Some lead, some hide on the sidelines

It's Elaine again. Still with you while Rebecca's on vacation.

Thanks to everyone who's written and thanks to C.I. for forwarding the e-mails. (I don't have Rebecca's password so if you need to write me, please write care of common_ills@yahoo.com and C.I. will forward it to me.)

A few of the e-mails coming in have asked for personal details which I'm really not comfortable doing. But some ask why the posts go up in the evening? That's a valid question. I work during the day and I also help out a local college group. I think Rebecca's noted here that I'm a psychologist so I'm fine putting that out there. That's why you may hear me use words like "clinical." I try to catch that when I can and I try not to turn this into some sort of debate on various strands of therapy.

A lot of the e-mails ask how Rebecca, C.I. and I all met. Actually, I know C.I. from my brother.
I'm not sure if I met Rebecca before C.I. or around the same time. But they were my two closest friends and you know how that goes, you introduce friends to each other and hope they hit it off. They did hit it off but they're much closer these days.

And if you've been in that situation before, you know it can feel a little odd because you go from being the mediator bringing two people together to filling left out. And there have been times when I honestly did feel that way. Rebecca is always on the phone. It's nothing to get three to four calls from her a day. Fortunately, they're quick calls or I'd be on the phone all day too. But once she started blogging, it stopped being her asking me how C.I. was to her telling me how C.I. was. And that was a little weird at first.

I got over it but I really understand it now because, like Rebecca, I'm calling C.I. several times a day and floating ideas. I've also gotten to know Kat and Mike pretty well while I've been subbing. Mike wrote this really supportive e-mail after my first attempt at substituting went up and included his phone number. So we've spoken a great deal and exchanged ideas. With Kat, we've talked about the two albums she's been reviewing and I've asked her for tips on how to say something effectively because I really think she captures each album she reviews in a way that you grasp immediately what the album has to offer or doesn't have to offer.

(And let me link to Mike's favorite post by Rebecca because he was talking about this yesterday and I forgot to do it then.)

And let me thank C.I. Our friendship predates blogging, predates the internet and we're always e-mailing or calling so I didn't think twice about ringing to say, "Okay, I told Rebecca I'd do this but I'm in way over my head."

C.I. and I talked about the "moderates" who condemned Jane Fonda this week. (This was an on the record talk.) It's interesting that they feel they know so much as they trash her for her Christianity or make jokes that maybe Ted Kennedy can drive the bus. All the while claiming not to be Republicans. They're disgusting.

They're too scared (or stupid) to do anything themselves, so they want to trash her. And they somehow missed that she's not doing the tour alone.

They claim she's doing it to promote her book. The book already spent three weeks at number one, "moderates," it's a hit. C.I. pointed out that she could be sitting her butt the way so many others are but instead she's putting herself out there. While whiney little moderates (who link to the Drudge Report, no less) do nothing.

When we were in Boston on election night, or when we were at the inauguration protesting, or when we go around speaking out against the war, C.I. and I do stuff. But these "moderates" stay safe in their own comfort zone.

People are dying and Jane Fonda's putting herself out there to speak out. She knows that the right will attack her. It's interesting to see that the "moderates" will as well. But they need a Fonda to prove how "reasonable" they are.

They're ahistorical idiots. The fright wingers at least have the excuse that they've suckeled so long from the fright wing that they have no idea what reality is. The moderates have only deluded themselves. They have only themselves to blame.

They can't speak out against the war because there's no belief that they won't sell out to appear "moderate." Or maybe they just have no beliefs?

They're disgusting. Clinically, they're something's very self-hating when they claim "Democrat" and link to The Drudge Report. Every link adds to that idiot's visibility. Some even link to the Free Republic.

And they want to question Jane Fonda's motives?

They're fake and they see others as fake because they can only see themselves in others.

Usually, those types are stunted early on in their adolescence. I find it much easier to treat someone suffering from a trauma than to try to reach these types in my practice.

They need a Fonda or a Dixie Chicks or a Susan Sarandon (they need them, really need them, to be women) so that they can say, "See, I'm not one of those lefties!" No, and you're not a righty.
You're just a nothing going through life doing nothing and accomplishing nothing.

While the Fondas, Howard Zinns and others inspire, the "moderates" have about as much to offer the world as Cokie Roberts as they teeter on the fence, never able to committ to anything. It's honestly sad.

"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center)
If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.
Bishop Desmond Tutu

Attacks on Fonda and word from Rebecca

Elaine back with you as substitute blogger while Rebecca is on vacation.

I want to start off by noting that Google, whose politics have been repeatedly questioned, currently features, when you search Jane Fonda in news, a bull's eye target shoot photo of Jane Fonda. I guess I miss the "joke" or how this vile thing is "news." Or why Google feels it's okay to promote it?

It's not okay to promote that. Mike wrote a thing yesterday about how his sister saw one of those trashy shows that junk up the airwaves (this one starring the "I'm reforming!" stooge) called The Insider who felt it was necessary to interview the man who spat on Fonda at a book signing. As Mike rightly asked, would they also interview celebrity stalkers? Would they give those violent kooks a platform? No, but they feel it's okay when it has something to do with Jane Fonda.

On the plus side, it's a testament to how much these war mongers, creeps and losers fear Jane Fonda's upcoming speak out tour that they are crawling out of the woodwork prepared to launch these attacks.

However, that doesn't excuse Google's use of a target photo of Jane Fonda. Note that I said "use." I did not say promote. Google would argue that they are not "promoting" violence against Jane Fonda. They would say they were just displaying "news images." But it isn't a "news image." And they are using it. It has no place popping up in one of their searches.

A great deal was made recently, to give but one example, over their apparent hiding of images of Abu Ghraib; however, encouraging violence towards Jane Fonda is apparently a-okay?

It's not okay and they need to pull that "news" photo from their "news" results.

The idiot who "created" the photo can run it as his site (I'm guessing that it's a "he"). Free speech gives him the right to be as vile as he wants to be. But the image is not "news" and it doesn't belong in a news search done on Google and hopefully Google will address this issue promptly.

Now I'll move on to tell you that I heard from Rebecca today. She phoned a little after noon. She's enjoying herself and and her rest but said to tell everyone she is missing blogging and will be back when she's had enough of her vacation. She says to tell Sherry that she (Sherry) was right, the wrong men wear speedos in real life. She said to tell you that she misses all of you but she needed to get away from all the crap (mainly ex-in-laws shredding an entry she'd worked hard on about her abortion) and needed a rest.

I'll be here until she gets back which, hopefully, will be soon.


"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center)
We must be the change we wish to see.
Mahatma Gandhi

Here come the war mongers

And the blog goes on, and the blog goes on. Elaine back with you while Rebecca's on vacation.
Let's start with something from Democracy Now! today:

Gov't Study Estimate War Cost to Reach $700B
A new government study has found that the total cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will top $700 billion over the next decade. Already $300 billion has been spent. The total cost estimate comes from the Congressional Budget Office. The San Francisco Chronicle reports this would make the combined campaigns the most expensive military effort in the last 60 years. It is estimated that the Vietnam War cost about 600 billion in current dollars. The Korean War cost about 430 billion in current dollars.

There's always money for war, isn't there? People in the world and in our own country go without food and shelter but we can always scrape together the big bucks for war. The administration can screech lies about Social Security having a solvency problem but at the same time they can throw out $300 billion to invade and occupy. These are the priorities of some of our rulers and at a time when Hillary Clinton's making it clear where she stands, you need to be asking yourself if these are your priorities?

Mike has a great post on this today:

I had an e-mail from Kat about how the same day Fonda comes on strong for peace Hillary Clinton's trying to prove . . . Well what is she trying to prove?I never disliked Hillary until that speech she gave yesterday. She's not one of my senators so I didn't pay as close to attention to her as I did to Kerry and Kennedy. But she was our First Lady and I thought she did a pretty good job of that. Yesterday she embarrassed herself. Now maybe she appealed to some cowards and stuff but she came off pretty cowardly to me.

That really is what it's about. Fear. War mongers rattle the swords because they fear. They try to impose out of fear. Throughout history, they've operated from fear. Fear combined with greed as they've defined the other and then attempted to conquer the other.

Now comes Hillary Clinton clearly stepping into the mix. It wasn't a secret to her constiuents who attempted to speak to her about the war. She's brushed them off and ignored them repeatedly. But this was Hillary Clinton on the national stage announcing that she is one with the DLC and, therefore, one with the war mongers.

Clinically, what makes a person respond that way? I'd argue that it has a great deal to do with the attacks on her over the years, attacks that still cotinue but have lessened in their severity as she's associated herself with the likes of Newt Gingrich. She'll never be embraced fully by the right wing, but as she's moderated her stance, she's seen that some on the right have supported her and defended her even when rumor riddled book was released.

When Chris Matthews starts praising her, we'll know her own Scoop Jackson transformation has been complete.

That theory is based upon the belief that she's ever stood for something. For many, left or right, there's the belief that she's never had a core belief she'd stand for and by. That's why she could participate in the attacks on working women and single mothers, known as "welfare reform," while still being hailed as a feminist hero.

Rebecca's made it clear in this space that she has little to no use for Hillary Clinton. As she moves further and further away from the beliefs that her core supporters hold, it will be interesting to see whether they'll continue to justify her actions or whether they'll move away from her.

Among the supporters are people who truly are opposed to many policies that Bill Clinton championed in the nineties. When they justify, you can hear them offer, as C.I. noted this morning, that it would have been worse without Bill Clinton. Which reminds me of a woman in the ER with swollen lips and black eyes arguing that her husband could have also broken an arm but didn't.

There is a dance that Hillary Clinton does and there's a dance that her supporters do and somewhere in the movements, truth goes unheeded which is why questions can't be asked and her supporters will get very angry when they are.

As Hillary Clinton, who's always been one of the team C.I.'s dubbed The Operation Happy Talkers, comes out steadfast in her support of the occupation/invasion, it's important for us to remember what is going on, what actions we are using. I read Jane Mayer's detailed, eleven page article "The Experiment" detailing what's gone on Gitmo, how the techniques were developed and how they migrated to Iraq, most famously with Abu Ghraib. If you haven't read the article, please read C.I.'s summary of it. From the summary:

Concerns are raised regarding "force drift." That's when "interrogators encountering resistance begin to lose the ability to restrain themselves." If you'll think of it in terms of parenting, you'll relate that to the "power struggle." There's also a "seductive" component of these techniques, as an attorney for several prisoners -- Marc Falkoff -- notes. Falkoff asserts that "a mass suicide attempt at Guantanamo, in August 2003, in which two dozens or so detainees tried to hang or strangle themselves, was provoked by Koran mistreatment . . ."
That's a SERE technique. Only on American soil, while "testing" American soldiers, they used a Bible. They might tear pages out of it or kick it around or some other method. But it was developed here with the Bible. (Again, I'm holding my tongue and just attempting to summarize.)
The question is posed (and I'd argue throughout the article) by at least one person in the article of what are we becoming? What does it say about us when we "do things that our enemies do, like using torture?"We'll close out this summary by noting that doctors have participated as "bisquits" (though not all "bisquits" are doctors -- some are p.h.d.s) with the comments of Jonathan Moreno (bioethicist):
Guantanamo is going to haunt us for a long time. The Hippocratic oath is the oldest ethical code we have. We might abandon our morality about other professions. But the medical profession is sort of the last gasp. If we give that up, we've given up our core values.

As a country we're giving up a great deal of what we believe in. Read C.I.'s summary of Jane Mayer's "The Experiment" because The New Yorker hasn't made the article available online. Then use your libraries to find a copy of the issue.

We're not seeing a lot of "leaders" asking that we think about our actions and the consequences that will result from these actions and others. We need to be asking those questions. Real leadership by true leaders would result in opening up a dialogue on this topic. Instead, we see the Operation Happy Talkers and the war hawks like Hillary Clinton whose fear and blood lust require denying reality and speaking out for more deaths.

The easy road is never the moral one or the ethical one which is why so many skip down it. We can follow them or we can insist that a dialgoue on these issues, an honest one, may take place.

"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center)
The first principle of non-violent action is that of non-cooperation with everything humiliating.
Cesar Chavez

Jane Fonda speaking out against war again

Elaine back with you for another day filling in for Rebecca. News that made me happy today included the first item below. (The illustrations above were done by Isaiah and thanks to Isaiah and C.I. for permission to run them here.)

"Fonda to tour in opposition to war in Iraq" (Associated Press)
Actress and activist Jane Fonda says she intends to take a cross-country bus tour to call for an end to U.S. military operations in Iraq.
"I can't go into any detail except to say that it's going to be pretty exciting," she said.
Fonda said her anti-war tour in March will use a bus that runs on "vegetable oil." She will be joined by families of Iraq war veterans and her daughter.



C.I. and I were on the phone about this for about a half-hour this afternoon. The other thing we were discussing was Matthew Rothschild's interview with Carl Webb on The Progressive Radio Show. There are a number of ways you can listen to the interview, just go here where you'll find that "Carl Webb is a US soldier who has gone AWOL. I speak with him about his reasons for this decision, and what may be in store for him as a consequence."

"I" is Matthew Rothschild. Here's my attempt at a transcript. Rothschild asks him about his objection to the war.

Carl Webb explains, "It's overtly political. I do not believe that this country went to war for the excuses that they're putting out in their propaganda, the idea of us exporting democracy or actually defending this country. You know the president has already come out on TV and admitted not that they can't find any weapons of mass destruction but that there aren't any weapons of mass destruction. The links between Iraq and Al Qaeda and 9/11? False. I guess we could still claim that we are trying to export democracy but those were fraudulent elections . . ."

Matthew Rothschild asks him how he sees the war going and Carl Webb replies, "I think it will go very similar to the way Vietnam went. They're going to claim that they have some plan to withdraw and it's just going to escalate and escalate."


Now I'll put The Third Estate Sunday Review editorial in here because Rebecca always does this.

Editorial: The Gang That Couldn't Talk Straight
Jimmy Breslin wrote about The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight. Plauging our nation today is The Gang That Couldn't Talk Straight. Whether it's "privatization" or "tort reform" or "Clean Skies" or "No Child Left Behind" everything's hidden behind a phrase that implies something directly opposite from the actual meaning. (And no, we don't find that "ironic.")We've seen it play out since before the Bully Boy started occuyping the White House. "The votes have been counted and recounted!" (When in fact the majority had never been counted.) So maybe it shouldn't be shocking, for instance, that Bully Boy now says he'll fire whomever outed Plame in his administration only if they're found to have committed a crime.
Unless Bully Boy was seeking to establish a precedent, wasn't that always a given? Is he trying to tell us that's what he meant all along? "You go to prison, I'll fire you." That is where he draws the line?
His concept of integrity baffles the mind. But we're seeing that and a lot worse play out. Over and over, they try to divert and obscure. The gang that couldn't talk straight fails to grasp that conviction or not, Rove and Libby have already done enough that demonstrates they need to go. Enough has also come out that a Congressional investigation is needed to find out who else helped and (just as important) who failed to do anything when news of the impending outing reached the administration (as early as July 7th, 2003, Valerie Plame was outed on January 14th, 2003).
From Watching the Watchers' "Child Abuse at Abu Ghraib" by A! of Watching the Watchers, we learn that:
Data is emerging, no matter how the administration attempts to hide it, that the new photos and video of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison include the torture of children.
Norway's Prime Minister's office says it plans to address the situation with the U.S. "in a very severe and direct way."
Could this mean losing yet another ally in the Iraq occupation? Amnesty International in Norway has said that Norway can no longer continue their occupation of Iraq, or their support of US policy in this matter.
And some countries, as Tom Tomorrow notes, actually listen to their activists.While there isn't even an inkling of this in the US Mainstream media, all over the world people are beginning to read about the US abusing children at Abu Ghraib.
We weren't supposed to worry about that either, remember? Remember Operation Happy Talk of "a few bad apples" and that the photos just showed more of the same as the already released photos? Remember the GOP senators rushing to tell the public that releasing the photos could hurt us as a nation?
So they sat on them, after apparently lying about them, and a surprise only to the administration (which never seems to grasp that eventually the truth will come out), the photos haven't gone away.
Karl Rove and Karen Hughes may have instructed, "Clap your hands if you believe in Bully Boys." If so, not enough people clapped because not enough people believe. Operation Happy Talk goes into motion and at best disguises reality for a few weeks. Truth does come out.And what's coming out is that this administration with all their talk of "integrity" and "honor" has been the least accountable administration in recent history. They've fixed reports. They've lied about PDBs. They've outed a CIA agent. They've tried to cover up abuse that we should have dealt with a long time ago.
If America is hurt by the release of the photos, the Happy Talkers have themselves to blame.
They should have owned up to what was happening when they saw the photos. Instead, they tried to obscure the issue. As if it weren't bad enough that the torture occurred, our administration is now seen as trying to cover it up.That's not the way the United States is supposed to behave.
Make no mistake, Bully Boy and his Bullies Without Borders have had a lot of enablers. Including wishy-washy Democrats who didn't want to speak up or, when they did speak up, wanted to immediately cave, buckle, wimp out in the face of criticism.
The only apologies in the last five years have been coming from Democrats and, frequently, they're apologizing for things that don't require an apology. While the Dems bend over backwards to apologize for words, the administration demonstrates no accountability for its actions.
That needs to stop. The unwarrented apologies from Dems who try to speak the truth and the lack of accountability for the most mismanged administration that any of us can recall.
Congress better start excersizing their oversight because if they don't, accountability may come in the form of votes on election day in 2006. We need a truth movement in this country. Actually, we have it. You saw it on Saturday with people meeting to discuss and raise attention on the Downing Street Memo. As with Valerie Plame, the public's the one pushing for the truth.Hopefully, the mainstream press will also take part. But they haven't driven this.
One person who is asking questions that need to be asked is Robert Parry. From his "Rove-Bush Conspiracy Noose Tightens:"
The second new fact is what Rove did after his conversation with Cooper.
Although supposedly in a rush to leave on vacation, Rove e-mailed Stephen J. Hadley, then Bush's deputy national security adviser (and now national security adviser). According to the Associated Press, Rove's e-mail said he "didn’t take the bait" when Cooper suggested that Wilson’s criticisms had hurt the administration.
While it’s not entirely clear what Rove meant in the e-mail, the significance is that Rove immediately reported to Hadley, an official who was in a position to know classified details about Plame’s job. In other words, the e-mail is evidence that the assault on Wilson was being coordinated at senior White House levels.
Cooper also told the grand jury that his second source on the allegations about the Niger trip and Wilson’s wife was Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a leading neoconservative advocate for invading Iraq. According to Cooper, Libby said on a not-for-attribution basis about Plame, "Yeah, I’ve heard that, too."
See last week's editorial and you'll know why we're glad he's raising it and surprised that everyone else (including Richard W. Stevenson in today's New York Times) isn't also on it.
As the public begins asking what Parry's asking, The Gang That Couldn't Talk Straight is going to find itself in even hotter water. What we've constantly seen is avoidance in the place of accountability. With consistently bad polling results, we like to hope the sheen is finally off the Bully Boy.
Speeches and phrases based upon coded antonyms and the refusal of others in place to hold the administration accountable (the press, the Congress) have resulted in our current state. But at a time when things could seem hopeless, what we're seeing is a public getting active and asking the questions and raising the issues that others won't. That's healthy for democracy. And having grown weary waiting for leadership, the public's now ready to set the agenda and lead on their own.
[This editorial was written by the following: The Third Estate Sunday Review's Ty, Jess, Dona, Jim and Ava, C.I. of The Common Ills, Betty of Thomas Friedman is a Great Man, Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Kat of Kat's Korner and Mike of Mikey Likes It!]

I'm all over the map tonight. But Rebecca's really big on noting the community members with their own sites. She's also very big on David Sirota. He's not Christian Slater or Dahr Jamail, but he is one of her crushes. So I'll do a quote from him before wrapping up.


"How the DLC Reinforces Dishonest Stereotypes" (Sirotablog)
I've written before about how some people who claim to speak for Democrats seem to take pleasure in reinforcing dishonest stereotypes about the Democratic Party. The Democratic Leadership Council is no different - just read the headline of this article. Their whole case is based on the idea that Democrats do not back the military, which is so wildly dishonest it's beyond just a normal lie: it is a knowing lie. Democrats have consistently backed the military where the Republicans have not. That is a hard fact. But that doesn't fit the DLC's goals, which are to undermine the Democratic Party. Instead of working to debunk these right-wing stereotypes, these insulated Beltway snobs seem to only feel relevant if they reinforce the right-wing stereotypes parroted by Fox News and the Republican Party. It just shows that for Democrats who want to win - and not just preserve their status on the Washington cocktail party circuit - the DLC is really part of the problem, not the solution.

"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center)
We need, in every community, a group of angelic troublemakers.
Bayard Rustin

Larceny Charge against Sgt. Kevin Benderman tossed out

Day four of filling in for Rebecca, "Site Held Hostage by Elaine." (Yes, I made a joke or tried to.)
I'll thank Mike again and everyone who's e-mailed (remember send it via common_ills@yahoo.com and it will be forwarded to me). Gina and Krista, you have my thanks as well. The interview was like pulling teeth but you made it as pleasant as anyone could. I'll also thank C.I. who isn't just a strong voice online but also a very close friend of many years.
When Rebecca called me, there was no discussion. It was "here's the password." I objected that I do not know what to do and she insisted I'd be fine and to call C.I. if I had any questions. I do hunt around in the evening and then wait until C.I.'s home and can talk me through this. Rebecca's closing words were, "Thanks Lainie! When I get back, I'll owe you a dinner." Rebecca, if you're reading this, you'll owe me several dinners.

Yesterday, I noted Sgt. Kevin Benderman's court martial and I want to pick up there.

There is a site entitled BednermanDefense.org set up for him. There are things you can do there (including donate to his legal defense). But there's a paragraph that's just been posted:

Friday, July 22, 2005
Initial Hearing on Pre-Trial Motions:
Judge Throws Out Recently Added Larceny Charge Against Kevin
In the first pre-trial motion hearing on Friday, July 22, the judge threw out the prosecution's larceny charges. We will post news stories on this development as soon as they appear.

The larceny charge was a trumped up charge and while I'm glad that the judge realized that and tossed it, the retaliation motive behind the charge means we should continue to pay attention because this may not be over.

I've been highlighting Colman McCarthy this week for a number of reasons. He was a columnist for the Washington Post, he's a peace advocate, he works for peace. And he no longer works for the Washington Post.

"The Satya Interview: Colman McCarthy, Journalist and Educator" (Satya):
Q: How did you depart from the Washington Post?
A: I was informed by my syndicate that my column had only about 28 to 30 clients. It was making money, but not enough. So the Post managing editors took that occasion to say, "Well, we think your column has run its course." I don't mind that. If you work for a corporation, you die by a corporation.
Q: You were always aware that you could be "terminated"?
A: Oh absolutely. The Post is looked on as a liberal paper, which it clearly is not. It's a centrist paper. In fact, there are 1,500 dailies in America, and I defy you to find one liberal paper among them. There are a few pseudo-liberal papers (the Boston Globe, the New York Times, the L.A. Times, Washington Post ) but they're just liberal on the safe liberal issues -- gun control, civil rights, curbing your dog: tough ones like that. But on going after the Pentagon, or the U.S. war machine, going after corporate crime -- they become tepid. Why? Because most of the big dailies are in the Fortune 500. Do you know what the second most expensive stock on the New York Stock exchange is? The Washington Post. It sells for $400 a share. What do the wealthy corporations tend to focus on? Problems of the wealthy.
Q: They look after their shareholders.
A: Sure. So the people coming in to meet with the editorial boards tend to be the trade associations and government and corporate officials. How many editorial boards in America ever go and interview prisoners? How many ever go hang around a soup kitchen? How many invite welfare mothers or welfare fathers in to talk to them? Instead, the boards bring in the Cabinet secretaries who all went to the same schools that we did. How many columnists go into death row? How many columnists go into schoolrooms regularly and teach? It's always funny when you see people leave the media. They always go and get a professorship at a university. How many people go into elementary or high schools?

Interesting but C.I. referred me to "Fresh Voice on Washington Post Editorial Page" by Harry Jaffe (The Washingtonian):

Washington Post executive editor Leonard Downie Jr.’s best personnel move was not appointing Gene Robinson managing editor.
Downie’s decision freed Robinson to write an op-ed column, which he started in February. Judging from reaction by readers and newspapers that have snapped up his essays, Robinson’s column is a raging success, in the newspaper and on its web site.
Already 25 papers have agreed to syndicate his column, including dailies in San Francisco, Atlanta, Denver, and Phoenix.

I assume that they're pushing Robinson since he's only been doing an op-ed for six months. A lot of Harry Jaffe's articles lists Gene Robinson's bonafides and I'm sure he's earned every compliment; however, it does call to question whether syndication was the issue behind dropping Colman McCarthy? We're told, by Harry Jaffe, that Gene Robinson "often leans to the left, filling the liberal landscape vacated by the passing of Mary McGrory."

Often leans left seems hardly promising and as for Mary McGrory . . . I'm sure if she had a say in it today, she wouldn't have wanted to go out with her cheerleading articles for the current war (the one in Iraq, obviously we're still fighting in Afghanistan). I doubt she'd have said, "I think for my last column I want to prove to America that not only was a gas bag who always went along with every bit of conventional wisdom but I was also willing to pimp for Colin Powell's UN presentation." But she did that. That's her legacy. Try to say that to some people and they'll argue that Mary McGrory was a strong voice for the left. Maybe she just "often" leanded "left?"

Perhaps if Colman McCarthy could have leanded left, he'd still be writing columns for the Washington Post? Bob Somerby has been writing this week about how our brave voices were silent during the trashing of Al Gore. He's also noted, at other times, that some were silent.
Mary McGrory was one of the ones who wasn't silent, she assisted with the trashing of Al Gore.

Death seems to have place a shroud of Mary McGrory that prevents people from noting her actual work. A McGrory goes along with the pack and gets applauded and rewarded but a McCarthy is sent packing and yet some still call it "the liberal media."

Mary McGrory is deceased. That's not a pass for the writing she did (or her excuse for her "I'm Convinced" column of war cheerleading). She was a gas bag and when a gas bag moves on to another place, others quickly fill the place. (In fact, I believe they multiply.) If someone believes in something and writes about it like a McCartney, they're shown the door. If someone runs with the pack, like a McGrory, they can continue writing even though they reveal repeatedly that they have little interest in the actual events.

Thanks again to C.I. because I really didn't expect to do any sort of writing here. It's Friday and day four so maybe I'm feeling less shy or buzzed to have completed a week. I can't tell you when Rebecca will be back because when we spoke on the phone early Tuesday morning, she didn't know herself.

While I'm in an actual nonreticent mode, I'll explain that Rebecca and I have been friends for years. She and C.I. are, in fact, my two best friends. I'm the interlocking piece that brought those two together. (Another attempt at a joke.)

I've done some house cleaning on Rebecca's blog roll. Someone's blogging at Folding Star's old sites and it's not Folding Star so I've removed that as well as a blog that has been inactive since May. I've added Susan of Random Thoughts for several reasons. One, Rebecca's always saying "I'll add her" and always forgets. Two, Susan links to Rebecca. Three, Susan's a great voice. Four, C.I. and I spent an hour on the phone discussing Susan's post on two actresses. In addition, I've added Not In Our Name and United for Peace & Justice. As with Susan's link, Rebecca will be glad those went up (and that she didn't have to do the work). Lastly, Cedric is a Common Ills community member (from way back) and he's started blogging at Cedric's Big Mix.
I've added him to Rebecca's blog roll. If you haven't checked out Cedric's writing, please do so. (I loved the Thursday post.)

"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center)
Activism pays the rent on being alive and being here on the planet.
Alice Walker

Sgt. Kevin Benderman

Day three. I want to thank C.I. who is on the phone with me and has been a huge help. I want to thank everyone who's written via common_ills@yahoo.com. I think I've replied to every e-mail. Rebecca didn't give me the password for the e-mail to this site. Mike said some nice words in his post today and thank you for that, Mike.
I've got two things tonight. At the bottom is another peace quote. Before that, I'm posting something in full. I didn't write this and I'm not attempting to claim credit for it. I found it at Not In Our Name which is a great organization.
I'm posting it in full. If I'm asked to take it down, I will do so and put it up in a small excerpt but today is July 21st and, as you will see when you read it, there's not a great deal of time. I'll probably hit on this tomorrow as well.
This is by Monica Benderman and it's entitled "One Soldier’s Fight to Legalize Morality: Army Sgt. and conscientious objector Kevin Benderman to face court martial July 28:"

On July 28, 2005, in a small non-descript courtroom on Ft. Stewart, Georgia, a Courts Martial is scheduled to begin. Again. One Army NCO who decided that he had no choice but to make a conscious choice NOT to return to war is being put on trial for caring about humanity.
This soldier fulfilled his commitment, he kept his promise to his enlisted contract, and when ordered to deploy to Iraq at the start of the invasion, he went, not because he wanted to "kill Iraqis" or "destroy terrorist cells," but because he wanted the soldiers he served with to come home safely. He returned knowing that war is wrong, the most dehumanizing creation of humanity that exists. He saw war destroy civilians, innocent men, women and children. He saw war destroy homes, relationships and a country. He saw this not only in the country that was invaded, but he saw this happening to the invading country as well – and he knew that the only way to save those soldiers was for people to no longer participate in war. Sgt. Kevin Benderman is a Conscientious Objector to war, and the Army is mad.
Sgt. Kevin Benderman, after serving one tour of duty in Iraq, filed for Conscientious Objector status, his Constitutional right. His commander refused to accept his application and one called him a coward. One chaplain was ashamed of his lack of moral fortitude, another, of higher rank, testified to the true sincerity of Sgt. Benderman’s beliefs, in writing. A military intelligence officer decided that he knew matters of the soul better than a man of God, and recommended to deny the CO claim. Five commissioned officers who had never met Sgt. Benderman agreed with the "intelligent officer" and the claim was denied, twice.
More than two weeks after my husband was placed in the Rear Detachment unit here at Ft. Stewart, charges of Missing Movement and Desertion were filed against him, even though he has never missed a single day of duty in almost ten years. At the first Courts Martial proceedings, the investigative hearing was over turned. According to the judge's decision, the presiding officer had shown implied bias toward Sgt. Benderman, and a new hearing was ordered. As the session adjourned, the same command that brought the first charges were marching up the aisle in the courtroom to file a new charge, Larceny, against Sgt. Benderman. The command that brought the charge, had erroneously ordered combat pay to be paid to Sgt. Benderman, along with 7 other soldiers in their unit. Rather than accept their responsibility for the error, these leaders chose to punish Sgt. Benderman for the mistake, and have yet to discipline any of the remaining soldiers for the officers' gaffe.
The new investigating officer strongly recommended dismissing this larceny charge, but the convening authority, Ft. Stewart’s garrison commander, pressed on and filed the charges anyway, along with desertion and missing movement. The Courts Martial is scheduled to begin on July 28. The games began in January.
At the conclusion of the first hearing, I returned to the courtroom briefly for some things I had forgotten. The lights were dimmed, and no one was there. This small dark room, vintage WW II, had a reverent calm. Desks and chairs sat waiting, slightly turned, empty jurist panel, attorney’s podium – the stage had been set. I look back on it now, and the feeling is strangely surreal.
Last week we learned that the United States Supreme Court allows itself to keep the Ten Commandments hanging on the walls of its chambers, as a testimony to another form of law. The guardian of the Constitution of our country, presiding over the human rights of our people, maintains that the Ten Commandments, religious context aside, represent a form of law that is powerful enough to occupy a place in its chambers.
In a small, quiet courtroom, on the Ft. Stewart military installation, the stage is set. One soldier who, after firsthand experience with the destructive force of war, decided to take the Ten Commandments at their word – "Thou Shall Not Kill" – and use the rights given to him to declare his conscious objection to war, to no longer be in a position to voluntarily have to kill another human being, is now on trial for not wanting to kill.
The Army has removed itself so completely from its moral responsibility, that its representatives are willing to openly demand, in a court of law, that they be allowed to regain "positive control over this soldier" by finding him guilty of crimes he did not commit, and put him in jail – a prisoner of conscience, for daring to obey a moral law.
It is "hard work" to face the truth, and it is scary when people who are not afraid to face it begin to speak out. Someone once said that my husband's case is a question of morality over legality. I pray that this country has not gone so far over the edge that the two are so distinctly different that we can tell them apart.
A sixteen year old in New York, was charged with involuntary manslaughter yesterday for stabbing another teen in the chest twice, over a computer game. There is no question of why. He broke a law – a legal, MORAL law – "Thou Shall Not Kill."
After seeing war firsthand, Sgt. Kevin Benderman chose to follow a legal, MORAL law – "Thou Shall Not Kill." A form of law significant enough to be represented on the walls of our Supreme Court. The US Army cannot let him go. I have to ask – "WHY?"
Sgt. Kevin Benderman is stationed at Ft. Stewart, Georgia.
He has served on combat tour in Iraq. After seeing war firsthand, he made the decision to file for Conscientious Objector status in December 2004. His command refused the request, and filed charges of Missing Movement and Desertion against him. They have since added a charge of Larceny.
Sgt. Benderman is scheduled to face a second attempt at Court Martial for these charges on July 28, 2005 and Ft. Stewart.

Please try to pass that on.
-- Elaine


"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center)
Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages.
Thomas Edison

Some stuff on Iraq

Thanks for kind words. Still trying to get the hang of this while Rebecca's on vacation. I'm pulling some stuff together that you may have seen or heard but I think is worth noting.
-- Elaine


"TV's Military 'Embeds'" by Colman McCarthy, April 19, 2003 (Washington Post):

That the news divisions of NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN and Fox sanctioned this domination by military types was a further assault on what the public deserves: independent, balanced and impartial journalism. The tube turned into a parade ground for military men -- all well-groomed white males -- saluting the ethic that war is rational, that bombing and shooting are the way to win peace, and that their uniformed pals in Iraq were there to free people, not slaughter them. Perspective vanished, as if caught in a sandstorm of hype and war-whooping. If the U.S. military embedded journalists to report the war from Iraq, journalists back in network studios embedded militarists to explain it. Either way, it was one-version news.
Why no dissenting voices to say what millions of people around the world proclaimed in the streets: that this U.S. invasion was illegal, unjust and unnecessary? Why were pacifists from such groups as the Fellowship of Reconciliation, Pax Christi USA, Peace Action and the American Friends Service Committee not given airtime to counter the generals? Why were leaders from Veterans for Common Sense or Veterans Against the War in Iraq not brought in to offer their analysis and view: that what the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Powell-Wolfowitz war machine has been doing to the people of Iraq is brutal and criminal and that political, legal and moral alternatives to violence exist? Why have no social workers or teachers from America's inner cities been invited to sit across from the generals and give their views on military spending -- more than $11,000 a second? In wartime, presumably, the message to peace activists is shut up or shut down.

"Jane's Revolution" by Ed Rampell (Thinking Peace)

Stone asked Fonda how America had changed since 1971. "We never came to terms with the war," she replied. "Revisionism set in and Americans were made to believe that we could have won the war, if it hadn't been for the antiwar movement and so-called 'liberal media.' That was during the Reagan administration and it was very handy for the first Bush administration when we went into the Gulf War.
"Remember what happened? 'Oh, if you're against this war you're going to be a traitor like those people back in the sixties and seventies.' People got scared because they didn't know what the truth was. That's continuing today. Of course, this administration is just totally brilliant at playing on our fears. With the invasion of Iraq, it was raised to an art form. You know, 'you're either with us or against us.' If you speak out against the war you're [considered] a terrorist," Fonda said.
On a more upbeat note she mused, "Today, Nixon and Reagan are looking mighty good. I think this is the scariest time I've ever lived through. It's a dying beast, and they're always the scariest and most dangerous. Just below the crust of the surface there is a volcano ready to erupt. It's our job to create critical mass and ignite it.
"It's a really confusing time; it's more complicated than Vietnam," she continued. "There was no Saddam Hussein during Vietnam. Everybody agreed Saddam had to go. Did there need to be an invasion where 100,000 innocent civilians die in the process? I don't think so. People are waiting out there for leadership. I was asked: 'What’s happened to the Left?' Progressivism is alive and well, but it’s women who are going to have to rise up and lead it now."

"World Tribunal for Iraq, Culminating Session" Dahr Jamail
Ali Abbas lives in the Al-Amiriyah district of Baghdad and worked in civil administration. So many of his neighbors were detained that friends urged him to go to the nearby US base to try and get answers for why so many innocent people were being detained. He went three times.
On the fourth he was detained himself. Within two days he was transferred from the military base to Abu Ghraib, where he was held over three months without charges before being released.
"The minute I got there, the suffering began," said Abbas about his interrogator, "I asked him for water, and he said after the investigation I would get some. He accused me of so many things and asked me so many questions. Among them he said I hated Christians." He was forced to strip naked shortly after arriving, and remained that way for most of his stay in the prison. "They made us lay on top of each other naked as if it was sex, and beat us with a broom," he said. In addition to being beaten on their genitals, detainees were also denied water and food for extended periods of time, then were forced to watch as their food was thrown in the trash.
Treatment also included having a loaded gun held to his head to prevent him from crying out in pain as his hand-ties were tightened.
"My hands were enlarged because there was no blood because they cuffed them so tight," he told me, "My head was covered with the sack, and they fastened my right hand to a pole with handcuffs. They made me stand on my toes to clip me to it."
Abbas said soldiers doused him in cold water while holding him under a fan, and oftentimes, "They put on a loudspeaker, put the speakers on my ears and said, "Shut Up, Fuck Fuck Fuck!" In this manner Abbas’s interrogators routinely deprived him of sleep.


"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center):

The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed.
Steve Biko

Peace

Rebecca's on vacation. I'm her friend Elaine. Thanks to C.I. (for help and patience).

Here are some things I'm noting.

Former reporter pushes peace studies (Reuters)
Colman McCarthy loves the long-shot. Good thing, too, because the journalist-turned-peace activist is betting that warlike humanity will some day evolve into enlightened creatures guided by love and harmony.
"We can't be the final product of evolution, unless there's some kind of cosmic sick-joke going on," McCarthy chuckled after treating a classroom of sleepy teen-age boys to a varied discussion about gun violence, forgiveness and U.S. foreign policy.
For years now, the bespectacled 64-year-old has been trying to get American educators to see violence as learned behavior that can be overcome by adding comprehensive peace studies programs to the curriculum at the nation's 80,000 elementary schools, 26,000 high schools and 3,100 colleges.
"People who are going to be on death row are now in first- or second-grade, and so are people who are going to be in the White House. If we don't teach them peace, someone else will teach them violence," he told Reuters during a recent visit to an Episcopal-run prep school in the Philadelphia suburbs.
"The most revolutionary thing anybody can do is to raise good, honest and generous children who will question the answers of people who say the answer is violence. That's what the schools should be doing."
Statistics on the sheer toll of violence are commonplace: 10,000 people murdered with handguns each year in the United States, and domestic abuse the leading cause of injury among U.S. women, he says.
[. . .]
He says kids need to study closely the history of the peace movement, starting with the lives and ideas of Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Dorothy Day, the Berrigan brothers and other radicals.
And he wants to teach kids that American violence goes hand-in-hand with widely accepted conventionalities such as economic competition, conspicuous consumption, tax cuts, U.S. foreign policy and gigantic Pentagon budgets.

Over Two Million People Take to the Streets Around the World in Global Protests Marking the One-Year Anniversary of Iraq War (United for Peace & Justice)
On Saturday, March 20, upwards of 2 million people took to the streets around the world to protest the one-year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. People in more than 60 countries throughout the world - from Japan to South Korea to Spain to Australia to South Africa - called for an end to the occupation, which they believe is only increasing violence and insecurity in Iraq.The March 20 global day of protest surpassed the expectations of its organizers, both in terms of the number of cities and countries that organized events and the number of people who took to the streets. Under the banner, "The World Still Says No To War," at least 300 U.S. cities and towns held anti-war events on Saturday, as did more than 275 other cities throughout the world.In the United States, notable protests included a 100,000-person march and rally in New York City, and a similar event in San Francisco attended by more than 50,000. In Crawford, Texas, where President George Bush owns a ranch and often vacations, 1,000 protesters converged to repudiate his militaristic policies and call for a diversion of the billions of dollars that are being spent on war to domestic programs like schools, health clinics, and unemployment benefits. Military families and veterans led a protest that drew 1,500 to Fayetteville, North Carolina, outside the Fort Bragg military base.

Resource Center for Nonviolence Santa Clara, CA:
NONVIOLENCE GUIDELINES FOR ALL PARTICIPANTS IN RCNV ACTIONS 1) We will not harm anyone, but will be nonviolent in words and actions. 2) We will treat every person with respect. 3) We will not damage or deface property. 4) We will not carry any weapons. 5) We will not bring or use any alcohol or drugs, other than for medical purposes. 6) We will not resist arrest.
INSPIRATIONAL WORDS: "The rays of the sun are many through refraction, but they have the same source. I cannot therefore detach myself from the wickedest soul (nor may I be denied identity with the most virtuous). " "The means may be likened to a seed, the end to a tree; and there is just the same inviolable connection between the means and the end as there is between the seed and the tree." - Mohandas Gandhi
There is nothing, except a tragic death wish, to prevent us from reordering our priorities so that pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. -Martin Luther King, Jr.

Peace Quotes (Peace Center)
If it's natural to kill, how come men have to go into training to learn how?
Joan Baez

blah

so where's the post you teased us about?

that's what 1 joker wrote.

well due to events on saturday, i thought i better be sure every 1 was okay with what i was writing. my ex-husband was. his parents weren't.

it's created a minor earthquake.

it will go up but they're arguing over what will be in it and what won't.

makes me wish i hadn't put my name on my blog because then i could just post whatever i wanted.

'rebecca people know you were our daughter-in-law.'

i'm getting that a lot.

and i'm sure i'll catch hell for the above. but tough shit.

so it will go up as soon as i have 'clearance.' i worked like a dog on that thing and planned to have it up sunday. when we took the first break on the third estate sunday review, i immediately sent it to my ex-husband and asked him to make sure his parents were okay with it.

sunday i had tons of 'notes' about changes that needed to be made.

the point here is if you're thinking about doing a blog and intend to write what you want, you should probably do it without giving your name or give a phoney name.

if i'd done that i wouldn't be putting up with the shit i'm putting up with now.

i wrote it to share because i thought it would help others.

in the process, i dealt with a lot of stuff i had been ignoring.

so just writing it, for 2 weeks, i worked hours on it friday night, helped me.

i'm not sure that it will help any 1 when it goes up because i think it's going to be some watered down shit that will mean nothing.

i offered to take my last name off the blog and i don't think i've put it up in a post. but my ex-mother-in-law told me that my name was elsewhere (third estate sunday review) and probably 'on there' meaning online now and couldn't be taken back.

so if it goes up, i have this nightmare where only 2 sentences are left when every 1's done cutting the parts they don't like, i'm not expecting much from it.

if you're thinking about blogging, my advice is do not give out your name. if i hadn't, i could put whatever the fuck i wanted to. now i need 'approval.' so if i sound bummed it's because i am.

obviously i don't have anything else to say tonight.

i'll post the editorial from the third estate sunday review because it's worth reading. otherwise i really don't have anything to say. but since the joker wrote in i guess others might be wondering where that post that i poured everything i had into was. it's being approved by ex-in-laws.

Editorial: What did Hadley know and what did he do?
Karl Rove's latest defense (as pointed out by The Common Ills) is that after speaking with Matt Cooper when Valerie Plame's name came up he immediately e-mailed then deputy national security advisor Stephen J. Hadley. And then what?
And then what?
Did the e-mail confuse Hadley? Was their a follow up conversation of "Karl, what's this e-mail about?" Did Hadley immediately notify his boss (Condi Rice) what was going on? Did she follow up by notifying the Bully Boy?
For those who forget, before she moved over to the State Department, Condi Rice was in charge of national security issues. It's easy to forget that because 9-11 happened while she was in charge and there was no accountability for her. There needs to be accountability on this.Did Hadley do his job? If so, did others do their job?
We're not foolish enough to think the White House wasn't orchestrating the outing of Plame. But if that's going to be the spin point ("I prove I'm not guilty with my e-mail to Hadley!") then let's examine that spin point.The spin argues Rove passed the news on up. Did it stop there? If so Hadley didn't do his job.
Did it go higher? How much higher? A CIA agent was a national security issue. The outing of an agent was a national security issue.
No one's attempting to say Rove's absolved and innocent. We think he's neither. But if he's going to push this latest point, then we say let's explore it.
Once someone in charge of national security was notified, it was incumbent upon them (due to their position) to immediately determine the nature of Valerie Plame's work. It was also incumbent upon them to notify then CIA director George Tenet. If they themselves did not alert Plame, the reason should be because they were given assurance from within the CIA that someone in the agency would alert Plame.
Plame doesn't appear to have been alerted. Nothing in the public record suggests that she was anything but surprised when Robert Novak outed her in a July 14, 2003 column. Cooper spoke to Rove on the 11th of July. Rove's spin is that he e-mailed Hadley immediately upon getting off the phone with Cooper. What was being done by the administration in those three days? Rove's conversation with Cooper, by Rove's account, made it obvious that the press knew Valerie Plame was CIA. What did Hadley do? If he didn't know who Plame was or what her position was, he should have checked with the CIA (or maybe read the memo that the State Department prepared). That was Hadley job.
Unless Condi relieved him of the responsibility. Then it became her job. (And regardless, his actions reflect upon her because she was his boss.)
Did anyone contact the CIA to alert them? If Plame had been a translator for the CIA, we'd argue a notification would be required. If she'd been an office assistant, we'd argue a notification would be required. If Hadley and/or Rice had done any work on the issue, they'd know that she had been an undercover agent.
And as such, regardless of when she was last undercover, it was their job to ensure that she and those she worked with while undercover knew what was coming. This goes beyond the quibbling by Republicans of whether a law was broken due to some five year rule on when you were last undercover. Plame appears to have been undercover as late as 1999 so the rule is in place and outing her was a violation of the law.
But in terms of procedures and responsibilities, it didn't matter if Plame had retired from the CIA ten years prior. It terms of procedures and responsibilities, the administration should have been working overtime to ensure that all working with Plame and Plame herself knew what was about to come out.
Whether you personally favor the use of undercover CIA agents or not, it should be obvious that having gone undercover for their government, when their cover is about to be blown, it's the government's responsibility to alert them.
That was the administration's responsibility. Did they carry it out? If not, why not?
Were any agents currently undercover and in the field, agents who had worked with Plame, alerted that someone who'd taken part in missions with them was about to be outed and that, therefore, their own cover was in danger?
It doesn't appear that they were.
The latest spin is "Rove's not guilty! He alerted Hadley!" The spin doesn't prove that. But the spin argues that the administration knew (Hadley) and that they did nothing. The spin suggests that Plame was outed with the administration's knowledge while the administration (with at least a three days heads up) sat around and waited for the explosion.
The spin's imploding. This talking point is cratering. Not only does it not clear Rove, it suggest incompetence (at best) on the part of the administration. It's time to know what Hadley did after he received the e-mail from Rove. If he did nothing, he needs to explain why. If he passed it up, we need to hear what those above him did.
It's time for Congressional hearings on this matter. We're no longer dealing with only the outing of a CIA agent. We're now dealing with, by Rove's talking point, the impression that the administration sat by and waited for a CIA agent to be outed. There need to be some answers and there needs to be some accountability.
[This editorial was written by the following: The Third Estate Sunday Review's Ty, Jess, Dona, Jim and Ava, C.I. of The Common Ills, Betty of Thomas Friedman is a Great Man, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Kat of Kat's Korner and Mike of Mikey Likes It!]

on bullying assholes and don't ever be bullied on my account

i've got enough going on in my life. and blog wise, i've got stuff i need to say. i've been working on an entry for almost 2 weeks now. i've been checking it with my ex-husband because it has to do with him. i've been checking it with c.i., jess, jess's parents, kat. any 1 who will look at it, i've been checking it with them. it's a very personal entry and it's honestly consumed more time than i ever intended. hopefully i will finish it soon.

yesterday i didn't work on it at all. i just focused on the thing on bob somerby ('to bobby') because that was important. he's a strong voice and someone needed to say 'you're a strong voice but i think you're missing the point.' that mattered to me.

this afternoon i get an e-mail. i've spoken to the guy on the phone since. i am enraged.

not at him but at the asshole who tried to bully him.

'rebecca, you were focusing on the positive, remember?'

i was trying to. i was damn well trying to.

let me explain something to the asshole who sent the e-mail to my newest best friend. you've got a public relations nightmare on your hands. i didn't get a degree and work my ass off in that field not to know a meltdown in progress.

it's time for some damage control on your part, asshole.

1st step, apologize to the kid you trashed. that doesn't reflect on you or on your organization.

the kid writes post some comments. he's trying to be funny. he points out that bill scher's liberal oasis is doing strong work today, that there's strong work at the daily kos today, that there's strong work at the common ills and that he likes my entry from yesterday 'to bobby.'

apparently there's not only no free speech at this site, there's also no criticism of the person compiling.

'rebecca, what's the "this person" shit? you're sounding like c.i.!'

i wish i could have gotten ahold of c.i. i left three messages and when i called the 4th time was told that due to the meetings, c.i. hadn't seen any of the previous 3. if i could speak to c.i. i could probably figure out a way to make this a more peaceful post. a less angry 1.

but from work c.i.'s off to save roe which isn't to slam c.i. or ava who are working their butts off on this. (while i spend day after day trying to get a post together that will tell a story that needs to be told in a way that doesn't hurt my ex-husband who i would never want to hurt.) but if i could talk to c.i. i'd be calmer and know how to address this. i was able to reach mike and he helped but i am still so damn mad.

so let's get back to my newest best friend because that's what the kid is. he's my friend now and don't fuck with him.

he's a kid who's into blogs. he likes a lot of blogs. he came across mine 2 weeks ago. he knew the common ills because buzzflash linked to an entry monday. he found me because c.i. plugged my post 'to bobby' this morning. he loves the work that bill scher does and knows bill from the majority report (which is my hero janeane's show). he got into the daily kos because of that show too and because he thinks kos gets worked up about the right issues.

listening to him rave about liberal oasis, the daily kos and the common ills, i could tell this kid is passionate and concerned about real issues. if he wasn't he wouldn't be going to those sites.

so he goes to this site (not a blog) and posts on how there are really stories that aren't being talked about. he does that yesterday. 1st time the kid's ever done anything like that.

he tries to be silly and make it amusing. today's his 2nd day. he calls himself the ombudsman of the site and makes some more jokes and links to bill, kos, c.i. and myself.

and?

'what happens next rebecca?'

he checks later and his posts are gone.

he gets an e-mail telling him he is now banned from the site.

the asshole, at a left site, blogs a rave on about michelle malkin.

now ask yourself, at a left site, what the fuck is the creep doing using valuable space to cover michelle malkin?

the comment the kid made went 'you might think ___'s plumbed the left and the lefties if all that's left is a hearts & flower to michelle malkin. here are 4 stories that matter.'

the same asshole, same day, is also plugging a republican who's posted on the huffington post.
a republican. so the kid jokes 'step out of the gop closet.'

and guess what?

the kid is banned.

the kid receives nasty e-mails. not 1, but many. and is told he better apologize. which he does. i wish the kid had written me first. i would have told him 'you tell that prick to go fuck himself.'
instead the asshole 'appears' (i'll do a c.i.!) to be implying that bill, kos, c.i. and myself will not be linked to. because either the kid writes 1 site (maybe the asshole means all 4, the asshole doesn't seem that smart) or is posting as kos, i guess. or 1 of the members of the common ills that you read 'erika e-mails to note ...'

i would have told the kid don't you dare apologize. all 4 of us aren't going to be hurt or lose any readership (members for c.i.) because of this asshole not linking to us.

i don't get linked to. i use too many 'fucks' and talk about things that bother tight assholes.
i still get read even by my 'buds' at centrist.org. so i would've told the kid, 'don't apologize.'
i would have told him 'bill and kos are untouchable. more people hear them on air america than ever visit that site.' as for c.i., i don't know what the asshole thought.

if you missed it, c.i.'s stated 'do not ask for links.' c.i.'s told the members that at the site. the common ills had the support of buzzflash and others and it grew by word of mouth. it never depended on asshole for readers because it's not about readers. c.i. has 'members.' i joke and kid and mock about that but they are members. they will weigh in. they will determine what gets covered and what doesn't. they wanted more opinion and as i've told you, c.i. is not really into that. c.i. is into facts. but what do they get now? opinion.

if it were a blog, it would be a hell of a lot different.

i will write whatever i want. if i lose a reader, tough. if a reader thinks 'i don't want to hear about michael phelps butt crack' my attitude is 'then go somewhere else.'

i started this site when a friend of mine got attacked. so i don't take attacks well. as will be obvious when i finish my post i've been working on forever, i went through a very dark period and it's only through this blog and what i put up here that i'm able to come out of it.

i had to make the most painful decision of my life and i don't regret that decision but i won't kid that it was easy.

elaine was on my case to get out more since last summer which is why i have. but until i started blogging i was really just marking time. people sometimes write in and say that since i don't work i must be so lucky. while i'm very comfortable thanks to my ex-husband, my life hasn't been so lucky. (and though i haven't given money to the asshole's site, my ex-husband has. they're now cut off. 1 phone call was all it took. he didn't give that much to them because they're not that important, let's be honest. but he did give every now and then because he's a democrat and he likes to support charities.)

when something unfair happens to any 1 i am enraged because i feel that something truly unfair happened to me. the asshole attacking the kid may seem small potatoes to some people but i do not respond well to this shit.

on the phone with mike i was so pissed about this i started crying. that's how mad i am.

who the hell does that asshole think he is to treat the kid that way.

let me say that 1 more time, the kid received nasty e-mails.

the kid was put over a barrell (which is probably why i am so damn pissed) and forced to apologize when he hadn't done a damn thing wrong. he apologized to the creepy asshole. he then did an e-mail to bill, kos, c.i. and me (and to the asshole) apologizing to us.

now maybe it's because i've found myself in a position where i felt i didn't have any other choice that i could read his e-mail and tell how hurt he was. he was to the point and direct and very brief. and that's how i've been about the choice i had to make. (which is why the post i've been working on for almost 2 weeks has been so hard to write.)

i know what it's like when there are no other options and you do what you have to do. i read that e-mail and tried to call c.i. then i e-mailed the kid my phone number and said 'please call me about this but if you don't i am not mad at you and you do not owe me an apology.'

the kid called an hour later. that asshole destroyed that kid.

i told him over and over, 'you didn't do anything wrong.' and he didn't. this isn't his fault.

this is prissy asshole who can't take a little criticism and wants to act the big man.

in my experience, the guys trying the hardest to act the big man are usually the guys with the smallest dicks. and usually they can't get it up and if they can, they can't keep it up.

i don't know if that's the asshole's problem, i'm just speaking from my own experience.

and it's not just 1 asshole. seems like the whole site wants to rain down on the kid IN MY OPINION.

you got 1 idiot screaming 'there's no free speech here' and how the comment is abusive and all this other bullshit.

and he gets told that he's plugging his own site or sites meaning the kid's either a kos member or a common ills member or else the kid writes all 4 sites.

hey asshole & idiot, every damn word up here, i write my own damn self. every period, every comma. every lower case word. i'm damn sick of men who think they can degrade women's accomplishments. (and readers, you know what a sore topic that is for me.) so right away i'm pissed.

'you might want to try to be less obvious.' or some such bullshit spoken like some old british woman on 1 of those pbs sitcoms.

so we're not just talking about an asshole, we're talking about a prissy asshole.

bill scher is cool and laid back and i don't know that he'll read the kid's e-mail or, if he does, i don't know that he'll get how forced the kid sounds, how humbled due to being bullied. i'm told kos reads all e-mails. i'm betting kos will be pissed judging by his support for the little guys and gals when he's talking on the majority report. but i also know from that site that there are millions of things going on each day and kos may not have time to address it even if he plans to. c.i.?

since the bullying has to do with our 4 sites, c.i. might say 'you know talking about this would be self-referential and i don't like to do that.' i hope that's not the case. but it could be. if so, that leaves me to defend the kid.

and you damn well better believe that i'm going to.

this kid liked something i wrote. he liked it so much that he wanted to share it with others.

and i'm not going to thank him by saying 'them's the breaks, kid.' i'm not going to do that.

this kid saw something in my messy writing that spoke to him and he wanted others to know about it.

that and all the above makes it personal for me.

i've never thought i'd be linked or covered by any 1 covering blogs. i use 'fuck' far too much. i'll talk about men's bodies in a way that's shocking. sadly because in this day and age a lot of men are pretty sheltered if they're not aware women talk about sex.

but it's okay. i have enough readers who are into what i write about.

and i had to dig deep and be brave in ways that the asshole and the idiot will never understand.
even if we were to talk face to face they'd muster a 'i'm so sorry' whispered quietly but they wouldn't grasp it. they can't because they'd never have to face a choice like that.

after that choice, i can face anything. that's why when women write and say 'i wish i had done like you and kept commenting on politics but the e-mails were so mean' i can write back and say 'i understand.' the e-mails are mean. they're evil. but that's okay. there is nothing that any 1 can ever do to me that will be anything like what i've already been through.

so i can be tough. and i can say 'fuck you' when it's needed without worries or concerns about it.


and i have no worries or concerns about a dipshit fuck ass who thinks it's okay to bully a kid.

if you were in the room with me right now, you'd think i was courtney love. i have to keep stopping to spark up another cigarette or storm around the room while screaming.

i will not be silent on this. that kid needs an apology. the 4 of us that got smeared need an apology to but i'll settle for that kid. he didn't deserve this shit.

his only mistake was in going to a site that decides to copy the nation and create a comment section. but unlike the nation, you can't criticize. ari ('long cock' as i like to fondly and lustily think of him) will get on and comment back. he's not going 'oh you said you didn't like my post! you're banned! you're banned! and i'm banning all the sites you like to!' he didn't pull that shit.

ari's a fucking adult. this asshole who thinks it's okay to bully a kid is a fpouty little baby.

see in their comment sections only certain types of comments are allowed.

for instance, you can't criticize the asshole. you can't point out that with all that's going on in the world, wasting time at a site for the left on michell fucking malkin is wasting time. you can't point out that, having applauded 1 republican already today in the limited space that the asshole uses, perhaps then focusing on and linking to michelle malkin was a mistake.

you have to nod.

now you can curse. you can fucking curse and put out any half-baked conspiracy theory and those comments stay up.

but if you dare to criticize the asshole, dare to joke that the asshole might stink, you're banned.

and you're not just banned, you get nasty e-mails.

that is fucked up.

that is so totally fucked up.

the asshole needs to apologize to the kid. the idiot needs to apologize.

i've spoken to the kid, i've read the e-mails, i know what went down and it was disgusting and it was undemocratic and it was not behavior for the left.

you can find out all about, all the specifics, in tomorrow's gina & krista round-robin. after i got off the phone with the kid (yes, c.i.'s correct, i do live on the phone - partly because after i had to make my choice i didn't want to be around any 1) i called up gina and said 'let me tell you what just happened today.' they're interviewing the kid.

i asked gina how many people go the round-robin and it's around 800 now. they've had to bring in shirley and eli to help them send it out to everyone friday morning. (or when they do their specials 1 that pop up during the week.)

the asshole and the idiot need to apologize. and the site needs to quit trying to copy the nation if it's not going to allow people to disagree with them.

ms. musing let's you disagree. i go there all the time. i never post but i go all there all the time. they have lively and funny debates in their comments. christine never screams 'how dare you criticize me! you are banned! but if you grovel, i might let you come back!' she may say 'that's not what i was trying to say ' or she might say 'good point i'll think about it.' she doesn't scream 'a plauge on you and the people you like!'

the asshole's site obviously needs traffic. as c.i. can tell you, they've said verboten to tom hayden. they're having some identity issues. they won't be getting traffic if they're attacking the people who come to the site.

this kid didn't post right wing nonsense or curse and scream or blame it on some ethnic group. (probably he'd still have his posts up there if he had.) he offered a critique of what was up there.
he tried to be funny and even put in damn smiley faces ":)" so it was obvious it was a joke.

but he crossed the asshole's line by criticizing the asshole. then it was 'unleash the hounds of my ass' apparently for the asshole.

that's not cool. i'm not going to shut my mouth and pretend it is.

i don't need a link from the asshole, i don't want a link from the asshole. i don't need him to ever mention my blog. he is nothing to me but a stupid asshole who thinks it's fine to bully kids.

if we were at a bar, i'd tell him off. after i told him to stop staring at my tits. i'd tell him to get his little limp dick, prissy ass away from me and to get a fucking hair cut because that picture of him that i saw is a nightmare. what are those? ringlets! shirley fucking temple time?

he must really look the big man while singing 'on the good ship lollypop.'

he needs to lay off the kid. apologize to him. the kid has no interest in ever visiting asshole's crappy commentary again let alone posting there. if asshole had a problem with his comments, he should have told him. he shouldn't have deleted them, then banned him, then gone on to bully him in e-mails.

that's not okay with me. that's not alright. that's not how the left behaves.

if asshole disagreed he could have commented in the comments the same way ari or christine does. he didn't have to go total rambo-asshole on the kid.

and i think it was cowardly. the way it was done behind the kid's back was cowardly. and then wanting to bully him afterwards and tell him he better apologize?

asshole's lucky this happened online and that it happened with a kid because otherwise someone would be kicking the asshole's ass right now.

asshole's site needs to fucking figure out what it is because what went down wasn't left, wasn't democratic. and asshole's fucking suggestion that the kid 'write a letter and maybe it will get posted' fuck that shit.

the site made the decision to offer comments. that was a choice. to then come along and have a hissy fit because someone dared to point out that you're blowing it in your lousy posts that are embarrassingly bad. and the kid didn't say that. the kid was nice. doing jokes with smiley faces for god's sake.

but i'm saying it. you're embarrassing. you don't know what you're doing. it's obvious.

c.i. only linked to you because the uk members like pru and gareth thought you were interesting. they changed their minds long ago. your dick commentary, your commentary on dick size, they didn't care for it. or the other bullshit topics that you comment on.

hey i'm a glass house. i talk about dicks and cocks. (cocks are a compliment, dicks aren't - you're a dick.) but i'm not pretending to bring you the left world in five minutes or less.

you're trivial, your fluff, your bullshit. you're rona fucking barrett in need of firing so that some 1 who has their shit together can do the job. and rona barrett is apt. what the asshole is doing is running a little movie mag and the kid wanted his movie stars highlighted. the asshole was going on about lindsay loham and hilary duff and the kid wanted some 1 he liked, some 1 that spoke to him, highlighted.

after all of this, there's a freak out e-mail. it comes when the asshole gets copied the e-mail that the kid sent out to bill, kos , c.i. and myself. it leads to 'i wish you hadn't done that.' yeah, be nervous because now people know what you did. be very nervous because you should be ashamed of yourself.

instead asshole offers the only smart thing he ever said 'start your own blog.'

i'm telling the kid too. i'm telling the kid you can rip that asshole apart. i'm telling him 'i will help you start your blog. if you decide to, i am there for you.'

why is that? because no 1 deserves to be treated that way (by asshole and idiot). if the national review had done this shit, it would still be disgusting. it wouldn't be surprising, but it would be disgusting. that it came from the left is not just disgusting, it is shocking. and if you think your behavior was appropriate you have a lot to learn.

if you think i give a goddamn fuck if you link to me or not, you've got a lot more to learn.

i don't need your asshole link.

and let me be clear to all my readers, if some 1 ever tries to bully you, don't apologize on my account. i don't give a goddamn fuck about any bully or what they might do. they can kiss my ass. and you can tell them that. you can say 'i'm not going to apologize to you, you fucking prick, and rebecca won't care because she says kiss her ass.' don't think 'i've got to protect rebecca' because i can take anything. i have walked through fire and been burned bad enough that some asshole not linking to me doesn't even rate an eye roll.

and as for the other three, kos and bill are untouchable. nothing's going to hurt them certainly not a little asshole. c.i. is blog ignorant and will tell you that. every rule that should have been followed was broken because c.i. didn't know any of them. that's why it's not a blog. it's a 'resource/review.' but the way that thing got set up, c.i.'s untouchable. rob's comments about thinning the herd aren't jokes. he's serious. and c.i. doesn't laugh about it. c.i. agrees that if you're not against the war, if you're not pro choice, you need to go somewhere else because there are more than enough people (members) who are concerned. and 1658 e-mails on sunday, according to ava, are too damn many.

if you're with the program, c.i.'s happy to have you aboard. but if you're not, and c.i.'s put this up at the site, i'm not talking out of school, the days c.i. enjoyed the common ills most was when the membership was so small that every e-mail got a personal reply. if the common ills dropped down to 5 members, c.i. wouldn't shed any tears. and people who thought jim and i were too rough on c.i. in that roundtable when we were talking about e-mails don't get that no 1 has that kind of time. even with ava helping out on sundays, there's not enough time. and this is just trying to read the e-mails not write back to members and visitors.

for my readers, you know i've been working on a post and some of you have wondered what it was. it's obviously a very personal 1. i didn't intend to tease it out and have kept my mouth shut about it. kat, c.i., jess's parents, elaine and a host of others have been very helpful and very patient. my ex-husband has been wonderfully supportive. i will do my best to complete it this weekend. maybe i'll get it up tomorrow. most of you know the topic from the gina & krista round-robin. i talked about it a little bit there. now i could be like asshole (who would never have to go through it, you know why i say that) and post something superficial. but if i'm going to talk about it for the 1st time at length, i want to be sure i'm clear in it.

jess's mother has been especially helpful. i've told you all how cool she is but there have been times when i've just been reduced to tears and she's talked me through it. if you ever wonder how jess turned out so cool, just look at his parents.


the asshole steers you to michelle malkin and you're supposed to find something nice to say or not say anything at all.

is that the site's policy or just the asshole's?

if it's the site's policy, there's a problem.

if it's the asshole's policy, he needs to rethink it. but before he does anything, he needs to apologize to the kid.

for those of you who don't get the round-robin, i had an abortion. that's the post i've been working on. it was the right choice. and it was the only choice. but that didn't make it any easier for me. when kat did her post and was talking about how no woman had to justify that choice, she was talking about me. she's been very supportive and each time i've finished another draft, she's read it and asked, 'rebecca, are you sure you want to go into that' about some detail.

if i'm going to tell it, i'm going to tell it all the way. i'm editing only for my ex-husband.

i agree with kat that no woman needs to explain her medical procedure. but there was a lot of e-mail after the round-robin went out from people, women and men, saying that the little bit i said helped them or spoke to them.

if you read the round-robin you have an idea of what i went through. but with roe under attack, i feel like the best thing i can do, my part, is to talk about it and to talk about what i went through.

it's not easy to write. and tomorrow will be 2 weeks that i've been working on it. don't expect it to be a writing masterpiece. but it's been very hard to dig all this up. i didn't work on it yesterday. c.i. and elaine both urged me to take a break from it and focus on something else. which is why i did the 'to bobby' thing yesterday.

but it's like the woman i told you about who inspired all of us with her talk about 'think about the 1 thing you could do and when you think oh i can't, do it.' this is 1 thing i can do. i don't know if i'll have it pulled together by the weekend, but i am working on it.

'to bobby' was done out of love and respect for bob somerby. and c.i. stopped talking when it was obvious i was going to write about it. but when i said, and i didn't put this in yesterday, 'look you and elaine are telling me that i need to take a small break' c.i. said, 'joan baez. use that as your model and it should be a breeze to write.' and it was a breeze and it was nice yesterday not to have to dig into all the inner crap for 1 day. and i did feel like i could face the issue today and write some more on it. then i got the e-mail from the kid.

i won't be silent while some 1 is wronged. or while some 1 is bullied into apologizing when there's no apology needed from the kid.

my ex-husband, as i said in the round-robin, was very supportive throughout. he didn't bully me. but a choice had to be made on what was more important: what i wanted or the type of life a child was going to have. fate bullied me. and i won't stand for it while some kid is bullied.

or act like it's okay because the asshole is with some psuedo big site online.

i can't be hurt anymore. so don't let any 1 bully you on my account. they can take their best shots at me and they'll just slide right off me because i've already had to make a hellish choice and i lived through it. shit like the asshole doesn't even qualify for minor league.

and what a world he must live in if the thing that causes him to lose it is some 1 questioning him.
what a lofty, pampered life he must have had.

when female bloggers write me and say 'thank you for talking about how we get treated' i mean, you're welcome, but i don't back down. there's nothing i can ever face again that will be as difficult.

when i made an offer to a male blogger that he could talk and it would be in private, that was sincere. and my concern over his anger and his hurting himself with it was sincere. even some 1 that hates me, and he really hates me, is some 1 i will reach out too if i think they need some 1. this kid needs some 1 and i could care less what the asshole does or doesn't do to me personally as a result of this post.

the kid kept saying 'rebecca, i don't want to get you banned over this.' i kept telling him, 'you are now my newest best friend and if i've got you as a reader, i don't need anything or anyone that asshole might be able to steer my way.'

i'm no saint. but i don't back down and i don't bow my head and i don't ask permission to say what i want to say.

as i told centrist.org, i am your worst nightmare.

i am the woman who won't be cowed.

i won't be silenced.

you can't woo me with flattery.

you can't bully me.

i've already been through the worst that could ever happen. i could lose a limb tomorrow or suffer some illness and it would be nothing compared to what i had to go through already.

so bullies who hide behind e-mails and think they're big shots when they bully kids or ban them for stating the obvious don't scare me.

if you want to support the kid, read the round-robin and don't visit that site again unless the kid's gets an apology. today it was beat up on a kid, who knows who'll be targeted next.

i'll close with a thank you to mike for listening to rage until i was calm enough to post. mike, my bookend, if you were a little older, i'd be so into you. instead, i'll just stand on the sideline and appreciate all your gifts (brains, looks and soul).