well i thought i'd get online, read a few e-mails and then write a post. i've been online for some time now. i had no idea c.i. was going to note my birthday at the common ills. but what sweet e-mails and e-cards you all sent. that was really thoughtful of every 1 so thank you all.
sherry noted in her greeting that i shared stevie nicks' birthday. that i knew and have always fround it a secret thrill to share a birthday with the priestess of rock. sherry asked what my favorite song by stevie nicks and i wish i had 1 answer.
it might have been when we were all working on the third estate sunday review 1 weekend, but that question actually popped up then. c.i. and jess both knew their answer right away 'sara.'
ava picked 'landslide.' dona picked 'gypsy.' ty went with 'dreams' and 'stand back' (he really loves prince and prince plays on 'stand back'). jim said 'gold dust woman.' kat thought and thought and i was feeling good because she didn't have an answer right away because betty did.
betty said 'leather and lace.' kat finally picked 'edge of 17.'
stevie nicks is 1 of my favorites and i'm not sure to this day how i could pick just 1. but i can tell you my favorite album, it would be wild heart. that was actually my sister's but she didn't want it. i can listen to that album all the way through over and over. i'm not sure whether my favorite song on the album is 'wild heart' or 'beauty and the beast' but i love it all.
'you were gone, you were gone from me, when i remember someone i remember their dreams, in those dreams that no 1 knows of, my destiny says that i'm destined to run.'
that's from 'enchanted' which is another song on wild heart that i just love. there are very few albums i know all the words too but wild heart would be 1 of the few that i do.
in terms of more political topics, i saw this on democracy now:
Nightline To Read Names Of Dead
And, more than a year after a firestorm of controversy surrounded Ted Koppel's reading of the names of more than 800 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq, ''Nightline'' plans a Memorial Day broadcast where they will read the names of the 900 who have died since then.
i had a whole thing i planned to write today about the democrats blocking john bolton's nomination but then i read all those nice e-mails and just wanted to say thank you. i'll do an entry this weekend (probably tomorrow night) and not be so marshmallow centered. but i am touched by the all the e-mails and want to say thank you.
5/27/2005
5/25/2005
the compromise that leaves us all compromised and what's on deck for tomorrow
common ills community member isaiah has done another wonderful cartoon. this 1 is on the compromise re: the filibuster. folding star also has a strong editorial on the same topic at a winding road so please check that out.
my own thoughts on the compromise is that it is not only shameful, it's self-defeating. this was a game of chess and the democrats have been outmanuevered. they made a lousy move but worse than that they failed to anticipate the next move.
on the radio, i keep hearing people talking about the bright side of the compromise and saying that when the bully boy tries to break the agreement, democrats will waive the piece of paper, the compromise memo, and say 'he broke the agreement.'
question: when would they waive that agreement?
at the same time bully boy is saying they aren't holding up their end? so when that day rolls around, and we all know it will, how do you think it will play out?
is our big brave going to tell the truth?
like they've done all along?
if that's what we're counting on, we're really sad.
more importantly, bully boy didn't sign this agreement. hearing people on the radio say it would make him look bad is really stretching. that's akin to saying because jennifer garner walks off the set of alias, dyan cannon is going to look bad.
it's senseless.
and now we have priscialla owens on the bench.
anybody want to tell me what we won?
bueller? ferris bueller?
anyone?
no responses?
because we didn't win shit.
this was yet another cowardly move and we're all in danger more than we know if this is what passes for a strong opposition party in this country.
and we're in a hell of a lot more trouble than we know.
tomorrow they address the patriot act. have you weighed in yet? i know most of you have but it doesn't hurt to contact your reps 1 more time.
for those who e-mailed wondering why there wasn't a post yesterday, it wasn't my plan.
blogger went crazy and i wonder when they'll get their bugs fixed out. it is as frustrating for you as it is for me.
to make it up for you, i'll let you in on a little secret: ava and c.i. have a hilarious review for this coming sunday's third estate sunday review. i heard a rough draft over the phone and couldn't stop laughing.
my own thoughts on the compromise is that it is not only shameful, it's self-defeating. this was a game of chess and the democrats have been outmanuevered. they made a lousy move but worse than that they failed to anticipate the next move.
on the radio, i keep hearing people talking about the bright side of the compromise and saying that when the bully boy tries to break the agreement, democrats will waive the piece of paper, the compromise memo, and say 'he broke the agreement.'
question: when would they waive that agreement?
at the same time bully boy is saying they aren't holding up their end? so when that day rolls around, and we all know it will, how do you think it will play out?
is our big brave going to tell the truth?
like they've done all along?
if that's what we're counting on, we're really sad.
more importantly, bully boy didn't sign this agreement. hearing people on the radio say it would make him look bad is really stretching. that's akin to saying because jennifer garner walks off the set of alias, dyan cannon is going to look bad.
it's senseless.
and now we have priscialla owens on the bench.
anybody want to tell me what we won?
bueller? ferris bueller?
anyone?
no responses?
because we didn't win shit.
this was yet another cowardly move and we're all in danger more than we know if this is what passes for a strong opposition party in this country.
and we're in a hell of a lot more trouble than we know.
tomorrow they address the patriot act. have you weighed in yet? i know most of you have but it doesn't hurt to contact your reps 1 more time.
for those who e-mailed wondering why there wasn't a post yesterday, it wasn't my plan.
blogger went crazy and i wonder when they'll get their bugs fixed out. it is as frustrating for you as it is for me.
to make it up for you, i'll let you in on a little secret: ava and c.i. have a hilarious review for this coming sunday's third estate sunday review. i heard a rough draft over the phone and couldn't stop laughing.
5/23/2005
on dahr, c.i., democracy now, the new york times & the common ills
as most of you know, each sunday evening at the common ills, c.i. does a kind of round up from press in other parts of the world.
if you've ever caught any of that, you know there's a great deal that's never reported in this country outside of democracy now and a few other sources, a tiny few, still doing actual news. forget 'the world in brief' or 'world briefs' or whatever they call that tiny column in the new york times. that tiny space rarely gets at some of the most important stories that are out there.
i got on late last night to do an entry and then ended up reading all three of the world reports at the common ills. i was reading all the excerpts and clicking on the links to stories that especially interested me. it honestly took a little over 2 hours.
the information in there was just so much and so intense. i was tired, i'd posted on saturday, i felt like i needed to think about it some before posting on it and i wanted to see what this morning's new york times covered.
on the last part, the new york times covered very, very little.
i want to highlight 1 of the 3 entires tonight.
it's the iraq entry: "As with the seige of Fallujah six months back, U.S. claims over the seige of the Iraqi town Al Qa'im are being challenged ... by independent sources"
the title comes from an ips article by dahr jamail entitled 'U.S. Claims Over Siege Challenged.'
before thanksgiving when i started going to the common ills, i'd never heard of dahr jamail. now his name is 1 i constant reference in conversations. (sexual and otherwise - my heart still goes back and forth between dahr and christian parenti.)
dahr went to iraq as an unembedded reporter. what that means is not only was he an independent reporter, he wasn't running around playing war games with the troops. he was there to do what a reporter is supposed to do: report what's actually happens. 1 of the reasons the new york times reporting on iraq is so disgusting is because it's 'white americans in iraq.' that's the focus at every turn. iraq becomes an amusement park and the citizens become staff at the amusement park. it's all about us in the new york times. or all about the u.s.
dahr went there and told stories that others didn't want to report on. he should be celebrated and praised. his name should be universally known. 1 thing you can do is make sure you tell 1 person this week about dahr jamail. it doesn't even have to be some 1 who's never heard of him before. you can talk about him to some 1 who already knows him. that's good because you're strengthening both of your knowledge about dahr and because you're discussing some 1 who has made a difference.
dahr's talked about what really happened in falluja. in the roundtable for the third estate sunday review this weekend, i was really surprised to find that it was so controversial to some that c.i. had stated dexter filkins reporting was embarrassing & 1 sided. filkins is winning a lot of awards for that bad reporting. that doesn't make it good reporting. i agree with c.i. completely on the issue of filkins, history will slap its ruler on his wrist. history will note he didn't do his job and much, much worse.
and if it that's controversial to some, if saying that is shocking, it's only because reporters, actual real reporters like dahr, aren't widely known of in this country.
falluja was a slaughter and a massacre and dexy filk wants you to think it was a john wayne movie. dexy filth should be ashamed.
in the entry at the common ills, you'll learn about the bombings, the assassinations and so much more. here's c.i. commenting on the news that rebuilding in iraq is once again 'delayed:'
Where are those Operation Happy Talkers? Hmm? Guess they're going to start bragging about a few schools getting ceiling fans again? (And weren't they supposed to get air conditioning? Wasn't that what US taxpayer monies were supposed to be purchasing?)
In other reality based news, from The Guardian, note Michael Howard's "US military to build four giant new bases in Iraq:"
US military commanders are planning to pull back their troops from Iraq's towns and cities and redeploy them in four giant bases in a strategy they say is a prelude to eventual withdrawal.
The plan, details of which emerged at the weekend, also foresees a transfer to Iraqi command of more than 100 bases that have been occupied by US-led multinational forces since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
However, the decision to in vest in the bases, which will require the construction of more permanent structures such as blast-proof barracks and offices, is seen by some as a sign that the US expects to keep a permanent presence in Iraq.Politicians opposed to a long-term US presence on Iraqi soil questioned the plan.
"They appear to settling in a for the long run, and that will only give fuel for the terrorists," said a spokesman for the mainstream Sunni Iraqi Islamic party.
c.i. pointed out after the roundtable that there is criticism that iraq is ignored at the common ills because the new york times reporters in iraq are not linked to. several visitors a week complain that 'sunday is just not enough.' i wish c.i. had brought that up during the roundtable because there are a few things i'd like to say on that.
1) reporters for the times in iraq have done a really poor job of conveying reality. both in terms of what is going on and in terms of the fact that people actually inhabit that country. actual people with their own hopes and dreams and fears. but they become extras as the times rush to act as though we're columbus discovering an empty world.
2) iraq is not just mentioned once a week. c.i. provides links to democracy now and democracy now is covering it.
3) visitors griping are visitors who aren't going to the site each day. tom hayden is highlighted there during the week along with articles from the nation and other sources.
i told c.i. i thought these visitors were just new york times groupies. they ignore a story from the bbc or elsewhere and just seem to want to know what's in the new york times.
i think it was very smart of c.i. to step away from covering what the times says about iraq. each link they get increases their profile and makes them appear to be a reputable source for iraq coverage. they are not that. which is why you won't find me linking to dexter or john burns or any 1 else in iraq that's reporting for the times.
c.i. has noted that if the times actually reported on iraq, they would be noted, their stories linked to. c.i. just didn't have a stomach for lies, that was the basis for the decision. myself, i'm boycotting linking to any new york times story coming out of iraq.
if you've ever caught any of that, you know there's a great deal that's never reported in this country outside of democracy now and a few other sources, a tiny few, still doing actual news. forget 'the world in brief' or 'world briefs' or whatever they call that tiny column in the new york times. that tiny space rarely gets at some of the most important stories that are out there.
i got on late last night to do an entry and then ended up reading all three of the world reports at the common ills. i was reading all the excerpts and clicking on the links to stories that especially interested me. it honestly took a little over 2 hours.
the information in there was just so much and so intense. i was tired, i'd posted on saturday, i felt like i needed to think about it some before posting on it and i wanted to see what this morning's new york times covered.
on the last part, the new york times covered very, very little.
i want to highlight 1 of the 3 entires tonight.
it's the iraq entry: "As with the seige of Fallujah six months back, U.S. claims over the seige of the Iraqi town Al Qa'im are being challenged ... by independent sources"
the title comes from an ips article by dahr jamail entitled 'U.S. Claims Over Siege Challenged.'
before thanksgiving when i started going to the common ills, i'd never heard of dahr jamail. now his name is 1 i constant reference in conversations. (sexual and otherwise - my heart still goes back and forth between dahr and christian parenti.)
dahr went to iraq as an unembedded reporter. what that means is not only was he an independent reporter, he wasn't running around playing war games with the troops. he was there to do what a reporter is supposed to do: report what's actually happens. 1 of the reasons the new york times reporting on iraq is so disgusting is because it's 'white americans in iraq.' that's the focus at every turn. iraq becomes an amusement park and the citizens become staff at the amusement park. it's all about us in the new york times. or all about the u.s.
dahr went there and told stories that others didn't want to report on. he should be celebrated and praised. his name should be universally known. 1 thing you can do is make sure you tell 1 person this week about dahr jamail. it doesn't even have to be some 1 who's never heard of him before. you can talk about him to some 1 who already knows him. that's good because you're strengthening both of your knowledge about dahr and because you're discussing some 1 who has made a difference.
dahr's talked about what really happened in falluja. in the roundtable for the third estate sunday review this weekend, i was really surprised to find that it was so controversial to some that c.i. had stated dexter filkins reporting was embarrassing & 1 sided. filkins is winning a lot of awards for that bad reporting. that doesn't make it good reporting. i agree with c.i. completely on the issue of filkins, history will slap its ruler on his wrist. history will note he didn't do his job and much, much worse.
and if it that's controversial to some, if saying that is shocking, it's only because reporters, actual real reporters like dahr, aren't widely known of in this country.
falluja was a slaughter and a massacre and dexy filk wants you to think it was a john wayne movie. dexy filth should be ashamed.
in the entry at the common ills, you'll learn about the bombings, the assassinations and so much more. here's c.i. commenting on the news that rebuilding in iraq is once again 'delayed:'
Where are those Operation Happy Talkers? Hmm? Guess they're going to start bragging about a few schools getting ceiling fans again? (And weren't they supposed to get air conditioning? Wasn't that what US taxpayer monies were supposed to be purchasing?)
In other reality based news, from The Guardian, note Michael Howard's "US military to build four giant new bases in Iraq:"
US military commanders are planning to pull back their troops from Iraq's towns and cities and redeploy them in four giant bases in a strategy they say is a prelude to eventual withdrawal.
The plan, details of which emerged at the weekend, also foresees a transfer to Iraqi command of more than 100 bases that have been occupied by US-led multinational forces since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
However, the decision to in vest in the bases, which will require the construction of more permanent structures such as blast-proof barracks and offices, is seen by some as a sign that the US expects to keep a permanent presence in Iraq.Politicians opposed to a long-term US presence on Iraqi soil questioned the plan.
"They appear to settling in a for the long run, and that will only give fuel for the terrorists," said a spokesman for the mainstream Sunni Iraqi Islamic party.
c.i. pointed out after the roundtable that there is criticism that iraq is ignored at the common ills because the new york times reporters in iraq are not linked to. several visitors a week complain that 'sunday is just not enough.' i wish c.i. had brought that up during the roundtable because there are a few things i'd like to say on that.
1) reporters for the times in iraq have done a really poor job of conveying reality. both in terms of what is going on and in terms of the fact that people actually inhabit that country. actual people with their own hopes and dreams and fears. but they become extras as the times rush to act as though we're columbus discovering an empty world.
2) iraq is not just mentioned once a week. c.i. provides links to democracy now and democracy now is covering it.
3) visitors griping are visitors who aren't going to the site each day. tom hayden is highlighted there during the week along with articles from the nation and other sources.
i told c.i. i thought these visitors were just new york times groupies. they ignore a story from the bbc or elsewhere and just seem to want to know what's in the new york times.
i think it was very smart of c.i. to step away from covering what the times says about iraq. each link they get increases their profile and makes them appear to be a reputable source for iraq coverage. they are not that. which is why you won't find me linking to dexter or john burns or any 1 else in iraq that's reporting for the times.
c.i. has noted that if the times actually reported on iraq, they would be noted, their stories linked to. c.i. just didn't have a stomach for lies, that was the basis for the decision. myself, i'm boycotting linking to any new york times story coming out of iraq.
5/21/2005
on the common ills, e-mails and blogging
surprise, it's saturday and in fifteen minutes, i'll be joining betty, c.i. and the third estate sunday review gang to work on the third estate sunday review's latest edition. but here i am posting because unlike c.i. i don't enjoy using the breaks from third during the night to rush over and post.
sometimes i want to grab a snack, or a smoke, or make a phone call. or just relax. or, yes, grab a quickie.
i want to start off talking about e-mails. i've noted some from time to time here and i get some e-mailers noting that i replied to them and mentioned them here but why didn't i write them back?
i'm not getting c.i.'s level of e-mails - thank god - but i do get a little less than a hundred a day most days. if you're wally or sherry or some 1 who's e-mailed from the start, i do reply. these are readers i really have a relationship with.
but if you're writing to ask me to talk about something and i note it here that's the reply.
i'm not online for hours and hours each day. i hit the common ills when i am online. if i missed a part of democracy now on television or didn't understand a point, i'll go there to read a transcript. i'll check out buzzflash if i have time and danny schechter's site and bob somerby's and jude and jill (and lauren) among others. but often times that's it besides blogging here and reading the e-mails.
i know c.i., and ava at 3rd estate sunday review, feel replies are important. if i'm mentioning you here, that's a reply.
i still marvel over c.i.'s taking the time on tax day to help an e-mailer get their taxes done. that's great, that's wonderful but if i even wrote back to an e-mail like that, i would just say 'good luck with your taxes.' maybe i'm not caring enough. which would explain why so many e-mails each week start off with 'you bitch!' lol.
but i'm blogging, i'm not running a half-way house or a pen-pal club.
c.i. called this morning about a blogger who is having a problem finding something to say. my input was sought. i'm happy to help and i'll repeat here what i said to c.i. if it's time to blog and i have nothing i want to discuss, i'll go to democracy now and find a headline. i've done that twice. i then credit democracy now and discuss that story.
i get a lot of e-mails asking what's worth reading online so there are times when i'll do an entry that just steers you to a story here or there.
i've never suffered from blogger's block but i have suffered from lack of time.
betty called me thursday about that. she was dead tired. thomas friedman's columns run on wednesdays and fridays. on top of work and her normal duties as a mother, she'd had to go to a recital for her oldest kid wednesday night. by the time they got home it was time to get everyone to bed and oh, by the way, i need ___ for school tomorrow. so it was get everyone dressed and go run to the grocery store and then come back and start the get everyone ready for bed again.
so there was no time on wednesday for a post. it was thursday night and betty was exhausted from work and everything else. i said 'betty, don't worry about it. just do an entry friday.'
for most bloggers i exchange e-mails with that's the biggest problem, finding time to actually pull something together.
betty's blog, thomas friedman is a great man, is such a great site because she's telling a story and she does that with her kids each night. she will read them a bedtime story some nights but most nights they just want mom to tell them a story. she's a natural writer and a natural story teller and it comes across when you visit her site. she's very talented.
but she's a single mother with several kids (i know how many but i'm not sure if she's ever talked about that so i don't want to reveal anything she hasn't) working like crazy to provide for her family and care for them. she needs to give herself permission to not feel guilty when there's not time for 2 entries a week. when something goes up at her site, it's funny and it has a point. she's parodying friedman and his rantings. i'd rather have that pure gold once a week than have her forcing herself to churn something out when she really should be taking the time to relax or go to sleep.
and i stay on c.i.'s case about that all the time. this week, c.i. was exhausted from e-mails and postings. i said 'you're 1 person, you're posting repeatedly each day, give up the guilt over the e-mails.' and i mean that.
the common ills is the first site i visit anytime i get on the computer. whether it's a heads up to some event or appearence or whether it's a link-fest, as c.i. calls some entries, or members weighing in or c.i. weighing in, that took time to put together (and is always worth reading).
but c.i. has a job and a life. and i really think some people place too many demands on c.i. to the point that if our conversation on the phone goes over ten minutes, c.i.'s going to feel guilty about not using the time to reply to e-mails or get something up at the common ills.
if you read the okrot, okrot we all run from orkot (love the title suggested by common ills member kara), it's easy to think, 'wow that probably took a lot of work to put in every one's comments and to try to put them in some sort of order.' but what you're not grasping is that for the ones that went up c.i. had to wade through every e-mail because maybe some 1 wanted to weigh in but didn't put okrent in their title. over a thousand e-mails had to be read for that.
i wouldn't do that. more power to c.i. and it's probably why those member contributions are always so great. but i don't have that kind of time and i honestly don't think c.i. should be devoting that kind of time to it.
but there are people who write me who think that they deserve a personal response. i read a lot of magazines. from time to time, i'll drop a short note to an editor or writer (via snail mail) saying good article. i'm not expecting that the writer or editor is going to reply. there's no reason to. i'm saying 'good job.' they wrote something really wonderful and i took the time to let them know some 1 enjoyed it.
that's all that was needed on either side. if i wrote katrina vanden heuvel a letter to tell her how much i appreciate the nation and her editor's cut blog, it would be a long letter. i'd hope it would reach her and let her know how appreciated she is, but i wouldn't expect that she'd say 'let me drop everything to stop and write back.' the gift she gives is what i'm thanking her for. i don't want her postpoing that gift to respond to every letter she receives.
and i pay for the nation and it's her career.
i really think people are expecting a lot from bloggers. there's no staff assisting most of us. most of us are not making a living from a site. we're putting our spare time and energy into this citizen journalism. if you like jude's writing or someone else's let them know. say 'great job at iddybud, i really love your work' but if you really love the work, then that's what you should want. not a back and forth series of e-mails.
a female blogger e-mailed me this week about a nasty e-mail she received. she was told that she wasn't a feminist. not because of the issues she wrote about or her opinions but because a woman wrote her about questions regarding college scholarship. the blogger took the time to write back and recommended that the woman visit a few web sites and said good luck.
but the woman felt the reply was 'insufficient' and that it was evidence of a masculine manner of thought because a true feminist would drop everything to assist in the name of 'sisterhood.'
the blogger was feeling so bad and i said 'fuck it.' really that's what i feel. this woman blogs once a day and she doesn't blog about college to begin with. it's as though some 1 e-mailed helen thomas asking for help with selecting a mini-skirt. just because you love thomas' writing (and i do) doesn't mean that she's your be all end all resource.
if the e-mail had come in here (sexandpolticisandscreeds@yahoo.com) i wouldn't have replied. i also wouldn't have done an entry on it. i'm not covering college scholarships and know very little about what goes on there currently.
if some 1 is replying to every e-mail query, they either have a staff or they're driving themselves crazy.
blythe e-mailed a funny story today and i laughed when i read it and i'll note it was a funny story here. but even if it wasn't saturday which is usually my time for me day and time for the third estate sunday review in the night and early morning, i wouldn't have felt the need to reply.
if some 1 e-mails asking if i could write more about something and i can, i will. if some 1 suggests a topic that speaks to me, i'll write it. if some 1 wants to know some good things to read online or even suggest some things to read online, i'll note that.
but i'm not someone's personal assistant and i haven't promised to be a pen pal.
sherry and wally (and they aren't the only 1s) get a reply because they've been here from the start and they're like friends now. but when raylene e-mails to scream at me today for not replying to the e-mail she sent friday night, i have to wonder what needed a reply. it hadn't even been 24 hours, raylene. but i don't agree with you. i am pro-choice. you're not.
i'll never change my mind on the issue so even if i had read your 1st e-mail before i read your scream-fest, i wouldn't have replied.
i don't accommodate here. i'm not harry reid. i'm not trying for 'big tent' and trying to start a dialgoue with you.
you say you're a democrat and think that means we're exactly the same except for the issue of choice. we're not exactly the same. i'm a feminist and you're complaining about working mothers. some mothers, betty for instance, don't have the choices and options that you do. it's great that your husband pulls down 75k a year but betty, for instance, keeps the roof over her kids' heads and food on the table.
i'm not interested in joining you under some big tent. i'm a feminist. i'm pro-choice. i support the right of women to work. and i fully grasp that for economic reasons and sometimes sanity it's not a "choice" for many mothers.
you worry that the horrid phyllis has been misunderstood.
i worry that she will never shut up.
you're a strange sort of democrat but that's what we get when we buy into the 'red state' myth and start trying to appease the social conservatives instead of engaging with the base.
then i've got an angry e-mail from gary who is miffed at me for not replying to his query on tuesday about my measurements.
gary, let me know how big your cock is and we'll post it here.
seriously, who are you gary? and what makes you think i want to share my measurements with you?
i read the e-mails. i'm not c.i. in that i'm not going to stay up late making sure every e-mail was read. i'll read when i have time and if i fall behind, i fall behind. but there seems to be some idea in the heads of several that because they took time to e-mail i'm supposed to take time to reply.
if you're e-mailing me about a topic you feel hasn't been addressed, i'll think about it and if i agree, i'll write it here.
but i think some of the angry folks e-mailing should stop e-mailing and start their own blogs.
quit trying to influence me via e-mails and use that voice to speak for yourself online. click on the 'get your own blog' button at the top of this page and start writing.
think about buzzflash for a minute. i imagine those guys and gals used to write e-mails asking why their favorite paper wasn't covering this or that. they could have continued doing those e-mails. instead they started the buzzflash site and they highlight the stories that matter and they and their readers write about issues that matter to them. buzzflash is our strongest site on the left and it probably came about because people decided to put their voices and interests out there.
if they'd continued to just do e-mails to papers, we wouldn't have the highly valuable resource that we now have. so i'd suggest that some of you think about getting your own sites.
i'll do like c.i. there and respond to any questions a regular reader asks me about blogging.
but, to get back to c.i., when we spoke on the phone today about this question of a blogger, c.i. was guilting over being behind in the e-mails (there were 235 unread when we spoke). c.i. had errands and engagements throughout the day and they weren't going to get read.
i went to the common ills after we'd spoken and saw three amazing entries on the new york times. the first 1 dealt with the invasion of life style stories on the front page. the second dealt with inside the paper. the third 1, my personal favorite, was c.i. taking on the tome poems of somini sengupta that pass for 'news stories' in the new york times.
and i got really mad because i started thinking 'what do people want?' do they want a sengupta piece that's funny and accurate or do they want all their e-mails replied to personally? you can't have everything.
sometimes i want to grab a snack, or a smoke, or make a phone call. or just relax. or, yes, grab a quickie.
i want to start off talking about e-mails. i've noted some from time to time here and i get some e-mailers noting that i replied to them and mentioned them here but why didn't i write them back?
i'm not getting c.i.'s level of e-mails - thank god - but i do get a little less than a hundred a day most days. if you're wally or sherry or some 1 who's e-mailed from the start, i do reply. these are readers i really have a relationship with.
but if you're writing to ask me to talk about something and i note it here that's the reply.
i'm not online for hours and hours each day. i hit the common ills when i am online. if i missed a part of democracy now on television or didn't understand a point, i'll go there to read a transcript. i'll check out buzzflash if i have time and danny schechter's site and bob somerby's and jude and jill (and lauren) among others. but often times that's it besides blogging here and reading the e-mails.
i know c.i., and ava at 3rd estate sunday review, feel replies are important. if i'm mentioning you here, that's a reply.
i still marvel over c.i.'s taking the time on tax day to help an e-mailer get their taxes done. that's great, that's wonderful but if i even wrote back to an e-mail like that, i would just say 'good luck with your taxes.' maybe i'm not caring enough. which would explain why so many e-mails each week start off with 'you bitch!' lol.
but i'm blogging, i'm not running a half-way house or a pen-pal club.
c.i. called this morning about a blogger who is having a problem finding something to say. my input was sought. i'm happy to help and i'll repeat here what i said to c.i. if it's time to blog and i have nothing i want to discuss, i'll go to democracy now and find a headline. i've done that twice. i then credit democracy now and discuss that story.
i get a lot of e-mails asking what's worth reading online so there are times when i'll do an entry that just steers you to a story here or there.
i've never suffered from blogger's block but i have suffered from lack of time.
betty called me thursday about that. she was dead tired. thomas friedman's columns run on wednesdays and fridays. on top of work and her normal duties as a mother, she'd had to go to a recital for her oldest kid wednesday night. by the time they got home it was time to get everyone to bed and oh, by the way, i need ___ for school tomorrow. so it was get everyone dressed and go run to the grocery store and then come back and start the get everyone ready for bed again.
so there was no time on wednesday for a post. it was thursday night and betty was exhausted from work and everything else. i said 'betty, don't worry about it. just do an entry friday.'
for most bloggers i exchange e-mails with that's the biggest problem, finding time to actually pull something together.
betty's blog, thomas friedman is a great man, is such a great site because she's telling a story and she does that with her kids each night. she will read them a bedtime story some nights but most nights they just want mom to tell them a story. she's a natural writer and a natural story teller and it comes across when you visit her site. she's very talented.
but she's a single mother with several kids (i know how many but i'm not sure if she's ever talked about that so i don't want to reveal anything she hasn't) working like crazy to provide for her family and care for them. she needs to give herself permission to not feel guilty when there's not time for 2 entries a week. when something goes up at her site, it's funny and it has a point. she's parodying friedman and his rantings. i'd rather have that pure gold once a week than have her forcing herself to churn something out when she really should be taking the time to relax or go to sleep.
and i stay on c.i.'s case about that all the time. this week, c.i. was exhausted from e-mails and postings. i said 'you're 1 person, you're posting repeatedly each day, give up the guilt over the e-mails.' and i mean that.
the common ills is the first site i visit anytime i get on the computer. whether it's a heads up to some event or appearence or whether it's a link-fest, as c.i. calls some entries, or members weighing in or c.i. weighing in, that took time to put together (and is always worth reading).
but c.i. has a job and a life. and i really think some people place too many demands on c.i. to the point that if our conversation on the phone goes over ten minutes, c.i.'s going to feel guilty about not using the time to reply to e-mails or get something up at the common ills.
if you read the okrot, okrot we all run from orkot (love the title suggested by common ills member kara), it's easy to think, 'wow that probably took a lot of work to put in every one's comments and to try to put them in some sort of order.' but what you're not grasping is that for the ones that went up c.i. had to wade through every e-mail because maybe some 1 wanted to weigh in but didn't put okrent in their title. over a thousand e-mails had to be read for that.
i wouldn't do that. more power to c.i. and it's probably why those member contributions are always so great. but i don't have that kind of time and i honestly don't think c.i. should be devoting that kind of time to it.
but there are people who write me who think that they deserve a personal response. i read a lot of magazines. from time to time, i'll drop a short note to an editor or writer (via snail mail) saying good article. i'm not expecting that the writer or editor is going to reply. there's no reason to. i'm saying 'good job.' they wrote something really wonderful and i took the time to let them know some 1 enjoyed it.
that's all that was needed on either side. if i wrote katrina vanden heuvel a letter to tell her how much i appreciate the nation and her editor's cut blog, it would be a long letter. i'd hope it would reach her and let her know how appreciated she is, but i wouldn't expect that she'd say 'let me drop everything to stop and write back.' the gift she gives is what i'm thanking her for. i don't want her postpoing that gift to respond to every letter she receives.
and i pay for the nation and it's her career.
i really think people are expecting a lot from bloggers. there's no staff assisting most of us. most of us are not making a living from a site. we're putting our spare time and energy into this citizen journalism. if you like jude's writing or someone else's let them know. say 'great job at iddybud, i really love your work' but if you really love the work, then that's what you should want. not a back and forth series of e-mails.
a female blogger e-mailed me this week about a nasty e-mail she received. she was told that she wasn't a feminist. not because of the issues she wrote about or her opinions but because a woman wrote her about questions regarding college scholarship. the blogger took the time to write back and recommended that the woman visit a few web sites and said good luck.
but the woman felt the reply was 'insufficient' and that it was evidence of a masculine manner of thought because a true feminist would drop everything to assist in the name of 'sisterhood.'
the blogger was feeling so bad and i said 'fuck it.' really that's what i feel. this woman blogs once a day and she doesn't blog about college to begin with. it's as though some 1 e-mailed helen thomas asking for help with selecting a mini-skirt. just because you love thomas' writing (and i do) doesn't mean that she's your be all end all resource.
if the e-mail had come in here (sexandpolticisandscreeds@yahoo.com) i wouldn't have replied. i also wouldn't have done an entry on it. i'm not covering college scholarships and know very little about what goes on there currently.
if some 1 is replying to every e-mail query, they either have a staff or they're driving themselves crazy.
blythe e-mailed a funny story today and i laughed when i read it and i'll note it was a funny story here. but even if it wasn't saturday which is usually my time for me day and time for the third estate sunday review in the night and early morning, i wouldn't have felt the need to reply.
if some 1 e-mails asking if i could write more about something and i can, i will. if some 1 suggests a topic that speaks to me, i'll write it. if some 1 wants to know some good things to read online or even suggest some things to read online, i'll note that.
but i'm not someone's personal assistant and i haven't promised to be a pen pal.
sherry and wally (and they aren't the only 1s) get a reply because they've been here from the start and they're like friends now. but when raylene e-mails to scream at me today for not replying to the e-mail she sent friday night, i have to wonder what needed a reply. it hadn't even been 24 hours, raylene. but i don't agree with you. i am pro-choice. you're not.
i'll never change my mind on the issue so even if i had read your 1st e-mail before i read your scream-fest, i wouldn't have replied.
i don't accommodate here. i'm not harry reid. i'm not trying for 'big tent' and trying to start a dialgoue with you.
you say you're a democrat and think that means we're exactly the same except for the issue of choice. we're not exactly the same. i'm a feminist and you're complaining about working mothers. some mothers, betty for instance, don't have the choices and options that you do. it's great that your husband pulls down 75k a year but betty, for instance, keeps the roof over her kids' heads and food on the table.
i'm not interested in joining you under some big tent. i'm a feminist. i'm pro-choice. i support the right of women to work. and i fully grasp that for economic reasons and sometimes sanity it's not a "choice" for many mothers.
you worry that the horrid phyllis has been misunderstood.
i worry that she will never shut up.
you're a strange sort of democrat but that's what we get when we buy into the 'red state' myth and start trying to appease the social conservatives instead of engaging with the base.
then i've got an angry e-mail from gary who is miffed at me for not replying to his query on tuesday about my measurements.
gary, let me know how big your cock is and we'll post it here.
seriously, who are you gary? and what makes you think i want to share my measurements with you?
i read the e-mails. i'm not c.i. in that i'm not going to stay up late making sure every e-mail was read. i'll read when i have time and if i fall behind, i fall behind. but there seems to be some idea in the heads of several that because they took time to e-mail i'm supposed to take time to reply.
if you're e-mailing me about a topic you feel hasn't been addressed, i'll think about it and if i agree, i'll write it here.
but i think some of the angry folks e-mailing should stop e-mailing and start their own blogs.
quit trying to influence me via e-mails and use that voice to speak for yourself online. click on the 'get your own blog' button at the top of this page and start writing.
think about buzzflash for a minute. i imagine those guys and gals used to write e-mails asking why their favorite paper wasn't covering this or that. they could have continued doing those e-mails. instead they started the buzzflash site and they highlight the stories that matter and they and their readers write about issues that matter to them. buzzflash is our strongest site on the left and it probably came about because people decided to put their voices and interests out there.
if they'd continued to just do e-mails to papers, we wouldn't have the highly valuable resource that we now have. so i'd suggest that some of you think about getting your own sites.
i'll do like c.i. there and respond to any questions a regular reader asks me about blogging.
but, to get back to c.i., when we spoke on the phone today about this question of a blogger, c.i. was guilting over being behind in the e-mails (there were 235 unread when we spoke). c.i. had errands and engagements throughout the day and they weren't going to get read.
i went to the common ills after we'd spoken and saw three amazing entries on the new york times. the first 1 dealt with the invasion of life style stories on the front page. the second dealt with inside the paper. the third 1, my personal favorite, was c.i. taking on the tome poems of somini sengupta that pass for 'news stories' in the new york times.
and i got really mad because i started thinking 'what do people want?' do they want a sengupta piece that's funny and accurate or do they want all their e-mails replied to personally? you can't have everything.
5/20/2005
monster-in-law and ruth's interview
let's start by highlighting some stuff.
but wait. let's start off with what's going on with blogger?
i don't know. i've got e-mails from readers who bookmarked and readers who come over from a link and they had to click twice because the 1st time took them to a 'not found' page. i have no idea what's going on.
now let's talk about ava and c.i.'s rebuttal to david & lisa, 2 critics who had personal issues to work through and felt that a review of monster-in-law was just the place to start addressing their issues. if you haven't read ava and c.i.'s rebuttal, here's an excerpt:
"Feminist" Lisel dubs Fonda's character "a narcissistic bitch." Take back the night, Lisel, with your abundance of sisterhood!
(Lisel also uses the "feminist" term "old cow" in her review. Someone send her a copy of Our Bodies, Ourselves. Or Women Coming of Age.)
Lisel's offended that the film's not a drama and that Fonda's not playing one of the First Lady of the Screen roles. Those First Lady of the Screen roles always delight middle-brow critics and almost always kill off the career faster than you can say Greer Garson.
But Lisel, who writes about film, is offended that Fonda's playing "a narcissistic bitch." More than that:
a narcissistic bitch who wages war on a younger woman before undergoing tit-for-tat humiliation in a punitive comedy that tramples on decades of feminist progress with a blithering giggle.
Help us out Lisel, we're not remembering you from any of the marches. Are you current with you NOW membership dues?
Regardless, your concern for feminism comes way too late in your career to strike either of us as sincere. We also question your ability to understand the dramatic concept of conflict. People have to be at odds, Lisel, or we're watching one of those dreary, pointless, talking head films that you so love to praise.
as for david, here's ava and c.i. had to say regarding him:
Now we'll move on to the other one who went gunning for the film, David. (Rebecca's dubbed them David & Lisa.) David's convinced himself that Viola is an ethnicist, she's against Charlie due to her Hispanic bloodlines. We wondered (we includes Hispanic Ava) how the hell David pulled that one out of his ass? And if he could shove it back up there? If he can't, will he allow us to?
If David had bothered to check, he'd find out that the issue he and he alone sees isn't "played up" because the script wasn't written for Lopez. It was adapted to her once she was interested. That meant adding touches here and there. David doesn't grasp a great deal. He also complains that Wanda Sykes is African-American. Or rather that Sykes was cast in the role of Viola's assistant and he has a problem with Sykes being cast in the part and being African-American. We're not sure what Davey's suggesting here? That Skyes shouldn't have turned down the role or that she should have bleached her skin?
While Lisel's concerned that audiences might see a character with edges (see our review of The Electric Horseman to realize how badly Lisel represents all that is wrong in film these days), Davey's upset that Fonda's apparently blowing her wad by not doing drama (see our review of Nine to Five). Why oh why won't Fonda make small independent films? That's what Davey wants to know. While Lisel fumes that Fonda should get herself over to a TV drama pronto (we're sure there's bound to be some new Law & Order or CSI version casting shortly).
besides being some excellent writing, i bring it up to remind you that monster-in-law makes a great weekend event. grab some friends and head to a theater to check it out.
now let's talk about common ills community member ruth whom i just love. ruth does ruth's morning edition report at the common ills. she's funny, she's smart and committed to peace with a perspective that goes way beyond 2 assholes notion of 'clean these panties!' saving the world.
last night ruth did an interview with c.i. over at the common ills. i know c.i. does strong interviews (check out the 1 with folding star) but ruth is just so amazing. she's got a lot of guts, a lot of passion and a lot of integrity. ruth, i stand in awe of you.
here's a sample of the interview which was like a really great hour of npr's fresh air. ruth and c.i. are discussing kenneth tomlinson who's out to destroy npr and pbs. c.i. is in italics:
Ruth: It bothers me because I didn't enjoy my religious beliefs being lumped in with people I share nothing with. Mr. Tomlinson spoke as though all Jewish people, because they were Jewish, felt one way which is simply not true. He portrayed as a monolithic, right-wing group. There is a faction of that among Jews in this country but it's a small overall faction. In the larger picture, you do have people who are apethetic and you do have people who feel that the faction is knee jerk and not reflective of any consensus. Diane noted that he was citing the views of advocacy group. Mr. Tomlinson cut her off, as he did frequently, and the issue she attempted to raise was that this group was a sub-section of the American Jewish community. This may have been, it probably was, why I had so much trouble offering anything to the community other than what I did. Mr. Tomlinson stereotyped and traditionally stereotypes have harmed all Jews regardless of their political or personal beliefs.
What you offered was a kind of heads up.
Ruth: Exactly. But it troubles me, and I'm probably not addressing this correctly, that Mr. Tomlinson wanted to advocate a position and instead of honestly stating that he was utilizing a right-wing group of hawks to back up his opinion, he attempted to portray the divide as "The Jewish people are offended." That's not the case. He was using us for cover to hide behind. Then we had Congressman Sherman call in and make similar claims. This was an important part of the broadcast to me and the best I feel like I'm doing right now is going around circles.
Okay, let me offer something and you can respond to it. Tomlinson wants to argue that the coverage of NPR, the reporting, is anti-Jewish, he used that term repeatedly. To make the claim, he appears to equate support for the policies of the Israeli government's actions with being Jewish? Is that a correct reading of your impressions?
Ruth: That's it in a nut shell. Israel is foreign government, a government, not a religion, not a club. No government is beyond criticism. Somehow Mr. Tomlinson appears to feel that because I'm Jewish, my loyalties are with, automatically with, a foreign government. I am American and I am Jewish. I'm also a widow. My husband passed away several years ago. If I wanted to live in Israel, I'd live in Israel. It's not my home. The United States is my home and I felt offended that, because a group of right-wing hawks want to act in a manner similar to the way right-wing Cuban exiles in Florida might act, Mr. Tomlinson wants to equate my religion with some allegience to a foreign government. Mr. Tomlison is doing that to push his own agenda and may or may not be aware of it. But as an elderly Jewish woman, I am quite aware of the nonsense of "Jewish conspiracy" and the nonsense of "divided loyalties" and how both have been used historically to stigmatize Jewish people. He's using it to advance his own agenda and may or may not be aware of how offensive his stereotype is but it is offensive and, historically, that stereotype has resulted in actions that harmed all Jews. That a voice, with power on the CPB, wants to promote stereotypes that are in fact harmful honestly disgusts me.
We have a members in our community who are very intelligent, much smarter than I am, but we also get visitors every day and in case anyone's confused on this point, I'd like to you to elaborate on the "Jewish consiparcy" myths.
Ruth: Historically, they've been used to do harm to Jewish people. Whether it's that we control all the money in the world or that we're sacrficing babies or whatever nonsense has been put out there in this stereotype, it always creates the impression that we're not fully vested in the larger communities in which we live. We're, instead, according to the stereotype, attempting to control the world. The result is that a Hitler or whomever comes along and uses the stereotype to justify harm to all Jewish people. That's the extreme harm that can come, a loss of life, an extermination of a people. But the stereotype is harmful on a day to day basis as well.
There is a faction, of Jews in this country, with loyalties that might appear to lie partially or completely with the Israeli government. But it's a faction. When Mr. Tomlinson equates being Jewish with support for a government, a foreign government, he falls back on a dangerous stereotype that's brought great harm to all Jews. I find it offensive as a Jewish woman. I hope that the use of such a stereotype reveals Mr. Tomlinson's ignorance because I hope that he wouldn't engage in dangerous stereotypes he knew were false just for political gain.
And, while we're addressing the issue of the government of Israel, it should be noted that not all Israelies support the actions of the Sharon government.
Ruth: Correct. There are divisions within their own country. You can see it with the actions of the refuseniks who refuse to serve in the Israeli army or with the opinions regarding the wall that would act as physical barrier or border. I hope that this is just a case of Mr. Tomlinson being an outsider looking in that results in his reducing all Jewish people to a monolithic group sharing one set of opinions and beliefs. But regardless of why he's doing it, what he's doing is stereotyping and using a historically dangerous stereotype. As someone servince on the CPB board --
Corporation of Public Broadcasting.
Ruth: Corporation of Public Broadcasting, right. As someone serving on a public board, he has no business in engaging in stereotypes. I honestly feel he should be removed from the board immediately. He should be asked to step down because he has promoted a very dangerous stereotype that has been historically harmful. Public broadcasting, NPR or PBS, is a domestic organization that's meant to represent the American people. By equating my religion with a foreign government, he's cast me as less American than some. That is offensive to me and suggests that he is unable to represent the people of this country. He did not merely acknowledge that a segment of Jewish people in this country might feel a certain way. He repeatedly implied that this is how all Jews in this country feel, that to be Jewish was to subscribe to this one belief system. That is not the case. When Diane asked him for examples of bias in the reporting, he was unable to provide any. I bring that up again because he is going impressions and stereotypes and anyone doing that needs to be working at a private organization and not one responsible for serving the public.
You spoke earlier of National Congress Radio.
Ruth: Tomlinson only values the voices he wants to value. That's evident when he listens only to one group of Jews. It's also evident when he places so much weight on the opinions of Congressman Brad Sherman, for instance. The wall that CPB is supposed to provide between the Congress and the people at NPR or PBS is being torn apart. Congressman Sherman, who later called in to the program, was cited repeatedly by Mr. Tomlinson. I'm confused as to why a Congressman's opinion matters more than the public's. It is National Public Radio. It is not National Congress Radio. I believe they already have C-Span as their voice and NPR belongs to the public. With e-mailers and callers, Mr. Tomlinson openly mocked their opinions. It is National Public Radio, not National Congress Radio. Jeff Chester made a similar point when he called in to the show.
that's just a sample. i read that this morning and was just amazed. it's such a strong conversation. i called ruth this evening to get some information on the interview. they'd spoken briefly during the day and ruth had a family event to attend so they had to do the interview late. she said she was tired and she could tell c.i. was so she wasn't expecting a great deal. but after they got the hellos and how are yous out of the way 'the interview just took off.' ruth enjoyed doing and enjoyed reading it even more.
she says, 'it really was a conversation. while it was going on, we were just talking and after it was over, i went to bed thinking that i wished it had gone better and i'd prepared more because other than the media matters item i really didn't have anything in front of me. i got off to a late start this morning and wasn't able to log on to my computer and check to see how it turned out. tracey and my oldest son both called me before noon to tell me how great it read and that they were proud of me. i didn't have time to log on until a half hour before you called. reading it, i thought now that c.i. knows what to do. it seemed like we were just talking and i really felt like i had not offered anything. but c.i. just made it so easy that i felt nothing was going on.'
c.i. is a wonderful interviewer but ruth's being modest about her own abilities. if you haven't read the interview, please do.
at 1 point, c.i. was going to interview ron of why are we back in iraq? for the third estate sunday review. but ron blew it off - i'm sure he apologized! let's not forget to suggest that! - so it never came off. that's why c.i. interviewed folding star. that was a last minute 'get.' it was midnight and ron had bailed and c.i. felt like there was a big hole in the third estate sunday review as a result and felt personally responsible. folding star was kind enough to agree to interview with c.i. even after turning down the third estate sunday review prior. (folding star is a very private person.)
now i need to get ready because a group of us are seeing tonight's second showing of monster-in-law. i intend to write sunday and possibly saturday.
but wait. let's start off with what's going on with blogger?
i don't know. i've got e-mails from readers who bookmarked and readers who come over from a link and they had to click twice because the 1st time took them to a 'not found' page. i have no idea what's going on.
now let's talk about ava and c.i.'s rebuttal to david & lisa, 2 critics who had personal issues to work through and felt that a review of monster-in-law was just the place to start addressing their issues. if you haven't read ava and c.i.'s rebuttal, here's an excerpt:
"Feminist" Lisel dubs Fonda's character "a narcissistic bitch." Take back the night, Lisel, with your abundance of sisterhood!
(Lisel also uses the "feminist" term "old cow" in her review. Someone send her a copy of Our Bodies, Ourselves. Or Women Coming of Age.)
Lisel's offended that the film's not a drama and that Fonda's not playing one of the First Lady of the Screen roles. Those First Lady of the Screen roles always delight middle-brow critics and almost always kill off the career faster than you can say Greer Garson.
But Lisel, who writes about film, is offended that Fonda's playing "a narcissistic bitch." More than that:
a narcissistic bitch who wages war on a younger woman before undergoing tit-for-tat humiliation in a punitive comedy that tramples on decades of feminist progress with a blithering giggle.
Help us out Lisel, we're not remembering you from any of the marches. Are you current with you NOW membership dues?
Regardless, your concern for feminism comes way too late in your career to strike either of us as sincere. We also question your ability to understand the dramatic concept of conflict. People have to be at odds, Lisel, or we're watching one of those dreary, pointless, talking head films that you so love to praise.
as for david, here's ava and c.i. had to say regarding him:
Now we'll move on to the other one who went gunning for the film, David. (Rebecca's dubbed them David & Lisa.) David's convinced himself that Viola is an ethnicist, she's against Charlie due to her Hispanic bloodlines. We wondered (we includes Hispanic Ava) how the hell David pulled that one out of his ass? And if he could shove it back up there? If he can't, will he allow us to?
If David had bothered to check, he'd find out that the issue he and he alone sees isn't "played up" because the script wasn't written for Lopez. It was adapted to her once she was interested. That meant adding touches here and there. David doesn't grasp a great deal. He also complains that Wanda Sykes is African-American. Or rather that Sykes was cast in the role of Viola's assistant and he has a problem with Sykes being cast in the part and being African-American. We're not sure what Davey's suggesting here? That Skyes shouldn't have turned down the role or that she should have bleached her skin?
While Lisel's concerned that audiences might see a character with edges (see our review of The Electric Horseman to realize how badly Lisel represents all that is wrong in film these days), Davey's upset that Fonda's apparently blowing her wad by not doing drama (see our review of Nine to Five). Why oh why won't Fonda make small independent films? That's what Davey wants to know. While Lisel fumes that Fonda should get herself over to a TV drama pronto (we're sure there's bound to be some new Law & Order or CSI version casting shortly).
besides being some excellent writing, i bring it up to remind you that monster-in-law makes a great weekend event. grab some friends and head to a theater to check it out.
now let's talk about common ills community member ruth whom i just love. ruth does ruth's morning edition report at the common ills. she's funny, she's smart and committed to peace with a perspective that goes way beyond 2 assholes notion of 'clean these panties!' saving the world.
last night ruth did an interview with c.i. over at the common ills. i know c.i. does strong interviews (check out the 1 with folding star) but ruth is just so amazing. she's got a lot of guts, a lot of passion and a lot of integrity. ruth, i stand in awe of you.
here's a sample of the interview which was like a really great hour of npr's fresh air. ruth and c.i. are discussing kenneth tomlinson who's out to destroy npr and pbs. c.i. is in italics:
Ruth: It bothers me because I didn't enjoy my religious beliefs being lumped in with people I share nothing with. Mr. Tomlinson spoke as though all Jewish people, because they were Jewish, felt one way which is simply not true. He portrayed as a monolithic, right-wing group. There is a faction of that among Jews in this country but it's a small overall faction. In the larger picture, you do have people who are apethetic and you do have people who feel that the faction is knee jerk and not reflective of any consensus. Diane noted that he was citing the views of advocacy group. Mr. Tomlinson cut her off, as he did frequently, and the issue she attempted to raise was that this group was a sub-section of the American Jewish community. This may have been, it probably was, why I had so much trouble offering anything to the community other than what I did. Mr. Tomlinson stereotyped and traditionally stereotypes have harmed all Jews regardless of their political or personal beliefs.
What you offered was a kind of heads up.
Ruth: Exactly. But it troubles me, and I'm probably not addressing this correctly, that Mr. Tomlinson wanted to advocate a position and instead of honestly stating that he was utilizing a right-wing group of hawks to back up his opinion, he attempted to portray the divide as "The Jewish people are offended." That's not the case. He was using us for cover to hide behind. Then we had Congressman Sherman call in and make similar claims. This was an important part of the broadcast to me and the best I feel like I'm doing right now is going around circles.
Okay, let me offer something and you can respond to it. Tomlinson wants to argue that the coverage of NPR, the reporting, is anti-Jewish, he used that term repeatedly. To make the claim, he appears to equate support for the policies of the Israeli government's actions with being Jewish? Is that a correct reading of your impressions?
Ruth: That's it in a nut shell. Israel is foreign government, a government, not a religion, not a club. No government is beyond criticism. Somehow Mr. Tomlinson appears to feel that because I'm Jewish, my loyalties are with, automatically with, a foreign government. I am American and I am Jewish. I'm also a widow. My husband passed away several years ago. If I wanted to live in Israel, I'd live in Israel. It's not my home. The United States is my home and I felt offended that, because a group of right-wing hawks want to act in a manner similar to the way right-wing Cuban exiles in Florida might act, Mr. Tomlinson wants to equate my religion with some allegience to a foreign government. Mr. Tomlison is doing that to push his own agenda and may or may not be aware of it. But as an elderly Jewish woman, I am quite aware of the nonsense of "Jewish conspiracy" and the nonsense of "divided loyalties" and how both have been used historically to stigmatize Jewish people. He's using it to advance his own agenda and may or may not be aware of how offensive his stereotype is but it is offensive and, historically, that stereotype has resulted in actions that harmed all Jews. That a voice, with power on the CPB, wants to promote stereotypes that are in fact harmful honestly disgusts me.
We have a members in our community who are very intelligent, much smarter than I am, but we also get visitors every day and in case anyone's confused on this point, I'd like to you to elaborate on the "Jewish consiparcy" myths.
Ruth: Historically, they've been used to do harm to Jewish people. Whether it's that we control all the money in the world or that we're sacrficing babies or whatever nonsense has been put out there in this stereotype, it always creates the impression that we're not fully vested in the larger communities in which we live. We're, instead, according to the stereotype, attempting to control the world. The result is that a Hitler or whomever comes along and uses the stereotype to justify harm to all Jewish people. That's the extreme harm that can come, a loss of life, an extermination of a people. But the stereotype is harmful on a day to day basis as well.
There is a faction, of Jews in this country, with loyalties that might appear to lie partially or completely with the Israeli government. But it's a faction. When Mr. Tomlinson equates being Jewish with support for a government, a foreign government, he falls back on a dangerous stereotype that's brought great harm to all Jews. I find it offensive as a Jewish woman. I hope that the use of such a stereotype reveals Mr. Tomlinson's ignorance because I hope that he wouldn't engage in dangerous stereotypes he knew were false just for political gain.
And, while we're addressing the issue of the government of Israel, it should be noted that not all Israelies support the actions of the Sharon government.
Ruth: Correct. There are divisions within their own country. You can see it with the actions of the refuseniks who refuse to serve in the Israeli army or with the opinions regarding the wall that would act as physical barrier or border. I hope that this is just a case of Mr. Tomlinson being an outsider looking in that results in his reducing all Jewish people to a monolithic group sharing one set of opinions and beliefs. But regardless of why he's doing it, what he's doing is stereotyping and using a historically dangerous stereotype. As someone servince on the CPB board --
Corporation of Public Broadcasting.
Ruth: Corporation of Public Broadcasting, right. As someone serving on a public board, he has no business in engaging in stereotypes. I honestly feel he should be removed from the board immediately. He should be asked to step down because he has promoted a very dangerous stereotype that has been historically harmful. Public broadcasting, NPR or PBS, is a domestic organization that's meant to represent the American people. By equating my religion with a foreign government, he's cast me as less American than some. That is offensive to me and suggests that he is unable to represent the people of this country. He did not merely acknowledge that a segment of Jewish people in this country might feel a certain way. He repeatedly implied that this is how all Jews in this country feel, that to be Jewish was to subscribe to this one belief system. That is not the case. When Diane asked him for examples of bias in the reporting, he was unable to provide any. I bring that up again because he is going impressions and stereotypes and anyone doing that needs to be working at a private organization and not one responsible for serving the public.
You spoke earlier of National Congress Radio.
Ruth: Tomlinson only values the voices he wants to value. That's evident when he listens only to one group of Jews. It's also evident when he places so much weight on the opinions of Congressman Brad Sherman, for instance. The wall that CPB is supposed to provide between the Congress and the people at NPR or PBS is being torn apart. Congressman Sherman, who later called in to the program, was cited repeatedly by Mr. Tomlinson. I'm confused as to why a Congressman's opinion matters more than the public's. It is National Public Radio. It is not National Congress Radio. I believe they already have C-Span as their voice and NPR belongs to the public. With e-mailers and callers, Mr. Tomlinson openly mocked their opinions. It is National Public Radio, not National Congress Radio. Jeff Chester made a similar point when he called in to the show.
that's just a sample. i read that this morning and was just amazed. it's such a strong conversation. i called ruth this evening to get some information on the interview. they'd spoken briefly during the day and ruth had a family event to attend so they had to do the interview late. she said she was tired and she could tell c.i. was so she wasn't expecting a great deal. but after they got the hellos and how are yous out of the way 'the interview just took off.' ruth enjoyed doing and enjoyed reading it even more.
she says, 'it really was a conversation. while it was going on, we were just talking and after it was over, i went to bed thinking that i wished it had gone better and i'd prepared more because other than the media matters item i really didn't have anything in front of me. i got off to a late start this morning and wasn't able to log on to my computer and check to see how it turned out. tracey and my oldest son both called me before noon to tell me how great it read and that they were proud of me. i didn't have time to log on until a half hour before you called. reading it, i thought now that c.i. knows what to do. it seemed like we were just talking and i really felt like i had not offered anything. but c.i. just made it so easy that i felt nothing was going on.'
c.i. is a wonderful interviewer but ruth's being modest about her own abilities. if you haven't read the interview, please do.
at 1 point, c.i. was going to interview ron of why are we back in iraq? for the third estate sunday review. but ron blew it off - i'm sure he apologized! let's not forget to suggest that! - so it never came off. that's why c.i. interviewed folding star. that was a last minute 'get.' it was midnight and ron had bailed and c.i. felt like there was a big hole in the third estate sunday review as a result and felt personally responsible. folding star was kind enough to agree to interview with c.i. even after turning down the third estate sunday review prior. (folding star is a very private person.)
now i need to get ready because a group of us are seeing tonight's second showing of monster-in-law. i intend to write sunday and possibly saturday.
5/19/2005
crotch rot - my editiorial sex analysis of daniel okrent as requested by terry
common ills community member terry requested i do a sexual analysis of the new york times public editor daniel okrent.
it's been so long since i've done 1 of those, but i'm happy to take a shot. obviously what follows are my opinions. despite the peter pan haircut, i'd place him at four or five years short of sixty.
he is clearly part of the babyboom and as a white male of that era a lot comes across in his writing.
what most comes across is a need to be liked by the wrong people. he's the type who flirts at the b-b-q like crazy and thinks it's a compliment to his wife. at the same get-together, he's ignoring her like crazy because he is so desperate to ignore what he has and pursue what can't be.
he loves his ass grabbed in bed, gives him a real thrill. in his mind it's the equivalent of a spanking, something he forever toys with but doesn't want to upset the apple cart or risk not being in control.
he suffers from crotch rot. from the neck up he takes tremendous time on grooming then pairs that with a little boy blue sweater. this indicates that he spends increasingly less time on grooming as you move beyond the neck.
the fumes from his pubes may explain his half-baked writing. but they are of no comfort to a partner for not only do they stink, they're dried out and the skin beneath is damp. hence 'crotch rot.'
oh my god! daniel crotch rot! i just got that.
he enjoys having oral sex performed on him but he's not really interested in returning the favor. this is not necessarily an indication of selfishness on his part so much as it indicates that he has a nasty crotch himself and considers that the norm. he has a fear of the vagina.
his partner gets many yeasts infections each year deriving from his lack of good hygene.
he's not big on deodorant. a week at home could find him doing only the 'saturday bath.'
he doesn't suffer from premature ejaculations but he might as well since his focus during sex is all over the map.
he enjoys sex games. not in the b&d sense or water sports, but in the let's-pretend sense.
his favorite is he's the pitcher on the high school baseball team and his partner%2
it's been so long since i've done 1 of those, but i'm happy to take a shot. obviously what follows are my opinions. despite the peter pan haircut, i'd place him at four or five years short of sixty.
he is clearly part of the babyboom and as a white male of that era a lot comes across in his writing.
what most comes across is a need to be liked by the wrong people. he's the type who flirts at the b-b-q like crazy and thinks it's a compliment to his wife. at the same get-together, he's ignoring her like crazy because he is so desperate to ignore what he has and pursue what can't be.
he loves his ass grabbed in bed, gives him a real thrill. in his mind it's the equivalent of a spanking, something he forever toys with but doesn't want to upset the apple cart or risk not being in control.
he suffers from crotch rot. from the neck up he takes tremendous time on grooming then pairs that with a little boy blue sweater. this indicates that he spends increasingly less time on grooming as you move beyond the neck.
the fumes from his pubes may explain his half-baked writing. but they are of no comfort to a partner for not only do they stink, they're dried out and the skin beneath is damp. hence 'crotch rot.'
oh my god! daniel crotch rot! i just got that.
he enjoys having oral sex performed on him but he's not really interested in returning the favor. this is not necessarily an indication of selfishness on his part so much as it indicates that he has a nasty crotch himself and considers that the norm. he has a fear of the vagina.
his partner gets many yeasts infections each year deriving from his lack of good hygene.
he's not big on deodorant. a week at home could find him doing only the 'saturday bath.'
he doesn't suffer from premature ejaculations but he might as well since his focus during sex is all over the map.
he enjoys sex games. not in the b&d sense or water sports, but in the let's-pretend sense.
his favorite is he's the pitcher on the high school baseball team and his partner%2
5/18/2005
weapons in space, what next?
sherry has called my post yesterday 'the good news news like katrina vanden heuvel of the nation does every now and then.' do i link to katrina? if i don't i'll see about getting that up by this weekend. sherry's praise was nice and unworthy. but i'll grab a compliment when it's tossed.
wally e-mailed to say 'it was you!' that c.i. was posting about last night. it was me. i did have a few choice words for gail collins of the new york times. for those who missed the post, c.i. was talking about the times and during that mentioned an e-mail about 'how dare you say those things about gail collins!' that just went on and on.
it was me, not c.i. goodness, what's a gal got to do to get her props?
i don't think c.i. would have written what i did. it was more of a personal attack based on looks and c.i. tries to keep it about the work. that's why i have the 'screeds' in my blog title.
i am anne sexton's 'her kind' come to life!
wally wondered if i would mention the times much once it goes to a for pay site? the answer is probably not. i may start mentioning the washington post. my ex-husband has been reading the blog and he asked me this weekend 'do you really hate the times?' i told him the times is so not worthy of a strong emotion on my part. he said he could flip it over and get the washington post. so i'm thinking about that.
if i do, it won't be a washington post report. i won't comb through the paper the way c.i. does the times. god bless c.i. but i don't have the stomach for that nonsense with a paper. as it is i usually read krugman, dowd and herbert, the style section on sundays, the magazine and any fashion magazine they drop in to the sunday paper. otherwise the headline has to catch my eye because i've usually got friends over or am on the phone. the only time we have silence here is when democracy now is on. when that's on the t.v. every 1 knows to be quiet. i used to watch peter jennings but with him out due to his illness the evening news is out. i can't take blinky bobby at cbs and you all know what i think of the disgusting brian williams.
in case any 1 missed democracy now, shame on you and let me share a headline with you:
Bush Administration Moves Toward the Weaponization of Space
The New York Times is reporting that the Air Force is seeking President Bush's approval of a national-security directive that could move the United States closer to fielding weapons in space. The directive - which is expected within weeks - is seen as a substantial shift in U.S. policy. The Times reports that the move would likely be opposed by the international community and that it could create an arms race in space. General Lance Lord -- who leads the Air Force Space Command - recently told Congress "we must establish and maintain space superiority." According to the Times, the Pentagon has already spent billions of dollars developing space weapons and preparing plans to deploy them. Three years ago the Bush administration withdrew from the 30-year-old Antiballistic Missile Treaty, which banned space-based weapons.
that is just such a frightening story to me. it's not bad enough that we've weaponized the planet, now we want to carry it to outerspace? and you know if bully boy carries it up there, others will too. you know how bullies always have to get into a size contest.
i heard that story today and all i could think was 'where does it end?' more and more it looks like it never ends. it looks like it will just go on and on.
and here's something to think about. we don't have the money to take care of the homeless. we don't have money to provide nationalized health care. we don't have money for any social programs but we've got the money to put weapons up in space?
bread and roses are neglected yet again.
wally e-mailed to say 'it was you!' that c.i. was posting about last night. it was me. i did have a few choice words for gail collins of the new york times. for those who missed the post, c.i. was talking about the times and during that mentioned an e-mail about 'how dare you say those things about gail collins!' that just went on and on.
it was me, not c.i. goodness, what's a gal got to do to get her props?
i don't think c.i. would have written what i did. it was more of a personal attack based on looks and c.i. tries to keep it about the work. that's why i have the 'screeds' in my blog title.
i am anne sexton's 'her kind' come to life!
wally wondered if i would mention the times much once it goes to a for pay site? the answer is probably not. i may start mentioning the washington post. my ex-husband has been reading the blog and he asked me this weekend 'do you really hate the times?' i told him the times is so not worthy of a strong emotion on my part. he said he could flip it over and get the washington post. so i'm thinking about that.
if i do, it won't be a washington post report. i won't comb through the paper the way c.i. does the times. god bless c.i. but i don't have the stomach for that nonsense with a paper. as it is i usually read krugman, dowd and herbert, the style section on sundays, the magazine and any fashion magazine they drop in to the sunday paper. otherwise the headline has to catch my eye because i've usually got friends over or am on the phone. the only time we have silence here is when democracy now is on. when that's on the t.v. every 1 knows to be quiet. i used to watch peter jennings but with him out due to his illness the evening news is out. i can't take blinky bobby at cbs and you all know what i think of the disgusting brian williams.
in case any 1 missed democracy now, shame on you and let me share a headline with you:
Bush Administration Moves Toward the Weaponization of Space
The New York Times is reporting that the Air Force is seeking President Bush's approval of a national-security directive that could move the United States closer to fielding weapons in space. The directive - which is expected within weeks - is seen as a substantial shift in U.S. policy. The Times reports that the move would likely be opposed by the international community and that it could create an arms race in space. General Lance Lord -- who leads the Air Force Space Command - recently told Congress "we must establish and maintain space superiority." According to the Times, the Pentagon has already spent billions of dollars developing space weapons and preparing plans to deploy them. Three years ago the Bush administration withdrew from the 30-year-old Antiballistic Missile Treaty, which banned space-based weapons.
that is just such a frightening story to me. it's not bad enough that we've weaponized the planet, now we want to carry it to outerspace? and you know if bully boy carries it up there, others will too. you know how bullies always have to get into a size contest.
i heard that story today and all i could think was 'where does it end?' more and more it looks like it never ends. it looks like it will just go on and on.
and here's something to think about. we don't have the money to take care of the homeless. we don't have money to provide nationalized health care. we don't have money for any social programs but we've got the money to put weapons up in space?
bread and roses are neglected yet again.
5/17/2005
on folding star, jim, dona, ty, jess, ava, betty and c.i.
can i brag on some of our community members who blog?
i've been catching up today on things i read quickly and really savoring them. i want to steer you to folding star's piece on real i.d.s at a winding road:
Finally, I hope you're all fully aware that we Americans are about to have national identification cards forced upon us. The provision, the REAL-ID Act, was neatly tucked away in a bill that no one dared to vote against, one that provided funding for the 'war on terror' and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Though Republican Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee took to the floor to protest the inclusion of the act in the bill, he and the other 99 Senators ultimately voted in favor of it.
The Act will turn our Driver's licenses into what amount to National Identification Cards, setting national standards that make them more than what they are now, just a license to drive a car issued by individual states under their own standards. What's more, the states will have to bear the cost of these changes, which is primarily what Senator Alexander was protesting.
The good news is that several state Governors are already speaking out against this act, some talking about challenging it in the courts. So all hope is not yet lost. But do you see where we could be headed? National ID Cards now, passports to travel between states next? We're getting less and less free every single day under this administration and this Republican dominated Congress.
How ironic that the Republicans still like to pretend they're the party that keeps 'big government' out of people's lives! Irony is lost on these people, though.
over at the third estate sunday review, i want to steer you towards their editorial:
Though like many Americans, we long ago realized that Bully Boy says one thing and does another, the issues at stake here are too great to ignore. That should be obvious to even Bully Boy.
Luis Posada Carriles has engaged repeatedly in activities that should bar him from receiving political asylum. The U.S. should move quickly to hand him over to Venezuela where "[h]e escaped from a Venezuelan jail in 1985 while awaiting the result of an appeal against a conviction for the bombing. "
As the international community awaits to see if the "proof is pudding," the United States should not postpone acting on this issue.
Anything else would appear to condoing the actions Carriles has been convicted of.
Like many, we applauded the refusal of Margaret Thatcher's son into this country after his involvement with an attempted coup. That Bully Boy could stand up to Thatcher but waffles on Carriles reveals how the adminstration will determine any action based on how they think it will affect elections.
blog betty never fails to make me laugh but i hadn't read her early morning saturday post until today. i was aware of it because an excerpt went up at third estate sunday review but i hadn't read the post. it's hilarious. even the title makes me laugh. for those who've missed betty's thomas friedman is a great man, betty is doing a humorous site. she writes it as bettina. she is thomas friedman's wife. he drugs her and tells her the pills are vitamins. he's convinced her that he and nicholas kristof have rescued her so she needs to be grateful to him. as betty's unwound the story, we've seen bettina wake up a little each entry. now thomas friedman is out pushing his new book all over the country and he's taken bettina on the road with him in
'8 Days on the road to hell and heartland:'
For the last eight days, I've been in every flea ridden, cheap motel room you can imagine. The kind of rooms where the glasses, plastic, in the bathroom have spots on them even before you take them out of the plastic. My husband Thomas Friedman's latest book isn't doing as well as it should be doing or as well as he expected it to be doing. So we've gone from one city to another, with him doing multiple signings in each city. The crowds have been rather sparse. In fact, only my husband Thomas Friedman refers to them as "crowds."
I refer them to as "couples" and the occasional "threesome." Or rather I did until I noticed how the latter got Thomas Friedman's bushy eyebrows wagging. As if his libido needs any more excitement right now. Most night's it's like he's snorting or mainlining Viagra. I don't mind all that much, the five to six minutes give me a period to reflect and organize my plans for the next day. Right about the time that he's crying out, "Gut check time!" I've finished my personal inventory.
But the "neighbors" are far less than tolerant than I am. It was the rare night that management didn't ring up the room to ask us to hold it down. Thomas Friedman would get off the phone and lecture me about the noise level. I have no idea why, I'm not even bothering to fake moans of late. And I'm certainly not the one repeating, "Mommy! Mommy! Oh Mommy!" a half dozen times before finishing with the hollered cry of "Gut check time!"
But I'm grasping that Thomas Friedman, besides being hugely jealous of the actress who is outselling him, is also not one to grab the blame. One might even suggest that he's one to push the blame off on others.
finally or firstly there is c.i. as community members of the common ills none of us would have thought of blogging if we hadn't been part of the common ills community. tasha e-mailed me last night wondering how i decided to start blogging. because of the common ills. i e-mailed her back about that and she had never heard of the common ills but checked it out and enjoyed it. i'd told her about folding star, betty, jim, dona, ty, jess and ava and she was under the impression that with three web sites coming up as a result of the common ills, c.i. must have been blogging for years. no, the common ills is 6 months old thursday.
think about that a moment, ok? besides the sites i named above, you also have the gina & krista round-robin which is the e-mail newsletter/discussion done by gina & krista that goes out once a week. you have the biweekly newsletter from the uk computer gurus advising you about security and other computer issues. and at the site itself, besides having members contributing all the time by e-mailing in things they want noting, you have people like rob and kara doing evaluations of the times in their own entries. you have ruth doing ruth's morning edition report where she covers npr's morning edition. you have isaiah providing the comic strip the world today just nuts. and kat who started doing cd reviews back in december with her kat's korner.
i mean is this not amazing? it hasn't even been 6 months.
i don't know if you know the site the new york times annotated. jim gave me a heads up to it.
it pulls from various blogs and takes entries on the new york times and groups them together by the story they are commenting on. the common ills gets cited over there. so, following jim's tip, i go over there and see that this sunday's entry about the 3 crackpots who call themselves environmentalist but are supporting the building of nuclear plants has 3 pages worth of blog entries. and here's the thing, only c.i. shows any skepticism. the other entries champion it or accept it. c.i.'s saying 'there are millions of enivornmentalists and 3 is hardly a revolution.' it's a good point. a basic 1 and a common sense 1. but common sense flew out the window with all the bloggers. it's a very basic point. that the environmental movement, even just in this country, is made up of millions and that 3 people 'breaking from the pack' is not really news. but only c.i.
noted it. if you want to read that entry go here.
but it goes beyond 1 entry and that's what i want to focus on because tasha reminded me that there are new readers coming here for the 1st time and that they may also be unaware of the common ills.
right before st. patrick's day the press, the neoliberal press, decided to wage war on sinn fein.
they tried to humilate them and take them down. you might not have noticed. c.i. said the story didn't have traction and it turned out that it didn't. but for awhile there, if you were a reader, you read these editorials and these stories that were just dog pilings.
c.i. didn't run with the 'pack.' c.i. spoke out and called it what it was. and so did community members dominick, eli and krista with their own posts at the common ills. but who else?
the majority report gets credit for having a guest on who spoke about the reality in ireland.
counterpunch gets credit for covering it.
but this was a big deal and there wasn't a great deal of people saying 'woah, hold on, this is a tentative peace that was built in the 90s after years of strife. this press is 1 sided and akin to throwing a match on gasoline.'
that's why people like me became members in the 1st place, for the brave stands. for c.i.'s ability to speak out when others didn't. on the bullshit myth of the 'red states,' c.i. dealt with that in a 4 part series (and more) in the 1st month of the common ills and warned you that it wasn't just republicans who would try to use it, it was also dlc democrats who wanted to push the party to the center. or when no 1 wanted to question the 'unstoppable' simon rosenberg as he tried to be dnc chair and everywhere you went you heard what a great guy he was. only c.i. told you that rosenberg had the war lust for hugo chavez, that he support the invasion/occupation of iraq then and now, that he was dlc as late as may of 2004. on and on and on. all based on the public record.
i read the common ills today from sunday straight through. and i see so much that goes on there that doesn't go on elsewhere.
that includes here. i usually write a few paragraphs on a few topics.
good god, c.i.'s doing essays over at the common ills. this morning's entry on the shining on of daniel okrent, the need to talk up his dismal performance as public editor, and i'm not just agreeing with it, i'm also thinking, 'good lord when did c.i. get the time to write this?'
with the third estate sunday review, when we all are lucky enough to be able to assist the 3rd gang, i notice things. like when an entry is falling apart, c.i. will say 'what if you quote' and give an example. jim will tell you that when it all looks bleak and like nothing will go up there and they'll miss a sunday, c.i. will come up with an idea.
that's really a gift. to be able to face the turmoil and do it with optimism. when everyone's thinking something's not going to happen, c.i. will say 'what if . . .'
now jim will tell you, he and i were on the phone dicussing this today, that he likes the turmoil. he likes the excitement and the 'oh my god we're not going to pull it off!' and it can be fun and i enjoy it as well, to be honest. but dona's talked about how it can get on her nerves. so jim passes the phone to dona for me to talk to her about it. and like she said, 'when i'm about to scream at jim and maybe throw something at him, that's always the time that c.i. says we don't have to trash something, we can just fix it with whatever.' dona was talking about the thing on okrent too. 'who's going to do that?' she asked. 'who else? you're standing up to some big press names with that entry, not just okrent but the inner circle that's applauding him. so you hear a lot of silence on the issue. but c.i. rushes into those silences, seems to think that it's most important to speak truth when the silences gather.'
and that's what you get with the common ills. somedays you're getting highlights and some editorials. but besides steering you to the stories that matter, c.i.'s doing those brave stands that are just so amazing.
i called up c.i. today and we were having a conversation when i mention i'm going to be writing about this and i get 'please don't.' and i understand that because the issues are what matter to c.i. which is why c.i.'s ripped off, and it happens quite a bit as members know, c.i.'s doesn't make a stink about it but takes the 'i'm so glad these things are being addressed' attitude.
that's part of the optimism of c.i. that i don't have. i've noted before that i'm much more cyncical. i'll tell you something else, something betty asked me to put in. when she's working on an entry, she 'always knows i can e-mail or call c.i. and ask if it makes sense or does it need something more. i always say thank you and mean it but if you're writing something up about the common ills and c.i. i hope you'll note that. c.i. can be yawning on the phone or sounding really under the weather and i'll say never mind but c.i. will listen to me bounce ideas until i feel like comfortable about what i'm working on.'
i can back that up because i can go to a c.i. and say this line is funny but not as funny as i want and c.i. will say invert this or use this term and it's been a big help. in the early days especially i doubted every other post and was always thinking that i couldn't do it. c.i. is the community cheerleader who roots for you and tells you that you can do it.
if you haven't checked out the common ills you need to. it is an amazing community. c.i.'s created something that members really enjoy and trust. for less than 6 months, i marvel at the impact that the common ills has had, on me on every member. credit for that goes to c.i. and the members for that.
i've been catching up today on things i read quickly and really savoring them. i want to steer you to folding star's piece on real i.d.s at a winding road:
Finally, I hope you're all fully aware that we Americans are about to have national identification cards forced upon us. The provision, the REAL-ID Act, was neatly tucked away in a bill that no one dared to vote against, one that provided funding for the 'war on terror' and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Though Republican Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee took to the floor to protest the inclusion of the act in the bill, he and the other 99 Senators ultimately voted in favor of it.
The Act will turn our Driver's licenses into what amount to National Identification Cards, setting national standards that make them more than what they are now, just a license to drive a car issued by individual states under their own standards. What's more, the states will have to bear the cost of these changes, which is primarily what Senator Alexander was protesting.
The good news is that several state Governors are already speaking out against this act, some talking about challenging it in the courts. So all hope is not yet lost. But do you see where we could be headed? National ID Cards now, passports to travel between states next? We're getting less and less free every single day under this administration and this Republican dominated Congress.
How ironic that the Republicans still like to pretend they're the party that keeps 'big government' out of people's lives! Irony is lost on these people, though.
over at the third estate sunday review, i want to steer you towards their editorial:
Though like many Americans, we long ago realized that Bully Boy says one thing and does another, the issues at stake here are too great to ignore. That should be obvious to even Bully Boy.
Luis Posada Carriles has engaged repeatedly in activities that should bar him from receiving political asylum. The U.S. should move quickly to hand him over to Venezuela where "[h]e escaped from a Venezuelan jail in 1985 while awaiting the result of an appeal against a conviction for the bombing. "
As the international community awaits to see if the "proof is pudding," the United States should not postpone acting on this issue.
Anything else would appear to condoing the actions Carriles has been convicted of.
Like many, we applauded the refusal of Margaret Thatcher's son into this country after his involvement with an attempted coup. That Bully Boy could stand up to Thatcher but waffles on Carriles reveals how the adminstration will determine any action based on how they think it will affect elections.
blog betty never fails to make me laugh but i hadn't read her early morning saturday post until today. i was aware of it because an excerpt went up at third estate sunday review but i hadn't read the post. it's hilarious. even the title makes me laugh. for those who've missed betty's thomas friedman is a great man, betty is doing a humorous site. she writes it as bettina. she is thomas friedman's wife. he drugs her and tells her the pills are vitamins. he's convinced her that he and nicholas kristof have rescued her so she needs to be grateful to him. as betty's unwound the story, we've seen bettina wake up a little each entry. now thomas friedman is out pushing his new book all over the country and he's taken bettina on the road with him in
'8 Days on the road to hell and heartland:'
For the last eight days, I've been in every flea ridden, cheap motel room you can imagine. The kind of rooms where the glasses, plastic, in the bathroom have spots on them even before you take them out of the plastic. My husband Thomas Friedman's latest book isn't doing as well as it should be doing or as well as he expected it to be doing. So we've gone from one city to another, with him doing multiple signings in each city. The crowds have been rather sparse. In fact, only my husband Thomas Friedman refers to them as "crowds."
I refer them to as "couples" and the occasional "threesome." Or rather I did until I noticed how the latter got Thomas Friedman's bushy eyebrows wagging. As if his libido needs any more excitement right now. Most night's it's like he's snorting or mainlining Viagra. I don't mind all that much, the five to six minutes give me a period to reflect and organize my plans for the next day. Right about the time that he's crying out, "Gut check time!" I've finished my personal inventory.
But the "neighbors" are far less than tolerant than I am. It was the rare night that management didn't ring up the room to ask us to hold it down. Thomas Friedman would get off the phone and lecture me about the noise level. I have no idea why, I'm not even bothering to fake moans of late. And I'm certainly not the one repeating, "Mommy! Mommy! Oh Mommy!" a half dozen times before finishing with the hollered cry of "Gut check time!"
But I'm grasping that Thomas Friedman, besides being hugely jealous of the actress who is outselling him, is also not one to grab the blame. One might even suggest that he's one to push the blame off on others.
finally or firstly there is c.i. as community members of the common ills none of us would have thought of blogging if we hadn't been part of the common ills community. tasha e-mailed me last night wondering how i decided to start blogging. because of the common ills. i e-mailed her back about that and she had never heard of the common ills but checked it out and enjoyed it. i'd told her about folding star, betty, jim, dona, ty, jess and ava and she was under the impression that with three web sites coming up as a result of the common ills, c.i. must have been blogging for years. no, the common ills is 6 months old thursday.
think about that a moment, ok? besides the sites i named above, you also have the gina & krista round-robin which is the e-mail newsletter/discussion done by gina & krista that goes out once a week. you have the biweekly newsletter from the uk computer gurus advising you about security and other computer issues. and at the site itself, besides having members contributing all the time by e-mailing in things they want noting, you have people like rob and kara doing evaluations of the times in their own entries. you have ruth doing ruth's morning edition report where she covers npr's morning edition. you have isaiah providing the comic strip the world today just nuts. and kat who started doing cd reviews back in december with her kat's korner.
i mean is this not amazing? it hasn't even been 6 months.
i don't know if you know the site the new york times annotated. jim gave me a heads up to it.
it pulls from various blogs and takes entries on the new york times and groups them together by the story they are commenting on. the common ills gets cited over there. so, following jim's tip, i go over there and see that this sunday's entry about the 3 crackpots who call themselves environmentalist but are supporting the building of nuclear plants has 3 pages worth of blog entries. and here's the thing, only c.i. shows any skepticism. the other entries champion it or accept it. c.i.'s saying 'there are millions of enivornmentalists and 3 is hardly a revolution.' it's a good point. a basic 1 and a common sense 1. but common sense flew out the window with all the bloggers. it's a very basic point. that the environmental movement, even just in this country, is made up of millions and that 3 people 'breaking from the pack' is not really news. but only c.i.
noted it. if you want to read that entry go here.
but it goes beyond 1 entry and that's what i want to focus on because tasha reminded me that there are new readers coming here for the 1st time and that they may also be unaware of the common ills.
right before st. patrick's day the press, the neoliberal press, decided to wage war on sinn fein.
they tried to humilate them and take them down. you might not have noticed. c.i. said the story didn't have traction and it turned out that it didn't. but for awhile there, if you were a reader, you read these editorials and these stories that were just dog pilings.
c.i. didn't run with the 'pack.' c.i. spoke out and called it what it was. and so did community members dominick, eli and krista with their own posts at the common ills. but who else?
the majority report gets credit for having a guest on who spoke about the reality in ireland.
counterpunch gets credit for covering it.
but this was a big deal and there wasn't a great deal of people saying 'woah, hold on, this is a tentative peace that was built in the 90s after years of strife. this press is 1 sided and akin to throwing a match on gasoline.'
that's why people like me became members in the 1st place, for the brave stands. for c.i.'s ability to speak out when others didn't. on the bullshit myth of the 'red states,' c.i. dealt with that in a 4 part series (and more) in the 1st month of the common ills and warned you that it wasn't just republicans who would try to use it, it was also dlc democrats who wanted to push the party to the center. or when no 1 wanted to question the 'unstoppable' simon rosenberg as he tried to be dnc chair and everywhere you went you heard what a great guy he was. only c.i. told you that rosenberg had the war lust for hugo chavez, that he support the invasion/occupation of iraq then and now, that he was dlc as late as may of 2004. on and on and on. all based on the public record.
i read the common ills today from sunday straight through. and i see so much that goes on there that doesn't go on elsewhere.
that includes here. i usually write a few paragraphs on a few topics.
good god, c.i.'s doing essays over at the common ills. this morning's entry on the shining on of daniel okrent, the need to talk up his dismal performance as public editor, and i'm not just agreeing with it, i'm also thinking, 'good lord when did c.i. get the time to write this?'
with the third estate sunday review, when we all are lucky enough to be able to assist the 3rd gang, i notice things. like when an entry is falling apart, c.i. will say 'what if you quote' and give an example. jim will tell you that when it all looks bleak and like nothing will go up there and they'll miss a sunday, c.i. will come up with an idea.
that's really a gift. to be able to face the turmoil and do it with optimism. when everyone's thinking something's not going to happen, c.i. will say 'what if . . .'
now jim will tell you, he and i were on the phone dicussing this today, that he likes the turmoil. he likes the excitement and the 'oh my god we're not going to pull it off!' and it can be fun and i enjoy it as well, to be honest. but dona's talked about how it can get on her nerves. so jim passes the phone to dona for me to talk to her about it. and like she said, 'when i'm about to scream at jim and maybe throw something at him, that's always the time that c.i. says we don't have to trash something, we can just fix it with whatever.' dona was talking about the thing on okrent too. 'who's going to do that?' she asked. 'who else? you're standing up to some big press names with that entry, not just okrent but the inner circle that's applauding him. so you hear a lot of silence on the issue. but c.i. rushes into those silences, seems to think that it's most important to speak truth when the silences gather.'
and that's what you get with the common ills. somedays you're getting highlights and some editorials. but besides steering you to the stories that matter, c.i.'s doing those brave stands that are just so amazing.
i called up c.i. today and we were having a conversation when i mention i'm going to be writing about this and i get 'please don't.' and i understand that because the issues are what matter to c.i. which is why c.i.'s ripped off, and it happens quite a bit as members know, c.i.'s doesn't make a stink about it but takes the 'i'm so glad these things are being addressed' attitude.
that's part of the optimism of c.i. that i don't have. i've noted before that i'm much more cyncical. i'll tell you something else, something betty asked me to put in. when she's working on an entry, she 'always knows i can e-mail or call c.i. and ask if it makes sense or does it need something more. i always say thank you and mean it but if you're writing something up about the common ills and c.i. i hope you'll note that. c.i. can be yawning on the phone or sounding really under the weather and i'll say never mind but c.i. will listen to me bounce ideas until i feel like comfortable about what i'm working on.'
i can back that up because i can go to a c.i. and say this line is funny but not as funny as i want and c.i. will say invert this or use this term and it's been a big help. in the early days especially i doubted every other post and was always thinking that i couldn't do it. c.i. is the community cheerleader who roots for you and tells you that you can do it.
if you haven't checked out the common ills you need to. it is an amazing community. c.i.'s created something that members really enjoy and trust. for less than 6 months, i marvel at the impact that the common ills has had, on me on every member. credit for that goes to c.i. and the members for that.
5/16/2005
bill moyers speech from this weekend and reminder that the new republic is not a liberal magazine
so how are you? wally wrote the nicest e-mail saying thanks for the thing i did here over coffee this morning. truth? i had no idea what i'd linked to until i read wally's e-mail. i am not a morning person. i am an evening person, a late night person, an all night person. i am just not a morning person.
i have to wake up slowly and ease into the morning. even before i get out of bed i'm doing some modified yoga stretches. and i may very well then go back to sleep after. the snooze button wears out on my alarm clocks. they'll start to stick and i'll have to go out and get another clock all the time.
this morning i was doing 1 of my stretches when i groaned 'oh shit!' braeden looks over at me and asks what but i'm already scrambling out of the bed. i hit the on button on the computer and hop to the kitchen to start the coffee. run back here while it's booting up. pull up the net and braeden was kind of enough to bring me coffee.
so i'm glad that the links gave enjoyment to wally and shirley and lisa and jobi and the other 15 who wrote to say thanks for having a post up because they'd checked sunday and figured it would be monday evening until something went up here.
i want to note a few things.
1st off if you didn't see it at the common ills, bill moyers full speech from this weekend was broadcast today on democracy now and here's a part of it:
Jonathan Mermin writes about this in a recent essay in World Policy Journal. You'll also want to read his book Debating War and Peace: Media Coverage of US Intervention in the Post-Vietnam Era. Mermin quotes David Ignatius of The Washington Post on why the deep interests of the American public are so poorly served by Beltway journalism. "The rules of the game," says Ignatius, "make it hard for us to tee up on an issue without a news peg." He offers a case in point: the debacle of America’s occupation of Iraq. "If Senator So-and-so hasn't criticized postwar planning for Iraq," says Ignatius, "it's hard for a reporter to write a story about that."
Mermin also quotes public television's Jim Lehrer, whom I greatly respect, acknowledging that unless an official says something is so, it isn't news. Why were journalists not discussing the occupation of Iraq? "Because," says Jim Lehrer, "the word 'occupation' was never mentioned in the run up to the war. Washington talked about the war as a war of liberation, not a war of occupation. So as a consequence, those of us in journalism," says Lehrer, "never even looked at the issue of occupation." "In other words," says Jonathan Mermin, "if the government isn't talking about it, we don't report it." He concludes, "Lehrer's somewhat jarring declaration, one of many recent admissions by journalists that their reporting failed to prepare the public for the calamitous occupation that has followed the liberation of Iraq, reveals just how far the actual practice of American journalism has deviated from the First Amendment idea of a press that is independent of government."
Take the example, also cited by Mermin, of Charles Hanley. Hanley is a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for the Associated Press whose 2003 story of the torture of Iraqis in American prisons before a U.S. Army report and photographs documenting the abuse surfaced, was ignored by major American newspapers. Hanley attributes this lack of interest to the fact, (quote), "it was not an officially-sanctioned story that begins with a handout from an official source. Furthermore, Iraqis recounting their own personal experience of Abu Ghraib simply did not have the credibility with Beltway journalists of American officials denying that such things happened."
Judith Miller of The New York Times, among others, relied on that credibility, relied on that credibility of official but unnamed sources when she served essentially as the government stenographer for claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. So the rules of the game permit Washington officials to set the agenda for journalism, leaving the press all too simply to recount what officials say instead of subjecting their words and deeds to critical scrutiny. Instead of acting as filters for readers and viewers sifting the truth from the propaganda, reporters and anchors attentively transcribe both sides of the spin invariably failing to provide context, background or any sense of which claims hold up and which are misleading.
I decided long ago that this wasn’t healthy for democracy. I came to see that news is what people want to keep hidden, and everything else is publicity. In my documentaries, whether on the Watergate scandal thirty years ago, or the Iran-Contra conspiracy twenty years ago, or Bill Clinton's fundraising scandals ten years ago, or five years ago the chemical industry’s long and despicable cover up of its cynical and unspeakable withholding of critical data about its toxic products, I realized that investigative journalism could not be a collaboration between the journalist and the subject. Objectivity was not satisfied by two opposing people offering competing opinions, leaving the viewer to split the difference. I came to believe that objective journalism means describing the object being reported on, including the little fibs and fantasies, as well as the big lie of people in power.
In no way – in no way does this permit journalists to make accusations and allegations. It means, instead, making sure that your reporting and your conclusions can be nailed to the post with confirming evidence.
This is always hard to do, but it's never been harder. Without a trace of irony, the powers that be have appropriated the Newspeak vernacular of George Orwell's 1984. They give us a program vowing no child will be left behind, while cutting funds for educating disadvantaged children; they give us legislation cheerily calling for clear skies and healthy forests that give us neither, while turning over our public lands to the energy industry. In Orwell's 1984 the character Syme, one of the writers of that totalitarian society’s dictionary, explains to the protagonist, Winston, "Don't you see? Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050 at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we're having right now. The whole climate of thought," he said, "will be different. In fact, there will be no thought as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking, not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."
Hear me: an unconscious people, an indoctrinated people, a people fed only partisan information and opinion that confirm their own bias, a people made morbidly obese in mind and spirit by the junk food of propaganda is less inclined to put up a fight, ask questions and be skeptical. And just as a democracy can die of too many lies, that kind of orthodoxy can kill us, too.
now i want to steer you to bob somerby and his daily howler. he is talking about how the right lied about the guests who stayed over at the white house back when we had a real president, bill clinton. and he notes that your brave 'liberals' refused to stand up. he quotes one particular "liberal" publication:
Baldly false. But in this, as in so many matters, Washington's "press corps" did what it does best; it omitted the relevant facts, replacing them with fake "facts" it found pleasing. Meanwhile, did your "liberal" magazines challenge this clowning? Here was the New Republic's first comment:
NEW REPUBLIC, UNSIGNED (3/17/97): FINANCIAL ARTS:
The just-released list of 831 Clinton friends who slept at the White House in the president's first term offered more than an inside look at how the administration peddled influence. It also provided an inadvertent picture of the sorry state of America's cultural life. The Clintons divided their guests into five categories. Some in the "Arkansas friends" group, we regret to inform, were rather crass characters. But the real shocker came in the fifth, and most highbrow, category, the exalted "Arts and Letters," which sounds like a new section in the Times. Only sixty- seven qualified for this prestigious designation. Among their number, such artistic and literary giants as Ted Danson, Judy Collins, Jane Fonda, Tom Hanks, Ted Turner and Chevy Chase. Thank goodness Clinton didn't have to raise the money necessary to win a close race in 1996. He might have opened up the Lincoln Bedroom to mere commercial entertainers.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Perhaps you'd forgotten the sheer inanity of this magazine in the days of the late Michael Kelly.
michael kelly? one of those cons playing at being centerist. a writer who never had much to offer but turned himself into a complete carny barker during the lead up to the war in iraq.
the new republic is not liberal. when stephanie goes on air america to do those commericals she'll claim they are liberal. al franken will claim the same thing. they are not a liberal magazine. they are joe lieberman in print. if lack of truth in advertising were punishable by prison terms, a lot of the so called 'liberals' at the new republic would be serving life sentences.
i have to wake up slowly and ease into the morning. even before i get out of bed i'm doing some modified yoga stretches. and i may very well then go back to sleep after. the snooze button wears out on my alarm clocks. they'll start to stick and i'll have to go out and get another clock all the time.
this morning i was doing 1 of my stretches when i groaned 'oh shit!' braeden looks over at me and asks what but i'm already scrambling out of the bed. i hit the on button on the computer and hop to the kitchen to start the coffee. run back here while it's booting up. pull up the net and braeden was kind of enough to bring me coffee.
so i'm glad that the links gave enjoyment to wally and shirley and lisa and jobi and the other 15 who wrote to say thanks for having a post up because they'd checked sunday and figured it would be monday evening until something went up here.
i want to note a few things.
1st off if you didn't see it at the common ills, bill moyers full speech from this weekend was broadcast today on democracy now and here's a part of it:
Jonathan Mermin writes about this in a recent essay in World Policy Journal. You'll also want to read his book Debating War and Peace: Media Coverage of US Intervention in the Post-Vietnam Era. Mermin quotes David Ignatius of The Washington Post on why the deep interests of the American public are so poorly served by Beltway journalism. "The rules of the game," says Ignatius, "make it hard for us to tee up on an issue without a news peg." He offers a case in point: the debacle of America’s occupation of Iraq. "If Senator So-and-so hasn't criticized postwar planning for Iraq," says Ignatius, "it's hard for a reporter to write a story about that."
Mermin also quotes public television's Jim Lehrer, whom I greatly respect, acknowledging that unless an official says something is so, it isn't news. Why were journalists not discussing the occupation of Iraq? "Because," says Jim Lehrer, "the word 'occupation' was never mentioned in the run up to the war. Washington talked about the war as a war of liberation, not a war of occupation. So as a consequence, those of us in journalism," says Lehrer, "never even looked at the issue of occupation." "In other words," says Jonathan Mermin, "if the government isn't talking about it, we don't report it." He concludes, "Lehrer's somewhat jarring declaration, one of many recent admissions by journalists that their reporting failed to prepare the public for the calamitous occupation that has followed the liberation of Iraq, reveals just how far the actual practice of American journalism has deviated from the First Amendment idea of a press that is independent of government."
Take the example, also cited by Mermin, of Charles Hanley. Hanley is a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for the Associated Press whose 2003 story of the torture of Iraqis in American prisons before a U.S. Army report and photographs documenting the abuse surfaced, was ignored by major American newspapers. Hanley attributes this lack of interest to the fact, (quote), "it was not an officially-sanctioned story that begins with a handout from an official source. Furthermore, Iraqis recounting their own personal experience of Abu Ghraib simply did not have the credibility with Beltway journalists of American officials denying that such things happened."
Judith Miller of The New York Times, among others, relied on that credibility, relied on that credibility of official but unnamed sources when she served essentially as the government stenographer for claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. So the rules of the game permit Washington officials to set the agenda for journalism, leaving the press all too simply to recount what officials say instead of subjecting their words and deeds to critical scrutiny. Instead of acting as filters for readers and viewers sifting the truth from the propaganda, reporters and anchors attentively transcribe both sides of the spin invariably failing to provide context, background or any sense of which claims hold up and which are misleading.
I decided long ago that this wasn’t healthy for democracy. I came to see that news is what people want to keep hidden, and everything else is publicity. In my documentaries, whether on the Watergate scandal thirty years ago, or the Iran-Contra conspiracy twenty years ago, or Bill Clinton's fundraising scandals ten years ago, or five years ago the chemical industry’s long and despicable cover up of its cynical and unspeakable withholding of critical data about its toxic products, I realized that investigative journalism could not be a collaboration between the journalist and the subject. Objectivity was not satisfied by two opposing people offering competing opinions, leaving the viewer to split the difference. I came to believe that objective journalism means describing the object being reported on, including the little fibs and fantasies, as well as the big lie of people in power.
In no way – in no way does this permit journalists to make accusations and allegations. It means, instead, making sure that your reporting and your conclusions can be nailed to the post with confirming evidence.
This is always hard to do, but it's never been harder. Without a trace of irony, the powers that be have appropriated the Newspeak vernacular of George Orwell's 1984. They give us a program vowing no child will be left behind, while cutting funds for educating disadvantaged children; they give us legislation cheerily calling for clear skies and healthy forests that give us neither, while turning over our public lands to the energy industry. In Orwell's 1984 the character Syme, one of the writers of that totalitarian society’s dictionary, explains to the protagonist, Winston, "Don't you see? Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050 at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we're having right now. The whole climate of thought," he said, "will be different. In fact, there will be no thought as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking, not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."
Hear me: an unconscious people, an indoctrinated people, a people fed only partisan information and opinion that confirm their own bias, a people made morbidly obese in mind and spirit by the junk food of propaganda is less inclined to put up a fight, ask questions and be skeptical. And just as a democracy can die of too many lies, that kind of orthodoxy can kill us, too.
now i want to steer you to bob somerby and his daily howler. he is talking about how the right lied about the guests who stayed over at the white house back when we had a real president, bill clinton. and he notes that your brave 'liberals' refused to stand up. he quotes one particular "liberal" publication:
Baldly false. But in this, as in so many matters, Washington's "press corps" did what it does best; it omitted the relevant facts, replacing them with fake "facts" it found pleasing. Meanwhile, did your "liberal" magazines challenge this clowning? Here was the New Republic's first comment:
NEW REPUBLIC, UNSIGNED (3/17/97): FINANCIAL ARTS:
The just-released list of 831 Clinton friends who slept at the White House in the president's first term offered more than an inside look at how the administration peddled influence. It also provided an inadvertent picture of the sorry state of America's cultural life. The Clintons divided their guests into five categories. Some in the "Arkansas friends" group, we regret to inform, were rather crass characters. But the real shocker came in the fifth, and most highbrow, category, the exalted "Arts and Letters," which sounds like a new section in the Times. Only sixty- seven qualified for this prestigious designation. Among their number, such artistic and literary giants as Ted Danson, Judy Collins, Jane Fonda, Tom Hanks, Ted Turner and Chevy Chase. Thank goodness Clinton didn't have to raise the money necessary to win a close race in 1996. He might have opened up the Lincoln Bedroom to mere commercial entertainers.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Perhaps you'd forgotten the sheer inanity of this magazine in the days of the late Michael Kelly.
michael kelly? one of those cons playing at being centerist. a writer who never had much to offer but turned himself into a complete carny barker during the lead up to the war in iraq.
the new republic is not liberal. when stephanie goes on air america to do those commericals she'll claim they are liberal. al franken will claim the same thing. they are not a liberal magazine. they are joe lieberman in print. if lack of truth in advertising were punishable by prison terms, a lot of the so called 'liberals' at the new republic would be serving life sentences.
quick morning entry while i sip my coffee
so busy pursuing the pleasure princple that i had no time to blog sunday!
1st i'll note this from danny schechter's news dissector:
OK. OK, bizarre things happen. Sometimes it seems as if everything is bizarre. Just yesterday, we heard about a hand grenade supposedly tossed President Bush's way at that well-staged We Love Democracy rally in Georgia. Apparently, the Secret Service had no clue about it. The story went from big deal to not-in-the-news.
Sometimes paranoia is not just the province of the paranoid. They know that fear is a political driver and that threats -- big ones like the commie threat, bigger ones like the al-Qaeda threat -- motivate the public to render unto Caesar while accepting and paying for everything that MUST BE DONE because, well, "you never know." I may be just paranoid to believe this:
"New Evidence: Terror Alerts Were Used As Electoral Weapons
by Chris Bowers
"Remember the chart that showed the relationship between Bush's approval rating and terror alters? The chart clearly suggested that terror alerts were used more frequently during times of unpopularity for Bush. Now, new evidence, from Tom Ridge himself, suggests that there was indeed massive outside pressure on the department on homeland to security to often raise the terror alert despite flimsy evidence:
"The Bush administration periodically put the USA on high alert for terrorist attacks even though then-Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge argued there was only flimsy evidence to justify raising the threat level, Ridge now says.
"Ridge, who resigned Feb. 1, said Tuesday that he often disagreed with administration officials who wanted to elevate the threat level to orange, or 'high' risk of terrorist attack, but was overruled."
www.informationclearinghouse.info
then i'll slide on over to the third estate sunday review and suggest that you check out the latest roundtable where we discussed a number of topics including the movie monster-in-law, john bolton, the occupation and a topic we would blog on if we had more time:
Ava: One of the e-mails we had this week was from Chuck in Dayton. He wondered if we could all name one issue other than the occupation that think bears focusing on?
Ty: The prison systems in this country. The corruption in them, the lack of accountability. The public's ability to turn their back on the issue.
Rebecca: Good one. Is this supposed to be something we haven't blogged on?
Ava: Yes.
Rebecca: Well then I won't say polio. I think the war on truth, in all it's various battles, is pretty frightening. I've touched on this with regards to the media, but I'm thinking in terms of the people you'd meet just going out to buy a carton of milk or to see a movie. I don't know what to call it . . .
C.I.: Suspension of disbelief.
Rebecca: Okay, that's a good term. But I would wonder where it's coming from? Gore Vidal talks about our decaying educational system and has for years. So is that the reason for the attitude? Does the attitude lead to the decay of the education system? Is it circular? I don't have the answers but I think it goes beyond the idea that we can bring the truth to others and everyone will open their eyes. I think we can do that with a great many people and that we're seeing the nation wake up, but I'm fascinated, in a bad way, by the desire of so many to suspend disbelief and ignore reality.
Jim: Alternative ways of addressing problems. I'd be hitting on CodePink's book every day if I had the time. Writing things here, maybe passing on posts for C.I. to put up at The Common Ills. It's as though we've lost our sense and memory of history and we now believe that any problem has only the one solution of war, war, war. It goes to reclaiming human decency. I'm really concerned about that.
Dona: I think I'd do something similar. But about the way we treat others in this country. From the handicapped to the immigrants to the ones we define as "the other" for skin tone, religion or nonreligion, sexuality and all the rest. We've been on a blood lust for four years, if you ask me, and we can't even reach out to a neighbor. Which is why I fear the faith based charity crap. We don't want to deal with our neighbors and I think a lot of people would be happy to pass it on to churches just to be done with the discussion.
and lastly, i'll steer everyone over to isaiah's latest comic at the common ills. i will be blogging this evening.
1st i'll note this from danny schechter's news dissector:
OK. OK, bizarre things happen. Sometimes it seems as if everything is bizarre. Just yesterday, we heard about a hand grenade supposedly tossed President Bush's way at that well-staged We Love Democracy rally in Georgia. Apparently, the Secret Service had no clue about it. The story went from big deal to not-in-the-news.
Sometimes paranoia is not just the province of the paranoid. They know that fear is a political driver and that threats -- big ones like the commie threat, bigger ones like the al-Qaeda threat -- motivate the public to render unto Caesar while accepting and paying for everything that MUST BE DONE because, well, "you never know." I may be just paranoid to believe this:
"New Evidence: Terror Alerts Were Used As Electoral Weapons
by Chris Bowers
"Remember the chart that showed the relationship between Bush's approval rating and terror alters? The chart clearly suggested that terror alerts were used more frequently during times of unpopularity for Bush. Now, new evidence, from Tom Ridge himself, suggests that there was indeed massive outside pressure on the department on homeland to security to often raise the terror alert despite flimsy evidence:
"The Bush administration periodically put the USA on high alert for terrorist attacks even though then-Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge argued there was only flimsy evidence to justify raising the threat level, Ridge now says.
"Ridge, who resigned Feb. 1, said Tuesday that he often disagreed with administration officials who wanted to elevate the threat level to orange, or 'high' risk of terrorist attack, but was overruled."
www.informationclearinghouse.info
then i'll slide on over to the third estate sunday review and suggest that you check out the latest roundtable where we discussed a number of topics including the movie monster-in-law, john bolton, the occupation and a topic we would blog on if we had more time:
Ava: One of the e-mails we had this week was from Chuck in Dayton. He wondered if we could all name one issue other than the occupation that think bears focusing on?
Ty: The prison systems in this country. The corruption in them, the lack of accountability. The public's ability to turn their back on the issue.
Rebecca: Good one. Is this supposed to be something we haven't blogged on?
Ava: Yes.
Rebecca: Well then I won't say polio. I think the war on truth, in all it's various battles, is pretty frightening. I've touched on this with regards to the media, but I'm thinking in terms of the people you'd meet just going out to buy a carton of milk or to see a movie. I don't know what to call it . . .
C.I.: Suspension of disbelief.
Rebecca: Okay, that's a good term. But I would wonder where it's coming from? Gore Vidal talks about our decaying educational system and has for years. So is that the reason for the attitude? Does the attitude lead to the decay of the education system? Is it circular? I don't have the answers but I think it goes beyond the idea that we can bring the truth to others and everyone will open their eyes. I think we can do that with a great many people and that we're seeing the nation wake up, but I'm fascinated, in a bad way, by the desire of so many to suspend disbelief and ignore reality.
Jim: Alternative ways of addressing problems. I'd be hitting on CodePink's book every day if I had the time. Writing things here, maybe passing on posts for C.I. to put up at The Common Ills. It's as though we've lost our sense and memory of history and we now believe that any problem has only the one solution of war, war, war. It goes to reclaiming human decency. I'm really concerned about that.
Dona: I think I'd do something similar. But about the way we treat others in this country. From the handicapped to the immigrants to the ones we define as "the other" for skin tone, religion or nonreligion, sexuality and all the rest. We've been on a blood lust for four years, if you ask me, and we can't even reach out to a neighbor. Which is why I fear the faith based charity crap. We don't want to deal with our neighbors and I think a lot of people would be happy to pass it on to churches just to be done with the discussion.
and lastly, i'll steer everyone over to isaiah's latest comic at the common ills. i will be blogging this evening.
5/13/2005
monster-in-law is now playing don't miss it
jane fonda is hilarious in monster-in-law. i saw it this afternoon with some friends and will be see it again this evening with some more friends. don't believe the bullshitters, it's fucking funny. you'll laugh your ass off. the theater this afternoon was packed and everyone was laughing like crazy. there's not a bad performance in the entire cast.
jennifer lopez has never been better. jane fonda and wanda sykes make a hilarious team riffing off 1 another. c.i. sent some of the bullshit reviews yesterday including 1 by little lisa who writes for entertainment weekly.
i read that and though 'oh no, it's not going to be funny.' c.i. had noted how little lisa bitches about everything and told me the film was not the film little lisa was describing. i'm guessing little lisa last laughed in 1991.
see the movie. it's hilarious. jane fonda is amazing. and i'm seeing now why ava and c.i. highlighted things in their reviews of 9 to 5 and their reviews of the electric horseman. they had bullshit critics nailed and they prepared you for the bullshit that was coming down the pike out of the droll mouths of idiots who review movies for the new yorker and entertainment weekly.
it's a movie that will make you laugh like crazy. i've already e-mailed jim to suggest that the bullshit david and little lisa (david & lisa - now that's a dreary pair) be addressed. i'll save my other comments for when that happens. but i know ava and c.i. will have just the right thing to say because unlike little lisa and ditsy david, they know what they're talking about.
see the movie and prepare to laugh your ass off. take some friends who like to laugh with you. but if you're surrounded by david & lisas in your own life, do yourself a favor. ditch the wet blankets and see it by yourself. you won't be sorry.
c.i. has posted isaiah's drawing of jane fonda again because shirley wanted to be sure every 1 remembered the film came out today. if you missed the drawing before, check it out now. isaiah's very talented.
c.i. also noted peter travers' review of monster-in-law from rolling stone:
Fonda, like Robert De Niro -- her co-star in her previous film, 1990's Stanley and Iris -- is on the low-comic road to a Meet the Fockers pot of gold. Snobs be damned. It's a hoot to watch Fonda cut loose and mix it up with J. Lo, even when the laughs turn mean-spirited. Broadway legend Elaine Stritch is killer funny as Viola's own monster-in-law. Fonda, be it as Hanoi Jane or workout queen, keeps springing surprises. Knockabout comic is just the latest incarnation in Fonda's life so far. Let her rip.
don't believe the hype or some idiot's baggage.
fonda's excellent in the film and you won't stop laughing. go see monster-in-law this weekend.
jennifer lopez has never been better. jane fonda and wanda sykes make a hilarious team riffing off 1 another. c.i. sent some of the bullshit reviews yesterday including 1 by little lisa who writes for entertainment weekly.
i read that and though 'oh no, it's not going to be funny.' c.i. had noted how little lisa bitches about everything and told me the film was not the film little lisa was describing. i'm guessing little lisa last laughed in 1991.
see the movie. it's hilarious. jane fonda is amazing. and i'm seeing now why ava and c.i. highlighted things in their reviews of 9 to 5 and their reviews of the electric horseman. they had bullshit critics nailed and they prepared you for the bullshit that was coming down the pike out of the droll mouths of idiots who review movies for the new yorker and entertainment weekly.
it's a movie that will make you laugh like crazy. i've already e-mailed jim to suggest that the bullshit david and little lisa (david & lisa - now that's a dreary pair) be addressed. i'll save my other comments for when that happens. but i know ava and c.i. will have just the right thing to say because unlike little lisa and ditsy david, they know what they're talking about.
see the movie and prepare to laugh your ass off. take some friends who like to laugh with you. but if you're surrounded by david & lisas in your own life, do yourself a favor. ditch the wet blankets and see it by yourself. you won't be sorry.
c.i. has posted isaiah's drawing of jane fonda again because shirley wanted to be sure every 1 remembered the film came out today. if you missed the drawing before, check it out now. isaiah's very talented.
c.i. also noted peter travers' review of monster-in-law from rolling stone:
Fonda, like Robert De Niro -- her co-star in her previous film, 1990's Stanley and Iris -- is on the low-comic road to a Meet the Fockers pot of gold. Snobs be damned. It's a hoot to watch Fonda cut loose and mix it up with J. Lo, even when the laughs turn mean-spirited. Broadway legend Elaine Stritch is killer funny as Viola's own monster-in-law. Fonda, be it as Hanoi Jane or workout queen, keeps springing surprises. Knockabout comic is just the latest incarnation in Fonda's life so far. Let her rip.
don't believe the hype or some idiot's baggage.
fonda's excellent in the film and you won't stop laughing. go see monster-in-law this weekend.
5/12/2005
jill is moving from third wave agenda to feministe
if you've ever checked out third wave agenda, you know jill is a smart woman. i don't do a great deal of links but c.i. did tell me, repeatedly, to check out jill. when i finally did, i put her on the blog roll. though third wave agenda will go on with occasional posts, jill is now going to be posting at feministe.
martha and maria both e-mailed me heads up and c.i. phoned me.
i agree jill is an important voice and i'm happy to link to her. i will also congratulations to her for graduating college and getting into duke. a lot of us have huge hopes for jill and, fortunately, she's a strong enough woman to carry those expecations. she's 1 to watch and i'm sure she'll surprise and delight us in ways we can't even imagine right now.
i almost did a thing here on jill's last column but i saw c.i.'s thing at the common ills and felt i had nothing more to add. c.i. and maria have already spotlighted jill's last regular blog at third wave agenda:
Maria e-mails to note Jill's latest at Third Wave Agenda:
Third Wave Agenda, as we know it, is over.
Lauren of Feministe has asked me to co-blog with her, and because she and her blog are so amazing, there was no way I could turn down that offer. I'm really excited to be posting over there, and I hope that all the great, loyal commenters will follow me!
I'm not sure what the future of Third Wave Agenda will be. I'll probably keep posting on it, but posts will probably be few and far between and it will likely turn into something a bit more personal and much less political -- the interesting political stuff will go on Feministe, while the stupid crap about "feelings" and what I did today will go here. So, it will probably be very boring to anyone who doesn't know me (and honestly, most people who do know me will probably be bored with it too). And while I hate going all Livejournal on people, hopefully when ya'll see how rad Feministe is, you'll get over it and will spend lots of time there to fill the hole in your heart that TWA's demise has certainly created.
So... this is my semi-official farewell. I graduate tomorrow and will probably be sad, so I'll post something about that here so that I can start getting into the new "personal blog" format. We'll see how it all works out.
Maria asks if we can provide a link to Feministe. I've been able to reach half the panel plus one and explain Maria's argument (which I agree with): Jill passed the panel, the community likes her blog, she's stopping her blog and going to Feministe, since she's been approved, can we go ahead and provide a link to Feministe. All that I was able to reach were fine with it. So we will provide a permalink to Feministe tonight (and, as Maria requested, put it right under Third Wave Agenda's link). (I've also advised Rebecca as Maria requested and she says she'll add Feministe to Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude later today.)
what's left to say after that? well i can note that jill already has her first post up at feminite:
First posts are so intimidating.
I’m really thrilled to be here at Feministe with Lauren, and very flattered that she asked me to co-blog with her. This blog has been at the top of my favorites list for a long time, and so it’s a real honor to be asked to post on it.
jill goes on to give a run down of herself and you'll see she's a pretty cool woman. as readers of ava and c.i.'s tv reviews at the third estate sunday review know, they loathe everybody thinks they like raymond. so does jill which is one more reason that makes her eternally cool in my book.
while i'm spotlighting, the article on common ills community member ruth went up sunday at the third estate sunday review. ruth is a wonderful woman and that comes across in each of her ruth's morning edition reports at the common ills. if you haven't checked out the article on ruth, please go read it.
ruth is only one of the many wonderful members of the common ills. kat of kat's korner is beyond groovy. and she'll have a cd review tomorrow up at the common ills so look for that. isaiah is another groovy community member. isaiah does the illustrations. and i spat out my coffee this morning when i saw isaiah's latest. it's a comic of john bolton attempting to come on the united nations by suggesting a three way - yes, we've now all heard the rumors of bolton's sex life. i really loved that one and it totally caught me by surprise. i saw the 1 that will go up sunday and it's funny as well. isaiah's comic strip is called 'the world today - just nuts.' so true.
and let me note community member and senate chronicler folding star of a winding road who posted on bolton and bernie sanders. sander is completely cool and i'm going to spotlight that part of folding star's entry:
Representative Bernie Sanders, the progressive Independent member of the House and one of the 38 who voted against the Bill in February, has something to say about this:
President Bush and his right-wing colleagues in Congress have launched a full-scale effort to limit and control the programming Americans are able to see and hear over the airwaves and the Internet. In short, they're going after your computer, your radio and your remote control. ...
If [they] have their way, it means goodbye to "The Sopranos," goodbye to Jon Stewart's "Daily Show," goodbye to the boys of "South Park," goodbye to "Deadwood," goodbye to Dave Chappelle and goodbye to many other shows enjoyed by millions. Faced with strict FCC censorship rules, all of these programs will be removed from television altogether, substantially rewritten, or banished to late night.
i'll close by noting that jill graduates tomorrow and wishing her all the best.
martha and maria both e-mailed me heads up and c.i. phoned me.
i agree jill is an important voice and i'm happy to link to her. i will also congratulations to her for graduating college and getting into duke. a lot of us have huge hopes for jill and, fortunately, she's a strong enough woman to carry those expecations. she's 1 to watch and i'm sure she'll surprise and delight us in ways we can't even imagine right now.
i almost did a thing here on jill's last column but i saw c.i.'s thing at the common ills and felt i had nothing more to add. c.i. and maria have already spotlighted jill's last regular blog at third wave agenda:
Maria e-mails to note Jill's latest at Third Wave Agenda:
Third Wave Agenda, as we know it, is over.
Lauren of Feministe has asked me to co-blog with her, and because she and her blog are so amazing, there was no way I could turn down that offer. I'm really excited to be posting over there, and I hope that all the great, loyal commenters will follow me!
I'm not sure what the future of Third Wave Agenda will be. I'll probably keep posting on it, but posts will probably be few and far between and it will likely turn into something a bit more personal and much less political -- the interesting political stuff will go on Feministe, while the stupid crap about "feelings" and what I did today will go here. So, it will probably be very boring to anyone who doesn't know me (and honestly, most people who do know me will probably be bored with it too). And while I hate going all Livejournal on people, hopefully when ya'll see how rad Feministe is, you'll get over it and will spend lots of time there to fill the hole in your heart that TWA's demise has certainly created.
So... this is my semi-official farewell. I graduate tomorrow and will probably be sad, so I'll post something about that here so that I can start getting into the new "personal blog" format. We'll see how it all works out.
Maria asks if we can provide a link to Feministe. I've been able to reach half the panel plus one and explain Maria's argument (which I agree with): Jill passed the panel, the community likes her blog, she's stopping her blog and going to Feministe, since she's been approved, can we go ahead and provide a link to Feministe. All that I was able to reach were fine with it. So we will provide a permalink to Feministe tonight (and, as Maria requested, put it right under Third Wave Agenda's link). (I've also advised Rebecca as Maria requested and she says she'll add Feministe to Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude later today.)
what's left to say after that? well i can note that jill already has her first post up at feminite:
First posts are so intimidating.
I’m really thrilled to be here at Feministe with Lauren, and very flattered that she asked me to co-blog with her. This blog has been at the top of my favorites list for a long time, and so it’s a real honor to be asked to post on it.
jill goes on to give a run down of herself and you'll see she's a pretty cool woman. as readers of ava and c.i.'s tv reviews at the third estate sunday review know, they loathe everybody thinks they like raymond. so does jill which is one more reason that makes her eternally cool in my book.
while i'm spotlighting, the article on common ills community member ruth went up sunday at the third estate sunday review. ruth is a wonderful woman and that comes across in each of her ruth's morning edition reports at the common ills. if you haven't checked out the article on ruth, please go read it.
ruth is only one of the many wonderful members of the common ills. kat of kat's korner is beyond groovy. and she'll have a cd review tomorrow up at the common ills so look for that. isaiah is another groovy community member. isaiah does the illustrations. and i spat out my coffee this morning when i saw isaiah's latest. it's a comic of john bolton attempting to come on the united nations by suggesting a three way - yes, we've now all heard the rumors of bolton's sex life. i really loved that one and it totally caught me by surprise. i saw the 1 that will go up sunday and it's funny as well. isaiah's comic strip is called 'the world today - just nuts.' so true.
and let me note community member and senate chronicler folding star of a winding road who posted on bolton and bernie sanders. sander is completely cool and i'm going to spotlight that part of folding star's entry:
Representative Bernie Sanders, the progressive Independent member of the House and one of the 38 who voted against the Bill in February, has something to say about this:
President Bush and his right-wing colleagues in Congress have launched a full-scale effort to limit and control the programming Americans are able to see and hear over the airwaves and the Internet. In short, they're going after your computer, your radio and your remote control. ...
If [they] have their way, it means goodbye to "The Sopranos," goodbye to Jon Stewart's "Daily Show," goodbye to the boys of "South Park," goodbye to "Deadwood," goodbye to Dave Chappelle and goodbye to many other shows enjoyed by millions. Faced with strict FCC censorship rules, all of these programs will be removed from television altogether, substantially rewritten, or banished to late night.
i'll close by noting that jill graduates tomorrow and wishing her all the best.
5/11/2005
polio and matthew miller both appear here to stay and we are the worse for it
online the new york times delivers this headline "Polio Outbreak Grows in Yemen, Indonesia."
Six million doses of vaccine are on their way to Yemen for a second round of immunizations and a vaccination campaign is under way in Indonesia, but experts expect several more polio cases to emerge before the outbreaks are contained.
''The more countries that are free of the disease, the greater the risk is that we will have sporadic outbreaks,'' said Oliver Rosenbauer, spokesman for the WHO's polio eradication program.
This happens because polio immunization campaigns often stop once the disease has been beaten. That leaves babies vulnerable to infections brought into the country.
i blogged about polio on monday and hadn't thought i'd have to address the topic again this week. but the outbreak grows.
i wonder at what point we see it, as a nation, as something that happens to 'them' but something that is happening to us. 'they' are us. but maybe we won't care unless or until it crosses our borders?
until then we, as a nation, can just cluck and put it off as something that happens over 'there.'
maybe so because talking about it might cause 'unrealistic' views of what is happening. some sort of bullshit is john tierney's justification for asking the media to not report on violence in iraq.
can some 1 just tell him to pack it in? has any journalist ever so publicly acted the fool?
there is abdicating your profession and then there is pleading others to do the same.
c.i. has some comments about matthew miller at the common ills via an excerpt from bob somerby's the daily howler. as he so often is, somerby is on the money. but c.i. raises another issue and it's worth raising. matthew miller (a neo-liberal) is a temp columnist for the new york times for 4 weeks. whose shoes is miller filling? if i asked 'whose pumps?' would it be more obvious?
no, not thomas friedman! leave betty's 'husband' alone for now. matthew miller is filling in for maureen dowd.
mo do is the only woman of the columnists. bob herbert's the only person of color. when 1 of them takes a vacation, the times should make a point to be representative and not bring on another white man. and does the op-ed pages really need another neoliberal? aren't thommy friedman and kicky nicky k more than enough?
for 4 weeks, the new york times will provide 2 daily op-eds from 'columnists.' regular 1s which includes office temp matty miller. and for 4 weeks, not 1 woman will be allowed to make a continuous argument. a woman may pop up as a guest. as a 1 day thing. but there will be no larger view because the times seems to think that it's more important to have more of the same.
that's really sad.
and matty miller is a 'triangulator.' he's also a hawk for war. since dowd was skeptical of the war you can note that as well. he's not a woman, he's not some 1 who was opposed to the invasion of iraq. what he is is more of the same crap this country, and the democratic party, have suffered under for more than long enough.
today matty miller attempted to provide cover for dems who want to sell our social security system down the river. who knows what other damage he'll do in the coming weeks?
Six million doses of vaccine are on their way to Yemen for a second round of immunizations and a vaccination campaign is under way in Indonesia, but experts expect several more polio cases to emerge before the outbreaks are contained.
''The more countries that are free of the disease, the greater the risk is that we will have sporadic outbreaks,'' said Oliver Rosenbauer, spokesman for the WHO's polio eradication program.
This happens because polio immunization campaigns often stop once the disease has been beaten. That leaves babies vulnerable to infections brought into the country.
i blogged about polio on monday and hadn't thought i'd have to address the topic again this week. but the outbreak grows.
i wonder at what point we see it, as a nation, as something that happens to 'them' but something that is happening to us. 'they' are us. but maybe we won't care unless or until it crosses our borders?
until then we, as a nation, can just cluck and put it off as something that happens over 'there.'
maybe so because talking about it might cause 'unrealistic' views of what is happening. some sort of bullshit is john tierney's justification for asking the media to not report on violence in iraq.
can some 1 just tell him to pack it in? has any journalist ever so publicly acted the fool?
there is abdicating your profession and then there is pleading others to do the same.
c.i. has some comments about matthew miller at the common ills via an excerpt from bob somerby's the daily howler. as he so often is, somerby is on the money. but c.i. raises another issue and it's worth raising. matthew miller (a neo-liberal) is a temp columnist for the new york times for 4 weeks. whose shoes is miller filling? if i asked 'whose pumps?' would it be more obvious?
no, not thomas friedman! leave betty's 'husband' alone for now. matthew miller is filling in for maureen dowd.
mo do is the only woman of the columnists. bob herbert's the only person of color. when 1 of them takes a vacation, the times should make a point to be representative and not bring on another white man. and does the op-ed pages really need another neoliberal? aren't thommy friedman and kicky nicky k more than enough?
for 4 weeks, the new york times will provide 2 daily op-eds from 'columnists.' regular 1s which includes office temp matty miller. and for 4 weeks, not 1 woman will be allowed to make a continuous argument. a woman may pop up as a guest. as a 1 day thing. but there will be no larger view because the times seems to think that it's more important to have more of the same.
that's really sad.
and matty miller is a 'triangulator.' he's also a hawk for war. since dowd was skeptical of the war you can note that as well. he's not a woman, he's not some 1 who was opposed to the invasion of iraq. what he is is more of the same crap this country, and the democratic party, have suffered under for more than long enough.
today matty miller attempted to provide cover for dems who want to sell our social security system down the river. who knows what other damage he'll do in the coming weeks?
note to the common ills community
'recover post' my ass. that's an option blogger has added.
this evening i worked on a post. i go to post and instead of being taken to the publishing process, i am taken to an announcement that blogger will be down for 1 hour for scheduled maintenance.
it was down for more than 1 hour.
i was upset and kept reminding myself that the 'recover post' feature had been added. this was added to help people who got error messages when attempting to post. i log in, i go to create post and see 'recover post.' thank god! my long entry isn't lost after all.
i click on recover post and nothing.
so it's down the tubes and lost.
gina and krista sent out an alert this morning advising people of some 1 who was piggy backing on c.i.'s fame. to do my part, i have entitled this entry 'note to the common ills community' as gina and krista asked. (and have no problem with doing so. let me know anytime you think i can help with something.)
i was in 100% agreement with gina and krista and had discussed my own feelings regarding the 'piggy backing' (which can be boiled down as it's really sad but not surprising that some 1 with few readers would attempt to make a 'name' for themselves off c.i. i'd noted how i'd dealt with that prior and that's why in my response a few weeks earlier i refused to name the piggy backer since it appeared that's what he wanted -- to get a little attention via picking a fight).
i'd also offered my thoughts on the huffington post and steered you to several posts there.
i will note (as c.i. did at the common ills) that rob reiner has a post. and i'll note john conyers jr.'s post because that was my favorite of all the ones up:
After reading this article and the leaked memo, I immediately crafted a letter to the president asking him to respond, and asked all of my House Colleagues -- both Democrats and Republicans -- to join me in signing the letter. So far, 88 Members, but not a single Republican, have joined me in putting truth to power. Unfortunately, the mainstream media has been slow to pick up on this important story.
My own blog includes much additional information on the topic, including an audio of my discussion with Stephanie Miller on Progessive Talk Radio on the subject. It has been covered on the Web by independent sites such as Daily Kos, Raw Story, Brad Blog , Salon, Scoop Independent News, Progressive Democrats of America, and Atrios. Finally, on Thursday, the mainstream media, in the form of Knight Ridder, picked up on the disclosure and my letter. I need your help to encourage others in the media, be they tv, cable, newspapers, and radio to cover this momentous matter.
in the lost post, i'd commented on the memo that congressman conyers is blogging on. instead i'll just link to the sunday times of london and offer your a sample of it. if you're interested, please read it in full:
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.
The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
this is big news. it's real news. and as c.i. and ava noted sunday, the times, the new york times, just doesn't want to know. (come on, i love fleetwood mac as much as anyone and stevie nicks wrote a great song with 'i don't want to know,' but i expect a newspaper does want to know and does want to inform.) from the common ills:
We'd like to recommend Douglas Jehl's "Tug of War: Intelligence vs. Politics" as worth reading. We can't. While it's true that it has some strong analysis, we've considered the first sentence and what's not in the article. Here's the first sentence:
For more than two years, critics who accused the Bush administration of improperly using political influence to shape intelligence assessments have, for the most part, failed to make the charge stick.
Doesn't that sentence beg the reader to believe that the story The Times of London broke last week will be included in the "analysis" of this article. (The Times has labeled this "analysis." We're not mocking Jehl.)
We'll refer you to BuzzFlash's "Impeachment Time: 'Facts Were Fixed'" by Greg Palast:
Here it is. The smoking gun. The memo that has "IMPEACH HIM" written all over it.
The top-level government memo marked "SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL," dated eight months before Bush sent us into Iraq, following a closed meeting with the President, reads, "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
Read that again: "The intelligence and facts were being fixed...."
For years, after each damning report on BBC TV, viewers inevitably ask me, "Isn't this grounds for impeachment?" -- vote rigging, a blind eye to terror and the bin Ladens before 9-11, and so on. Evil, stupidity and self-dealing are shameful but not impeachable. What's needed is a " high crime or misdemeanor."
And if this ain't it, nothing is.
The Times (the Times refers to the New York Times) hasn't mentioned The Times of London's reporting and still manages to overlook it this morning. Do you think that they're unaware of it? Don't kid yourself. As with Naomi Klein's story about James Baker (which ran in The Guardian and The Nation), the Times is choosing to ignore what's what.
That is their choice. But the next time Bill Keller wants to hop on his high horse about what a great job the Times does and how mean bloggers pick on it for no reason, he might want to consider the fact that whether the Times puts it in print or not, people are aware of what's being covered and what's not being mentioned.
do me a favor, wally, discuss this in class today. everyone, discuss this with your friends. our press isn't getting this story out so we're going to have to get it out ourselves. we can do that.
wally e-mailed how happy he was that folding star was posting again and i see that there's no entry for today. i'll assume blogger maintenance effected folding star as well but i'll send you to this post at a winding road on harry reid.
this evening i worked on a post. i go to post and instead of being taken to the publishing process, i am taken to an announcement that blogger will be down for 1 hour for scheduled maintenance.
it was down for more than 1 hour.
i was upset and kept reminding myself that the 'recover post' feature had been added. this was added to help people who got error messages when attempting to post. i log in, i go to create post and see 'recover post.' thank god! my long entry isn't lost after all.
i click on recover post and nothing.
so it's down the tubes and lost.
gina and krista sent out an alert this morning advising people of some 1 who was piggy backing on c.i.'s fame. to do my part, i have entitled this entry 'note to the common ills community' as gina and krista asked. (and have no problem with doing so. let me know anytime you think i can help with something.)
i was in 100% agreement with gina and krista and had discussed my own feelings regarding the 'piggy backing' (which can be boiled down as it's really sad but not surprising that some 1 with few readers would attempt to make a 'name' for themselves off c.i. i'd noted how i'd dealt with that prior and that's why in my response a few weeks earlier i refused to name the piggy backer since it appeared that's what he wanted -- to get a little attention via picking a fight).
i'd also offered my thoughts on the huffington post and steered you to several posts there.
i will note (as c.i. did at the common ills) that rob reiner has a post. and i'll note john conyers jr.'s post because that was my favorite of all the ones up:
After reading this article and the leaked memo, I immediately crafted a letter to the president asking him to respond, and asked all of my House Colleagues -- both Democrats and Republicans -- to join me in signing the letter. So far, 88 Members, but not a single Republican, have joined me in putting truth to power. Unfortunately, the mainstream media has been slow to pick up on this important story.
My own blog includes much additional information on the topic, including an audio of my discussion with Stephanie Miller on Progessive Talk Radio on the subject. It has been covered on the Web by independent sites such as Daily Kos, Raw Story, Brad Blog , Salon, Scoop Independent News, Progressive Democrats of America, and Atrios. Finally, on Thursday, the mainstream media, in the form of Knight Ridder, picked up on the disclosure and my letter. I need your help to encourage others in the media, be they tv, cable, newspapers, and radio to cover this momentous matter.
in the lost post, i'd commented on the memo that congressman conyers is blogging on. instead i'll just link to the sunday times of london and offer your a sample of it. if you're interested, please read it in full:
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.
The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
this is big news. it's real news. and as c.i. and ava noted sunday, the times, the new york times, just doesn't want to know. (come on, i love fleetwood mac as much as anyone and stevie nicks wrote a great song with 'i don't want to know,' but i expect a newspaper does want to know and does want to inform.) from the common ills:
We'd like to recommend Douglas Jehl's "Tug of War: Intelligence vs. Politics" as worth reading. We can't. While it's true that it has some strong analysis, we've considered the first sentence and what's not in the article. Here's the first sentence:
For more than two years, critics who accused the Bush administration of improperly using political influence to shape intelligence assessments have, for the most part, failed to make the charge stick.
Doesn't that sentence beg the reader to believe that the story The Times of London broke last week will be included in the "analysis" of this article. (The Times has labeled this "analysis." We're not mocking Jehl.)
We'll refer you to BuzzFlash's "Impeachment Time: 'Facts Were Fixed'" by Greg Palast:
Here it is. The smoking gun. The memo that has "IMPEACH HIM" written all over it.
The top-level government memo marked "SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL," dated eight months before Bush sent us into Iraq, following a closed meeting with the President, reads, "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
Read that again: "The intelligence and facts were being fixed...."
For years, after each damning report on BBC TV, viewers inevitably ask me, "Isn't this grounds for impeachment?" -- vote rigging, a blind eye to terror and the bin Ladens before 9-11, and so on. Evil, stupidity and self-dealing are shameful but not impeachable. What's needed is a " high crime or misdemeanor."
And if this ain't it, nothing is.
The Times (the Times refers to the New York Times) hasn't mentioned The Times of London's reporting and still manages to overlook it this morning. Do you think that they're unaware of it? Don't kid yourself. As with Naomi Klein's story about James Baker (which ran in The Guardian and The Nation), the Times is choosing to ignore what's what.
That is their choice. But the next time Bill Keller wants to hop on his high horse about what a great job the Times does and how mean bloggers pick on it for no reason, he might want to consider the fact that whether the Times puts it in print or not, people are aware of what's being covered and what's not being mentioned.
do me a favor, wally, discuss this in class today. everyone, discuss this with your friends. our press isn't getting this story out so we're going to have to get it out ourselves. we can do that.
wally e-mailed how happy he was that folding star was posting again and i see that there's no entry for today. i'll assume blogger maintenance effected folding star as well but i'll send you to this post at a winding road on harry reid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)