALFRED McCOY: They were just told they were participating in an experiment for national defense.
AMY GOODMAN: Prisoners?
ALFRED McCOY: No, these were --
AMY GOODMAN: Right, but also on prisoners, were there experiments?
ALFRED McCOY: There were some in prisons in the United States and also the Drug Treatment Center in Lexington, Kentucky. The Federal Drug Treatment Center in Lexington, Kentucky, had this. All of this research, all this very elaborate research --
AMY GOODMAN: On unwitting Americans?
ALFRED McCOY: Unwitting Americans, produced nothing, okay? What they found time and time again is that electroshock didn't work, and sodium pentathol didn't work, LSD certainly didn't work. You scramble the brain. You got unreliable information. But what did work was the combination of these two rather boring, rather mundane behavioral techniques: sensory disorientation and self-inflicted pain.
And in 1963, the C.I.A. codified these results in the so-called KUBARK Counterintelligence Manual. If you just type the word "KUBARK" into Google, you will get the manual, an actual copy of it, on your computer screen, and you can read the techniques [Read the report.] But if you do, read the footnotes, because that's where the behavioral research is. Now, this produced a distinctively American form of torture, the first real revolution in the cruel science of pain in centuries, psychological torture, and it's the one that's with us today, and it's proved to be a very resilient, quite adaptable, and an enormously destructive paradigm.
there are a number of reasons to note the above including that it's a part of the united states' history that we should be aware of. but sherry e-mailed me about someone posting that kooks were drawn to impeachment rallies. the person who wrote that doesn't see himself as a kook. i don't see him as a kook either. i see him as destructive.
i'll leave it at that. this is a short entry because i've just deleted 9 paragraphs. a writer as worthless as the one sherry stumbled upon isn't worth me wasting my website on.
2/16/2006
cowboy junkies and guantanamo prisoners
the amazing cedric has what should be the last word on 'no-manners.' i had a heads up to it and was waiting for it to go up before blogging tonight. it's called 'You drop the Trash at the curb and let it go.' well said.
i'm listening to the cowboy junkies right now. i mention that because i had 2 e-mails from people who went out and bought hair. great, it's a wonderful musical. now make a point to check out the cowboy junkies' early 21st century blues.
this is what kat wrote about the cd in her year-in-music-review:
Early 21st Century Blues. This Cowboy Junkies CD actually got national exposure . . . via The Laura Flanders Show. If others had followed Flanders' lead, this might have been one of the more talked about albums of 2005. The album features two original songs and nine covers. Among the covers are songs by Bob Dylan, from his pre-brand days. I have to be in the mood for their version of John Lennon's "I Don't Want To Be A Solider." Wally enjoyed this but Cedric and I felt that the combination of the Junkies' understated approach and Rebel's rap were an uneasy mix. The album ends on a high note, a cover of U2's "One." Unlike on Mary J. Blige's latest album, you don't wait for Bono to shut up and get out the way so that Blige can work her magic. That's because he's not featured. Margo Timmins' voice is haunting on this song and the covers of Bruce Springsteen's "You're Missing" and "Brothers Under The Bridge" should have resulted in saturation airplay. If you missed this CD, locate a copy and listen.
the link in the title takes you to a piece we all worked on.
i think most of my readers know that elaine has to take off thursday nights because she does group on that night. she called this afternoon and asked if i could note something for her. she said, 'if you can't, don't worry, and i'll try to find time to do it myself tonight.' i told her not to be silly, i'd be happy to do it. this is from democracy now.
UN Investigators Call on U.S. to Close Guantanamo
In other news, United Nations investigators have called on the Bush administration to immediately close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp in Cuba. The UN report urges the US government to "refrain from any practice amounting to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." The report goes on to state "In the case of the Guantanamo Bay detainees, the U.S. executive operates as judge, as prosecutor, and as defense council: this constitutes serious violations of various guarantees of the right to a fair trial before an independent tribunal." About 500 men are being held at the site. Charges have never been filed against most of them. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack dismissed the report. He said the U.N. information was based on "hearsay."
elaine and c.i. have both hit on hard this issue repeatedly. they don't think 'detainees' is a term that should be used. as c.i. said once, 'detainee? that makes it sound like you got stopped in customs for not declaring a taxable item.' they are prisoners. they have been held for years and years now. when does the outrage set in? we've all addressed the topic together at the third estate sunday review.
this is something you'll have to answer for. children in a generation or 2 will ask you, 'how were you able to just stay silent and look the other way?' so if that's your plan to keep on ignoring this, you might use that looking away time to come up with a good excuse. this is a sad thing, this is a tragedy.
being scared senseless immediately after 9-11 might have been understandable for some, goodness knows the bully boy was working overtime - the only time he ever works - to scare the nation. and you may have been grieving and felt like 'who cares?'
well it's past time to care. want to make money in afghanistan? kidnap some 1 and turn him over to the authorities telling them you've captured a terrorist.
some of them were children. they've spent 4 years locked away. if they had any information, it was old long ago. in the meantime, as many of the prisoners realize that they are never getting out, they go on a hunger strike. so we brutalize them. we force feed them in spite of the fact that every patient has the right to refuse treatment.
but we can't have them dying on us, not while the world's condemning us even if our own press isn't paying attention.
this is nonsense and it should have been addressed a long time ago. your children will study in this history classes, their children will study it. the matt dillon of the future will star in a film where he falls in love with 1 of the prisoners or the family of a prisoner (like golden gate). it's a travesty and we willingly tossed aside our own principles to feel 'safe'. then we left our principles in the trash can because it was too messy to deal with.
let me skate on c.i.'s coattails and recommend that you read danny schechter's 'JACK ABRAMOFF'S WHITE MAN'S BURDEN: How the Sleazy Republican Lobbyist Boosted Apartheid:'
Last week, pictures of Abramoff and President Bush, photos whose existence was first denied by the White House, turned up on the internet. Yes, they knew each other and met several times. Ambramoff claims Karl Rove was his buddy.
Still to come are images of Abramoff on his African "liberation" safari taking up the white man’s burden in the name of discrediting Nelson Mandela. The African National Congress leader's freedom was demanded by millions at the time, with the exception of politicians like then Congressman Dick Cheney who voted against a Congressional resolution calling for Mandela's release from prison. (Cheney also opposed overturning Ronald Reagan's ban on sanctions against South Africa, a ban Jack Abramoff personally worked in Hollywood to support as a Pretoria funded agent.)
Don't you think there must be a photo somewhere of young Jack with South Africa’s apartheid-era President, P.W. "The Crocodile" Botha. Putting those two presidential trophy shots side by side, Botha on one side, Bush on the other, will complete this connection between the ongoing fight for truth and racial justice and the Bush Administration's commitment to "Abramoff Family Values" (AFW) designed to enrich "just us." (The LA Times has since reported that Ambramoff considered Karl Rove a friend.)
this is a complicated story, jack abramoff and danny really is one of the few i've read (echoing c.i. here) who has written an easy to follow story on this that engages you as a reader.
lastly read this by wally for laughs and, remember, it is okay to laugh. humorless scolds may tell you otherwise, but it is okay to laugh. (love the martha mitchell appearance - wonder who she is based upon? i don't.)
danny schechter
the common ills
the third estate sunday review
like maria said paz
cedrics big mix
democracy now
kats korner
the cowboy junkies
i'm listening to the cowboy junkies right now. i mention that because i had 2 e-mails from people who went out and bought hair. great, it's a wonderful musical. now make a point to check out the cowboy junkies' early 21st century blues.
this is what kat wrote about the cd in her year-in-music-review:
Early 21st Century Blues. This Cowboy Junkies CD actually got national exposure . . . via The Laura Flanders Show. If others had followed Flanders' lead, this might have been one of the more talked about albums of 2005. The album features two original songs and nine covers. Among the covers are songs by Bob Dylan, from his pre-brand days. I have to be in the mood for their version of John Lennon's "I Don't Want To Be A Solider." Wally enjoyed this but Cedric and I felt that the combination of the Junkies' understated approach and Rebel's rap were an uneasy mix. The album ends on a high note, a cover of U2's "One." Unlike on Mary J. Blige's latest album, you don't wait for Bono to shut up and get out the way so that Blige can work her magic. That's because he's not featured. Margo Timmins' voice is haunting on this song and the covers of Bruce Springsteen's "You're Missing" and "Brothers Under The Bridge" should have resulted in saturation airplay. If you missed this CD, locate a copy and listen.
the link in the title takes you to a piece we all worked on.
i think most of my readers know that elaine has to take off thursday nights because she does group on that night. she called this afternoon and asked if i could note something for her. she said, 'if you can't, don't worry, and i'll try to find time to do it myself tonight.' i told her not to be silly, i'd be happy to do it. this is from democracy now.
UN Investigators Call on U.S. to Close Guantanamo
In other news, United Nations investigators have called on the Bush administration to immediately close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp in Cuba. The UN report urges the US government to "refrain from any practice amounting to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." The report goes on to state "In the case of the Guantanamo Bay detainees, the U.S. executive operates as judge, as prosecutor, and as defense council: this constitutes serious violations of various guarantees of the right to a fair trial before an independent tribunal." About 500 men are being held at the site. Charges have never been filed against most of them. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack dismissed the report. He said the U.N. information was based on "hearsay."
elaine and c.i. have both hit on hard this issue repeatedly. they don't think 'detainees' is a term that should be used. as c.i. said once, 'detainee? that makes it sound like you got stopped in customs for not declaring a taxable item.' they are prisoners. they have been held for years and years now. when does the outrage set in? we've all addressed the topic together at the third estate sunday review.
this is something you'll have to answer for. children in a generation or 2 will ask you, 'how were you able to just stay silent and look the other way?' so if that's your plan to keep on ignoring this, you might use that looking away time to come up with a good excuse. this is a sad thing, this is a tragedy.
being scared senseless immediately after 9-11 might have been understandable for some, goodness knows the bully boy was working overtime - the only time he ever works - to scare the nation. and you may have been grieving and felt like 'who cares?'
well it's past time to care. want to make money in afghanistan? kidnap some 1 and turn him over to the authorities telling them you've captured a terrorist.
some of them were children. they've spent 4 years locked away. if they had any information, it was old long ago. in the meantime, as many of the prisoners realize that they are never getting out, they go on a hunger strike. so we brutalize them. we force feed them in spite of the fact that every patient has the right to refuse treatment.
but we can't have them dying on us, not while the world's condemning us even if our own press isn't paying attention.
this is nonsense and it should have been addressed a long time ago. your children will study in this history classes, their children will study it. the matt dillon of the future will star in a film where he falls in love with 1 of the prisoners or the family of a prisoner (like golden gate). it's a travesty and we willingly tossed aside our own principles to feel 'safe'. then we left our principles in the trash can because it was too messy to deal with.
let me skate on c.i.'s coattails and recommend that you read danny schechter's 'JACK ABRAMOFF'S WHITE MAN'S BURDEN: How the Sleazy Republican Lobbyist Boosted Apartheid:'
Last week, pictures of Abramoff and President Bush, photos whose existence was first denied by the White House, turned up on the internet. Yes, they knew each other and met several times. Ambramoff claims Karl Rove was his buddy.
Still to come are images of Abramoff on his African "liberation" safari taking up the white man’s burden in the name of discrediting Nelson Mandela. The African National Congress leader's freedom was demanded by millions at the time, with the exception of politicians like then Congressman Dick Cheney who voted against a Congressional resolution calling for Mandela's release from prison. (Cheney also opposed overturning Ronald Reagan's ban on sanctions against South Africa, a ban Jack Abramoff personally worked in Hollywood to support as a Pretoria funded agent.)
Don't you think there must be a photo somewhere of young Jack with South Africa’s apartheid-era President, P.W. "The Crocodile" Botha. Putting those two presidential trophy shots side by side, Botha on one side, Bush on the other, will complete this connection between the ongoing fight for truth and racial justice and the Bush Administration's commitment to "Abramoff Family Values" (AFW) designed to enrich "just us." (The LA Times has since reported that Ambramoff considered Karl Rove a friend.)
this is a complicated story, jack abramoff and danny really is one of the few i've read (echoing c.i. here) who has written an easy to follow story on this that engages you as a reader.
lastly read this by wally for laughs and, remember, it is okay to laugh. humorless scolds may tell you otherwise, but it is okay to laugh. (love the martha mitchell appearance - wonder who she is based upon? i don't.)
danny schechter
the common ills
the third estate sunday review
like maria said paz
cedrics big mix
democracy now
kats korner
the cowboy junkies
2/15/2006
on 'no-manners' and a story i hope we're following
elaine just called and filled me in on something while begging me to post now and not later because she was going to call mike back. mike's furious about something. he's like a bull seeing red right now.
here's the short version. no-manners, my name for the blogger, slammed the bloggers on the left for the attention to dick cheney shooting a man. she went further telling people who made jokes about the shooting that they should be "ashamed" (thanks to sherry for forwarding me the forward because i never go to no-manners' site). in that entry she says she's delinked from a number of blogs. then she lists a long list of what bloggers should be writing about, 'important stuff.' but the next day, when new abu ghraib photos are released, she's writing about ... a willie nelson country song.
no-manners should tsk-tsk at herself.
so why do i call her no-manners? wait, i'm getting ahead of myself.
among the sites (not blogs, no-manners, the common ills is a resource/review) she delinked from was the common ills. since she's on her huffy bike about dick cheney, i'll note (she has trouble comprehending) that c.i. has talked about the shooting. c.i. has made no joke about the shooting. c.i. has pointed out that overseas coverage notes that cheney has a medical team with him due to his health condition. american press is largely reluctant to note that. for the 1st three days c.i.'s noted the shooting, that's been the focus.
but no-manners has trouble reading the new york times as well. (whole other story.) maybe we should buy her some flash cards?
so this all starts months ago when c.i. makes the mistake of including a link to no-manners that a reader noted. c.i. gets the 1st name wrong and no-manners is in an uproar. so c.i. apologizes at the site and corrects it and notes her again the next day. because c.i. tries to support women bloggers, the community panel decides to include her on the links.
so you'd think she'd be happy that any 1 bothered to note her once let alone repeatedly. doesn't happen. she feels the need to e-mail c.i. and say she doesn't care for the look of the site.
that's why i call her no-manners.
i have enough brains and manners not to walk into some 1's home and say, 'oh i hate your couch.' no-manners has no taste and apparently no brains.
so a member wrote mike about no-manners post and mike's furious. he thinks, according to elaine, that no-manners thinks she's doing heavy lifting. well, if she wants to live in the land of delusion ...
mike's also angry that the only thing resembling a 'joke' about cheney has been c.i. steering readers to wally's stuff. c.i. hasn't quoted wally because c.i. always worries about spoiling a joke.
if that's all it took to set no-manners off, so be it.
but wally's doing great work and no-manners is ... writing about an old willie nelson song.
wally's hilarious. we're all proud of wally and we don't need ms. rudeness's judgement call since she's already demonstrated that she was raised in a manners-free zone.
i remember when c.i. called me and asked, 'rebecca, is this normal?' and then told me about no-manners begruding e-mail (don't like the look of your site). i think it goes to jealousy.
she also slammed an entry by c.i. and ava and c.i. took the high road on that. me, i would've pointed out that she didn't know the 1st thing she was talking about and might want to try reading before writing on something.
so yesterday's she's screaming at the left and telling them how awful they are and how ashamed they should be. if she read a joke she didn't like, anywhere, she didn't have to laugh. did cheney hold a pellet gun to her head? see, that's a joke. 'SOME 1 WAS SHOT!' she'd scream in her attempt to be barbra streisand in the way we were ('her husband is dead!'). as robert redford says in that movie, 'some 1 told a bad joke' that's all, no-manners. at the very worst they told a bad joke.
but wally didn't tell a bad joke. and the fact that he's getting more e-mails than he ever has indicates people are enjoying his humor.
here's a hard reality for no-manners, don't be cjr. don't write what people should be writing about unless you're then going to be writing about that. don't say 'what you should be focusing on is ...' and then jerk off to a post on willie nelson.
but, bloggers of the left be warned, no-manners is taking down names and sure to give you a firm tsk-tsk.
now let's talk about something that does matter. this is from democracy now today.
GAY BAR VICTIM FILES COMPLAINT OVER MEDICAL TREATMENT
Back in the United Sates, one of the men lfet injured in an attack on a Massachusetts gay bar has filed a complaint alleging paramedics gave him poor treatment because of his sexual orientation. Robert Perry was hit in the head and shot in the back when 18-year-old Jacob Robida attacked him and two others earlier this month. Robida later killed himself during a police chase. In his complaint, Perry says paramedics delayed taking him to a hospital, were physically and verbally abusive, and shared medical information without his permission. Perry, who himself directs an ambulance service in Boston, said he had never seen an ambulance crew acting "so cruel and hate-filled."
now, it's not a willie nelson song, but i think it's important.
i really am surprised that this hasn't gotten more attention. no, i'm not scolding bloggers. i'm talking about newspapers, i've got the washington post and the new york times here each day and this hasn't gotten any real attention. more was written over the attacker killing himself (several stories in the new york times) than on the victims. in fact, other than the original article on the attack, i'm not remembering a single article that dealt with the victims at all.
what's changed since matthew shepard died? or is it, as fair's extra wondered the fact that shepard was blond, young and his body found in a such a way that the writers could note 'scarecrow'? from extra's '20 stories that made a difference:'
15. Before Matthew Shepard was beaten and left for dead in Laramie, Wyoming on October 7, 1998, homophobic violence and discrimination received little serious attention in the news or the general public. But the attack on the 21-year-old gay man struck a media nerve -- starting with an AP story (10/9/88) whose lead memorably described Shepard as having been "tied to a wooden ranch fence like a scarecrow" -- marking the first time an anti-gay attack received extensive and sympathetic coverage.
His orientation aside, Shepard's story had many of the elements that commercial media look for in a crime story: a young, good-looking white victim with a dramatic death (whose crucifixion imagery added poignancy). [. . .]
so what's changed? are the victims not seen as sympathetic? if that's the answer, are they seen as less sympathetic because of the direction the bully boy has led the nation in? three men were assaulted in a club for no other reason except that they were gay. where's the press outrage? why the desire to look the other way?
here's the short version. no-manners, my name for the blogger, slammed the bloggers on the left for the attention to dick cheney shooting a man. she went further telling people who made jokes about the shooting that they should be "ashamed" (thanks to sherry for forwarding me the forward because i never go to no-manners' site). in that entry she says she's delinked from a number of blogs. then she lists a long list of what bloggers should be writing about, 'important stuff.' but the next day, when new abu ghraib photos are released, she's writing about ... a willie nelson country song.
no-manners should tsk-tsk at herself.
so why do i call her no-manners? wait, i'm getting ahead of myself.
among the sites (not blogs, no-manners, the common ills is a resource/review) she delinked from was the common ills. since she's on her huffy bike about dick cheney, i'll note (she has trouble comprehending) that c.i. has talked about the shooting. c.i. has made no joke about the shooting. c.i. has pointed out that overseas coverage notes that cheney has a medical team with him due to his health condition. american press is largely reluctant to note that. for the 1st three days c.i.'s noted the shooting, that's been the focus.
but no-manners has trouble reading the new york times as well. (whole other story.) maybe we should buy her some flash cards?
so this all starts months ago when c.i. makes the mistake of including a link to no-manners that a reader noted. c.i. gets the 1st name wrong and no-manners is in an uproar. so c.i. apologizes at the site and corrects it and notes her again the next day. because c.i. tries to support women bloggers, the community panel decides to include her on the links.
so you'd think she'd be happy that any 1 bothered to note her once let alone repeatedly. doesn't happen. she feels the need to e-mail c.i. and say she doesn't care for the look of the site.
that's why i call her no-manners.
i have enough brains and manners not to walk into some 1's home and say, 'oh i hate your couch.' no-manners has no taste and apparently no brains.
so a member wrote mike about no-manners post and mike's furious. he thinks, according to elaine, that no-manners thinks she's doing heavy lifting. well, if she wants to live in the land of delusion ...
mike's also angry that the only thing resembling a 'joke' about cheney has been c.i. steering readers to wally's stuff. c.i. hasn't quoted wally because c.i. always worries about spoiling a joke.
if that's all it took to set no-manners off, so be it.
but wally's doing great work and no-manners is ... writing about an old willie nelson song.
wally's hilarious. we're all proud of wally and we don't need ms. rudeness's judgement call since she's already demonstrated that she was raised in a manners-free zone.
i remember when c.i. called me and asked, 'rebecca, is this normal?' and then told me about no-manners begruding e-mail (don't like the look of your site). i think it goes to jealousy.
she also slammed an entry by c.i. and ava and c.i. took the high road on that. me, i would've pointed out that she didn't know the 1st thing she was talking about and might want to try reading before writing on something.
so yesterday's she's screaming at the left and telling them how awful they are and how ashamed they should be. if she read a joke she didn't like, anywhere, she didn't have to laugh. did cheney hold a pellet gun to her head? see, that's a joke. 'SOME 1 WAS SHOT!' she'd scream in her attempt to be barbra streisand in the way we were ('her husband is dead!'). as robert redford says in that movie, 'some 1 told a bad joke' that's all, no-manners. at the very worst they told a bad joke.
but wally didn't tell a bad joke. and the fact that he's getting more e-mails than he ever has indicates people are enjoying his humor.
here's a hard reality for no-manners, don't be cjr. don't write what people should be writing about unless you're then going to be writing about that. don't say 'what you should be focusing on is ...' and then jerk off to a post on willie nelson.
but, bloggers of the left be warned, no-manners is taking down names and sure to give you a firm tsk-tsk.
now let's talk about something that does matter. this is from democracy now today.
GAY BAR VICTIM FILES COMPLAINT OVER MEDICAL TREATMENT
Back in the United Sates, one of the men lfet injured in an attack on a Massachusetts gay bar has filed a complaint alleging paramedics gave him poor treatment because of his sexual orientation. Robert Perry was hit in the head and shot in the back when 18-year-old Jacob Robida attacked him and two others earlier this month. Robida later killed himself during a police chase. In his complaint, Perry says paramedics delayed taking him to a hospital, were physically and verbally abusive, and shared medical information without his permission. Perry, who himself directs an ambulance service in Boston, said he had never seen an ambulance crew acting "so cruel and hate-filled."
now, it's not a willie nelson song, but i think it's important.
i really am surprised that this hasn't gotten more attention. no, i'm not scolding bloggers. i'm talking about newspapers, i've got the washington post and the new york times here each day and this hasn't gotten any real attention. more was written over the attacker killing himself (several stories in the new york times) than on the victims. in fact, other than the original article on the attack, i'm not remembering a single article that dealt with the victims at all.
what's changed since matthew shepard died? or is it, as fair's extra wondered the fact that shepard was blond, young and his body found in a such a way that the writers could note 'scarecrow'? from extra's '20 stories that made a difference:'
15. Before Matthew Shepard was beaten and left for dead in Laramie, Wyoming on October 7, 1998, homophobic violence and discrimination received little serious attention in the news or the general public. But the attack on the 21-year-old gay man struck a media nerve -- starting with an AP story (10/9/88) whose lead memorably described Shepard as having been "tied to a wooden ranch fence like a scarecrow" -- marking the first time an anti-gay attack received extensive and sympathetic coverage.
His orientation aside, Shepard's story had many of the elements that commercial media look for in a crime story: a young, good-looking white victim with a dramatic death (whose crucifixion imagery added poignancy). [. . .]
so what's changed? are the victims not seen as sympathetic? if that's the answer, are they seen as less sympathetic because of the direction the bully boy has led the nation in? three men were assaulted in a club for no other reason except that they were gay. where's the press outrage? why the desire to look the other way?
2/14/2006
thoughts on taking time
poor elaine and mike. i've heard from both of them, screaming on the phone, wondering 'what is going on!' they're both trying to post quickly and get out the door because it's valentine's day and they have plans. well c.i. noted this morning that blogger/blogspot was acting up. mike's getting the same screen c.i. got when the 2nd post was lost and elaine's trapped in forever publishing. so hopefully mike will be able to recover his post. with elaine? c.i. was trapped in publishing for a 1/2 hour this morning on an entry that never did publish.
for readers who don't blog, let me explain. if you're reading this at my site, it's published. when i'm writing it, i'm in a fairly small square. after a few paragraphs, i can't even see what i've already written. but when i'm done with my post i have 2 options:
1) save as draft
2) publish post
if i'm ready to publish, i click on publish post.
'that's pretty easy' you say.
no, it isn't. and fyi, i just got an error message at the bottom of the screen telling me i wasn't connected to blogger. so after i click on publish, i'm not done. i have to then republish index and republish blog. those are 2 options. the 1st 1 goes quick. the 2nd 1 can take a bit longer. (if you have almost 3,000 posts as c.i. does, it can take 20 minutes or more.) i could probably get away with just doing the 1st 1 (republish index) because technorati has never read my tags. but for mike and c.i., they have to republish blog to be read by technorati.
elaine just called again. she's still stuck in 'republish blog' it's never taken her more than 4 minutes before. i told her to turn the computer off and get her ass out the door. technorati doesn't read her site either. (they also don't reply to her e-mails despite twice sending out an automated message that they'd be contacting her in X number of business days. the 1st time she wrote them was in october. i'm having a hard time believing that they still haven't found time to reply and elaine writes nice e-mails unlike me.)
so there's the error message again. is this happening to everyone on blogger/blogspot or just sites in this community? i don't know. we had huge problems at 3rd estate sunday review in the early hours of the morning and had to call the uk computer gurus in and let them log into the account to see what was going on. they fixed something, not in the account but in the connection to the internet, that's supposed to have made it more secure to log in.
so it's v-day. i'm waiting on fly boy. he'll be late and i know that because he said he would when we made our plans saturday. my gift came mid-day. 4 people he hired to sing some selections from hair to me. i thought that was the nicest gift in the world. (i really do love that musical.)
i just sat on the front porch and enjoyed it.
last valentine's day i didn't have a 'date' and i had fun none the less. so if you don't have a date and you're feeling sorry for yourself, stop it. call up some friends. invite them over or go out. or maybe take some time for yourself. just enjoy some time alone. (c.i.'s got work stuff tonight but i bet if you asked the reply would be 'time alone would be the best gift in the world.')
oh gina called today about the entry c.i. did. she said, this will make members laugh, 'i have been wrong for over a year. c.i. is not oprah, c.i. is jeff probst." i had read the entry and that made me laugh so hard. you probably have to have watched survivor at least once.
c.i.'s writing about a really lame article (that everyone's seen repeatedly but for some reason the nation felt the need to pay the guy to write it 1 more time - i bet it would have been cheaper to have purchased the right to republish 1 of his older pieces) and it's because members were complaining about it. c.i. had some stuff that was important to the community and wasn't able to highlight it in the morning entries (did highlight it in the 2nd 1 but the whole post got lost). so the plan was to highlight it in the mid-day entry.
didn't happen. 43 e-mails had come in that morning about maxy holland's article in the nation. according to ava, the e-mails continued to come in until that entry went up. she's guessing it was 300. that's not even 10% of the community but if members are complaining, c.i. has to write something. so it has a very, the entry, 'the tribe has spoken' quality to it.
that's why gina's joke was so funny.
but, as gina pointed out, there were things planned for that entry. c.i. noted it in the 2nd entry of the morning. that all got scrapped due to the e-mails.
i never have to do that. i'm serving a community. i just write what i want and figure if people like it, cool. if they don't, no problem. that's not slapping c.i. down in any way. but it is noting that c.i. long ago had to become a spokesperson. there's more freedom at the third estate sunday review (for c.i.) but at the common ills, it's always about the community.
the 1 entry c.i. was sure would be written (we're going back to the end of november in 2004) was on privatizing water because c.i. is opposed to that (that's an understatement) and it's an important issue. it's not 1 that there's been time to write. because c.i.'s always writing about the issues that the community wants. i'm not knocking c.i. or the community but i am noting that i don't have that sort of responsibility. (or that mass love. the community loves c.i. they trust c.i. as well. and that comes from serving the needs of the community.)
it's an obligation. i'm sure there are many wonderful things that come with it, but don't kid that it also is an obligation.
i don't want to poke a bear here but the attack on c.i. last year was based on c.i. serving the community. the 2 people who were angry never seemed to get that c.i. was apologizing to the community for sending them, without a heads up, to a site that had features that members don't approve of. so c.i. writes that apology and makes sure not to attack either of the 2 but they seemed to think that they had a right to butt in on what was community business.
i personally think c.i. ate shit on that. both on apologizing to the community and from the response of the 2.
i'm not slamming c.i., i'm not slamming the community and i'm not even slamming the 2. i'm just making the obvious observation that the entry was written clearly to the community, the apology offered in that (by c.i.) was clearly to the community. it wasn't any 1 else business unless they were a community member (i am a community member).
i should note that these are my opinions so c.i. doesn't read this or hear about it and get pissed.
c.i. doesn't talk about. i know the whole thing was frustrating and a nightmare. but the way i see it, it was the business of the community only. no outsiders needed to butt in.
things were written about the community at those 2 sites which, c.i. would argue, is the business of those 2 people because it's their sites. but the thing i won't get over is that 1 of them felt the need to call c.i. a 'liar' for not posting something by that person. 1st off, you have your own site. it's not c.i.'s obligation to post anything by a non-member at the common ills. 2nd of all, i saw the e-mails, the person never asked for it to be posted. there were 2 e-mails in 1 night and there was no request in those 2 of 'please post this.'
it's not c.i.'s job to write a post you want. and this was in the middle of c.i.'s health crisis (knock wood because now things seem fine). but the thing is, that entry that so enraged was not anyone outside the community's business.
i say all that to make the point that most people outside the community don't get the common ills. they don't get what it's about. they'll say it's a 'blog.' it's not. i have a blog. i write what i want when i want. i don't have to do multiple entries each day. i don't have to figure out a way to address an issue that i may have no interest in.
c.i. thought it would be a blog. but that changed because readers weren't readers. they were saying, 'hey this is my issue and no 1 writes about it' or something similar. c.i. was opposed to the war, loudly and clearly, before it changed. the 1st real day of posting at the common ills was when the slaughter in falluja was starting and c.i. had posted 'here comes the madmen' so that was a known. any 1 who joined the community knew the site was going to be opposed to the war. and that's the reason a lot of members joined up to begin with because after the 2004 election, few people wanted to talk about the war.
if they did, on the left, they were often making weak ass statements about how we had to stay in or some such nonsense. they couldn't talk straight then. some of then couldn't a year later.
and that's partly why members expect c.i. to speak for the community. the common ills is always the voice when you've got some others being silent.
but there's not an entry that's gone up in the last month and a 1/2 that i think c.i.'s written for c.i. it's an obligation. c.i. would call it an honor but i would call it an obligation. c.i's a poster child for a movement and can live with that because c.i.'s always been outer-directed. but in july when c.i. announced the common ills would end after the 2008 election, a lot of us were shocked. i was shocked for about 3 minutes and then i thought, 'of course it will.' it's too much work. the e-mails flood the inboxes of both the private account and the public 1.
i told ava when we were talking on the phone today that if it were me, i'd be pulling my hair out and screaming 'what do you people want from me!' but that c.i.'s always been able to handle that kind of pressure. but i wasn't raised to believe that i had obligations. c.i. was raised with that instilled. obligations to others on every level.
the 1st time my mother met c.i., they spoke for 3 hours. afterwards, she said c.i. was 1 of the nicest and most polite people she'd ever met but she hadn't learned a thing about c.i. there's the privacy issue, to be sure, but there's also the fact that c.i. wasn't raised to talk about c.i. there were important topics and talking about yourself wasn't considered 1 of them.
so c.i. can handle this but if it were me, i would've gone crazy a long time ago. and i would have for sure have posted 'i am taking a day off!' each and every day since it began in november of 2004, there's been a post (there have been several actually). now sometimes, due to travel, c.i. can't get to the computer so there will be posts dictated but that's really not time off.
now maybe you're reading this and thinking 'that describes me.' if it does, take time for yourself tonight. if you're alone, think, 'thank god i'm alone' and enjoy the time to do what you want. without guilt.
and that seems like an ending note. i want to repeat i wasn't slamming c.i. (or any 1 else) in this post. c.i. can handle it and juggle a million and 1 things. i can't. i don't think most people could. if you can, i'm not slamming you. you have a great gift and we're all the better for it.
hopefully, you won't push yourself to the point of being burnt out. that's not a veiled warning to c.i. there's no burn out there. give c.i. 5 minutes of quiet and it's time to get going again. recently, on a dicated entry, c.i. quoted stevie nicks. the song 'alice.' about 'get some ribbons and some bows and get back out on the road again.' i couldn't do that. if you can, i'm not envious of you but i am thankful that people like you exist. you do the heavy lifting for the rest of us when we're tired and worn out. so if i've described you, and this was the point of this post, you may be alone tonight because you're always doing for others and tonight's a night where ever 1 plays noah's arc and joins up in 2 by 2s. so if you are like that and you are alone, you have done enough. (that's a reference to stevie nicks' 'jane.') so just kick back and relax for the evening.
(and no, that's not a hint to c.i. either. c.i.'s booked solid for this evening.)
for readers who don't blog, let me explain. if you're reading this at my site, it's published. when i'm writing it, i'm in a fairly small square. after a few paragraphs, i can't even see what i've already written. but when i'm done with my post i have 2 options:
1) save as draft
2) publish post
if i'm ready to publish, i click on publish post.
'that's pretty easy' you say.
no, it isn't. and fyi, i just got an error message at the bottom of the screen telling me i wasn't connected to blogger. so after i click on publish, i'm not done. i have to then republish index and republish blog. those are 2 options. the 1st 1 goes quick. the 2nd 1 can take a bit longer. (if you have almost 3,000 posts as c.i. does, it can take 20 minutes or more.) i could probably get away with just doing the 1st 1 (republish index) because technorati has never read my tags. but for mike and c.i., they have to republish blog to be read by technorati.
elaine just called again. she's still stuck in 'republish blog' it's never taken her more than 4 minutes before. i told her to turn the computer off and get her ass out the door. technorati doesn't read her site either. (they also don't reply to her e-mails despite twice sending out an automated message that they'd be contacting her in X number of business days. the 1st time she wrote them was in october. i'm having a hard time believing that they still haven't found time to reply and elaine writes nice e-mails unlike me.)
so there's the error message again. is this happening to everyone on blogger/blogspot or just sites in this community? i don't know. we had huge problems at 3rd estate sunday review in the early hours of the morning and had to call the uk computer gurus in and let them log into the account to see what was going on. they fixed something, not in the account but in the connection to the internet, that's supposed to have made it more secure to log in.
so it's v-day. i'm waiting on fly boy. he'll be late and i know that because he said he would when we made our plans saturday. my gift came mid-day. 4 people he hired to sing some selections from hair to me. i thought that was the nicest gift in the world. (i really do love that musical.)
i just sat on the front porch and enjoyed it.
last valentine's day i didn't have a 'date' and i had fun none the less. so if you don't have a date and you're feeling sorry for yourself, stop it. call up some friends. invite them over or go out. or maybe take some time for yourself. just enjoy some time alone. (c.i.'s got work stuff tonight but i bet if you asked the reply would be 'time alone would be the best gift in the world.')
oh gina called today about the entry c.i. did. she said, this will make members laugh, 'i have been wrong for over a year. c.i. is not oprah, c.i. is jeff probst." i had read the entry and that made me laugh so hard. you probably have to have watched survivor at least once.
c.i.'s writing about a really lame article (that everyone's seen repeatedly but for some reason the nation felt the need to pay the guy to write it 1 more time - i bet it would have been cheaper to have purchased the right to republish 1 of his older pieces) and it's because members were complaining about it. c.i. had some stuff that was important to the community and wasn't able to highlight it in the morning entries (did highlight it in the 2nd 1 but the whole post got lost). so the plan was to highlight it in the mid-day entry.
didn't happen. 43 e-mails had come in that morning about maxy holland's article in the nation. according to ava, the e-mails continued to come in until that entry went up. she's guessing it was 300. that's not even 10% of the community but if members are complaining, c.i. has to write something. so it has a very, the entry, 'the tribe has spoken' quality to it.
that's why gina's joke was so funny.
but, as gina pointed out, there were things planned for that entry. c.i. noted it in the 2nd entry of the morning. that all got scrapped due to the e-mails.
i never have to do that. i'm serving a community. i just write what i want and figure if people like it, cool. if they don't, no problem. that's not slapping c.i. down in any way. but it is noting that c.i. long ago had to become a spokesperson. there's more freedom at the third estate sunday review (for c.i.) but at the common ills, it's always about the community.
the 1 entry c.i. was sure would be written (we're going back to the end of november in 2004) was on privatizing water because c.i. is opposed to that (that's an understatement) and it's an important issue. it's not 1 that there's been time to write. because c.i.'s always writing about the issues that the community wants. i'm not knocking c.i. or the community but i am noting that i don't have that sort of responsibility. (or that mass love. the community loves c.i. they trust c.i. as well. and that comes from serving the needs of the community.)
it's an obligation. i'm sure there are many wonderful things that come with it, but don't kid that it also is an obligation.
i don't want to poke a bear here but the attack on c.i. last year was based on c.i. serving the community. the 2 people who were angry never seemed to get that c.i. was apologizing to the community for sending them, without a heads up, to a site that had features that members don't approve of. so c.i. writes that apology and makes sure not to attack either of the 2 but they seemed to think that they had a right to butt in on what was community business.
i personally think c.i. ate shit on that. both on apologizing to the community and from the response of the 2.
i'm not slamming c.i., i'm not slamming the community and i'm not even slamming the 2. i'm just making the obvious observation that the entry was written clearly to the community, the apology offered in that (by c.i.) was clearly to the community. it wasn't any 1 else business unless they were a community member (i am a community member).
i should note that these are my opinions so c.i. doesn't read this or hear about it and get pissed.
c.i. doesn't talk about. i know the whole thing was frustrating and a nightmare. but the way i see it, it was the business of the community only. no outsiders needed to butt in.
things were written about the community at those 2 sites which, c.i. would argue, is the business of those 2 people because it's their sites. but the thing i won't get over is that 1 of them felt the need to call c.i. a 'liar' for not posting something by that person. 1st off, you have your own site. it's not c.i.'s obligation to post anything by a non-member at the common ills. 2nd of all, i saw the e-mails, the person never asked for it to be posted. there were 2 e-mails in 1 night and there was no request in those 2 of 'please post this.'
it's not c.i.'s job to write a post you want. and this was in the middle of c.i.'s health crisis (knock wood because now things seem fine). but the thing is, that entry that so enraged was not anyone outside the community's business.
i say all that to make the point that most people outside the community don't get the common ills. they don't get what it's about. they'll say it's a 'blog.' it's not. i have a blog. i write what i want when i want. i don't have to do multiple entries each day. i don't have to figure out a way to address an issue that i may have no interest in.
c.i. thought it would be a blog. but that changed because readers weren't readers. they were saying, 'hey this is my issue and no 1 writes about it' or something similar. c.i. was opposed to the war, loudly and clearly, before it changed. the 1st real day of posting at the common ills was when the slaughter in falluja was starting and c.i. had posted 'here comes the madmen' so that was a known. any 1 who joined the community knew the site was going to be opposed to the war. and that's the reason a lot of members joined up to begin with because after the 2004 election, few people wanted to talk about the war.
if they did, on the left, they were often making weak ass statements about how we had to stay in or some such nonsense. they couldn't talk straight then. some of then couldn't a year later.
and that's partly why members expect c.i. to speak for the community. the common ills is always the voice when you've got some others being silent.
but there's not an entry that's gone up in the last month and a 1/2 that i think c.i.'s written for c.i. it's an obligation. c.i. would call it an honor but i would call it an obligation. c.i's a poster child for a movement and can live with that because c.i.'s always been outer-directed. but in july when c.i. announced the common ills would end after the 2008 election, a lot of us were shocked. i was shocked for about 3 minutes and then i thought, 'of course it will.' it's too much work. the e-mails flood the inboxes of both the private account and the public 1.
i told ava when we were talking on the phone today that if it were me, i'd be pulling my hair out and screaming 'what do you people want from me!' but that c.i.'s always been able to handle that kind of pressure. but i wasn't raised to believe that i had obligations. c.i. was raised with that instilled. obligations to others on every level.
the 1st time my mother met c.i., they spoke for 3 hours. afterwards, she said c.i. was 1 of the nicest and most polite people she'd ever met but she hadn't learned a thing about c.i. there's the privacy issue, to be sure, but there's also the fact that c.i. wasn't raised to talk about c.i. there were important topics and talking about yourself wasn't considered 1 of them.
so c.i. can handle this but if it were me, i would've gone crazy a long time ago. and i would have for sure have posted 'i am taking a day off!' each and every day since it began in november of 2004, there's been a post (there have been several actually). now sometimes, due to travel, c.i. can't get to the computer so there will be posts dictated but that's really not time off.
now maybe you're reading this and thinking 'that describes me.' if it does, take time for yourself tonight. if you're alone, think, 'thank god i'm alone' and enjoy the time to do what you want. without guilt.
and that seems like an ending note. i want to repeat i wasn't slamming c.i. (or any 1 else) in this post. c.i. can handle it and juggle a million and 1 things. i can't. i don't think most people could. if you can, i'm not slamming you. you have a great gift and we're all the better for it.
hopefully, you won't push yourself to the point of being burnt out. that's not a veiled warning to c.i. there's no burn out there. give c.i. 5 minutes of quiet and it's time to get going again. recently, on a dicated entry, c.i. quoted stevie nicks. the song 'alice.' about 'get some ribbons and some bows and get back out on the road again.' i couldn't do that. if you can, i'm not envious of you but i am thankful that people like you exist. you do the heavy lifting for the rest of us when we're tired and worn out. so if i've described you, and this was the point of this post, you may be alone tonight because you're always doing for others and tonight's a night where ever 1 plays noah's arc and joins up in 2 by 2s. so if you are like that and you are alone, you have done enough. (that's a reference to stevie nicks' 'jane.') so just kick back and relax for the evening.
(and no, that's not a hint to c.i. either. c.i.'s booked solid for this evening.)
2/13/2006
isaiah on signging statements, alice walker and more
i love all of isaiah's the world today jut nuts but this one, from sunday, really made me laugh. hey, where's cokie roberts on signing statements? or lying us into war? remember her (as c.i. calls it) 'clutch the pearls journalism' as she went on and on about how bill clinton's lying about a blow job, 'as a mother', was just a shock to the nation's children and what kind of an example was he setting for children? so when i saw isaiah's latest, i was laughing my ass off. and, fyi, what a hotty daddy. truly, he's a hunk. even with that retro mustache.
if you're in the dark, when bully boy signed the overly applaueded mccain-bill-anti-torture-act, he also signed a statement that said 'we'll do what we want' basically. he'll follow that law of the land if he wants and if he doesn't want to, he won't.
it's a funny comic. and it's monday which is always a drag so let's have a good laugh.
and thank you for the e-mails. everyone wrote 'no, i get what you're saying.' i think what happened was that everyone was willing to 'add water.' but thank you.
back to the laughter, need more? check out wally's "THIS JUST IN! DICK CHENEY HAS A FISHING MISHAP!" i bring that up because sherry wondered why i and others hadn't been noting isaiah's last two comics (prior to the 1 above)?
we were all in disbelief that, given the chance to stand, democrats chose to collectively cave on the alito nomination. then coretta scott king passed away. it was a lot to deal with. and wally took it especially hard. really hard. and there was a feeling that he might stop blogging. c.i. told all of us to back off and give him space (good advice and we followed it) so he could sort things out. 1 thing he always did was note isaiah's comics and none of us wanted to risk posting 1 when he might be thinking 'okay, if nothing else i can post isaiah's comic'. we didn't want to risk stepping on his toes or him thinking 'well rebecca's already posted it so . . .'
wally took a week off and really was ready to go back to blogging on the 5th day but that ended up being the day he phoned c.i. and c.i. said 'kat and i are going to d.c., want to come?' so it got postponed, resuming blogging, until the monday after. at which point, he was still in d.c. and got to see some of the gonzales hearing on the bully boy's warrantless spying on americans. that, and a number of other things, led him to his return post with the dateline of 'd.c.' and the 'bully boy press' tag. (c.i. was pointing out the reporters running to 1 another asking 'what's the lead!' of each other which wally found pretty disgusting to witness.) that's what he's doing now, the bully boy press, at the daily jot but, as c.i. cautioned, that's what he's doing now. he may go with something else tomorrow, next week or next month.
enjoy it while we've got it and, trust me, cheney's latest mishap (wally's created the mishap, it didn't happen) is funny so read it.
here's another thing that's funny and worth reading, "Cowardly Journalism Review (Parody)" as karen would say on will & grace, it's funny because it's true. what sort of watchdog never barks while the house is being robbed? think of the house as our country and you'll see that it's cjr.
as noted in "A Note to Our Readers" ava and c.i. both objected to many features when they were proposed but then got into the swing of things. c.i.'s contributions on this were factual but they were also funny. when we thought something was funny and were all laughing, c.i. would either say (or jess or ava or 2 of them or 3 of them) 'uh-huh, but say it this way' or 'uh-huh, but add this' and then after we did and read back over it, we'd be laughing even harder.
this may end up being nothing but recommendations, but did you watch democracy now today?
if not, please check out:
"I am a Renegade, an Outlaw, a Pagan" - Author, Poet and Activist Alice Walker in Her Own Words
February is African-American History Month. To honor it, we bring you a conversation with the renowned author, poet and activist Alice Walker. She is perhaps best known for her book "The Color Purple" for which she won the Pulitzer Prize in 1983, becoming the first African-American woman to win the Pulitzer for fiction. The novel was adapted into an Oscar-nominated feature length film and has been recently made into a Broadway musical. Alice Walker's latest novel is "Now is the Time to Open Your Heart."
Last month, 1,000 people gathered in the First Congregational Church in Oakland to celebrate the 30th anniversary of Media Alliance. We spend the hour playing Amy Goodman's onstage interview with Alice Walker. [includes rush transcript - partial]
alice walker's a favorite writer of mine. that said, most of you are aware that i sat on reading possessing the secret of joy. c.i. gave me that in hardcover for christmas the year it came out. i did mean to read it, i just never got around to it until the end of last year. it's a great book. i think my favorite walker book, however, (after the color of purple, it's everyone's favorite) was her latest novel now is the time to open your heart. that's about the search for peace and justice and what does it mean. the main character learns early on that it doesn't mean doing yoga in nice environment. and that it doesn't mean denying a range of emotions. i really love that book and bet you will too.
also note robert parry's "Why U.S. Intelligence Failed, Redux:"
Some key officials in George W. Bush's administration -- from former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz to Vice President Dick Cheney -- have long been part of this trend toward seeing intelligence as an ideological weapon, rather than a way to inform a full debate. Other figures in Bush's circle of advisers, including his father, the former president and CIA director, have played perhaps even more central roles in this transformation. [More on this below. Also see Robert Parry's Secrecy & Privilege.]
For his part, the younger George Bush has shown little but disdain for any information that puts his policies or "gut" judgments in a negative light. In that sense, Bush's thin skin toward contradiction can’t be separated from the White House campaign, beginning in July 2003, to discredit retired Ambassador Joseph Wilson for publicly debunking the Bush administration's claim that Iraq had tried to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger. That retaliation included the exposure of Wilson's wife as an undercover CIA officer.
Dating Back to Watergate
Though one cost of corrupting U.S. intelligence can now be counted in the growing U.S. death toll in Iraq, the origins of the current problem can be traced back to the mid-1970s, when conservatives were engaged in fierce rear-guard defenses after the twin debacles of the Vietnam War and Watergate. In 1974, after Republican President Richard Nixon was driven from office over the Watergate political-spying scandal, the Republicans suffered heavy losses in congressional races. The next year, the U.S. -backed government in South Vietnam fell.
At this crucial juncture, a group of influential conservatives coalesced around a strategy of accusing the CIA's analytical division of growing soft on communism. These conservatives -- led by the likes of Richard Pipes, Paul Nitze, William Van Cleave, Max Kampelman, Eugene Rostow, Elmo Zumwalt and Richard Allen -- claimed that the CIA's Soviet analysts were ignoring Moscow’s aggressive strategy for world domination. This political assault put in play one of the CIA's founding principles -- objective analysis.
secrecy & privilege is a great book. all of robert parry's books are worth reading. he's probably my favorite author. in the article above, he's walking you through how intel was fixed.
last week, i did a dream entry about a dream (nightmare) i'd had and i've received a number of e-mails asking for more like that. the problem is that i usually don't remember my names. but i spoke to kat and she recommended a herbal mixture you drink as a tea so i'm headed to the health store tomorrow and hopefully that will help. but remember that the dream was inspired by reading joan mellen's a farewell to justice. that book is a must read but it's a frightening read so i'll repeat what i said before: read in broad daylight. but read it. if you're thinking, 'what's the point?' let me note 1 more time mellen's article "HOW THE FAILURE TO IDENTIFY, PROSECUTE AND CONVICT PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S ASSASSINS HAS LED TO TODAY'S CRISIS OF DEMOCRACY." if you're on the fence about reading a farewell to justice, read the article and see if it doesn't make you want to pick up the book.
last recommendation, i swear, c.i.'s "NYT: "Republicans on Hill Add Voice To Dissent Over Eavesdropping" (Sheryl Gay Stolberg)" which addresses more topics than can be named in a brief sentence. just read it.
dick cheney
the third estate sunday review
the common ills
the daily jot
robert parry
a farewell to justice
joan mellen
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)