Judge Upholds Money Laundering Charge Against Tom Delay
Republican Congressman Tom Delay suffered a setback Monday after a Texas judge refused to throw out money laundering charges against him. The judge however did throw out conspiracy charges against Delay, the former House Majority Leader. Delay is accused of illegally funneling $190,000 in corporate donations to 2002 Republican candidates for the Texas Legislature. Money laundering is punishable by five years to life. Despite the indictment the Bush administration remains close to Delay. Last night Vice President Dick Cheney traveled to Houston to headline a fundraiser for the Texan Congressman.
that's from democracy now and i'm noting it because gloria borger (looking washed out and in dire need of hair cut and stylist) spun it a little differently on the cbs evening news monday. gloria was all grins and good humor as she blathered on about how this was good news for tom delay. the way she spoke, 1/2 the charges were tossed out. that's not quite correct. there were 3 charges and only 1 was tossed out.
the mainstream media just gets more and more disgusting.
i've got the tv on and am watching peanuts. i've seen this christmas special every year and i don't think it's ever failed to cheer me up until this year.
it can't be the weather, i love the cold weather.
it can't be the cartoon. i've loved it forever.
snoopy playing the guitar, pig pen playing the base, violet's clumsy dancing - what is she doing with those hands. and who's the kid with the spikes in the orange shirt doing the snoopy dance? he's standing right next to snoopy who, since he's playing the guitar, isn't doing the snoopy dance.
and who's shermy? i never see him except in this cartoon. and why does he look exactly linus 2 years older?
are they cousins? did lucy & linus' father step out? he and linus look so much alike.
i think it's the press that has me so depressed.
so let's focus on the press. this is the third estate sunday review's 'when did woody realize what he knew?' in full:
BOB WOODWARD: We pour garbage on people.
ANNOUNCER: And the press knows it.
ANDREA MITCHELL: I think we are really unpopular.
FRONTLINE Show #1503
Air Date: October 22, 1996
"Why America Hates the Press"
The focus of this piece is Bob Woodward but when Andrea Mitchell tells the truth, it is NEWS so we had to include it.
So aging golden boy Woody's argued that some of the criticsm directed his way of late results from the press' natural tendency to tear someone down in order to build them back up. Woody's arguing that the press needs "a story" and will create one when it has to.We don't disagree. Nor do we think it's a terribly new point that Woody's making. Carly Simon made many similar comments in the eighties. Joni Mitchell's also made similar comments going back to the seventies.But there are two issues that come to mind.
First, does Woody think he is an "artist." We thought he pushed the fantasy that he was a reporter.
Second, when a Carly Simon or Joni Mitchell makes those comments, they're talking about how their latest release is being trashed. "Torn down to build them up later on because otherwise the press has no story" is the argument.
Woody doesn't record, so exactly what "product" does he believe is being trashed?
There's no new book.
Does Woody think he is the product?
We wouldn't be surprised.
But while we can agree that the Woody's comments are sometimes true, we're having a hard time seeing how they apply to Woody.
He is news now. Something he always wants to be.
But he's news not because of anything he did but for failing to a) tell the public that he was informed Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA operative while publicly weighing in with his opinions on the investigation headed by Patrick Fitzgerald and b) failing to inform his editor that he had knowledge of the Plame leak.
It's frequently amusing to watch Woody attempt to defend himself.
His comments reveal more than he means to.
For instance his most recent Larry King Live appearance, how long did it take him to plug his upcoming book?
It was in his third response:
I'm working on a book, "Bush's Second Term." I'm trying to put the pieces of the puzzle together. There are things I know that I'm just not going to talk about involving that research.
Not "I'm working on a new book." No, "I'm working on a book" plug title "Bush's Second Term."
Ladies and gentlemen, the aging starlet, Bob Woodward. Jacqueline Susann could not have plugged so shamelessly.It just got better.
According to Woody:
Then, the day of the indictment I read the charges against Libby and looked at the press conference by the special counsel and he said the first disclosure of all of this was on June 23rd, 2003 by Scooter Libby, the vice president's chief of staff to "New York Times" reporter Judy Miller.I went, whoa, because I knew I had learned about this in mid- June, a week, ten days before, so then I say something is up. There's a piece that the special counsel does not have in all of this.
I then went into incredibly aggressive reporting mode and called the source the beginning of the next week and said "Do you realize when we talked about this and exactly what was said?" And the source in this case at this moment, it's a very interesting moment in all of this, said "I have to go to the prosecutor. I have to go to the prosecutor. I have to tell the truth."
And so, I realized I was going to be dragged into this that I was the catalyst and then I asked the source "If you go to the prosecutor am I released to testify" and the source told me yes. So it is the reporting process that set all this in motion."
Agressive reporting mode"? "Incredibly" or not, we're not seeing it. Agressive reporting mode isn't calling the leak and saying, "We spoke of this!" We're not seeing anything in Woody's narrative indicating he's going to write about it. It reads like Woody's attempt to shoot the breeze. Or possibly to make sure both parties were on the same page. Obviously, they weren't. The source goes to the prosectuion and Woody's disappointment over that development can be inferred from his statement "I realized I was going to be dragged into this . . . "
We chuckled over his talk of his "news juices." We laughed most of all at this:
WOODWARD: It may be but I pressed that source as much as you can and I'm not going to -- if you remember back into Watergate and Mark Felt, the number two in the FBI who was the source "Deep Throat" we kept that secret for 33 years because the source insisted upon it.
Woody's speaking of his "source" for a report he never wrote. He's speaking of the person who leaked on Valerie Plame to him.
Watergate, Woody and Carl Bernstein wrote about. (Woody likes to trot out Carl more these days to hide behind but he's still eager to claim credit for himself.) Mark Felt was kept a secret because he could be retaliated against.
Woody's leak (not source) has informed his superiors of the conversation with Woody. Woody has informed the prosecuters. The only ones who haven't been informed are the public. Woody's seeing commonalities where there are none.
He's also offering a shifting rationale. In the same Larry King interview, he claims initially that it hit him when Scooter Libby was indicted that he had another piece of the story -- one that wasn't known. (Apparently from offhand gossip if his earlier claims are to be believed.) So he picked up the phone to call his leak. But at the end of the King interview, Woody says this:
I made efforts to get the source, this year, earlier, and last year, to give me some information about this so I could put something in the newspaper or a book. So, I could get information out, and totally failed.
This year? Earlier? And in 2004?
When did Woody realize what he knew?
The issue's pressing to him, in some of his accounts, when he learns the date of Judith Miller & Scooter Libby's conversation. In others, he's been trying to get this story out "in the newspaper or a book" as far back as 2004. Since Woody lives by his anonymous, official sources, we're failing to see what "information" he was waiting to be given before writing about it.
But is anyone going to call Woody on the contradictions in his remarks on King's show? Commenting on his minimizing of the investigation on an earlier King telecast (October 27, 2005), Woody states:
At that point and on your show I didn't know what that meant at all because it was such a casual offhand remark.
"I didn't know what all this meant." While claiming, in the same broadcast, that he made efforts earlier this year and in 2004 to press the leak on this matter?
There are a number of journalistic issues that Woody's behavior raises. It's too bad a journalistic watchdog refuses to hunt. Instead of barking, it's preferred to sniff around the old pile of crap that is Judith Miller's career. It's certainly safer. It doesn't even upset The New York Times because the paper doesn't care if Miller's beat up on for her public statements. It's not as though the watchdog's going through Miller's past reporting for the paper. They're just grabbing the stick and hitting the pinata one more time. Pity they're so silent on Bob Woodward.
that was written by: "The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim,Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,Mike of Mikey Likes It!,Elaine of Like Maria Said Pazand Wally of The Daily Jot"
'he never got his picture on a bubble gum card? how can you say someone's great when he's never had his picture on a bubble gum card?'
schroeder and lucy. she'll say anything to try to get his attention. she'll make him mad, she'll argue with him. just trying to get him to look at her.
yes, i'm back on peanuts. and while i'm on it, why did lucy and violet look so much alike? if violet didn't wear her hair up, wouldn't they look exactly alike?
when i was little, i used to like linus. now he's just too much of a goody-goody and his voice creeps me out. you just know he's going to grow up to be ned flanders (the simpsons).
the 1 who looks linus and schroeder hold my interest more these days.
1 person i never liked was charlie brown. i don't care if it was in the pumpkin patch or where, charlie brown always bored me to death.
snoopy's always held my interest. so have peppermint patty and marci. but for a different reason. when i was a kid, i just found them funny, especially patty who wasn't taking any crap. as i grew older, i did start to wonder about exactly what was going on there?
if they did a live action peanuts tv special, i'd cast the following:
lucy: shannen dougherty
charlie brown: nathan lane
linus: matthew broadrick
sally: courtney thorne-smith
schroeder: ike barenholtz
pig pen: michael weatherly
peppermint patti: jennifer garner
marci: ellen degeneres
frida: margaret cho
rerun: seth green
violet: alyssa milano
the common ills
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
like maria said paz
the third estate sunday review
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
the daily jot
kats korner
thomas friedman is a great man
democracy now
12/06/2005
obligations
i'm posting late because i had stuff to do. i just called mike on his cell even though it's almost 1 in the morning because he asked me too. i'm supposed to call elaine as well. you're wondering - what, no 1's got an alarm clock?
they do but they want to be sure that they're up.
which is why they asked me and not c.i. because, honestly, c.i. won't do it. not after midnight. not for this reason.
what's the reason? blogger was acting up and they were doing some sort of update to the program.
you couldn't read any of the blog spot sites. not really.
elaine and mike went ahead and wrote their posts for tonight. they both try to post and get a message that a) tells them their posts are not lost - good, but b) won't go up due to blogger maintenance.
elaine just wanted to go to bed and it wasn't even 7pm. which always means she's had a rough day. i started to do a joke here but i know elaine would be pissed and say 'rebecca, some 1's going to think "oh, they do talk about their patients!" and that might stop the person from getting therapy.' whether totally sane or a complete loon, elaine never talks about the people she treats. but i know her well enough to know that when she's wiped out like that, it usually means a very intense day of therapy giving.
which is the same conclusion c.i. would draw. which is why elaine told mike, 'we've got to call rebecca.' if this were some sport or live event or to hit the road to travel or something, c.i. would honor the request. but for blogging?
c.i. would say, 'oh i'm sorry i forgot' because c.i.'s attitude would be 'they need their sleep and this can wait.'
so they call me and i was cool with calling mike because i know he's up, at the computer, publishing and indexing and then crawling right back into bed. but to be honest, with elaine, i am hestitating.
she won't crawl back into bed if she was so exhausted from doing analysis today. she'll finish publishing. make a cup of coffee. probably tea or cocoa due to the hour. and she'll be up for a few hours.
there is 1 issue that always exhausts her. i know that because in college just studying it would exhaust her. she never has to say (and never has) 'i was talking to some 1 about __ today' because it's obvious to me what it is. (and she never would. she doesn't speak in generalities about it with us lay people.) so i'm thinking, do i wake her or not?
she asked me to. it's after 1 now. she'll be up for a few hours if i do.
i will after i post this. i'll let the phone ring twice. if she doesn't answer on the 2nd ring, i'll hang up.
and i'll also blog about the thing that was on tv while i was getting the snack food ready for tonight. i had finger foods, hot and cold, for guests because we're trying to reach out to every 1 we know on this hideous alito nomination.
and t came by early to help me get everything together because she's such a great friend. she turned on the tv in the living room because she wanted to see some coverage on iraq and asked me if there was 1 i didn't want to watch?
i loathe brian williams as everyone who's read for some time knows. so that leaves out nbc. so t puts it on cbs.
the story, which probably was the lead, was saddam's trial.
the reporter was kimberly dozier who i've never seen before or heard the name of but she was such a kimberly and dozier rhymes with croshere and when i was married and 'fly boy' had to watch his basketball, i'd sit there ranking the players. austion croshere is, or was, a forward for the pacers and he was completely do-able. then. he may not be now. now he may have a bald spot. looked like 1 was about to develop at the back of his head.
like the 1 tom delay has now. i didn't know he had it. but he was the 2nd story. they showed him from behind. head of hair is going bald. has a bald spot at the top of the back of his head. that was worth a laugh.
which was needed because kimberly dozier is a total tool and so is old man bob who really just needs to head shady oaks retirement home already.
what happened at the trial?
if you watched cbs, you had no idea.
they threw news standards out the window.
news standards would have meant treating it as a news story.
instead they went for propaganda.
and this is what's so disgusting, they knew they could.
they knew probably no 1 would call them on it.
because who likes saddam hussein?
i don't. you don't. we don't care about him.
and watching kimberly dozier 'report' and bob ask follow up questions, i realized how awful that was: because no 1 cares, they can do what ever they want.
they don't have to tell the truth.
and maybe that's when you judge a 'reporter' or how.
with a story involving some 1 who's not sympathetic or loveable and has no vocal defenders, do they report the truth or do they use the 'report' to score points?
they acted like 2 little vindictive kids.
here's what happened at saddam's trial today: the defense walked out when ramsey clark wsn't allowed to speak. if you watched democracy now or listened to pacifica, you knew that.
if you watched cbs only, you didn't.
here's what you were told if you watched cbs.
they were making a mockery of the court (bob said something to that effect in his exchange with kimberly). kimberly ridiculed clark for asking for protection for saddam's lawyers.
neither bob or kimberly pointed out that saddam's lawyers have been targeted and 1 or 2 killed.
you didn't get to hear ramsey clark speak because kimberly was to busy telling you her spin anytime ramsey came up in the clip.
she lied and let me put that in caps LIED and said that saddam's half-brother threatened a witness. he had an outburst and made a statement that wasn't a threat. but she knows no 1 will fact check her. she knows the world hates saddam so she can say whatever the hell she wants.
bob knew it too. which is why he felt the need to smear ramsey clark and kimberly was happy to join in.
bob offers that lbj once said that his greatest regret was in making clark attorney general and kimberly runs with it.
uh, gulf of tonkin, bob!
we know it was a lie. we know congress' approval was a lie.
so maybe you shouldn't hide behind lbj when you want to trash?
or maybe you shouldn't take delight in trashing some 1 if you want to be an anchor on cbs - maybe you should move over to fox?
reporters are supposed to report.
t and i were watching that and just disgusted.
you see clowning all the time.
but i don't know that i've seen it so naked on a non fox 'news' broadcast.
maybe it was just knowing that they knew no 1 would call them on it.
who wants to be called 'saddam defender' or 'saddam lover'?
no 1.
so they'll probably get away with what was 1 of the most slanted reports to ever bear cbs' name.
what did ramsey clark say? since cbs never told you, let's go to democracy now:
Saddam's Lawyers Walk Out Of Trial In Protest
Earlier today the war crimes trial of Saddam Hussein resumed. The former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark briefly addressed the court on behalf of Hussein's defense team. He said "Reconciliation is essential. This trial can divide or heal. Unless it is seen as absolutely fair, and fair in fact, it will divide rather than reconcile Iraq." Saddam Hussein's entire defense team walked out of the court after the chief trial judge refused to allow Clark to challenge the tribunal's legitimacy. At one point during the session Hussein and his half brother Barazan Ibrahim chanted "Long live Iraq, long live the Arab state." Then Ibrahim stood up and shouted: "Why don't you just execute us and get rid of all of this!"
the story mattered. it mattered for a number of reasons.
1) it served as a test. when they knew they could do whatever they want, because no 1 would object, would they report the news or would they spin propaganda? the answer is that cbs goes for propaganda.
2) the trial is causing tensions in iraq. that does effect a number of things. but you have no idea why kimberly speaks of the need for the military to guard the court house because every person they did let speak, i'm assuming they were all shia, vouches for their belief.
but if you know even a little bit about iraq, you know that a lot of iraqis see the trial as humiliating. they don't feel that iraq is in charge, they don't feel that the trial is anything but a show trial - due to the americans, not saddam's defense - and they find the whole thing humiliating.
that's news america should be aware of.
instead bob and kimberly thought they could act like 2 little mean girls and spin it anyway they wanted to. it was disgusting.
but don't be surprised if no 1 tells you about it. not because people love cbs evening news but because who wants to point out that even someone as vile as saddam is deserving of accurate coverage? no 1.
let me go try to wake elaine (with 2 rings). after i'll probably call c.i. because it's a different time zone and i want to hear how tonight went.
the common ills
like maria said paz
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
mikey likes it
democracy now
they do but they want to be sure that they're up.
which is why they asked me and not c.i. because, honestly, c.i. won't do it. not after midnight. not for this reason.
what's the reason? blogger was acting up and they were doing some sort of update to the program.
you couldn't read any of the blog spot sites. not really.
elaine and mike went ahead and wrote their posts for tonight. they both try to post and get a message that a) tells them their posts are not lost - good, but b) won't go up due to blogger maintenance.
elaine just wanted to go to bed and it wasn't even 7pm. which always means she's had a rough day. i started to do a joke here but i know elaine would be pissed and say 'rebecca, some 1's going to think "oh, they do talk about their patients!" and that might stop the person from getting therapy.' whether totally sane or a complete loon, elaine never talks about the people she treats. but i know her well enough to know that when she's wiped out like that, it usually means a very intense day of therapy giving.
which is the same conclusion c.i. would draw. which is why elaine told mike, 'we've got to call rebecca.' if this were some sport or live event or to hit the road to travel or something, c.i. would honor the request. but for blogging?
c.i. would say, 'oh i'm sorry i forgot' because c.i.'s attitude would be 'they need their sleep and this can wait.'
so they call me and i was cool with calling mike because i know he's up, at the computer, publishing and indexing and then crawling right back into bed. but to be honest, with elaine, i am hestitating.
she won't crawl back into bed if she was so exhausted from doing analysis today. she'll finish publishing. make a cup of coffee. probably tea or cocoa due to the hour. and she'll be up for a few hours.
there is 1 issue that always exhausts her. i know that because in college just studying it would exhaust her. she never has to say (and never has) 'i was talking to some 1 about __ today' because it's obvious to me what it is. (and she never would. she doesn't speak in generalities about it with us lay people.) so i'm thinking, do i wake her or not?
she asked me to. it's after 1 now. she'll be up for a few hours if i do.
i will after i post this. i'll let the phone ring twice. if she doesn't answer on the 2nd ring, i'll hang up.
and i'll also blog about the thing that was on tv while i was getting the snack food ready for tonight. i had finger foods, hot and cold, for guests because we're trying to reach out to every 1 we know on this hideous alito nomination.
and t came by early to help me get everything together because she's such a great friend. she turned on the tv in the living room because she wanted to see some coverage on iraq and asked me if there was 1 i didn't want to watch?
i loathe brian williams as everyone who's read for some time knows. so that leaves out nbc. so t puts it on cbs.
the story, which probably was the lead, was saddam's trial.
the reporter was kimberly dozier who i've never seen before or heard the name of but she was such a kimberly and dozier rhymes with croshere and when i was married and 'fly boy' had to watch his basketball, i'd sit there ranking the players. austion croshere is, or was, a forward for the pacers and he was completely do-able. then. he may not be now. now he may have a bald spot. looked like 1 was about to develop at the back of his head.
like the 1 tom delay has now. i didn't know he had it. but he was the 2nd story. they showed him from behind. head of hair is going bald. has a bald spot at the top of the back of his head. that was worth a laugh.
which was needed because kimberly dozier is a total tool and so is old man bob who really just needs to head shady oaks retirement home already.
what happened at the trial?
if you watched cbs, you had no idea.
they threw news standards out the window.
news standards would have meant treating it as a news story.
instead they went for propaganda.
and this is what's so disgusting, they knew they could.
they knew probably no 1 would call them on it.
because who likes saddam hussein?
i don't. you don't. we don't care about him.
and watching kimberly dozier 'report' and bob ask follow up questions, i realized how awful that was: because no 1 cares, they can do what ever they want.
they don't have to tell the truth.
and maybe that's when you judge a 'reporter' or how.
with a story involving some 1 who's not sympathetic or loveable and has no vocal defenders, do they report the truth or do they use the 'report' to score points?
they acted like 2 little vindictive kids.
here's what happened at saddam's trial today: the defense walked out when ramsey clark wsn't allowed to speak. if you watched democracy now or listened to pacifica, you knew that.
if you watched cbs only, you didn't.
here's what you were told if you watched cbs.
they were making a mockery of the court (bob said something to that effect in his exchange with kimberly). kimberly ridiculed clark for asking for protection for saddam's lawyers.
neither bob or kimberly pointed out that saddam's lawyers have been targeted and 1 or 2 killed.
you didn't get to hear ramsey clark speak because kimberly was to busy telling you her spin anytime ramsey came up in the clip.
she lied and let me put that in caps LIED and said that saddam's half-brother threatened a witness. he had an outburst and made a statement that wasn't a threat. but she knows no 1 will fact check her. she knows the world hates saddam so she can say whatever the hell she wants.
bob knew it too. which is why he felt the need to smear ramsey clark and kimberly was happy to join in.
bob offers that lbj once said that his greatest regret was in making clark attorney general and kimberly runs with it.
uh, gulf of tonkin, bob!
we know it was a lie. we know congress' approval was a lie.
so maybe you shouldn't hide behind lbj when you want to trash?
or maybe you shouldn't take delight in trashing some 1 if you want to be an anchor on cbs - maybe you should move over to fox?
reporters are supposed to report.
t and i were watching that and just disgusted.
you see clowning all the time.
but i don't know that i've seen it so naked on a non fox 'news' broadcast.
maybe it was just knowing that they knew no 1 would call them on it.
who wants to be called 'saddam defender' or 'saddam lover'?
no 1.
so they'll probably get away with what was 1 of the most slanted reports to ever bear cbs' name.
what did ramsey clark say? since cbs never told you, let's go to democracy now:
Saddam's Lawyers Walk Out Of Trial In Protest
Earlier today the war crimes trial of Saddam Hussein resumed. The former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark briefly addressed the court on behalf of Hussein's defense team. He said "Reconciliation is essential. This trial can divide or heal. Unless it is seen as absolutely fair, and fair in fact, it will divide rather than reconcile Iraq." Saddam Hussein's entire defense team walked out of the court after the chief trial judge refused to allow Clark to challenge the tribunal's legitimacy. At one point during the session Hussein and his half brother Barazan Ibrahim chanted "Long live Iraq, long live the Arab state." Then Ibrahim stood up and shouted: "Why don't you just execute us and get rid of all of this!"
the story mattered. it mattered for a number of reasons.
1) it served as a test. when they knew they could do whatever they want, because no 1 would object, would they report the news or would they spin propaganda? the answer is that cbs goes for propaganda.
2) the trial is causing tensions in iraq. that does effect a number of things. but you have no idea why kimberly speaks of the need for the military to guard the court house because every person they did let speak, i'm assuming they were all shia, vouches for their belief.
but if you know even a little bit about iraq, you know that a lot of iraqis see the trial as humiliating. they don't feel that iraq is in charge, they don't feel that the trial is anything but a show trial - due to the americans, not saddam's defense - and they find the whole thing humiliating.
that's news america should be aware of.
instead bob and kimberly thought they could act like 2 little mean girls and spin it anyway they wanted to. it was disgusting.
but don't be surprised if no 1 tells you about it. not because people love cbs evening news but because who wants to point out that even someone as vile as saddam is deserving of accurate coverage? no 1.
let me go try to wake elaine (with 2 rings). after i'll probably call c.i. because it's a different time zone and i want to hear how tonight went.
the common ills
like maria said paz
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
mikey likes it
democracy now
12/03/2005
saturday post
a lot of grumbles about "nothing's up on the weekends" have resulted in me attempting, this week and next, to blog on the weekend. i'm not really into it. i like my downtime. and i'm already working with the third estate sunday review for a lot of hours on the weekend so i'm not really into coming up with more thoughts for my own site.
i also don't buy the 'there's nothing up on the weekends' argument. the third estate sunday review posts on sunday and there are always entries there. ruth has postponed her ruth's morning edition report until saturdays both due to her own schedule and also due to the fact that it does result in 1 more saturday entry for the community. maria's thing usually goes up on saturday. and sometimes francisco or miguel do that instead of maria but it is usually maria. c.i. usually does a post on laura flanders and two on the new york times. today there are three on the new york times. kat always blogs on saturday. on sunday you have at least one entry in the morning at the common ills and also two sunday evening.
so i really don't see that the community is silent on the weekends.
but i'll try to pull something together today and next weekend, probably sunday next weekend, just to sample how that day feels. that's not 6 days a week. i'll still do just 5.
so i go to buzzflash and scan their headlines for a feel of what's going on because honestly i'm not in the mood today for the newspaper and c.i's already covered the new york times with 3 entries this morning. 1 headline reads 'hillary clinton accuses bush of mismanaging the war' or something like that. i clicked on the link.
i yawned.
am i supposed to say 'go hillary!'
i don't think so.
hillary's so brave to use something john kerry hammered bully boy on a year ago.
i'm so sick of her and her nonsense and her inability to state reality.
she wants more troops over and she wants the war fought her way.
the thought of her in the white house is truly frightening.
i don't know if she had a late life transformation or if she just has the war lust or if she just wants to prove her national security bonafides but it's disgusting.
it was disgusting to me when ms. profiled madeline albright, another war hawk, and it's disgusting to me when hillary starts trying to prove her cock is as big as any boy's by singing her war songs.
i don't think she's getting the nomination if she runs. i think she'll crash and burn in the primaries in a way that resembles what happened to joe lieberman. in fact, she seems like joe lieberman in female drag more and more.
as now proclaims on their site 'peace is a feminist value.'
i keep waiting for ms. to do something similar. i've been waiting for some time.
i don't know what's going on these days but i'll tell you this, i love ms. though i do, i don't need another celebrity cover of charlize theron or desperate houswives at a time when 2 wars are waging. i need some strong stances.
there's a pbs show 'about women, by women and for women' as sctv would say. last week they had a conservative prig from the chamber of commerce (where she probably has a lot of fellow prigs as friends). prig was saying 'oh feminists don't really support women they only support women who agree with them.'
prig's right. i don't support ann coulter. i don't support the war hawks with vaginas.
i support a woman's right to determine their own lives but that doesn't mean i endorse their choices.
and prig doesn't endorse mine as she made abundantly clear.
if you don't support equality, you're not helping the movement and we shouldn't shed any tears over the fact that we can't get behind you.
i think we're too focused on getting someone through whatever glass ceiling that we're at risk, feminists, of losing what we stand for.
which is why when i visit now's website, it always cheers me up. whether it's an action alert or kim gandy's biweekly column, or just the 'peace is a feminist value' i see now fighting and standing up.
i'm not trying to slag on ms. i'm glad it's around. i read every issue. but i'm not hearing from ms. what i need to lately. i'm getting rah-rah articles on a queen or a madeline albright or some celebrity. when they did the bullshit cover, and sorry that is what it was, on desperate housewives, i almost blogged on that but c.i. said that there was a shake up about to happen and that things were changing.
i love ms. and a month later there was a shake up.
but ms. needs to be more than it is today.
and the website needs to provide new content regularly.
christine provided new content daily or almost daily. eleanor smeal is a personal hero but this blog once in november (it may have been twice) ain't cutting it.
and reproductive rights are huge issues to me but they aren't the only feminist issues. it's past time that ms. started weighing in loudly on this war.
they've had time for a cover story on first ladies. that might have been strong writing. i don't know. i threw that issue into the trash to be honest. without reading it.
i don't know if it was the move to california and away from nyc but ms. seems a lot more laid back these days.
i get e-mails about seth's site, seth in the city, asking why he only posted twice in november? i have no idea. i've never spoken to him. anytime the third estate has tried to bring him in on anything, he's been busy. people have e-mailed asking 'do you guys hate seth?' because in the past every new site has resulted in a blog spotlight and an interview or article on the new blogger. are we supposed to spotlight his entry last week where he said he was back to blogging and apologized for not blogging? that was the whole entry. it wasn't about anything else. and it never had a follow up. it's over a week later and there's still not another entry up.
i'm not calling seth stupid but that's no way to run a site.
i'm not calling ms. stupid but not having new content up regularly is no way to run a web site.
(i will hear from c.i. for my comments on ms. and for my comments on seth. that's cool and i understand c.i.'s point of view on both. i can even hear c.i.'s comments in my head right now. but i'm not going to play nice here or pretty it up.)
the nation and the progressive have both increased circulation by strong commentary. people are hungry for it. cover stories on tv shows and movie stars isn't going to convince anyone that ms. is serious.
we went through this before in the 80s and it nearly killed ms.
c.i. was convinced that the shake up was going to change things. i waited for it to happen. it's happened. i'm not seeing that big of a difference.
it's coming off like a polite magazine the way good housekeeping was decades ago.
that's not ms. and if i'm the only 1 who will say it, then i'm the only 1 who will say it.
i love ms. but it needs to be more. in print and online. it needs to stop the celebrity profiles immediately and return to the issues that matter. 1st among them is the war.
it's glossier these days. the print doesn't get on your hands. but it's also about as hard hitting as a pbs talk show. that's not feminism. people respond to strong voices and ms. needs to find it's strong voice.
i say that out of respect for what it has been in the past.
i also say it because if you no longer need christine at your website then you need someone else regularly putting up new content.
sherry's e-mailed me complaining about the lack of new content.
sherry, i hope you're visiting pop politics because christine (and bernie, and jaclyn and others) are posting there.
eleanor smeal's got a new post (december 1st) and c.i. hasn't noted it. which means no 1's passed it on to c.i. because c.i. will note anything from ms. but once a month isn't going to bring to traffic to ms.'s site.
mike's motto: The Common Ills community is important and the Common Ills community is important to me. So I'll do my part for the Common Ills community.
i also don't buy the 'there's nothing up on the weekends' argument. the third estate sunday review posts on sunday and there are always entries there. ruth has postponed her ruth's morning edition report until saturdays both due to her own schedule and also due to the fact that it does result in 1 more saturday entry for the community. maria's thing usually goes up on saturday. and sometimes francisco or miguel do that instead of maria but it is usually maria. c.i. usually does a post on laura flanders and two on the new york times. today there are three on the new york times. kat always blogs on saturday. on sunday you have at least one entry in the morning at the common ills and also two sunday evening.
so i really don't see that the community is silent on the weekends.
but i'll try to pull something together today and next weekend, probably sunday next weekend, just to sample how that day feels. that's not 6 days a week. i'll still do just 5.
so i go to buzzflash and scan their headlines for a feel of what's going on because honestly i'm not in the mood today for the newspaper and c.i's already covered the new york times with 3 entries this morning. 1 headline reads 'hillary clinton accuses bush of mismanaging the war' or something like that. i clicked on the link.
i yawned.
am i supposed to say 'go hillary!'
i don't think so.
hillary's so brave to use something john kerry hammered bully boy on a year ago.
i'm so sick of her and her nonsense and her inability to state reality.
she wants more troops over and she wants the war fought her way.
the thought of her in the white house is truly frightening.
i don't know if she had a late life transformation or if she just has the war lust or if she just wants to prove her national security bonafides but it's disgusting.
it was disgusting to me when ms. profiled madeline albright, another war hawk, and it's disgusting to me when hillary starts trying to prove her cock is as big as any boy's by singing her war songs.
i don't think she's getting the nomination if she runs. i think she'll crash and burn in the primaries in a way that resembles what happened to joe lieberman. in fact, she seems like joe lieberman in female drag more and more.
as now proclaims on their site 'peace is a feminist value.'
i keep waiting for ms. to do something similar. i've been waiting for some time.
i don't know what's going on these days but i'll tell you this, i love ms. though i do, i don't need another celebrity cover of charlize theron or desperate houswives at a time when 2 wars are waging. i need some strong stances.
there's a pbs show 'about women, by women and for women' as sctv would say. last week they had a conservative prig from the chamber of commerce (where she probably has a lot of fellow prigs as friends). prig was saying 'oh feminists don't really support women they only support women who agree with them.'
prig's right. i don't support ann coulter. i don't support the war hawks with vaginas.
i support a woman's right to determine their own lives but that doesn't mean i endorse their choices.
and prig doesn't endorse mine as she made abundantly clear.
if you don't support equality, you're not helping the movement and we shouldn't shed any tears over the fact that we can't get behind you.
i think we're too focused on getting someone through whatever glass ceiling that we're at risk, feminists, of losing what we stand for.
which is why when i visit now's website, it always cheers me up. whether it's an action alert or kim gandy's biweekly column, or just the 'peace is a feminist value' i see now fighting and standing up.
i'm not trying to slag on ms. i'm glad it's around. i read every issue. but i'm not hearing from ms. what i need to lately. i'm getting rah-rah articles on a queen or a madeline albright or some celebrity. when they did the bullshit cover, and sorry that is what it was, on desperate housewives, i almost blogged on that but c.i. said that there was a shake up about to happen and that things were changing.
i love ms. and a month later there was a shake up.
but ms. needs to be more than it is today.
and the website needs to provide new content regularly.
christine provided new content daily or almost daily. eleanor smeal is a personal hero but this blog once in november (it may have been twice) ain't cutting it.
and reproductive rights are huge issues to me but they aren't the only feminist issues. it's past time that ms. started weighing in loudly on this war.
they've had time for a cover story on first ladies. that might have been strong writing. i don't know. i threw that issue into the trash to be honest. without reading it.
i don't know if it was the move to california and away from nyc but ms. seems a lot more laid back these days.
i get e-mails about seth's site, seth in the city, asking why he only posted twice in november? i have no idea. i've never spoken to him. anytime the third estate has tried to bring him in on anything, he's been busy. people have e-mailed asking 'do you guys hate seth?' because in the past every new site has resulted in a blog spotlight and an interview or article on the new blogger. are we supposed to spotlight his entry last week where he said he was back to blogging and apologized for not blogging? that was the whole entry. it wasn't about anything else. and it never had a follow up. it's over a week later and there's still not another entry up.
i'm not calling seth stupid but that's no way to run a site.
i'm not calling ms. stupid but not having new content up regularly is no way to run a web site.
(i will hear from c.i. for my comments on ms. and for my comments on seth. that's cool and i understand c.i.'s point of view on both. i can even hear c.i.'s comments in my head right now. but i'm not going to play nice here or pretty it up.)
the nation and the progressive have both increased circulation by strong commentary. people are hungry for it. cover stories on tv shows and movie stars isn't going to convince anyone that ms. is serious.
we went through this before in the 80s and it nearly killed ms.
c.i. was convinced that the shake up was going to change things. i waited for it to happen. it's happened. i'm not seeing that big of a difference.
it's coming off like a polite magazine the way good housekeeping was decades ago.
that's not ms. and if i'm the only 1 who will say it, then i'm the only 1 who will say it.
i love ms. but it needs to be more. in print and online. it needs to stop the celebrity profiles immediately and return to the issues that matter. 1st among them is the war.
it's glossier these days. the print doesn't get on your hands. but it's also about as hard hitting as a pbs talk show. that's not feminism. people respond to strong voices and ms. needs to find it's strong voice.
i say that out of respect for what it has been in the past.
i also say it because if you no longer need christine at your website then you need someone else regularly putting up new content.
sherry's e-mailed me complaining about the lack of new content.
sherry, i hope you're visiting pop politics because christine (and bernie, and jaclyn and others) are posting there.
eleanor smeal's got a new post (december 1st) and c.i. hasn't noted it. which means no 1's passed it on to c.i. because c.i. will note anything from ms. but once a month isn't going to bring to traffic to ms.'s site.
mike's motto: The Common Ills community is important and the Common Ills community is important to me. So I'll do my part for the Common Ills community.
12/01/2005
thoughts on racism
c.i. noted this: "Help Make Thursday, December 1st 'Blog Against Racism Day.'" which is a thing by leah at corrente. which just sent me into a panic because i couldn't remember if i'd added them to my blog roll or not. (i had.)
so the thing is to talk about race or racism today.
so here are my thoughts on the matter and you can nod along or spit nails or whatever gets you going. i'm going to focus on an issue where white people who aren't racist enable racism.
'we are we and they are they' is the biggest narrative going. it's how we end up demonizing others. and it depends upon ignorance.
and it depends on our ignoring our commonalities and and not respecting our differences.
instead a difference becomes a reason to demonize.
race is 1 of the easiest ways to play the other (gender is another) because it requires only our eyes to scan quickly and fall for whatever stereotype is being promoted in which ever generation.
we have a bully boy in the white house who loves to play the country against one another and loves to create divisions.
this is also world aids day and that's another example of demonizing. 25 years later the stigma's not as great as it once was. provided you're a child or contracted the disease through blood transfusions.
you saw it with those crappy e-mails from bono's organization always about 'the children' as though that's the only focus for empathy.
ruth in her ruth's morning edition report talks about how 1 of the things she enjoys most is learning about things and i honestly believe that a lot of people feel that way.
but sometimes we act like we don't feel that way because 'what would some 1 say?' i've been amazed at, for instance, the number of people who will say something as stupid as 'i hate that will & grace. they say things like "who's homo?"' but if some 1, usually me, says 'i like that show' the same person fronting 2 minutes ago will suddenly say, 'isn't it funny?'
we're all so worried about what some 1 might think.
that's why bully boy managed to pull off 4 years with so little criticism. we were scared to state the obvious.
so we fear other's reactions. when we find out their reaction, we're usually okay with being open.
and that goes to racism because we fear what we don't know.
and ignorance is encouraged in our culture.
c.i. taught me long ago to say fuck it.
if you're not black and you're around white people fairly often, you've probably been in a group or 1 on 1 with someone that you thought was wonderful only to hear them utter a racist saying.
years ago, it would make me uncomfortable and i'd excuse myself and avoid the person from then on. but c.i. would always say 'that is racist' and not care what their reaction was.
when i was younger, believe it or not, i was not always quick to share my opinion and i was loathe to disagree.
i would see c.i., who really doesn't care - i mean really doesn't care, tell some 1 off for being racist or being sexist or being homophobic or go down the list. it could be any 1 and it never bothered c.i.
it took me awhile to get to that point.
and my silence perpetuated racism. i could tell myself 'well i just won't be around ___ anymore' but that didn't change anything. the person might wonder why i avoided them after the shocked look but they didn't get that their remarks were offensive and wrong.
we need to let people know when they are wrong. if we don't we are perpetuating racism with our silence.
it's easy to say 'well i'm not racist' and go on about your life and i did that with race, gender, you name it.
there was a couple that is friends with my ex-in-laws. they would make the most racist jokes and i would walk away from them. then i would whine to c.i. on the phone. c.i. would always say 'they need to be called on it. it won't change what they are probably, but it will make them twice about assuming that just because every 1 present is white, they can get away with that shit.'
so when we announced our engagement, i was telling myself, i can't be silent tonight.
it was hard for me because back then i really did want every 1 to like me. but that night, when the husband came over to make another 1 of his 'jokes' i let him have it.
the couple avoided me, and our wedding, which is fine. in fact it's better because i didn't have to work to avoid them since they were avoiding me.
and after that, it was honestly easier for me to say to any 1, 'that's wrong.'
for me it was a road to finding my voice and to being able to speak up for what i believe in.
there was a friend that t and i had who we used to do stuff with, us and a group of women. she pulled that nonsense 1 day after we'd all been hanging out for some time.
when i called her on it, she told me i had no sense of humor (they always go there, racists, sexists and homophobes) and started saying stuff like 'you know me, you know i'm not racist.'
i thought i knew you. i thought you weren't racist. then you tell that 'joke.'
and of course she doesn't do it around t.
which is how you know it's not just a 'joke.' if it's just a joke, why say it only when no african-americans are present? this woman was all 'you go, girl!' and 'girlfriend' this and 'girlfriend' that when t was around. (which t always found strange.)
so that's my point for the night.
it's easy for you to tell yourself that since you're not racist, you don't need to worry about it. that turns it into a problem for 'others.' that kind of thinking, for instance, would really push it off on t.
it would be my way of saying, 't, you're african-american, so this is your problem.'
but racism is a problem for every 1 that every 1 needs to address. so if you've grimaced at a 'joke' and said nothing, i want you to think about speaking your mind and calling people out.
maybe it will open some 1's eyes. maybe it will only make them avoid you.
regardless, you'll feel better about yourself. you'll probably also be doing your friends a favor.
i don't mean the ones telling 'jokes.' i mean your own c.i., the person you whine to on the phone about this or that. you'll free up your time to talk about things that really matter instead of constantly needing pep talks. and if you have enough respect to say 'no' you'll be a stronger person.
i'm not sure if this is the sort of thing they were hoping for today but, to quote kat, it is what it is.
and what it is is this: if you're biting your tongue around 'jokes' or worse, you're perpetuating racism.
so the thing is to talk about race or racism today.
so here are my thoughts on the matter and you can nod along or spit nails or whatever gets you going. i'm going to focus on an issue where white people who aren't racist enable racism.
'we are we and they are they' is the biggest narrative going. it's how we end up demonizing others. and it depends upon ignorance.
and it depends on our ignoring our commonalities and and not respecting our differences.
instead a difference becomes a reason to demonize.
race is 1 of the easiest ways to play the other (gender is another) because it requires only our eyes to scan quickly and fall for whatever stereotype is being promoted in which ever generation.
we have a bully boy in the white house who loves to play the country against one another and loves to create divisions.
this is also world aids day and that's another example of demonizing. 25 years later the stigma's not as great as it once was. provided you're a child or contracted the disease through blood transfusions.
you saw it with those crappy e-mails from bono's organization always about 'the children' as though that's the only focus for empathy.
ruth in her ruth's morning edition report talks about how 1 of the things she enjoys most is learning about things and i honestly believe that a lot of people feel that way.
but sometimes we act like we don't feel that way because 'what would some 1 say?' i've been amazed at, for instance, the number of people who will say something as stupid as 'i hate that will & grace. they say things like "who's homo?"' but if some 1, usually me, says 'i like that show' the same person fronting 2 minutes ago will suddenly say, 'isn't it funny?'
we're all so worried about what some 1 might think.
that's why bully boy managed to pull off 4 years with so little criticism. we were scared to state the obvious.
so we fear other's reactions. when we find out their reaction, we're usually okay with being open.
and that goes to racism because we fear what we don't know.
and ignorance is encouraged in our culture.
c.i. taught me long ago to say fuck it.
if you're not black and you're around white people fairly often, you've probably been in a group or 1 on 1 with someone that you thought was wonderful only to hear them utter a racist saying.
years ago, it would make me uncomfortable and i'd excuse myself and avoid the person from then on. but c.i. would always say 'that is racist' and not care what their reaction was.
when i was younger, believe it or not, i was not always quick to share my opinion and i was loathe to disagree.
i would see c.i., who really doesn't care - i mean really doesn't care, tell some 1 off for being racist or being sexist or being homophobic or go down the list. it could be any 1 and it never bothered c.i.
it took me awhile to get to that point.
and my silence perpetuated racism. i could tell myself 'well i just won't be around ___ anymore' but that didn't change anything. the person might wonder why i avoided them after the shocked look but they didn't get that their remarks were offensive and wrong.
we need to let people know when they are wrong. if we don't we are perpetuating racism with our silence.
it's easy to say 'well i'm not racist' and go on about your life and i did that with race, gender, you name it.
there was a couple that is friends with my ex-in-laws. they would make the most racist jokes and i would walk away from them. then i would whine to c.i. on the phone. c.i. would always say 'they need to be called on it. it won't change what they are probably, but it will make them twice about assuming that just because every 1 present is white, they can get away with that shit.'
so when we announced our engagement, i was telling myself, i can't be silent tonight.
it was hard for me because back then i really did want every 1 to like me. but that night, when the husband came over to make another 1 of his 'jokes' i let him have it.
the couple avoided me, and our wedding, which is fine. in fact it's better because i didn't have to work to avoid them since they were avoiding me.
and after that, it was honestly easier for me to say to any 1, 'that's wrong.'
for me it was a road to finding my voice and to being able to speak up for what i believe in.
there was a friend that t and i had who we used to do stuff with, us and a group of women. she pulled that nonsense 1 day after we'd all been hanging out for some time.
when i called her on it, she told me i had no sense of humor (they always go there, racists, sexists and homophobes) and started saying stuff like 'you know me, you know i'm not racist.'
i thought i knew you. i thought you weren't racist. then you tell that 'joke.'
and of course she doesn't do it around t.
which is how you know it's not just a 'joke.' if it's just a joke, why say it only when no african-americans are present? this woman was all 'you go, girl!' and 'girlfriend' this and 'girlfriend' that when t was around. (which t always found strange.)
so that's my point for the night.
it's easy for you to tell yourself that since you're not racist, you don't need to worry about it. that turns it into a problem for 'others.' that kind of thinking, for instance, would really push it off on t.
it would be my way of saying, 't, you're african-american, so this is your problem.'
but racism is a problem for every 1 that every 1 needs to address. so if you've grimaced at a 'joke' and said nothing, i want you to think about speaking your mind and calling people out.
maybe it will open some 1's eyes. maybe it will only make them avoid you.
regardless, you'll feel better about yourself. you'll probably also be doing your friends a favor.
i don't mean the ones telling 'jokes.' i mean your own c.i., the person you whine to on the phone about this or that. you'll free up your time to talk about things that really matter instead of constantly needing pep talks. and if you have enough respect to say 'no' you'll be a stronger person.
i'm not sure if this is the sort of thing they were hoping for today but, to quote kat, it is what it is.
and what it is is this: if you're biting your tongue around 'jokes' or worse, you're perpetuating racism.
11/30/2005
breaking news on breaking 9th circuit
i'm reposting the following (from the common ills) in full because it's that important.
"Target: the 9th Circuit (The Republican war on the judiciary continues)"
From the December issue of The Progressive, Ruth Conniff's "The Progressive Interview: Bernie Sanders:"[Bernie Sanders]:
In my view this happens to be one of the most dangerous moments in American history. These guys are not just reactionaires. They are changing the rules of the game so they will stay in power for the indefinite futere. We see this abuse of power on the floor of the House. They kept the voting rolls open for three hours to pass the Medicare prescription drug bill. I had an amendment, which won, on the Patriot Act. They kept the voting open twenty minutes longer to defeat it. They break the rules. It's like having a football game go into the fifth quareter because you don't like the results at the end of the fourth quarter. We know what DeLay did in Texas. They have taken chairmen -- yanked them out -- because they defy the leadership of the House. They are now attempting to destroy the judiciary system, which will have profound implications for the future of this country.
Note Sander's last sentence, "They are now attempting to destroy the judiciary system, which will have profound implications for the future of this country." (The article's from the latest issue of the magazine and it's not available online at present.) Why note the last sentence? Zachary Coile's "A quiet move in House to split the 9th Circuit" (San Francisco Chronicle):
A little-noticed provision in the massive House budget bill would fulfill the longtime goal of conservatives to split the San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, creating a new 12th circuit appellate court and allowing President Bush to name a slate of new federal judges.
Conservatives long have claimed that the Ninth Circuit is too liberal, and that reputation was reinforced by the court's 2002 ruling that reciting the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
But legal observers say the outcome of such a split is likely to be a more liberal court making decisions for California, Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands and a more conservative court serving seven other Western states now part of the Ninth Circuit -- Alaska, Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Nevada and Arizona.
In the article, Reagan appointee Judge Alex Kozinski is noted as testifying before the Senate last month:
Dividing a circuit should only take place when: one, there is demonstrated proof that a circuit is not operating effectively, and two, there is a consensus among the bench and bar and public that it serves that division is the appropriate remedy. Neither of those conditions exists today.
The article also notes that: "Of the 28 active judges on Ninth Circuit, only three have expressed support for splitting the court."
Though Diane Feinstein opposes the plan, Bully Boy has signed on to it.And who would pack the newly created circuit? (You know the answer.) It's thought that one of the states effected would be Oregon. (We have several members in Oregon.) Oregon hasbeen very active with measures that Bully Boy's Justice Department has opposed. For instance, Oregon's physician-assisted suicide. From CNN's "Federal judge upholds Oregon assisted-suicide law" (April 17, 2002):
In his ruling, Judge Robert E. Jones criticized U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft for seeking to nullify the state law, saying he "fired the first shot in the battle" and had sought to "stifle" a debate on the matter through a Nov. 6 directive.
Jones ordered the federal government to halt any efforts to prosecute Oregon physicians, pharmacists and other health-care providers who participate in assisted suicide of terminally ill patients under Oregon's law.
How bothered is the Bully Boy's Justice Department over this law? When the Ninth Circuit upheld Oregon's law, the Justice Department appealed to the Supreme Court. The case that began as Ashcroft v. Oregon became Gonzales v. Oregon and the Court heard testimony on it in October. (Oral arguments before the Court can be found here.)
The article in the Chronicle focuses on the effects to California. This would impact much more than California. Bully Boy's Justice Department has often proved successful is circuit shopping their cases.
physician-assisted suicide
bernie sanders
ruth conniff
the progressive
death with dignity
ninth circuit
judiciary
that may be 1 of the most important things you need to be aware for the day.
last night i wrote about barbara walters and her boring special. i wrote it before the final 10 minutes or i would have had much more to say. (thanks to wally and c.i. for getting the word out on my post.)
in the last 10 minutes, we worked our ways down to the even less important.
1st we had tom cruise who always, my opinion, comes off gay when he's trying so desperately to convince you that he's in love with some new woman. maybe he's not gay, maybe he is. but when he starts talking 'love' he sounds like some 1 trying real hard to present a front.
though time was limited, each segment lasted about as long as a music video, barbara did have time to go over all the times she'd interviewed tom cruise before; however, she did not have time to ask about the very obvious age difference.
you can be sure she would've asked cher or demi moore about the age issue.
but she's hardly a feminist so it's not too surprising to see her enforcing the sexist status quo.
from there we got the not so great camilla.
barbara walters all but stomped over the late princess diana's grave to run over and ass kiss camilla. it was insulting and it was shocking.
it was nice the way camilla was innocently inserted into charles life. always in the wings but in a platonic measure, of course. what a load of crap.
but it gets stinkier.
the most fascinating person of the year?
to barbara walters it was condi rice. apparently war criminals make barbara's panties moist.
ladies & gentlemen, barbara walters. she's not just a whore for the republican party, she's an old whore.
on that topic, did any 1 watching really think that was her own hair? if you're going to do fake hair, why do it blonde if you're not naturally a blonde?
i couldn't figure out if she picked out the fake, horse hair because it looked so bad and dry that she assumed people would think, 'it looks bad, it must be real' or if it's just further evidence of how she has no taste?
condi has a soft spot, barbara tells us. which means when not lying the american people into war, condi likes to play football.
watching barbara gush over condi, i had to wonder if barbara was hoping to tackle condie on the field?
since colin powell's apparently not running for president ever, barbara walters is all wet and frothy over condi rice.
how that woman can show her face is beyond me.
i meant walters but it applies to both. maybe that's what they bonded over: lack of shame.
the daily jot
the common ills
mikey likes it
mike's new motto:
The Common Ills community is important and the Common Ills community is important to me. So I'll do my part for the Common Ills community.
"Target: the 9th Circuit (The Republican war on the judiciary continues)"
From the December issue of The Progressive, Ruth Conniff's "The Progressive Interview: Bernie Sanders:"[Bernie Sanders]:
In my view this happens to be one of the most dangerous moments in American history. These guys are not just reactionaires. They are changing the rules of the game so they will stay in power for the indefinite futere. We see this abuse of power on the floor of the House. They kept the voting rolls open for three hours to pass the Medicare prescription drug bill. I had an amendment, which won, on the Patriot Act. They kept the voting open twenty minutes longer to defeat it. They break the rules. It's like having a football game go into the fifth quareter because you don't like the results at the end of the fourth quarter. We know what DeLay did in Texas. They have taken chairmen -- yanked them out -- because they defy the leadership of the House. They are now attempting to destroy the judiciary system, which will have profound implications for the future of this country.
Note Sander's last sentence, "They are now attempting to destroy the judiciary system, which will have profound implications for the future of this country." (The article's from the latest issue of the magazine and it's not available online at present.) Why note the last sentence? Zachary Coile's "A quiet move in House to split the 9th Circuit" (San Francisco Chronicle):
A little-noticed provision in the massive House budget bill would fulfill the longtime goal of conservatives to split the San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, creating a new 12th circuit appellate court and allowing President Bush to name a slate of new federal judges.
Conservatives long have claimed that the Ninth Circuit is too liberal, and that reputation was reinforced by the court's 2002 ruling that reciting the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
But legal observers say the outcome of such a split is likely to be a more liberal court making decisions for California, Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands and a more conservative court serving seven other Western states now part of the Ninth Circuit -- Alaska, Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Nevada and Arizona.
In the article, Reagan appointee Judge Alex Kozinski is noted as testifying before the Senate last month:
Dividing a circuit should only take place when: one, there is demonstrated proof that a circuit is not operating effectively, and two, there is a consensus among the bench and bar and public that it serves that division is the appropriate remedy. Neither of those conditions exists today.
The article also notes that: "Of the 28 active judges on Ninth Circuit, only three have expressed support for splitting the court."
Though Diane Feinstein opposes the plan, Bully Boy has signed on to it.And who would pack the newly created circuit? (You know the answer.) It's thought that one of the states effected would be Oregon. (We have several members in Oregon.) Oregon hasbeen very active with measures that Bully Boy's Justice Department has opposed. For instance, Oregon's physician-assisted suicide. From CNN's "Federal judge upholds Oregon assisted-suicide law" (April 17, 2002):
In his ruling, Judge Robert E. Jones criticized U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft for seeking to nullify the state law, saying he "fired the first shot in the battle" and had sought to "stifle" a debate on the matter through a Nov. 6 directive.
Jones ordered the federal government to halt any efforts to prosecute Oregon physicians, pharmacists and other health-care providers who participate in assisted suicide of terminally ill patients under Oregon's law.
How bothered is the Bully Boy's Justice Department over this law? When the Ninth Circuit upheld Oregon's law, the Justice Department appealed to the Supreme Court. The case that began as Ashcroft v. Oregon became Gonzales v. Oregon and the Court heard testimony on it in October. (Oral arguments before the Court can be found here.)
The article in the Chronicle focuses on the effects to California. This would impact much more than California. Bully Boy's Justice Department has often proved successful is circuit shopping their cases.
physician-assisted suicide
bernie sanders
ruth conniff
the progressive
death with dignity
ninth circuit
judiciary
that may be 1 of the most important things you need to be aware for the day.
last night i wrote about barbara walters and her boring special. i wrote it before the final 10 minutes or i would have had much more to say. (thanks to wally and c.i. for getting the word out on my post.)
in the last 10 minutes, we worked our ways down to the even less important.
1st we had tom cruise who always, my opinion, comes off gay when he's trying so desperately to convince you that he's in love with some new woman. maybe he's not gay, maybe he is. but when he starts talking 'love' he sounds like some 1 trying real hard to present a front.
though time was limited, each segment lasted about as long as a music video, barbara did have time to go over all the times she'd interviewed tom cruise before; however, she did not have time to ask about the very obvious age difference.
you can be sure she would've asked cher or demi moore about the age issue.
but she's hardly a feminist so it's not too surprising to see her enforcing the sexist status quo.
from there we got the not so great camilla.
barbara walters all but stomped over the late princess diana's grave to run over and ass kiss camilla. it was insulting and it was shocking.
it was nice the way camilla was innocently inserted into charles life. always in the wings but in a platonic measure, of course. what a load of crap.
but it gets stinkier.
the most fascinating person of the year?
to barbara walters it was condi rice. apparently war criminals make barbara's panties moist.
ladies & gentlemen, barbara walters. she's not just a whore for the republican party, she's an old whore.
on that topic, did any 1 watching really think that was her own hair? if you're going to do fake hair, why do it blonde if you're not naturally a blonde?
i couldn't figure out if she picked out the fake, horse hair because it looked so bad and dry that she assumed people would think, 'it looks bad, it must be real' or if it's just further evidence of how she has no taste?
condi has a soft spot, barbara tells us. which means when not lying the american people into war, condi likes to play football.
watching barbara gush over condi, i had to wonder if barbara was hoping to tackle condie on the field?
since colin powell's apparently not running for president ever, barbara walters is all wet and frothy over condi rice.
how that woman can show her face is beyond me.
i meant walters but it applies to both. maybe that's what they bonded over: lack of shame.
the daily jot
the common ills
mikey likes it
mike's new motto:
The Common Ills community is important and the Common Ills community is important to me. So I'll do my part for the Common Ills community.
11/29/2005
ba-ba-ba ba-ba-boring
'rebecca, why are the posts late these days?'
when john roberts was confirmed, i spiraled into a depression.
alito?
i'm sure his ass will be put on the bench because i don't see any strength in the dems on this. (maybe they're saving up their energy?)
but it won't be because i didn't do what i could.
ava, c.i. and elaine organized on roberts. if you asked them, they'll tell you they weren't surprised that roberts got confirmed. but they knew they had done everything they could to stop it.
if/when alito's confirmed, i want to be sure that i did everything i could to make my voice heard.
i hope you're doing the same.
the editorial i put up here yesterday got a some favorable e-mails.
but it also got questions. 1 was, why isn't anyone talking about this?
i have no idea. maybe everyone was too wrapped up in barbara walter's idea of the ten most whatever people.
interesting?
kayne west is the only 1 who's interesting.
hot?
have you seen some of the people on the special?
i can't think of anything worse than the special.
there's useless babara walters on aruba.
the world really needed that.
am i missing something?
on this 'fascinating' people, where's cindy sheehan.
oh that's right barbara walters carries water for the republicans. hell she probably carried nancy regan's toilet kit.
i'm amazed that this useless piece of fluff has managed to live down iran-contra. but it helps to have a press that doesn't want to question.
she's got all the useless 1s on board.
lance armstrong. peddling fast to escape the french accusations of doping and with his 'pretend i'm a teenager!' girlfriend sheryl crow in tow. did any 1 notice, by the way, that her album tanked?
guess in music you can't be infantile forever. a little spark can get your career going but if you have nothing else to offer and never grow or stretch, you're just boring.
too bad sheryl crow didn't think to go into tv instead. as barbara walters demonstrates, you can be as boring and as infantile as you want and have a long career in tv.
kanye west was the only reason to watch 'instant walters' tonight.
maybe she's as bored with her interviews as every 1 else?
what else could account for this special?
or 'special.'
it's even more superficial than her long winded work.
each 'fascinating' person gets about the time needed for a music video.
probing journalism barbara!
where do old press whores go?
i don't care, i just wish she would get there already.
when john roberts was confirmed, i spiraled into a depression.
alito?
i'm sure his ass will be put on the bench because i don't see any strength in the dems on this. (maybe they're saving up their energy?)
but it won't be because i didn't do what i could.
ava, c.i. and elaine organized on roberts. if you asked them, they'll tell you they weren't surprised that roberts got confirmed. but they knew they had done everything they could to stop it.
if/when alito's confirmed, i want to be sure that i did everything i could to make my voice heard.
i hope you're doing the same.
the editorial i put up here yesterday got a some favorable e-mails.
but it also got questions. 1 was, why isn't anyone talking about this?
i have no idea. maybe everyone was too wrapped up in barbara walter's idea of the ten most whatever people.
interesting?
kayne west is the only 1 who's interesting.
hot?
have you seen some of the people on the special?
i can't think of anything worse than the special.
there's useless babara walters on aruba.
the world really needed that.
am i missing something?
on this 'fascinating' people, where's cindy sheehan.
oh that's right barbara walters carries water for the republicans. hell she probably carried nancy regan's toilet kit.
i'm amazed that this useless piece of fluff has managed to live down iran-contra. but it helps to have a press that doesn't want to question.
she's got all the useless 1s on board.
lance armstrong. peddling fast to escape the french accusations of doping and with his 'pretend i'm a teenager!' girlfriend sheryl crow in tow. did any 1 notice, by the way, that her album tanked?
guess in music you can't be infantile forever. a little spark can get your career going but if you have nothing else to offer and never grow or stretch, you're just boring.
too bad sheryl crow didn't think to go into tv instead. as barbara walters demonstrates, you can be as boring and as infantile as you want and have a long career in tv.
kanye west was the only reason to watch 'instant walters' tonight.
maybe she's as bored with her interviews as every 1 else?
what else could account for this special?
or 'special.'
it's even more superficial than her long winded work.
each 'fascinating' person gets about the time needed for a music video.
probing journalism barbara!
where do old press whores go?
i don't care, i just wish she would get there already.
11/28/2005
editorial
i've got friends over so i'm just going to cross post tonight.
this is from an editorial we worked on at the third estate sunday review and i'm not hearing much media coverage on this court case but maybe i'm just missing it:
'Editorial: Looks Who's Screaming "Special Rights"'
The Gray Lady plays Miss Manners and clucks "Parents are more involved than ever before. So why do children today seem so rude?" in the pull quote to their Week in Review front page story "Kids Gone Wild." Recycling a trend story that's been around longer than The New York Times, the paper's on hot the trail of . . . nothing.
Which is too bad because inside they actually have something worth noting. Page five's "Here's the Problem With Emily Dickinson." The problem with Dickinson, for some, is that she exhibited "a veiled disrespect for authroity in general." Kids today, what you gonna' do?
Apprarently take it to court.
"On Dec. 12, the Federal District Court in Los Angeles will hear a lawsuit filed by a consortium of Christian high schools against the University of California system for refusing to credit some of their courses when their students apply to admission."
Well boo hoo. They want, to use a term 'vangicals are so fond of, "SPECIAL RIGHTS."
Now maybe we're dealing with parents who never made it through a college system that didn't have a televangist attached, but this editorial is written by enrolled college students and college graduates. Rebecca switched universities. When she did, her short story English course? She didn't get credit for it at her new university. We can list stories like that for a month and a half. Colleges have the right to determine what they will recognize as an accredited course (from high school or another college or a junior college). If someone's planning to attend a univeristy, it's incumbent upon them to know which courses are accepted and which aren't.
Five of us have heard a recent transfer whine for an entire semester, in every class, that some of his courses wouldn't "transfer." No one forced him to transfer. He always intended to transfer. It was his choice to fly blind.
Academic admission standards are decided based on what core knowledge all incoming students should have. There's nothing that prevents the Calvary Chapel Christian School of Murrieta, CA from offering whatever electives they want. However, if the core courses don't receive credit, that's something the private high schools need to address within their own systems.
The article in the paper (by Thomas Vinciguerra) offers excerpts from texts for these non-credited courses. The information imparted in those texts may be useful to someone's spirituality or not. They're not helping to educating the students on the basics that one needs to enter college.
No one's forcing the schools to drop those courses. They can offer them. They just shouldn't whine when colleges refuse to accredit them. We're sure the parents are outraged. They've spent good money sending their children to private schools. That's a problem between the parents and the schools they selected for their children.
Nothing prevents the schools from offering the same information in elective courses. But the courses aren't covering the core information that a student entering college needs.
That's not the fault of university standards.
Text books containing (as fact) statements such as "Second, physics as taught in the schools of the world contradicts the processes that shaped the world we see today" aren't teaching core academic requirements. They're teaching opinion and they can continue to do that. No one's stopping them.
They just shouldn't demand that academic standards be lowered to give them "Special Rights."
Want to attend secular universities? Learn the basics. You can learn anything else you want, but cover the basics.
Elaine and C.I. saw a ridiculous "film" about the "haters" this week. "Haters" try to deny rights, the film argued, they want everyone to believe as they do. Do you know who the haters were? Everyone living in a secular world. (Regardless of their own personal beliefs.) The whole world, according to the film, was out to get evangicals.
Talk about a persecution complex.
No one's insisting that private, religious schools teach anything. If their students wish to attend secular universities, they need to be prepared at the same level as other students. There's no Special-Ed U that we're aware of (jokes aside). Classes don't need to come to a repeated halt because someone's not up to the same level as their peers.
The texts excerted by the paper do not cover one course. They are the science texts, the literature texts, the historical texts.
The students have been taught a lot of faith, they haven't been taught a lot of facts. Maybe they've managed to pick that up on their own, maybe they haven't. But colleges determine whether or not a course receives credit based upon the content taught in the class.
Though those with persecution complexes may want to scream that this is a religious issue, it's not. There's nothing preventing the religious schools from teaching these non-credited courses.
They can teach only those courses and continue enrolling any student whose parents are willing to spend money on an education that won't transfer. Or they can teach those courses as electives and offer core classes that meet the academic requirements.
They shouldn't, however, think they can teach substandard courses and then scream "religious bigotry" when a university refuses to credit those courses.
As electives, the courses could help shape a new generation of op-ed writers and thinkers. We wouldn't care to read their writing but their opinions could be shaped by elective courses. However, these aren't core classes. They do not meet the basic requirements.
The only "haters" are the people who want to reject accepted academic standards for high schools and then receive a waiver allowing them to enter a secular university. There's a variety of religions to be found in the authors of this editorial. This includes people who attended parochial schools. They learned their basics there, not just faith.
That 'vangical schools want to pop up and play by their own academic guidelines is fine. They just can't ignore core comptency and then whine about the fact that the substandard academic education they've provided won't transfer. The only "haters" ares the ones insisting upon "Special Rights." When gays and lesbians ask for equal protection under the law, 'vangicals scream (falsely) special rights. This legal challenge is another example of their refusal to recognize the need for equality, in this case equal standards for admission.
[This editorial was written by The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Betty Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man, C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz and Wally of The Daily Jot.]
posted by Third Estate Sunday Review @ Sunday, November 27, 2005
this is from an editorial we worked on at the third estate sunday review and i'm not hearing much media coverage on this court case but maybe i'm just missing it:
'Editorial: Looks Who's Screaming "Special Rights"'
The Gray Lady plays Miss Manners and clucks "Parents are more involved than ever before. So why do children today seem so rude?" in the pull quote to their Week in Review front page story "Kids Gone Wild." Recycling a trend story that's been around longer than The New York Times, the paper's on hot the trail of . . . nothing.
Which is too bad because inside they actually have something worth noting. Page five's "Here's the Problem With Emily Dickinson." The problem with Dickinson, for some, is that she exhibited "a veiled disrespect for authroity in general." Kids today, what you gonna' do?
Apprarently take it to court.
"On Dec. 12, the Federal District Court in Los Angeles will hear a lawsuit filed by a consortium of Christian high schools against the University of California system for refusing to credit some of their courses when their students apply to admission."
Well boo hoo. They want, to use a term 'vangicals are so fond of, "SPECIAL RIGHTS."
Now maybe we're dealing with parents who never made it through a college system that didn't have a televangist attached, but this editorial is written by enrolled college students and college graduates. Rebecca switched universities. When she did, her short story English course? She didn't get credit for it at her new university. We can list stories like that for a month and a half. Colleges have the right to determine what they will recognize as an accredited course (from high school or another college or a junior college). If someone's planning to attend a univeristy, it's incumbent upon them to know which courses are accepted and which aren't.
Five of us have heard a recent transfer whine for an entire semester, in every class, that some of his courses wouldn't "transfer." No one forced him to transfer. He always intended to transfer. It was his choice to fly blind.
Academic admission standards are decided based on what core knowledge all incoming students should have. There's nothing that prevents the Calvary Chapel Christian School of Murrieta, CA from offering whatever electives they want. However, if the core courses don't receive credit, that's something the private high schools need to address within their own systems.
The article in the paper (by Thomas Vinciguerra) offers excerpts from texts for these non-credited courses. The information imparted in those texts may be useful to someone's spirituality or not. They're not helping to educating the students on the basics that one needs to enter college.
No one's forcing the schools to drop those courses. They can offer them. They just shouldn't whine when colleges refuse to accredit them. We're sure the parents are outraged. They've spent good money sending their children to private schools. That's a problem between the parents and the schools they selected for their children.
Nothing prevents the schools from offering the same information in elective courses. But the courses aren't covering the core information that a student entering college needs.
That's not the fault of university standards.
Text books containing (as fact) statements such as "Second, physics as taught in the schools of the world contradicts the processes that shaped the world we see today" aren't teaching core academic requirements. They're teaching opinion and they can continue to do that. No one's stopping them.
They just shouldn't demand that academic standards be lowered to give them "Special Rights."
Want to attend secular universities? Learn the basics. You can learn anything else you want, but cover the basics.
Elaine and C.I. saw a ridiculous "film" about the "haters" this week. "Haters" try to deny rights, the film argued, they want everyone to believe as they do. Do you know who the haters were? Everyone living in a secular world. (Regardless of their own personal beliefs.) The whole world, according to the film, was out to get evangicals.
Talk about a persecution complex.
No one's insisting that private, religious schools teach anything. If their students wish to attend secular universities, they need to be prepared at the same level as other students. There's no Special-Ed U that we're aware of (jokes aside). Classes don't need to come to a repeated halt because someone's not up to the same level as their peers.
The texts excerted by the paper do not cover one course. They are the science texts, the literature texts, the historical texts.
The students have been taught a lot of faith, they haven't been taught a lot of facts. Maybe they've managed to pick that up on their own, maybe they haven't. But colleges determine whether or not a course receives credit based upon the content taught in the class.
Though those with persecution complexes may want to scream that this is a religious issue, it's not. There's nothing preventing the religious schools from teaching these non-credited courses.
They can teach only those courses and continue enrolling any student whose parents are willing to spend money on an education that won't transfer. Or they can teach those courses as electives and offer core classes that meet the academic requirements.
They shouldn't, however, think they can teach substandard courses and then scream "religious bigotry" when a university refuses to credit those courses.
As electives, the courses could help shape a new generation of op-ed writers and thinkers. We wouldn't care to read their writing but their opinions could be shaped by elective courses. However, these aren't core classes. They do not meet the basic requirements.
The only "haters" are the people who want to reject accepted academic standards for high schools and then receive a waiver allowing them to enter a secular university. There's a variety of religions to be found in the authors of this editorial. This includes people who attended parochial schools. They learned their basics there, not just faith.
That 'vangical schools want to pop up and play by their own academic guidelines is fine. They just can't ignore core comptency and then whine about the fact that the substandard academic education they've provided won't transfer. The only "haters" ares the ones insisting upon "Special Rights." When gays and lesbians ask for equal protection under the law, 'vangicals scream (falsely) special rights. This legal challenge is another example of their refusal to recognize the need for equality, in this case equal standards for admission.
[This editorial was written by The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Betty Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man, C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz and Wally of The Daily Jot.]
posted by Third Estate Sunday Review @ Sunday, November 27, 2005
11/27/2005
11/25/2005
news you can use, so use it!
i talked to elaine and asked her, 'are you just going to post the headlines? because i have a busy night.' elaine said she was just going to post them and a peace quote. i'm sure she was being nice because 'fly boy' (as mike calls my ex) and i have a big evening planned. i'll take kindness.
here are headlines.
We've composed the following twelve headlines dealing with Iraq, peace, global warming, reproductive rights, Bob Woodward, Judith Miller, prisons, the Patriot Act, the media, fatalities and other topics.
1) From Dahr Jamail's MidEast Wire (Iraq Dispatches):
Monday in Iraq, US troops fired on a car in Ba'qubah, killing five, two adults and three children. The US military states that they feared the car "booby-trapped." The family had been returning from visiting relatives when a US convoy approached. The car was fired on from the front and the back. One Iraqi was quoted as saying, "The ones who brought in the Americans are at fault. Those who support them are at fault. All of them are at fault. Look at these. They are all children. All of them of are children. They killed them. They killed my entire family."
2) In the United States the Associated Press reports that Cindy Sheehan returned to Crawford, Texas Thursday and joined what some estimates say were 100 protestors and other estimates say as many as 200.Cindy Sheehan stated, "I feel happy to be back here with all my friends ... but I'm heartbroken that we have to be here again," said Sheehan, who hoped to arrive earlier in the week, but was delayed by a family emergency. "We will keep pressing and we won't give up until our troops are brought home."
3) Since Sheehan and others last gathered at Camp Casey I and Camp Casey II, laws have been passed to prevent further gatherings in Crawford -- "local bans on roadside camping and parking." As protestors returned this week, they were advised they could be arrested. Among those arrested Wednesday were Daniel Ellsberg and US diplomat Ann Wright. Democratic Underground has a report from Carl who was also arrested Wendesday. Carl reports that "The entire [arrest & booking] process took 3.5 hours." Carl advises that the vigils will also take place on Christmas and New Year's Eve as well as that "Donations to the Crawford Veterans For Peace can be mailed to P. O. Box 252, Crawford, Texas, 76638-9998."
4) As the participation of psychologists and psychiatrists in the "BISQUIT" program and other 'interrogation' work raises ethical and professional questions today, CounterPunch is reporting that in WWII, United States anthropologists participated with the Office of Strategic Services in attempts to determine means to destroy the Japanese. David Price reports, in what is a clear betrayal of the profession, anthropologists were instructed "to try to conceive ways that any detectable differences could be used in the development of weapons, but they were cautioned to consider this issue 'in a-moral and non-ethical terms'." Price notes "Ralph Linton and Harry Shapiro, objected to even considering the OSS' request but they were the exceptions."
5) In legal news, as the prison industry has switched to a profit making business, prisoners have found themselves located far from relatives. The distance has proved profitable for long distance companies. The Center for Constitutional Rights argued in court Monday on behalf of "New York family members who pay a grossly inflated rate to receive a phone call from their loved ones in state prisons." CCR notes:
The lawsuit, Walton v. NYSDOCS and MCI, seeks an order prohibiting the State and MCI from charging exorbitant rates to the family members of prisoners to finance a 57.5% kickback to the State. MCI charges these family members a 630% markup over regular consumer rates to receive a collect call from their loved ones, the only way possible to speak with them. Judge George Ceresia of the Supreme Court of New York, Albany County, dismissed the suit last fall, citing issues of timeliness.
6) In other legal news, Cynthia L. Cooper reports for Women's enews that November 30th the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. At issue in this case, is whether or not bans on reproductive freedom enacted by state legislatures must take effect before they can be legally challenged or whether they can be challenged as soon as they are passed. The standard up to now has been that laws can be challenged as soon as they are passed. Cooper notes:
By changing the legal standard for when an abortion restriction can be challenged in court, anti-abortion laws could quickly entangle women across the country, without directly overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that held that states could not criminalize abortion in all circumstances.
7) The Guardian of London reports on a Rutgers University study that has found "[g]lobal warming is doubling the rate of sea level rise around the world, but attempts to stop it by cutting back on greenhouse gas emissions are likely to be futile." Professor Kenneth Miller tells The Guardian's Ashraf Khalil, "This is going to cause more beach erosion. Beaches are going to move back and houses will be destroyed." This comes as the Climate Conference is gearing up to take place in Montreal from November 28th to December 9th. United for Peace and Justiceis issuing a call for action:
This fall let's mobilize a nationwide, grassroots education and action campaign leading up to mass demonstrations in Montreal and throughout the U.S. on Saturday, December 3rd. Help gather signatures for the Peoples Ratification of the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty (http://www.unitedforpeace.org/www.kyotoandbeyond.org), which will be presented in Montreal. Join Climate Crisis: USA Join the World! (http://www.unitedforpeace.org/www.climatecrisis.us) as we call for:USA Join the World by Ratifying the Kyoto Protocol
Support and Export Clean, Safe, Non-Nuclear Energy Alternatives
End Government Subsidies for Oil and Coal Corporations
Dramatically Strengthen Energy Conservation and Fuel Efficiency Standards
A Just Transition for Workers, Indigenous and Other Communities Affected by a Change to Clean Energy
Defend the World's Forests; Support Community-Run Tree Planting Campaigns
8) With Congress out of session due to the holidays, a number of organizations are attempting to inform the public of pending legislation. The Bill of Rights Defense Center warns to "[e]xpect a vote [on the renewal of the Patriot Act] after Congress returns on December 12th." Of the bill, Lisa Graves of the ACLU states:
The Patriot Act was bad in 2001, and despite bipartisan calls for reform, it's still bad in 2005. Instead of addressing the real concerns that millions of Americans have about the Patriot Act, the Republican majority in Congress buckled to White House pressure, stripping the bill of modest yet meaningful reforms. Congress must reject this bill.
Both the ACLU and the Bill of Rights of Defense Center are calling for grass roots action.
Also asking for action is NOW. Congress failed to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.You can make your voice heard via NOW's take action page. On their page, you have the option of e-mailing your representatives and/or signing a petition that NOW will present to Congress on December 5th.
9) Meanwhile, as November winds down, American military fatalities have reached 76 for the month, with the Department of Defense reporting 50 Americans wounded thus far this month. The total number of American military killed in Iraq, official count, has reached 2105. Scripps Howard News Service reports that, "U.S. commanders on the ground have already launched plans to close bases and withdraw troops in the coming year, according to two congressmen who returned from Iraq this week." The two congress members are John Kline and Mark Kennedy (Republicans, Minn.).
10) In other Congressional news, Ari Berman reports for The Nation that John McCain is in the midst of makeover. Meeting with The Arizona Republican Assembly in August, McCain slapped some new war paint on as McCain supported the teaching of so-called "intelligent design" side by side with evolution, the state's "ban on gay marriage that denies government benefits to any unmarried couple," hailed Ronald Reagan as "my hero" and was observed "strenuously defending . . . Bush's Iraq policy."
For those who have forgotten, McCain attended Mark Bingham's funeral. Bingham was one of the passengers of Flight 93 on 9/11 in immediate media reports. As the days wore on, Bingham appeared to disappear from many reports. Mark Bingham was gay. Whether that resulted in a "downgrading" by some in the media has been a source of speculation for some time.
11) Focusing on the media, at The Black Commentator, Margaret Kimberly addresses the issue of Bob Woodward, tying him and his editor to the journalistic behaviors of Judith Miller and her editors:
Miller, Sulzberger, Woodward and Bradlee are at the top of the corporate media food chain, and their behavior tells us why Americans aren't being told anything they ought to be told. Woodward uses his access to make a fortune writing about the Supreme Court or various presidential administrations. If a journalist's priority is writing best selling books based on the amount of access gained with the powerful, then truth telling goes out the window.
12) Also addressing the very similar behaviors of Miller and Woodward are Steven C. Day at Pop Politics, Ron Brynaert at Why Are We Back In Iraq?, and Arianna Huffington at The Huffington Post. Though still vocal on Judith Miller and weighing in with the "latest," CJR Daily still can't find a connection between the "journalistic" styles of Judith Miller and Bob Woodward. In their most recent 'Judy report', CJR Daily ponders the question of why did Miller go to jail when Scooter Libby and his people maintain that they released her from confidentiality claims. Covering old news and working themselves into another lather over Miller, CJR Daily wonders"Why did Ms. Miller go to jail?" and maintains the question "has never been fully answered." The question has indeed been answered.
Whether CJR Daily approves of or believes the argument of Miller, Floyd Abrams, et al, is beside the point. For the record, the answer has been given many times. The argument was that Miller needed more than a form signed possibly under duress. Abrams and others have long been on the record explaining that they sought a release other than the form. In the front page report, Sunday October 16, 2005, Don Van Natta Jr., Adam Liptak and Clifford J. Levy reported:
She said she began thinking about whether she should reach out to Mr. Libby for "a personal, voluntary waiver."
[. . .]
While she mulled over over her options, Mr. Bennett was urging her to allow him to approach Mr. Tate, Mr. Libby's lawyer, to try tonegotiate a deal that would get her out of jail. Mr. Bennet wanted to revive the question of the waivers that Mr. Libby and other administration officials signed the previous year authorizing reporters to disclose their confidential discussions.
The other reporters subpoenaed in the case said such waivers were coerced. They said administration officials signed them only because they feared retribution from the prosecutor or the White House. Reporters for at least three news organizations had then gone back to their sources and obtained additional assurances that convinced them the waivers were genunie. But Ms. Miller said she had not gotten an assurance that she felt would allow her to testify.
Again, from the front page New York Times story on . . . October 16, 2005. Though this was not the first reporting on Miller's position, this front page story of the Times was commented in great detail including at CJR Daily here and here. The latter time by the same writer who now wonders "Why did Ms. Miller go to jail?" Repeatedly hitting the designated pinata with articles focusing on her conduct while reducing the conduct of Bob Woodward to asides (whispered asides?) doesn't appear to make for brave "watchdoggery."
Democracy Now! has a special presentation today. The headlines above were composed by The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, Betty Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man, Wally of The Daily Jot and Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix. Thanks to Dallas for his help with links and tags. The above will be reposted at The Third Estate Sunday Review and may also be reposted at the sites of members participating.
here are headlines.
We've composed the following twelve headlines dealing with Iraq, peace, global warming, reproductive rights, Bob Woodward, Judith Miller, prisons, the Patriot Act, the media, fatalities and other topics.
1) From Dahr Jamail's MidEast Wire (Iraq Dispatches):
Monday in Iraq, US troops fired on a car in Ba'qubah, killing five, two adults and three children. The US military states that they feared the car "booby-trapped." The family had been returning from visiting relatives when a US convoy approached. The car was fired on from the front and the back. One Iraqi was quoted as saying, "The ones who brought in the Americans are at fault. Those who support them are at fault. All of them are at fault. Look at these. They are all children. All of them of are children. They killed them. They killed my entire family."
2) In the United States the Associated Press reports that Cindy Sheehan returned to Crawford, Texas Thursday and joined what some estimates say were 100 protestors and other estimates say as many as 200.Cindy Sheehan stated, "I feel happy to be back here with all my friends ... but I'm heartbroken that we have to be here again," said Sheehan, who hoped to arrive earlier in the week, but was delayed by a family emergency. "We will keep pressing and we won't give up until our troops are brought home."
3) Since Sheehan and others last gathered at Camp Casey I and Camp Casey II, laws have been passed to prevent further gatherings in Crawford -- "local bans on roadside camping and parking." As protestors returned this week, they were advised they could be arrested. Among those arrested Wednesday were Daniel Ellsberg and US diplomat Ann Wright. Democratic Underground has a report from Carl who was also arrested Wendesday. Carl reports that "The entire [arrest & booking] process took 3.5 hours." Carl advises that the vigils will also take place on Christmas and New Year's Eve as well as that "Donations to the Crawford Veterans For Peace can be mailed to P. O. Box 252, Crawford, Texas, 76638-9998."
4) As the participation of psychologists and psychiatrists in the "BISQUIT" program and other 'interrogation' work raises ethical and professional questions today, CounterPunch is reporting that in WWII, United States anthropologists participated with the Office of Strategic Services in attempts to determine means to destroy the Japanese. David Price reports, in what is a clear betrayal of the profession, anthropologists were instructed "to try to conceive ways that any detectable differences could be used in the development of weapons, but they were cautioned to consider this issue 'in a-moral and non-ethical terms'." Price notes "Ralph Linton and Harry Shapiro, objected to even considering the OSS' request but they were the exceptions."
5) In legal news, as the prison industry has switched to a profit making business, prisoners have found themselves located far from relatives. The distance has proved profitable for long distance companies. The Center for Constitutional Rights argued in court Monday on behalf of "New York family members who pay a grossly inflated rate to receive a phone call from their loved ones in state prisons." CCR notes:
The lawsuit, Walton v. NYSDOCS and MCI, seeks an order prohibiting the State and MCI from charging exorbitant rates to the family members of prisoners to finance a 57.5% kickback to the State. MCI charges these family members a 630% markup over regular consumer rates to receive a collect call from their loved ones, the only way possible to speak with them. Judge George Ceresia of the Supreme Court of New York, Albany County, dismissed the suit last fall, citing issues of timeliness.
6) In other legal news, Cynthia L. Cooper reports for Women's enews that November 30th the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. At issue in this case, is whether or not bans on reproductive freedom enacted by state legislatures must take effect before they can be legally challenged or whether they can be challenged as soon as they are passed. The standard up to now has been that laws can be challenged as soon as they are passed. Cooper notes:
By changing the legal standard for when an abortion restriction can be challenged in court, anti-abortion laws could quickly entangle women across the country, without directly overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that held that states could not criminalize abortion in all circumstances.
7) The Guardian of London reports on a Rutgers University study that has found "[g]lobal warming is doubling the rate of sea level rise around the world, but attempts to stop it by cutting back on greenhouse gas emissions are likely to be futile." Professor Kenneth Miller tells The Guardian's Ashraf Khalil, "This is going to cause more beach erosion. Beaches are going to move back and houses will be destroyed." This comes as the Climate Conference is gearing up to take place in Montreal from November 28th to December 9th. United for Peace and Justiceis issuing a call for action:
This fall let's mobilize a nationwide, grassroots education and action campaign leading up to mass demonstrations in Montreal and throughout the U.S. on Saturday, December 3rd. Help gather signatures for the Peoples Ratification of the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty (http://www.unitedforpeace.org/www.kyotoandbeyond.org), which will be presented in Montreal. Join Climate Crisis: USA Join the World! (http://www.unitedforpeace.org/www.climatecrisis.us) as we call for:USA Join the World by Ratifying the Kyoto Protocol
Support and Export Clean, Safe, Non-Nuclear Energy Alternatives
End Government Subsidies for Oil and Coal Corporations
Dramatically Strengthen Energy Conservation and Fuel Efficiency Standards
A Just Transition for Workers, Indigenous and Other Communities Affected by a Change to Clean Energy
Defend the World's Forests; Support Community-Run Tree Planting Campaigns
8) With Congress out of session due to the holidays, a number of organizations are attempting to inform the public of pending legislation. The Bill of Rights Defense Center warns to "[e]xpect a vote [on the renewal of the Patriot Act] after Congress returns on December 12th." Of the bill, Lisa Graves of the ACLU states:
The Patriot Act was bad in 2001, and despite bipartisan calls for reform, it's still bad in 2005. Instead of addressing the real concerns that millions of Americans have about the Patriot Act, the Republican majority in Congress buckled to White House pressure, stripping the bill of modest yet meaningful reforms. Congress must reject this bill.
Both the ACLU and the Bill of Rights of Defense Center are calling for grass roots action.
Also asking for action is NOW. Congress failed to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.You can make your voice heard via NOW's take action page. On their page, you have the option of e-mailing your representatives and/or signing a petition that NOW will present to Congress on December 5th.
9) Meanwhile, as November winds down, American military fatalities have reached 76 for the month, with the Department of Defense reporting 50 Americans wounded thus far this month. The total number of American military killed in Iraq, official count, has reached 2105. Scripps Howard News Service reports that, "U.S. commanders on the ground have already launched plans to close bases and withdraw troops in the coming year, according to two congressmen who returned from Iraq this week." The two congress members are John Kline and Mark Kennedy (Republicans, Minn.).
10) In other Congressional news, Ari Berman reports for The Nation that John McCain is in the midst of makeover. Meeting with The Arizona Republican Assembly in August, McCain slapped some new war paint on as McCain supported the teaching of so-called "intelligent design" side by side with evolution, the state's "ban on gay marriage that denies government benefits to any unmarried couple," hailed Ronald Reagan as "my hero" and was observed "strenuously defending . . . Bush's Iraq policy."
For those who have forgotten, McCain attended Mark Bingham's funeral. Bingham was one of the passengers of Flight 93 on 9/11 in immediate media reports. As the days wore on, Bingham appeared to disappear from many reports. Mark Bingham was gay. Whether that resulted in a "downgrading" by some in the media has been a source of speculation for some time.
11) Focusing on the media, at The Black Commentator, Margaret Kimberly addresses the issue of Bob Woodward, tying him and his editor to the journalistic behaviors of Judith Miller and her editors:
Miller, Sulzberger, Woodward and Bradlee are at the top of the corporate media food chain, and their behavior tells us why Americans aren't being told anything they ought to be told. Woodward uses his access to make a fortune writing about the Supreme Court or various presidential administrations. If a journalist's priority is writing best selling books based on the amount of access gained with the powerful, then truth telling goes out the window.
12) Also addressing the very similar behaviors of Miller and Woodward are Steven C. Day at Pop Politics, Ron Brynaert at Why Are We Back In Iraq?, and Arianna Huffington at The Huffington Post. Though still vocal on Judith Miller and weighing in with the "latest," CJR Daily still can't find a connection between the "journalistic" styles of Judith Miller and Bob Woodward. In their most recent 'Judy report', CJR Daily ponders the question of why did Miller go to jail when Scooter Libby and his people maintain that they released her from confidentiality claims. Covering old news and working themselves into another lather over Miller, CJR Daily wonders"Why did Ms. Miller go to jail?" and maintains the question "has never been fully answered." The question has indeed been answered.
Whether CJR Daily approves of or believes the argument of Miller, Floyd Abrams, et al, is beside the point. For the record, the answer has been given many times. The argument was that Miller needed more than a form signed possibly under duress. Abrams and others have long been on the record explaining that they sought a release other than the form. In the front page report, Sunday October 16, 2005, Don Van Natta Jr., Adam Liptak and Clifford J. Levy reported:
She said she began thinking about whether she should reach out to Mr. Libby for "a personal, voluntary waiver."
[. . .]
While she mulled over over her options, Mr. Bennett was urging her to allow him to approach Mr. Tate, Mr. Libby's lawyer, to try tonegotiate a deal that would get her out of jail. Mr. Bennet wanted to revive the question of the waivers that Mr. Libby and other administration officials signed the previous year authorizing reporters to disclose their confidential discussions.
The other reporters subpoenaed in the case said such waivers were coerced. They said administration officials signed them only because they feared retribution from the prosecutor or the White House. Reporters for at least three news organizations had then gone back to their sources and obtained additional assurances that convinced them the waivers were genunie. But Ms. Miller said she had not gotten an assurance that she felt would allow her to testify.
Again, from the front page New York Times story on . . . October 16, 2005. Though this was not the first reporting on Miller's position, this front page story of the Times was commented in great detail including at CJR Daily here and here. The latter time by the same writer who now wonders "Why did Ms. Miller go to jail?" Repeatedly hitting the designated pinata with articles focusing on her conduct while reducing the conduct of Bob Woodward to asides (whispered asides?) doesn't appear to make for brave "watchdoggery."
Democracy Now! has a special presentation today. The headlines above were composed by The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, Betty Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man, Wally of The Daily Jot and Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix. Thanks to Dallas for his help with links and tags. The above will be reposted at The Third Estate Sunday Review and may also be reposted at the sites of members participating.
11/23/2005
what you can do this thanksgiving
tomorrow when you're with family and friends is the perfect time to get the news out on real news, democracy now.
you can do that by talking but showing always works better.
so mike and i are encouraging everyone to use the holiday opportunity to watch or listen to democracy now with family and friends.
you'll be exposing them to the best news program there is and you'll be helping to get the word out.
and people who hear you talk about democracy now we'll now have seen (or heard) it and it won't be something they just hear of.
by seeing it (or listening to it) they'll have a better idea of what the show has to offer and be more likely to actually take the time for it instead of just always meaning to.
you're sick of the corporate media and their eagerness to parrot what ever some elected official says without offering any perspective? do something about it.
mike and i did on labor day.
the reaction was favorable.
people who don't watch still at least know it's out there and know what you're talking
about when you go on about it.
mike had 3 people end up watching regularly after being exposed to it. i can claim two who watch regularly and three who catch it when time permits. (which, judging from their conversations, is about twice a week.)
how do you combat misinformation?
the same way you combat ignorance, with knowledge.
want to reign in the out of control administration?
we'll need the numbers on our side and that's going to mean getting the word out.
each person that you turn on to democracy now is informed that there's an alternative out there.
just knowing that may make them think about what corporate media feeds them.
even better are the people who will become regular viewers or listeners.
i'm going to be asking 2 people for committments to listen.
they enjoyed the show but they can't watch because they're at work.
so i found out what stations, radio, broadcast the program in their areas.
both listen to the radio (music) at work. they can flip over and hear democracy now when it's on.
you can go to this page to find out whose broadcasting democracy now in what areas.
i'll be asking the two for a committment (and trade off that as a christmas gift which will seal the deal with those 2).
the best thing for our country is an informed public.
due to time constraints and interests, every 1's not going to watch or listen.
some people have no interest in the world around them. they just want to veg out on the couch and get lost in a csi or a law & order and when they have conversations they just want to talk about who screwed them over or a diet they're planning to start (someday).
but there are people who care. and there are people who don't follow the news because they care. they've been burned by the big 3 and cable with all the nonsense about which pretty girl went missing or some other gossip.
newspaper circulation is dropping, the networks' viewership of their evening news is dropping.
did the people die off? did they stop caring about the world?
maybe.
but maybe they just got sick of 'news' that trivializes and never questions.
if this holiday each of us managed to add 1 listener or viewer to democracy now imagine how amazing that would be. we'd be more informed and we'd be far less likely to fall for the spin that corporate media is happy to repeat without questioning.
think of how much easier the conversations would be if you weren't having to give the back story to some issue when you wanted to talk about it.
think how powerful an informed people could be.
so do it for democracy now, do it for democracy.
happy thanksgiving. i plan to blog tomorrow night but it will probably be after midnight.
check the common ills tomorrow and c.i. will give you a heads up about what's on democracy now. amy goodman gave a run down today but i've got my pie crust in the oven and need to wrap up here to finish the key lime pie i'm bringing.
remember mike's motto:
The Common Ills community is important and the Common Ills community is important to me. So I'll do my part for the Common Ills community.
democracy now
the common ills
mikey likes it
you can do that by talking but showing always works better.
so mike and i are encouraging everyone to use the holiday opportunity to watch or listen to democracy now with family and friends.
you'll be exposing them to the best news program there is and you'll be helping to get the word out.
and people who hear you talk about democracy now we'll now have seen (or heard) it and it won't be something they just hear of.
by seeing it (or listening to it) they'll have a better idea of what the show has to offer and be more likely to actually take the time for it instead of just always meaning to.
you're sick of the corporate media and their eagerness to parrot what ever some elected official says without offering any perspective? do something about it.
mike and i did on labor day.
the reaction was favorable.
people who don't watch still at least know it's out there and know what you're talking
about when you go on about it.
mike had 3 people end up watching regularly after being exposed to it. i can claim two who watch regularly and three who catch it when time permits. (which, judging from their conversations, is about twice a week.)
how do you combat misinformation?
the same way you combat ignorance, with knowledge.
want to reign in the out of control administration?
we'll need the numbers on our side and that's going to mean getting the word out.
each person that you turn on to democracy now is informed that there's an alternative out there.
just knowing that may make them think about what corporate media feeds them.
even better are the people who will become regular viewers or listeners.
i'm going to be asking 2 people for committments to listen.
they enjoyed the show but they can't watch because they're at work.
so i found out what stations, radio, broadcast the program in their areas.
both listen to the radio (music) at work. they can flip over and hear democracy now when it's on.
you can go to this page to find out whose broadcasting democracy now in what areas.
i'll be asking the two for a committment (and trade off that as a christmas gift which will seal the deal with those 2).
the best thing for our country is an informed public.
due to time constraints and interests, every 1's not going to watch or listen.
some people have no interest in the world around them. they just want to veg out on the couch and get lost in a csi or a law & order and when they have conversations they just want to talk about who screwed them over or a diet they're planning to start (someday).
but there are people who care. and there are people who don't follow the news because they care. they've been burned by the big 3 and cable with all the nonsense about which pretty girl went missing or some other gossip.
newspaper circulation is dropping, the networks' viewership of their evening news is dropping.
did the people die off? did they stop caring about the world?
maybe.
but maybe they just got sick of 'news' that trivializes and never questions.
if this holiday each of us managed to add 1 listener or viewer to democracy now imagine how amazing that would be. we'd be more informed and we'd be far less likely to fall for the spin that corporate media is happy to repeat without questioning.
think of how much easier the conversations would be if you weren't having to give the back story to some issue when you wanted to talk about it.
think how powerful an informed people could be.
so do it for democracy now, do it for democracy.
happy thanksgiving. i plan to blog tomorrow night but it will probably be after midnight.
check the common ills tomorrow and c.i. will give you a heads up about what's on democracy now. amy goodman gave a run down today but i've got my pie crust in the oven and need to wrap up here to finish the key lime pie i'm bringing.
remember mike's motto:
The Common Ills community is important and the Common Ills community is important to me. So I'll do my part for the Common Ills community.
democracy now
the common ills
mikey likes it
i'm blogging tonight. but for now i'm posting this. a stocking stuffer? but it's the night before thanksgiving! this is a jockey underwear ad that was in the new york times today. sherry and tonya both e-mailed me to see if i'd seen it? i'm trying to figure out who he reminds me of. any ideas? drool if you're orientated to his type. (i think he's drool worthy.)
11/22/2005
bully boy lied, people died
Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter.
The information was provided to Bush on September 21, 2001 during the "President's Daily Brief," a 30- to 45-minute early-morning national security briefing. Information for PDBs has routinely been derived from electronic intercepts, human agents, and reports from foreign intelligence services, as well as more mundane sources such as news reports and public statements by foreign leaders.
[. . .]
The highly classified CIA assessment was distributed to President Bush, Vice President Cheney, the president's national security adviser and deputy national security adviser, the secretaries and undersecretaries of State and Defense, and various other senior Bush administration policy makers, according to government records.
the above is from murray waas' 'Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Hill Panel ' in the national journal. i think the article should be called 'further proof that bully boy lied us into war.'
get it? they knew they're case for a war was a lie. they knew ten days after 9/11.
the lie that cheney and bully boy have been pushing this week and last loudly is that every 1 saw the same intelligence. but that's not true. the administration saw this, not congress.
and don't think this is the only intelligence that the administration kept from congress.
bully boy wanted this war and he got it.
we never should have gone to war but he wanted it.
now that it's turned to shit, like everything he touches, he wants to bluff his way out of it and spread the blame. the blame is the administration's.
they lied us into war and they can't change that, they can't bring back the people who've died either. they are liars and their lies caused deaths.
if the mainstream media wasn't controlled by corporations and so desperate to protect the bully boy, we'd be hearing calls for impeachment in every paper on every tv station.
instead, we're supposed to ignore this like everything else the corporate media sweeps under the rug.
and speaking of corporate media, a corporate media 'star' (whore) bit the dust tonight. ted koppel left abc's nightline. good riddance to him.
he was not a voice for the left. he was a voice for the right bringing on guests from the right, addressing topics like figure skating while rome burned.
if you missed it, c.i. makes the case for why the left shouldn't be crying over ted koppel's departure in 'The end of a (bad) era.' ted now moves over to hbo where he will, no doubt, put the b.o. in hbo.
and on corporate pets, if you're looking for the latest on bob woodward, check out ron's "Who told Woodward the 'Slam Dunk' bit? "
mike's got a new motto:
The Common Ills community is important and the Common Ills community is important to me. So I'll do my part for the Common Ills community.
the common ills
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
mikey likes it
iraq
falluja
ted koppel
why are we back in iraq
murray waas
The information was provided to Bush on September 21, 2001 during the "President's Daily Brief," a 30- to 45-minute early-morning national security briefing. Information for PDBs has routinely been derived from electronic intercepts, human agents, and reports from foreign intelligence services, as well as more mundane sources such as news reports and public statements by foreign leaders.
[. . .]
The highly classified CIA assessment was distributed to President Bush, Vice President Cheney, the president's national security adviser and deputy national security adviser, the secretaries and undersecretaries of State and Defense, and various other senior Bush administration policy makers, according to government records.
the above is from murray waas' 'Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Hill Panel ' in the national journal. i think the article should be called 'further proof that bully boy lied us into war.'
get it? they knew they're case for a war was a lie. they knew ten days after 9/11.
the lie that cheney and bully boy have been pushing this week and last loudly is that every 1 saw the same intelligence. but that's not true. the administration saw this, not congress.
and don't think this is the only intelligence that the administration kept from congress.
bully boy wanted this war and he got it.
we never should have gone to war but he wanted it.
now that it's turned to shit, like everything he touches, he wants to bluff his way out of it and spread the blame. the blame is the administration's.
they lied us into war and they can't change that, they can't bring back the people who've died either. they are liars and their lies caused deaths.
if the mainstream media wasn't controlled by corporations and so desperate to protect the bully boy, we'd be hearing calls for impeachment in every paper on every tv station.
instead, we're supposed to ignore this like everything else the corporate media sweeps under the rug.
and speaking of corporate media, a corporate media 'star' (whore) bit the dust tonight. ted koppel left abc's nightline. good riddance to him.
he was not a voice for the left. he was a voice for the right bringing on guests from the right, addressing topics like figure skating while rome burned.
if you missed it, c.i. makes the case for why the left shouldn't be crying over ted koppel's departure in 'The end of a (bad) era.' ted now moves over to hbo where he will, no doubt, put the b.o. in hbo.
and on corporate pets, if you're looking for the latest on bob woodward, check out ron's "Who told Woodward the 'Slam Dunk' bit? "
mike's got a new motto:
The Common Ills community is important and the Common Ills community is important to me. So I'll do my part for the Common Ills community.
the common ills
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
mikey likes it
iraq
falluja
ted koppel
why are we back in iraq
murray waas
11/21/2005
makeout music
i've really got nothing to say on bob woodward. sherry e-mailed friday asking me about that and some more came in this weekend. i didn't catch him on cnn, i think he was supposed to be on tonight. i tivo-ed larry king live and when i watch it if he has anything worth saying, i'll note it.
but if you're needing run downs on bob woodward, you should check out ron's why are we back in iraq.
i'm only now catching up on my 'reading.' i finished elaine's and went over to the common ills and c.i. linked to this by ron on saturday "Bob Woodward Sent Questions" which is something worth reading. i read the excerpt and ron's all over the topic.
the other big thing in the e-mails is where the song post?
if those e-mails hadn't come in, i probably would be taking tonight off. i have an awful headache and a light fever.
if i'm going to get a cold or the flu this week, i'd rather get it at the start of the week and be over by thursday.
actually there was 1 other question in the e-mails. why didn't i name kayla when i posted her baby's photo sunday? i wasn't sure at the time whether she'd given permission or not. i'll add the photo at the top (which elaine did as well). brian is the baby's name. if you're a common ills community member, you know this was a tough pregnancy for kayla who was overdue by two weeks. but isn't brian a cutie? i love his cute face. brian is such a cutie.
i knew kayla was named in the gina & krista round-robin, which ran that photo and four others, but i wasn't sure when i was trying to get the photo up here whether there was permission or not to name her at a site. there was. that's kayla's first child, brian. congratulations to kayla, her husband and brian. nothing but happiness for all 3.
now back to our topic.
for me the ultimate make out song is 'try a little tenderness' by otis redding. i can dance to it, i can kiss to it, i can screw to it. it's the all purpose song. so for me otis redding's live in europe is the ultimate make out album.
1 song that popped up a lot was 'all out of love' by air supply. i was never a fan of air supply and i'm surprised by the e-mails that cited it so much. 24 of you either danced to it at prom, junior prom or at an 8th grade dance. (4 of you at 8th grade dance, in fact. made me wonder if the 4 of you all knew each other.)
becky, who shares my love of sex as well as my name, said i could talk about her 8th grade dance.
she says she was 'cute at best' in junior high and that it was hard because there were 'beautiful girls, tons and tons, in my class.' she hadn't even wanted to go to the dance. it was around thanksgiving so she always thinks about it this time of the year.
so there she was not wanting to go, not sure what to wear when her older sister tells her she has to go and just feeling like she'd spend the night hugging the wall.
jeans were big then so she wore jeans. she didn't like any of her shirts but her sister had a blue blouse that was just a little too big and was becky's favorite of all of her sister's clothes. without becky even asking, her sister brought it in and said 'wear this.'
it had white piping on it and becky thought that was 'very mature.' she wasn't sure about cleavage but her sister unbuttoned it and then they looked for a necklace to wear and even fixed her hair.
she said she felt so grown up but was sure the night would be a disaster. her sister dropped her off at the gym and said she'd back in 2 hours.
becky walked in and the gym had paper mache all over. she said if she looked at it today she would probably think it was overdone and too much but in 8th grade, it looked wonderful.
she spoke to some of her friends, ginger, patty and dina, at the table where punch had been set out. all 3 were cheerleaders and all 3 were dancing while she sipped her cup of punch.
the bleachers were pushed in so you either sat on folding chairs or you stood by the wall. so she moved over to the wall and she was just standing there and watching when vince walked in. vince had just moved into the discrict 2 weeks ago and he had a mystery about him and was good looking. she says he wore his hair like jackson browne back during the lawyers in love period.
she was trying not to stare and he was walking past and she expected him to keep on walking.
but he came up to her and asked her to dance.
she'd never danced with a guy before.
she says he had on a fake leather jacket and pierre cardin cologne.
they went out to the gym floor to dance and bruce springsteen's 'hungry heart' was just going off. then 'all out love' came on and she was kind of standing there when he pulled her in close to him and they slow danced.
they danced some more and kissed and when ever an air supply song would come on, like 'lost in love,' they'd go back out and dance some more.
they went steady for 5 days after and then he and his family moved.
she never saw him again and thinks about him anytime she hears 'all out of love.'
because she'd gone steady with vince, for the 1st time it seemed like to her, guys were interested in her. she started going out to the movies on friday with her sister and her sister would meet up with her date or boyfriend and she'd meet up with her date. she remembers seeing 1 of the friday the 13ths, on golden pond and private benjamin.
it was a dollar theater, the only 1 they had in town, and it was all kids. she said she was at the movies for a lot more but usually spent most of the film wondering if the guy was going to put his arm around her or kiss her.
she says that 'to this day "all out love" is the ultimate make out song for me.'
another group besides air supply that was popular was chicago.
that's another group i was never really into.
t weighed in with an e-mail and she picked 'anything by millie jackson.'
sherry also had a problem picking 1 song. she said she needs a mix tape with 10cc and bread among others.
zach picked the eagles. zach, i don't know what to say. hopefully it gives you a 'peaceful easy feeling' but no 1 else picked them and i've never heard any 1 else say that 'hotel california' and 'life in the fast lane' were the ulitmate make out songs before.
the most popular choice was sade. i'll go ahead and declare her this century's johnny mathis.
other than 'life in the fast lane' the only other shocker for me was 'doctor, doctor' by the thompson twins which diane selected. she offers that she was 'heavy' into new wave. she misses the geometric haircuts of that period and the clothing as well. she blames madonna who 'came off at 1st like she was totally into that scene and then went upscale.'
5 people noted madonna's 'justify my love.'
i wish i wasn't stopped up, with a headache and a fever because i feel like i could offer something more if i had some energy.
i'll still you towards c.i.'s 'NYT: "Defense of Phosphorus Use Turns Into Damage Control" (Scott Shane)' for a look at the spin that needs to be stopped. scott shane's usually 1 of the better reporters.
mike also asked me to note this:
So I'll try to figure out what I'm doing on Thursday and let you know ASAP. The community is important and the community is important to me. So I'll do my part for the community.
and to note what day's i'll be blogging this week. i plan to blog on all 4. but i may take tomorrow off to make sure i'm fine for thanksgiving.
white phosphorous
falluja
fallujah
white phosphorus
the new york times
scott shane
why are we back in iraq
make out songs
sade
air supply
the eagles
thompson twins
chicago
otis redding
the common ills
like maria said paz
mikey likes it
the third estate sunday review
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)