stop depending on corporate media (and those who schill for it)

i told cedric to blog and then i would. we both agreed to put off blogging last night so that we could take part in a thing common ills community member polly was doing. we were glad to take part but we both thought we'd have time to blog early today. that didn't happen.

i'm not complaining.

please, we're in holding pattern on The Third Estate Sunday Review because c.i.'s at a rally. this is the 3rd location c.i.'s been in today. i won't dare whine about being tired with that example in my face.

we've got two ideas for stories for the third estate sunday review and dona's asking that we try to think of at least 1 short entry. everyone's exhausted from speaking out today. i hope you are too. it's a good kind of exhaustion but it's also true that people need their rest and, as dona pointed out, we may not get any tonight.

tomorrow night, sunday night, on RadioNation with Laura Flanders christian parenti will be one of the guests so be sure to listen. he's smart, he's sexy, he's parenti. don't miss him.

cedric's written 'About the fighters: Russ Feingold, Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez' and you should check it out. those are fighters. they put the rest of us to shame.

"New York Times Chief Military Correspondent Michael Gordon Defends Pre-War Reporting on WMDs" is what you need to check out. amy and juan don't take any crap from michael gordon and all michael gordon has to offer is crap.

and read c.i.'s "NYT: Can't own up to mistakes, be it the paper or Michael Gordon" which outlines just how full of crap michael gordon and his paper are. fly boy and i were reading that this morning. fly boy said, 'c.i.'s really not in the mood for crap these days.' no.

i think it has to do with seeing so much nonsense around us. so many people acting like a war isn't going on. acting like people aren't dying. and you've got supposed left of center people who are still talking the b.s. of 'stay the course.'

i wonder about some blogs who whine that they don't get attention but all they do is repeat the talking points from the dnc. if they missed it, established democrats aren't real popular right now. russ feingold is popular. the spineless cowards? not.

but, and you know who they are, you see a lot of idiots rushing in to shore up weak ass policies and statements. like the flag waver who didn't know a thing about cindy sheehan but that didn't prevent her from writing about it. has any 1 ever been more stupid than that woman who, in the midst of camp casey, wrote that cindy sheehan wasn't for bringing the troops home?

it's ignorance. it's because you've got people who just tell you what the democratic party says and turn to mainstream media for their news. they rely on mainstream media. you never see them mention democracy now. now maybe if the idiot had watched democracy now she would have known who cindy sheehan was before camp casey and she would have known that cindy sheehan is for and has been for bringing the troops home now.

so you get those idiots and you wonder why the country is in the state it is?

take the dope who, in january of 2005, hectors c.i. about how james dobson needs to be respected and listened to. now if that was a right-wing site, no problem. but that fool, a man this time, thought he was left-of-center if not left.

that was just nonsense.

people like that should have to eat their damn words. they are so uninformed and they go and blog about something they know nothing about. whether it's james dobson or cindy sheehan or promoting the hideous t.d. jakes.

know something about what you're talking about.

or how about the fool claiming 'free speech' allows recruiters on campus. no, it doesn't. free speech isn't for the federal government. the federal government did not need a bill of rights. that's not why it was created.

and it's these voices that have pissed off so many.

we're tired of the uninformed still saying 'stay the course.' maybe, because their posts are archived, they can't pretend like they haven't been preaching that all this time?

you can put all the flags up on your site that you want, if you want this war, get your ass over there and serve. quit hiding behind the flag and quit trying to pretend your left.

you're nothing but a dlc dem.

1 of the idiots, the man, wrote something like 'simon rosenberg is making sense' or some such nonsense. c.i. asked him, 'are you for the war?' this was back in 2004 or 2005. no, he said, he was opposed to the war. then why didn't he know that simon rosenberg was for the war before the war and during the war?

i mean, come on people, use your brains. try reading.

they think because they went to the popular click of the day they're informed. they know the 'big story' of the day, as reported by mainstream media, but because they don't buy a paper or magazine, that's all the know.

you need to quit relying on the mainstream media that's failed this country repeatedly.

and little wimps who want to say 'i can't speak out on the war' need to just shut up then. seriously. there's one 'online mag' (you know which 1) that thought it was okay to go to town on bright eyes and kat. they can't speak out against the war, this online mag, but they can slam people who do (while they promote the new republic). that's nonsense.

seriously, it's useless, it's just wasting every 1's time.

of the little fool who thought she was funny trashing ms. magazine. well, if you can't read, maybe all you can do is blog about a cover photograph. (and even that you can't comprehend.)

we're sick of them and their nonsense.

we're sick of a supreme court judge retiring and a supposed feminist blogging about her dopey vacation instead of the retirement. (repeatedly. for days and days and days.)

the bully boy is destroying the constitution, we've got 2 wars (afganistan and iraq) and bully boy wants a 3rd, reproductive rights are under attack, gays and lesbians are under attack and there's just a feeling of 'i'm not in the mood for the nonsense.'

i get e-mails complaining about that. people wondering why it's so hard for some 1 who sets up a blog to declare a position on the war, for instance? i have no idea. i have no idea why some 1 would go to the trouble of setting up a blog to share their thoughts and have no thought to share on the illegal occupation.

i think a lot of people have made themselves useless.

and unless we want 3 more years of this war (or more than that), we need to use our voices. online or offline, we need to use our voices. we need to talk about the war. about the wars overseas and the wars at home. and if we're not doing that, if we're busy talking about the latest time cover story because it's the hot link of the day (and a cover story that media matters will demolish shortly - after some of the dopes and dupes have praised it), what good are we to any 1?

so there is a feeling of 'i've had enough.'

if you've had enough, use your voice. and seek out alternative media.

3 years into the war that corporate media sold, it's time to stop depending on the corporate media.


never cheerlead an illegal war

okay, i need some help here. sing with me here, we're going for the melody to dionne warwick's 'i'll never fall in love again.'

what do you get when you cheerlead an illegal war?
bit of reality to burst your bubble.

that's what you get for all your trouble
mara liasson, never cheerlead a war again.

what do you get when you rah-rah-rah?
americans coming home with worse than pneumonia
some of whom can never phone you
chris matthews, never cheerlead a war again
chris matthews, never cheerlead a war again.

don't tell me what's it all about
because you were a fool and people died
from those lies
your lies that bind you
that is why i'm here to remind you.

what do you get when you cheerlead an illegal war?
you only get lies and pain and sorrow
so take a vow for peaceful tomorrows
never cheerlead an illegal war again.
never cheerlead an illegal war again.

the inspiration for the above version of hal davis and burt bacharach's classic is a new item from fair - '"The Final Word Is Hooray!" Remembering the Iraq War's Pollyanna pundits' and here are some of my personal favorites of dupes embarrassing themselves as they got on board for the illegal war:

"Oh, it was breathtaking. I mean I was almost starting to think that we had become inured to everything that we'd seen of this war over the past three weeks; all this sort of saturation. And finally, when we saw that it was such a just true, genuine _expression. It was reminiscent, I think, of the fall of the Berlin Wall. And just sort of that pure emotional _expression, not choreographed, not stage-managed, the way so many things these days seem to be. Really breathtaking." (Washington Post reporter Ceci Connolly, appearing on Fox News Channel on 4/9/03, discussing the pulling down of a Saddam Hussein statue in Baghdad, an event later revealed to have been a U.S. military PSYOPS operation [stunt]--Los Angeles Times, 7/3/04)

"The war winds down, politics heats up.... Picture perfect. Part Spider-Man, part Tom Cruise, part Ronald Reagan. The president seizes the moment on an aircraft carrier in the Pacific." (PBS's Gwen Ifill, 5/2/03, on George W. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech)

"This has been a tough war for commentators on the American left. To hope for defeat meant cheering for Saddam Hussein. To hope for victory meant cheering for President Bush. The toppling of Mr. Hussein, or at least a statue of him, has made their arguments even harder to defend. Liberal writers for ideologically driven magazines like The Nation and for less overtly political ones like The New Yorker did not predict a defeat, but the terrible consequences many warned of have not happened. Now liberal commentators must address the victory at hand and confront an ascendant conservative juggernaut that asserts United States might can set the world right." (New York Times reporter David Carr, 4/16/03)

"Over the next couple of weeks when we find the chemical weapons this guy was amassing, the fact that this war was attacked by the left and so the right was so vindicated, I think, really means that the left is going to have to hang its head for three or four more years." (Fox News Channel's Dick Morris, 4/9/03)

use the link to relive more embarrassing moments of the war cheerleaders.

so how are you protesting the war on the third anniversary of the invasion?

andrea and her best friend hannah are going to read a piece they wrote together to their grandmother's saturday mah jong group. andrea asked her asked her grandmother and she said 'sure.' andrea says she and hannah are really excited and have been practicing their presentation in front of her grandmother who says it's really good.

i'm sure it is and i'm sure if 2 young women, 12 year olds, can find a way to make their voices heard, you can too.

goldie's having her friends over for a sleep over like mindy's doing this week (and like goldie did in september) but this time, before the sleep over, they're going to walk up and down the sidewalks carrying signs. they've already made 'stop the war'; 'bring the troops home'; and 'bush lied people died' and they're working on the other 1s. goldie's mom told her it was fine as long as she made sure the other mothers knew ahead of time so she and mom called the other mother's and everything is okay with it. they're working a cheer to chant right now.

7 high schoolers are attending their 1st protest. some of you who became protest veterans in 2005 are gearing up for the next wave and bringing friends along.

there's a huge group in oregon that's working on sign they'll hang from a bridge over a highway.

we've got 2 different women organizing teach ins with their friends.

so what are the rest of you doing?

if nothing else, you can make a point to talk 1 on 1 to a friend about the war. in my opinion, that's the very least you can do, bare minimum.

check out elaine's "Peace doesn't come about through silence" and wally's "THIS JUST IN! BULLY BOY LAUNCHES OPERATION GET IT UP!" and c.i.'s "NYT: It's only news when Republicans issue statements."

and do something. make your voice heard.


you don't need a pollster to know which way the wind blows

Feingold Criticizes Fellow Dems Bush Measure
Here in the United States, Senator Russ Feingold has lashed out at fellow Democrats for not supporting his measure to censure President Bush for his warrantless domestic spy program. Feingold has failed to attract any co-sponsors. Appearing on Fox News, Feingold said: "I'm amazed at Democrats, cowering with this president's numbers so low. The administration just has to raise the specter of the war and the Democrats run and hide. … Too many Democrats are going to do the same thing they did in 2000 and 2004.… [Democrats shouldn't] cower to the argument, that whatever you do, if you question the administration, you're helping the terrorists."

that's from democracy now. so are we surprised?

the democrats are still running scared. the evan blahs are running the show and the result is every 1 plays duck and cover. scared little turtles afraid to come out of the shells.

they better learn to do something or quit complaining about the results of elections.

2006 is supposed to be a lock, a sure thing.

of course we heard that in 2004 and 2002 as well. remember?

in 2002, it was 'we're going to win! we're going to win! the opposition party always, always, always picks up seats in the mid-terms!' and?

they lost.

in 2004, it was 'people are sick of bully boy so we're going to win!' and?

they're so scared to say a damn thing.

i'm sick of the hillary clintons who want to get their war on. i'm sick of the bean counters who crunch the numbers. i'm sick of james carville most of all.

he really needs to go away.

he and paul begela are cowards and have always been cowards. carville knows how to shout, when he's not stammering, but what's the point when he can't stand up for anything?

could he or the weasel begela stand up for cynthia mckinney? no, they ran with the press lies and slammed her.

that's who they are. if there's a hint of controversy, they run.

and i really do not think 1 of our talking heads should be married to mary matalin. not because she's a republican, not because she wipes the floor with him in their 'cutesy' tv matchups, but because she's involved with cheney.

with all that's happened regarding scooter libby and the outing of valerie plame, with the hunting accident, with every thing, he needs to step away from the limelight.

we have no idea who aided in the lies and who didn't. matalin's a spinner. she's often a liar. if she's part of the lie the people into war, then we don't need her husband speaking for us.

if she was involved in the conspiracy to out valerie plame, do you think she'll get what's coming to her or will she get a pass?

i'm not saying she is involved. i'm saying there are too many serious issues coming out of the vice president's office and someone so close to it should not be the spouse of a democratic talking head. he needs to step away from the limelight.

worst case scenario, he's married to this year's g. gordon liddy. the democratic party doesn't need him speaking for them.

so what do we lose out on?

a few of his bizarre sayings that make tim russert chuckle and make us look like idiots?

that's really all we miss out on.

he's 1 of the triangulators. his whole life is triangulation.

he's not going to step away, even if mary matalin gets frog marched off, so we should wake up to the fact that he's not a political genius.

he can't figure out how to solve a problem and his campaign strategy for bill clinton was nothing but the most simplistic crap that every 1's used since. in bill clinton's 1st campaign, there was betsy wright to balance out carville and wright got the big picture.

carville doesn't. that's why he runs such crappy campaigns and why kerry's campaign was doomed the minute carville and the others hopped on board.

it's all about 'don't make any waves and you'll win.'

this while the other side launches attacks and makes their own waves.

so the candidate floats along while a tidal wave mounts until it's wipe out time.

then there's jimmy carville within 2 weeks telling the press how the candidate failed. the candidate. it's never jimmy carville's fault.

i'm really sick of him and his centrist, b.s. crowd that can't speak honestly because they're too busy polling to figure out what people MIGHT think.

i don't know what's worse, those people are a democratic party inane enough to send out a fund raising e-mail entitled 'russ feingold is a traitor.' after the generic salutation, 'howard dean' tells you that's what the republicans want you to think. (i didn't get an e-mail with that title from republicans, 'howard dean.') then they hit you up for money.

here's some of that e-mail:

That's what Republicans want you to think.
They are so scared of having a legitimate debate about Iraq or national security that they have only one reaction to news of their failures or calls for accountability.
On Monday, Democratic Senator Russ Feingold introduced legislation to censure the President for breaking the law by creating a secret domestic spying program. Agree or disagree with his proposal, as a Senator -- and as an American -- he has the right to speak his mind and express his views without Republican Senators questioning his patriotism.
But that's exactly what happened. This week Republican Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado, in an interview with Fox News radio, said in response to Feingold's action that he has "time and time again [sided] with the terrorists".

they're scared, 'howard'? them? i didn't see any democrats in the senate rushing to defend feingold. so who's scared?

seriously, let's be objective. wayne allard's an idiot. but he's speaking his mind. his inflamatory statement passed his polling group or he side stepped them. where are the democrats?


until they can figure that out, they're stuck in their own mess as sure as we're stuck in iraq.

tomorrow, i'm going to note some things that readers are planning to mark the 3rd annivesary of the invasion but tonight, i'm too pissed off at cowardly democrats. if you need to know about something serious, something the dems won't talk about, go read c.i.'s "NYT: They're calling the current situation in Iraq 'strife'". i read it this morning while drinking my coffee. i had parts of read it to me by t over the phone. (she loves it.) then fly boy came by tonight (not a good night because we had the roundtable for the gina & krista round-robin) and wanted to talk about it and he's still wondering exactly what it takes up to wake up the big media and the democratic party to what's going on in iraq? i have no idea.


what are you doing to be heard?

so the weekend is fastly approaching. have you made your plans for how you're going to make yourself heard on the third anniverary of the invasion of iraq?

now i know i have young readers but i know they are strong readers. you never fail to amaze me with your strength and your convictions. mindy is 13 and is planning a sleep over with her 12 girlfriends. they're all against the war so what she's going to do is try to make sure they all have information on the war. she was wondering if i had any suggestions for dvds she could show? she wants to show at least 2 movies. i wrote her back that if she only shows 1 movie it needs to be danny schechter's weapons of mass deception.

i'm participating in a discussion on that tonight for the gina and krista round-robin. i was out today and there seems to be some problem with my cell phone judging by the number of people complaining to my answering machine here. i did have some messages on my cell phone but i've got a lot of people who called my landline and left a message on answering machine saying they called repeatedly and couldn't get through.

but that's the 1 movie to watch if you're only going to watch 1. i'm sending mindy another movie that's shorter and is about falluja. but i told her that it should be used only after and and only if every 1 is still in the mood for another dvd.

why? because you don't just need to watch, you need to discuss. so if you watch danny schechter's documentary and then discuss it, with every 1 sharing, it will have a huge impact. you shouldn't attempt to load every 1 down with a series of dvds.

if you're not able to attend a rally, then you need to be thinking along those lines. something with information that people will watch (and enjoy) that can prompt a discussion.

we need to all be having a dialogue. (c.i. wrote about how the media refuses to do so last night.)

if you don't use your voice, what good are you?

hey, sounds like a question for the senate democrats, right? if you missed it, they're having a hard time figuring out where they stand regarding russ feingold's call for censure:

"Democrats run and hide" when the administration invokes the war on terrorism, Feingold told reporters.
Feingold introduced censure legislation Monday in the Senate but not a single Democrat has embraced it. Several have said they want to see the results of a Senate Intelligence Committee investigation before supporting any punitive legislation.

isn't that sweet. aren't they so brave?

cedric and i spoke about this today and we can't believe how disgusted we are with the cowards.
he's already shared his thoughts on it so be sure to read that.

right before i started this entry, kat called me about a story she heard on kpfa's evening news tonight. i hadn't heard about it but i looked online and here's a link to an associated press story on the topic. what's going on?

The Bush administration last year quietly rewrote the rules for allowing gays and lesbians to receive national-security clearances, drawing complaints from civil rights activists.
The Bush administration said security clearances cannot be denied "solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the individual." But it removed language saying sexual orientation "may not be used as a basis for or a disqualifying factor in determining a person's eligibility for a security clearance."

are you surprised? you shouldn't be. and lincoln logs who support bully boy (log cabin republicans) and other gay and lesbian people who support him should either admit that they're self-hating or masochistic or both if they can't wake up to the reality that they are not a part of the republican big tent.

that is so disgusting. this was done in december. stephen hadley distributed the changes on dec. 29th. we hear about it now.

guess what else? bully boy has a record. his administration has rejected, said no to, storm disaster loans more than any administration in 15 years. well it's not like any 1 needed them in 2005 or now, right? it's not like we've had any hurricanes in years, right?

he's a loser. he's an embarrassment. he's a war criminal.

which must be why pat roberts has decided to rush through the investigation into the faked intel that bully boy used to lead us into an illegal war.

so are we going to use our voices? we need to. mindy's using her's. all you high schoolers reading, is a 13 year-old about to show you up? (i think she might.)


robert parry & russ feingold

Special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh was so outraged by Sen. Bob Dole's disruption of the Iran-contra criminal cases against senior Reagan-Bush officials that Walsh "briefly considered" adding a chapter to his final report criticizing Dole's tactics. Walsh detailed Dole's strategy for hindering the prosecutions in Firewall, a book scheduled for publication next year. Walsh, a lifelong Republican, released two chapters now to show voters how Dole lobbied President Bush to pardon former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger in 1992. Because of that position, Walsh deemed Dole's recent demands that Clinton eschew pardons for Whitewater defendants a clear case of "Dole's hypocrisy." The two chapters offer other insights as well into how Bush and Dole engineered the Iran-contra end game to minimize political damage to the Republican Party. Their strategy succeeded, in part, because some leading Democrats and influential members of the Washington news media signaled acceptance of the Weinberger pardon.

that's from robert parry's 'lost history: dole nearly cited in iran-contra report' published in 1996 at consortium news. carey e-mailed it to me and asked if i would note it. sunday when the new york times felt the need to offer that there used to be more civility in the congress and 1 moron quoted in the article noted how wonderfully they got along and worked together during iran-contra. that's because the democrats rolled over. it's easy for every 1 to get along when 1 side gets what it wants because the other throws in the towel.

and we're seeing it again. note this from democracy now:

Sen. Feingold to Introduce Resolution to Censure Bush
On Capitol Hill, Democratic Senator Russ Feingold is introducing a resolution today to censure President Bush for deliberately breaking the law by ordering the National Security Agency to conduct domestic surveillance without legally required court warrants. Feingold's resolution also accuses the president of misinforming the public about the program's existence and legality. Feingold announced his plan on Sunday on ABC's This Week. "It's an unusual step. It's a big step, but what the President did by consciously and intentionally violating the constitutional laws of this country with this illegal wiretapping has to be answered," Feingold said. "There can be debate about whether the law should be changed. There can be debate about how best to fight terrorism. We all believe that there should be wiretapping in appropriate cases. But the idea that the President can just make up a law in violation of his oath of office has to be answered." Minutes after Senator Feingold spoke, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist appeared on the same program and said he hoped that the leadership in Iran was not listening because of the terrible signal Feingold's message sent to the world about President Bush.

great, right? dems are getting their act together?

wrong. either they don't know where they stand on censure yet or else they've already come out slamming like the ultimate loser joe lieberman.

as kat noted saturday, i think russ feingold is sexy. he's a fighter who fights for what he believes in. and he's also physically sexy. and don't understimate that when people start competing for the democratic nomination.

hilary? the sure thing? i don't think she's a sure thing.

evan blah? get serious.

the new york times tried to tell us sunday that mark warner stands a chance. no chance in hell.
i called c.i. sunday evening and asked about the cover photo? c.i. had pulled the main section and 'i've already sorted for recycling' but i persisted.

okay, i said, look at the cover of the sunday magazine. tell me who it looks like?

'oh my god!'


he looks like a younger richard nixon.

forget the gaps in his teeth (which are really bad teeth). forget that he hasn't learned that men need to trim their eyebrows.

just the fact that he so closely resembles tricky dick is enough to tank that nomination.

here's 1 more bit of news you should know about. (besides the fact that russ feingold stands a chance at the presidential nomination and mark warner is just going to embarrass himself.) it's from democracy now:

Sen. DeWine To Propose Law Criminalizing Reporting on NSA
Meanwhile Ohio Republican Senator Mike DeWine has proposed legislation that could result in the arrest and jailing of journalists who disclose information about the government's surveillance program. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the bill which could be introduced as soon as this week. Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said "The bill would make it a crime to tell the American people that the president is breaking the law, and the bill could make it a crime for the newspapers to publish that fact."

i don't know why they need a law for this. i mean when the new york times found out about the illegal nsa spying they sat on the story when the bully boy asked them not to run it. they waited over a year before reporting on it.