hello my readrs. welcome to my inauguration as president of the united states.
how did it happen?
well i am in d.c. and the bully boy is where?
as your president, i promise to be fair to all, so i may confuse americans who've lived through the last five years. but the government can be fair and it can be responsive.
i will not please all americans.
as with the strongest presidents in recent history - jkf and bill clinton - i do not intend to limit myself sexually. i will, however, promise to set my heights higher than bill clinton who was truly egalitarian in his choices. rest assured, i will not sleep with anything sporting a beret.
as the 1st woman president of the united states, i will come up against many new problems. such as 'first lady.' since i'm currently unattached i ask the people's help in selecting an official mate. i will dub him 'first stud.'
i will let america vote my mate (and that is copyrighted, vote my mate, so fox will risk a law suit should they steal from me). i do not mean to influence the campaigning but i will offer a few suggestions.
1) ashton kutcher. the chin's too pointy. but he's a good looking doof and as busy as i will be, it might be easier to have a first stud who can get lost looking at the pattern a window frame makes on a wall. i should warn you that voting for kutchner will mean that i will have to either consign demi moore to a gulag (gitmo will be empty as my first action, so perhaps she would like to go there?) or a lifetime of high fat food. the president may dabble, the first stud may not.
2) ike barinholtz. my beefy boy has been thinning down. as long he keeps strutting in the tighty-whities, i don't care. caution would have to be taken with ike to make sure that when i'm speaking to the top journalists like diane sawyer and mary hart, ike's not making funny faces over my shoulder. i personally feel that ike could live up to the position of first stud but if he was unable to, i would do my part to remind him of his duties with a few well timed smacks to that beefy butt.
i had a list of 10 but i've just learned the bastard mike of mikey likes it! is attempting to stage a coup and declare himself president of the united states.
i feel just like hugo chavez!
this revolution will be blogged!
Ike Barinholtz
Ashton Kutcher
Mike Likes It!
9/23/2005
use your power this weekend
where are you rebecca?
i am in d.c. where are you?
c.i.'s got the usual stacks of notes and passed a quote on to me because there won't be time for it this weekend more than likely so this is from amy goodman & david goodman's the exception to the rulers, p. 10:
It is absolutely critical right now to break the sound barrier when it comes to dissent. The U.S. government has used the war on terror as it's rationale for the biggest crackdwon on civil liberties since the McCarthy era of the 1950s. Right now, people are being thrown in jail without charges. Men from the Middle East and South Asia are being singled out as enemies. Lawyers defending dissidents are under attack.
These are the first warnings. You could be next.
how do you combat that?
1 way is using your voice.
refusing to be silenced.
now i'm in d.c. to take part in the protests this weekend. elaine and c.i. are here. tomorrow mike arrives along with betty, ava, jess, ty, jim and dona, kat and cedric. we're making our voices heard. will you?
i have a lot of readers in high school. i realize that not everyone will be able to visit d.c. this weekend. (i'm glad that 3 will. hope we are able to meet up saturday afternoon.) but there are things going on in many communities so you may be able to participate locally even if you are unable to come to d.c. you can check with your local chapter of now (national organization of women) or with your local peace organization.
but here's what i want from my high school readers most of all. today is friday (i'm posting late) and i want you to speak out at school. i want you to sit down at the lunch table and talk about the protests in d.c. and why they're happening. i want you to pass notes in study hall. i want you to talk about it during the breaks. if you're able to, i want you to talk about it in class. (i had some real pricks and assholes for teachers so i know you'll have to find the teacher who, regardless of whether they agree with you or not, will support free speech in order to have a real discussion on this topic. but you can bring it up even in classes taught by assholes and pricks.)
i do not want to read 1 e-mail that says 'wish i could have been there, rebecca, but i couldn't so i didn't do anything.'
we're here to participate in a mass protest. but the message isn't 'okay when you have something to say, you go to d.c. and the rest of the time you shut up.'
what you can do in your own community is as important, maybe more important, than the protests in d.c.
while i was on vacation a number of you wrote in about the wedding crashers. it was funny, you thought. it was hysterical. you hoped i'd see it.
i'll try to see it on dvd. vince vaughn needs to lose some weight and i'm not real sure about his politics so i'll be slow on the drool there.
but why was that movie a hit?
critics hated it.
who made it a hit?
you did. telling people you knew about it. sending e-mails to people about it. you got the word out on that movie.
so here's the thing. are we going to let the new york times be the critic of the peace movement?
are we going to let those outside the anti-war movement give us 2 thumbs down?
not all of my readers are high school age. but i do have a huge number who are. to you guys and gals i say, week after week you defy conventional wisdom and make a movie, a cd, a tv show, a game a hit. mainstream media and advertising try to get ahead of you week after week and tell you what is a hit. you decide what is a hit and you get the word out on it.
you can do that with anything. you have that power.
so this weekend, i want you to get the word out.
most of you are already talking about the war and that's great but i want to hear that you talked even more this weekend. i want to hear that the friend you thought wouldn't be interested is someone you tried to reach. i'd love to hear that saturday you organized your own party or get together and you all sat around talking about the war. (or danced around talking about it. music is important to a good gathering.)
so if you've got a group of friends or only 1 good friend, i want you to be connecting. if you're someone who goes into chat rooms, i want to hear that you brought up the issue in your favorite chat rooms.
i want you to be able, come monday, to say 'well d.c. or not, i made myself heard.'
if past coverage is any indication, we're not going to be able to count on the mainstream press to talk about the mobilizations as anything serious or important to our country. we're going to need to count on each other.
i have a reader who just broke his leg in practice this week. you know i hope you get better and that having a cast on your leg in this heat is a pain in the ass. i know you're mobility is limited, greg. but i know you can get online. i want to hear from you that you did e-mails to your friends about this, that you shared your opinions and hopes on what this weekend meant with your friends.
so 'i can't come to d.c.' or 'there's nothing going on in my area' is no excuse.
you can do something. you have power that you use every day and maybe don't even realize it.
the teacher who's a pain in the ass and you avoid because of unfair grading, how did you know about it? because you got the word out. the nachos that kyla's whole school knows to avoid when the cafeteria serves them for lunch, how did you know that? kyla's older sister broke it down for her before kyla started high school this year. kyla passed it on to her friends.
that's power. that's using your power.
own your power this weekend. use it.
if you usually discuss the invasion/occupation with 2 friends, increase that.
get the word out.
there's no excuse for doing nothing this weekend. 'i'm not in d.c.' doesn't cut it.
becky shares my 1st name and my love of hot guys. she's got a big date tonight. (and she's going to look incredible.) becky says she's talking about the war. she says if this guy is a bushie, she wants nothing to do with him and she's going to find that out on date 1. sure he's hot, with a tight little butt, green eyes that are like emeralds and a smile that makes her dizzy. but she's making the issue of our invasion/occupation topic 1 on this 1st date.
what are you doing?
are you going to be silent and let the mainstream press tell this story? good god are we in trouble then.
use your power and make yourself heard.
just as i was publishing, elaine hollered 'don't forget to note c.i.'s thing.'
if you're participating in organized events you will be around a wide range of people. so please read c.i.'s 'A quick note on this weekend' and remember the larger message of this weekend and that we're all pulling together to end the war.
i am in d.c. where are you?
c.i.'s got the usual stacks of notes and passed a quote on to me because there won't be time for it this weekend more than likely so this is from amy goodman & david goodman's the exception to the rulers, p. 10:
It is absolutely critical right now to break the sound barrier when it comes to dissent. The U.S. government has used the war on terror as it's rationale for the biggest crackdwon on civil liberties since the McCarthy era of the 1950s. Right now, people are being thrown in jail without charges. Men from the Middle East and South Asia are being singled out as enemies. Lawyers defending dissidents are under attack.
These are the first warnings. You could be next.
how do you combat that?
1 way is using your voice.
refusing to be silenced.
now i'm in d.c. to take part in the protests this weekend. elaine and c.i. are here. tomorrow mike arrives along with betty, ava, jess, ty, jim and dona, kat and cedric. we're making our voices heard. will you?
i have a lot of readers in high school. i realize that not everyone will be able to visit d.c. this weekend. (i'm glad that 3 will. hope we are able to meet up saturday afternoon.) but there are things going on in many communities so you may be able to participate locally even if you are unable to come to d.c. you can check with your local chapter of now (national organization of women) or with your local peace organization.
but here's what i want from my high school readers most of all. today is friday (i'm posting late) and i want you to speak out at school. i want you to sit down at the lunch table and talk about the protests in d.c. and why they're happening. i want you to pass notes in study hall. i want you to talk about it during the breaks. if you're able to, i want you to talk about it in class. (i had some real pricks and assholes for teachers so i know you'll have to find the teacher who, regardless of whether they agree with you or not, will support free speech in order to have a real discussion on this topic. but you can bring it up even in classes taught by assholes and pricks.)
i do not want to read 1 e-mail that says 'wish i could have been there, rebecca, but i couldn't so i didn't do anything.'
we're here to participate in a mass protest. but the message isn't 'okay when you have something to say, you go to d.c. and the rest of the time you shut up.'
what you can do in your own community is as important, maybe more important, than the protests in d.c.
while i was on vacation a number of you wrote in about the wedding crashers. it was funny, you thought. it was hysterical. you hoped i'd see it.
i'll try to see it on dvd. vince vaughn needs to lose some weight and i'm not real sure about his politics so i'll be slow on the drool there.
but why was that movie a hit?
critics hated it.
who made it a hit?
you did. telling people you knew about it. sending e-mails to people about it. you got the word out on that movie.
so here's the thing. are we going to let the new york times be the critic of the peace movement?
are we going to let those outside the anti-war movement give us 2 thumbs down?
not all of my readers are high school age. but i do have a huge number who are. to you guys and gals i say, week after week you defy conventional wisdom and make a movie, a cd, a tv show, a game a hit. mainstream media and advertising try to get ahead of you week after week and tell you what is a hit. you decide what is a hit and you get the word out on it.
you can do that with anything. you have that power.
so this weekend, i want you to get the word out.
most of you are already talking about the war and that's great but i want to hear that you talked even more this weekend. i want to hear that the friend you thought wouldn't be interested is someone you tried to reach. i'd love to hear that saturday you organized your own party or get together and you all sat around talking about the war. (or danced around talking about it. music is important to a good gathering.)
so if you've got a group of friends or only 1 good friend, i want you to be connecting. if you're someone who goes into chat rooms, i want to hear that you brought up the issue in your favorite chat rooms.
i want you to be able, come monday, to say 'well d.c. or not, i made myself heard.'
if past coverage is any indication, we're not going to be able to count on the mainstream press to talk about the mobilizations as anything serious or important to our country. we're going to need to count on each other.
i have a reader who just broke his leg in practice this week. you know i hope you get better and that having a cast on your leg in this heat is a pain in the ass. i know you're mobility is limited, greg. but i know you can get online. i want to hear from you that you did e-mails to your friends about this, that you shared your opinions and hopes on what this weekend meant with your friends.
so 'i can't come to d.c.' or 'there's nothing going on in my area' is no excuse.
you can do something. you have power that you use every day and maybe don't even realize it.
the teacher who's a pain in the ass and you avoid because of unfair grading, how did you know about it? because you got the word out. the nachos that kyla's whole school knows to avoid when the cafeteria serves them for lunch, how did you know that? kyla's older sister broke it down for her before kyla started high school this year. kyla passed it on to her friends.
that's power. that's using your power.
own your power this weekend. use it.
if you usually discuss the invasion/occupation with 2 friends, increase that.
get the word out.
there's no excuse for doing nothing this weekend. 'i'm not in d.c.' doesn't cut it.
becky shares my 1st name and my love of hot guys. she's got a big date tonight. (and she's going to look incredible.) becky says she's talking about the war. she says if this guy is a bushie, she wants nothing to do with him and she's going to find that out on date 1. sure he's hot, with a tight little butt, green eyes that are like emeralds and a smile that makes her dizzy. but she's making the issue of our invasion/occupation topic 1 on this 1st date.
what are you doing?
are you going to be silent and let the mainstream press tell this story? good god are we in trouble then.
use your power and make yourself heard.
just as i was publishing, elaine hollered 'don't forget to note c.i.'s thing.'
if you're participating in organized events you will be around a wide range of people. so please read c.i.'s 'A quick note on this weekend' and remember the larger message of this weekend and that we're all pulling together to end the war.
9/21/2005
st. patrick's four trial opens
from democracy now:
St. Patrick's Four Trial Opens
In Binghimton New York, the trial has begun for the Saint Patrick's Four - the four anti-war activists facing federal conspiracy charges for spilling their own blood inside a military recruiting station to protest the Iraq war. One of the defendants, Daniel Burns, said in court on Tuesday, " We wanted to make visible the truth of war. We were called by our faith, the law and our moral beliefs to peacefully protest the war." The four protesters face up to six years in prison and $275,000 in fines.
that's it for me tonight. mike conducted a long interview and i'm wiped out. check his site, mikey likes it!, later tonight for the interview.
St. Patrick's Four Trial Opens
In Binghimton New York, the trial has begun for the Saint Patrick's Four - the four anti-war activists facing federal conspiracy charges for spilling their own blood inside a military recruiting station to protest the Iraq war. One of the defendants, Daniel Burns, said in court on Tuesday, " We wanted to make visible the truth of war. We were called by our faith, the law and our moral beliefs to peacefully protest the war." The four protesters face up to six years in prison and $275,000 in fines.
that's it for me tonight. mike conducted a long interview and i'm wiped out. check his site, mikey likes it!, later tonight for the interview.
9/20/2005
meow meow
let me start out by noting kat's post last night which was about a weird dream she had and is called 'Iraq, Batgirl and Catwoman' - the dream made me laugh and probaly it will make you laugh too.
now that we've got a good laugh in, let's get serious with something from democracy now:
30 Disability Rights Protesters Arrested on Capitol Hill
In other news from Capitol Hill, at least 30 activists associated with the national disability rights group ADAPT were arrested Monday for refusing to leave House and Senate offices. They were protesting Congressional plans to slow the growth of Medicaid spending by $10 billion over the next five years. On Sunday about 100 protesters - most of them in wheelchairs - rallied outside Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's Washington home.
question - who pays for those house and senate offices? bill frist?
wrong. we pay for them. so 30 disability rights activists decide to make themselves heard and the response is to arrest them.
maybe alby gonzales can charge them with something under the patriot act?
so who were the cowards? you know there's always 1 idiot who'll make a call like that. he or she is just an idiot. but they're egged on by others who are too cowardly to make the call themselves. i'm interested in knowing who the idiot was that called (i'm sure it was delegated to a flunky) and more interested in which people took part in the 'make the call!' decision.
let's say it was joe blow working for kitty killer billy frist.
joe blow: yes, this is joe blow of senator meow-meow's office ... we have a problem. well there are all these violent protestors here! are they armed? uh ... um ... they're disabled and who knows what they might do! we're scared! senator meow-meow can't even enjoy throwing darts at his garfield dart board this morning! come quick!
let's stop a moment here to think of something really scary - kitty killer frist wants to be president.
maybe he can run with j-ass who's scared of the calico. they could run on anti-cat platform.
the nation's already divided but leave it to the gop to divide us further - into a nation of cat lovers and dog lovers.
watch as some spineless dems step forward, faces bruised and battered, to ask 'can't we all get along?' and hold up photos demonstrating that they have both cats and dogs for pets.
senator meow-meow who felt the need to diagnose terry schiavo via video tape wants to be president. seems to me he doesn't even cut it as a doctor.
i hope, like clarice in the silence of lambs, he's haunted at night with the cries of the slaughtered.
meow-meow. meow-meow.
probably cat food commericals send him into a tizzy.
if he runs, people should show up everywhere he speaks and just meow-meow through his entire speech.
tomorrow night i do an interview with mike for his site mikey likes it!
i've warned him that we both may be late in posting as a result.
i want to thank cedric (who's also a sweetie) for including kind words about me last week and defending my right to be as smutty as i want to be last night.
kat and cedric did something smart last night and i wished i'd been on it too. but we're all in on the following.
this is from c.i. and it's called 'NYT: Narrows the frame & events in "British Army Storms Basra Jail . . ."'
Two British soldiers working under cover were arrested Monday in the southern city of Basra and then freed as a British armored vehicle blasted through the wall of their jail after an angry crowd began rioting outside, an Interior Ministry official said. The official said that the soldiers were undercover officers dressed as Iraqis and that Iraqi police officers had arrested them after the men fired at a traffic police officer.
A British military spokesman in Basra confirmed that "two U.K. military personnel" had been detained early on Monday "in a shooting incident" and that troops had used an armored fighting vehicle "to gain entry" to the police station to release them. He said that more than one vehicle had been in the area and that the police inside the station had refused to obey orders from the Interior Ministry to release the men.
The incident came a day after British forces in Basra arrested three members of the Mahdi Army, the militia loyal to the rebellious Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, on suspicion of terrorism.
Sabrina Tavernise's "British Army Storms Basra Jail to Free 2 Soldiers From Arrest" from this morning's New York Times.
Some questions. Why aren't the rescued "military personnel" identified by the British government? They're rescued, surely their families would want to know. Why are British "military personnel" undercover to begin with?
Why are they identified, by their government, as "military personnel." What was their mission and should we be worried about that?
Anyone else wondering any of that? Why is the military undercover? Usually when it's "undercover," there's a 'reason' for that. As Central America in the eighties could attest.
What's not being told here?
From Terri Judd and Colin Brown's "Under fire: British soldiers attacked in Basra:Army used tanks and helicopters to storm jail and free captured troops, say Iraqis" (from The Independent, and we noted it here last night if it looks familiar):
British troops were struggling to maintain control in Basra last night after the city exploded into bloody violence following the alleged killing of an Iraqi policeman by a British soldier.
Two British servicemen, dressed in civilian clothes, were held at Basra's main police station after the incident. Outside, rioting began as the city threatened to descend into anarchy.
The events themselves are big news in England. They're one story in the Times.
Gareth, who's read the Times article and calls it "laughable," e-mails to note Helen McCormack's "The day that Iraqi anger exploded in the face of the British occupiers" (The Independent):
The dramatic events began to unfold just before dawn yesterday, when two British nationals were detained by Iraqi authorities. It emerged later that they were British soldiers. Dressed in plain clothes - according to some they were wearing traditional Arab dress - the two men had been driving in an unmarked car when they arrived at a checkpoint in the city.
In the confrontation that followed, shots were fired, and two Iraqi policemen were shot, one of whom later died. The Iraqi authorities blamed the men, reported to be undercover commandos, and arrested them.
The British government issues "official statements" -- from "official sources," and naturally an anonymice at that -- and the Times can't tell you what happened. But some "official sources" carry greater weight than other "official sources" apparently. Which is why you have to read McCormack's article to come across this sort of statement:
The British military action was condemned as "barbaric, savage and irresponsible" by Mohammed al-Waili, the governor of the province. "A British force of more than 10 tanks backed by helicopters attacked the central jail and destroyed it. This is an irresponsible act," the governor said.
The governor of the province? Surely he mentions merit in the Times "official sources" loving paper of record, no? No. No, he's not fitting the narrative of this story. And while it's true that any story will have a narrative, the one imposed on this article isn't interested in reality.
A skeptic might respond, "Oh, that's The Independent. The Times doesn't care what they say."
The BBC then? Polly e-mails to note "UK soldiers 'freed from militia:'"
Basra governor Mohammed al-Waili said more than 10 vehicles and helicopters had been used in an operation that was a "barbaric act of aggression".
Yeah, the BBC could note al-Waili's remarks. And they did. It's just in this country that we need to coat half-realities in sugar for them to go down easy.
That's why you get one "fact" after another that's contradicted in reporting elsewhere. That's why you get anonymous claims and on apparent concern as to why the British officers were undercover to begin with. Why we're told, anonymously, that the tank (one) apparently rolls in due to "100 to 200 people" of "rioters." When eye witness reports (naturally not in the Times) report quite differently. A dozen or so is key to the other reporting on this incident. Then the tanks come. And it is tanks from eye witness reports, plural. And helicopters. The Times misses that.
Intentionally?
"More than one" had been in the area, the Times tells us. They don't even use the term "tanks." "Armored vehicle" and "armored fighting vehicle" are popular with the Times today.
To read the Times narrative, two British troops were taken to a jail after being stopped at a check point and reportedly fighting, once in the jail, "100 to 200" people gathered, an "armored vehicle" shot through a wall, and they were released. A soldier lept from an "armored vehicle" that had flames arising from it.
The soldier, as reported elsewhere, jumped with his own uniform on fire. (BBC reports soldiers, one is visible in their photo.) (The same BBC report also reports two tanks "set alight in clashes.") Reports outside the Times have the number of people estimated as a dozen more or less until the tanks and helicopters rolled in.
Basra has not been "subdued." (See earlier entry this morning.)
The incident, though you wouldn't know it from the Times, is a big topic in England. And, again, though you wouldn't know it from the Times happy talk version of the incident, it's leading to public comments from "official sources." From the BBC:
But Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell said: "It is hard to see how relations between the British military and the civilian Iraqi authorities in Basra will ever be the same again.
"This is bound to be seen as a humiliation by many Iraqis - something the insurgents will use to their advantage."
From The Independent:
Calling for Mr Blair to set an exit date, Labour MPs said the scenes from Basra had echoes of the killing of two British soldiers who were murdered by a mob in Northern Ireland during the Troubles after driving into a republican funeral cortège in March 1988.
Clare Short, the former international development secretary, who resigned over the war, said: "We should negotiate an end to the occupation. They are all saying 'no' because it's such a mess we cannot leave now. But the occupation is the major problem now.
Note to UK members, I've read all the articles you sent. I'm going with the BBC and The Independent for this entry because they were the articles sent in repeatedly. But the overall view all of the articles painted were and are helpful. From Anthony Loyd's "Army storms jail to free seized soldiers" (Times of London), we'll note the following:
The British military sent a small force to rescue the soldiers, but it was beaten off by an angry mob which set fire to two Warrior armoured fighting vehicles. One soldier was seen tumbling from the vehicle in flames, another being pelted with rocks.The second attempt last night was more organised. Before the prison was attacked nearby roads were sealed and reinforcements surrounded the police station. "We are not leaving without our men," said a British commander. The former Iraq commander, Tim Collins, said it was "not a good turn of events", but added that he believed the events did not represent a breakdown of law and order in Basra.British diplomats had demanded the release of the men, reminding the Iraqi authorities that British troops in Iraq were answerable only to British military justice. But the Government in Baghdad had appeared unable to impose its will on the authorities in Basra.
The incident presents an acute problem for Tony Blair. More than 8,000 British troops are deployed to maintain order and to train the very police that were holding the two soldiers prisoner. The coalition’s entire exit strategy depends on Iraqi security forces being able to take over.
There is a wider fear that yesterday’s developments could herald an unravelling of the fragile peace that has prevailed to date in southern Iraq. In the past two months six British soldiers and two British security guards have been killed as Islamic fundamentalists, backed by Iran, have tightened their grip on the region. There was a strong suspicion that the police in Basra were acting in collusion with followers of the populist Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who wants British and American troops out of Iraq and has been increasingly fomenting unrest in the south.
Paints a different story than does the Times of New York. It's some sort of incident that doesn't really matter all that much in the Times of New York. If it did, they'd tell us what the reaction in England was, but they don't . . .
We'll also note Abbas Fayadh, Lucy Bannerman, and Ian Bruce's "British soldiers freed after tanks 'smashed jail wall'" (Scotland's The Herald):
TWO undercover soldiers seized by Iraqi forces were freed last night when British tanks breached their prison walls, according to reports.
About 10 Warrior armoured vehicles were said to have been involved in the operation, before troops stormed in to release the special forces servicemen.
[. . .]
Dramatic images showed one soldier scrambling out of a burning vehicle, engulfed by flames. Gun battles broke out between the two sides, leaving two civilians dead and 15 injured.
Mohammed al Waili, the governor of the province, said the British jail raid was "barbaric, savage and irresponsible". He said: "A British force of more than 10 tanks backed by helicopters attacked the central jail and destroyed it. This is an irresponsible act."
[. . .]
Sir Menzies Campbell, LibDem deputy leader, condemned the force shown by the army, warning the decision to break into the prison would fuel the insurgency. He said: "It is hard to see how relations between the British military and the civilian Iraqi authorities in Basra will ever be the same again. This is bound to be seen as a humiliation by many Iraqis, something the insurgents will use to their advantage."An operation of this kind must have gone to the highest level. I would be surprised if the prime minister had not been consulted."
[. . .]
Sources say the British soldiers, possibly members of the new Special Reconnaissance Regiment formed earlier this month to provide intelligence for SAS operations, were looking at infiltration of the city's police by the followers of the outspoken Shi'ite cleric, Moqtada al Sadr.
In all, I'm reading through over sixty different articles sent in by UK members (I'd guess it's sixty-three but don't make me swear to it, that's sixty-three different articles -- as often happens, members sometimes note an article that others have noted as well -- The Independent and the BBC were noted repeatedly, I've credited the first person who sent them in according to the time on the e-mails). And when you read the coverage from outside the New York Timid, you get a different view.
Which is why Gareth asks if this is how they honour the journalist who died? On the same day as they note his death, they're also printing a narrow, limited scope of the events that relies on select "official sources" and seems unable to find any eye witnesses at all.
That's the New York Timid. And that's the problem with the Iraq coverage. This isn't an isolated incident that just flared up (Basra) and if the Times wants to report reality, they're going to have to work a great deal harder. I'm saying the Times because we don't know what was in the original draft of this article and what was removed from it. (Note to ____, I did read your e-mail. We've noted that before but thanks for the reminder.)
Does the paper of record set out to censor the news for fear of offending Americans? Or is this part of the problem it has with covering Iraq (which combines their love of "official sources" -- even when not named -- with 'reported live from the Green Zone')?
Whatever the problem is, Basra reported in the Times today is reported differently outside the Times. In England, this is a huge issue. In the Times, it's one article, one very weak article that leaves out key points and only finds "happy talkers" to quote. Even the anonymous ones are part of Operation Happy Talk.
Is the Times? If so, the article on Fakher Haider was a waste of time this morning. Don't tell us of the realities in Basra in one story and, in another, deny basic reality reported elsewhere (all over the place -- "reported all over the place" might be the better way to put that).
There are quotes in the Times article that aren't presented as having been told to the Times one on one. Which is probably good because those quotes pop up in most of the other reporting. What doesn't pop up in the Times is the non-Happy Talkers. Other news sources report "Happy Talker said this and ___ said this." The Times gives you one view of the events and one view of the impact. Both are limited and both fail to allow readers to grasp what actually happened and what it's impact has been.
Rod e-mails to note today's scheduled topics for Democracy Now!:
Hugo Chavez: We broadcast the rest of our exclusive interview with the Venezuelan president. An in-studio on the state of African with 2004 Nobel Peace Prize winning Wangari Maathai, of Kenya; and human rights activist and journalist KenWiwa, of Nigeria.
Iraq
Basra
the common ills
cedric's big mix
mikey likes it!
kat's korner
now that we've got a good laugh in, let's get serious with something from democracy now:
30 Disability Rights Protesters Arrested on Capitol Hill
In other news from Capitol Hill, at least 30 activists associated with the national disability rights group ADAPT were arrested Monday for refusing to leave House and Senate offices. They were protesting Congressional plans to slow the growth of Medicaid spending by $10 billion over the next five years. On Sunday about 100 protesters - most of them in wheelchairs - rallied outside Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's Washington home.
question - who pays for those house and senate offices? bill frist?
wrong. we pay for them. so 30 disability rights activists decide to make themselves heard and the response is to arrest them.
maybe alby gonzales can charge them with something under the patriot act?
so who were the cowards? you know there's always 1 idiot who'll make a call like that. he or she is just an idiot. but they're egged on by others who are too cowardly to make the call themselves. i'm interested in knowing who the idiot was that called (i'm sure it was delegated to a flunky) and more interested in which people took part in the 'make the call!' decision.
let's say it was joe blow working for kitty killer billy frist.
joe blow: yes, this is joe blow of senator meow-meow's office ... we have a problem. well there are all these violent protestors here! are they armed? uh ... um ... they're disabled and who knows what they might do! we're scared! senator meow-meow can't even enjoy throwing darts at his garfield dart board this morning! come quick!
let's stop a moment here to think of something really scary - kitty killer frist wants to be president.
maybe he can run with j-ass who's scared of the calico. they could run on anti-cat platform.
the nation's already divided but leave it to the gop to divide us further - into a nation of cat lovers and dog lovers.
watch as some spineless dems step forward, faces bruised and battered, to ask 'can't we all get along?' and hold up photos demonstrating that they have both cats and dogs for pets.
senator meow-meow who felt the need to diagnose terry schiavo via video tape wants to be president. seems to me he doesn't even cut it as a doctor.
i hope, like clarice in the silence of lambs, he's haunted at night with the cries of the slaughtered.
meow-meow. meow-meow.
probably cat food commericals send him into a tizzy.
if he runs, people should show up everywhere he speaks and just meow-meow through his entire speech.
tomorrow night i do an interview with mike for his site mikey likes it!
i've warned him that we both may be late in posting as a result.
i want to thank cedric (who's also a sweetie) for including kind words about me last week and defending my right to be as smutty as i want to be last night.
kat and cedric did something smart last night and i wished i'd been on it too. but we're all in on the following.
this is from c.i. and it's called 'NYT: Narrows the frame & events in "British Army Storms Basra Jail . . ."'
Two British soldiers working under cover were arrested Monday in the southern city of Basra and then freed as a British armored vehicle blasted through the wall of their jail after an angry crowd began rioting outside, an Interior Ministry official said. The official said that the soldiers were undercover officers dressed as Iraqis and that Iraqi police officers had arrested them after the men fired at a traffic police officer.
A British military spokesman in Basra confirmed that "two U.K. military personnel" had been detained early on Monday "in a shooting incident" and that troops had used an armored fighting vehicle "to gain entry" to the police station to release them. He said that more than one vehicle had been in the area and that the police inside the station had refused to obey orders from the Interior Ministry to release the men.
The incident came a day after British forces in Basra arrested three members of the Mahdi Army, the militia loyal to the rebellious Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, on suspicion of terrorism.
Sabrina Tavernise's "British Army Storms Basra Jail to Free 2 Soldiers From Arrest" from this morning's New York Times.
Some questions. Why aren't the rescued "military personnel" identified by the British government? They're rescued, surely their families would want to know. Why are British "military personnel" undercover to begin with?
Why are they identified, by their government, as "military personnel." What was their mission and should we be worried about that?
Anyone else wondering any of that? Why is the military undercover? Usually when it's "undercover," there's a 'reason' for that. As Central America in the eighties could attest.
What's not being told here?
From Terri Judd and Colin Brown's "Under fire: British soldiers attacked in Basra:Army used tanks and helicopters to storm jail and free captured troops, say Iraqis" (from The Independent, and we noted it here last night if it looks familiar):
British troops were struggling to maintain control in Basra last night after the city exploded into bloody violence following the alleged killing of an Iraqi policeman by a British soldier.
Two British servicemen, dressed in civilian clothes, were held at Basra's main police station after the incident. Outside, rioting began as the city threatened to descend into anarchy.
The events themselves are big news in England. They're one story in the Times.
Gareth, who's read the Times article and calls it "laughable," e-mails to note Helen McCormack's "The day that Iraqi anger exploded in the face of the British occupiers" (The Independent):
The dramatic events began to unfold just before dawn yesterday, when two British nationals were detained by Iraqi authorities. It emerged later that they were British soldiers. Dressed in plain clothes - according to some they were wearing traditional Arab dress - the two men had been driving in an unmarked car when they arrived at a checkpoint in the city.
In the confrontation that followed, shots were fired, and two Iraqi policemen were shot, one of whom later died. The Iraqi authorities blamed the men, reported to be undercover commandos, and arrested them.
The British government issues "official statements" -- from "official sources," and naturally an anonymice at that -- and the Times can't tell you what happened. But some "official sources" carry greater weight than other "official sources" apparently. Which is why you have to read McCormack's article to come across this sort of statement:
The British military action was condemned as "barbaric, savage and irresponsible" by Mohammed al-Waili, the governor of the province. "A British force of more than 10 tanks backed by helicopters attacked the central jail and destroyed it. This is an irresponsible act," the governor said.
The governor of the province? Surely he mentions merit in the Times "official sources" loving paper of record, no? No. No, he's not fitting the narrative of this story. And while it's true that any story will have a narrative, the one imposed on this article isn't interested in reality.
A skeptic might respond, "Oh, that's The Independent. The Times doesn't care what they say."
The BBC then? Polly e-mails to note "UK soldiers 'freed from militia:'"
Basra governor Mohammed al-Waili said more than 10 vehicles and helicopters had been used in an operation that was a "barbaric act of aggression".
Yeah, the BBC could note al-Waili's remarks. And they did. It's just in this country that we need to coat half-realities in sugar for them to go down easy.
That's why you get one "fact" after another that's contradicted in reporting elsewhere. That's why you get anonymous claims and on apparent concern as to why the British officers were undercover to begin with. Why we're told, anonymously, that the tank (one) apparently rolls in due to "100 to 200 people" of "rioters." When eye witness reports (naturally not in the Times) report quite differently. A dozen or so is key to the other reporting on this incident. Then the tanks come. And it is tanks from eye witness reports, plural. And helicopters. The Times misses that.
Intentionally?
"More than one" had been in the area, the Times tells us. They don't even use the term "tanks." "Armored vehicle" and "armored fighting vehicle" are popular with the Times today.
To read the Times narrative, two British troops were taken to a jail after being stopped at a check point and reportedly fighting, once in the jail, "100 to 200" people gathered, an "armored vehicle" shot through a wall, and they were released. A soldier lept from an "armored vehicle" that had flames arising from it.
The soldier, as reported elsewhere, jumped with his own uniform on fire. (BBC reports soldiers, one is visible in their photo.) (The same BBC report also reports two tanks "set alight in clashes.") Reports outside the Times have the number of people estimated as a dozen more or less until the tanks and helicopters rolled in.
Basra has not been "subdued." (See earlier entry this morning.)
The incident, though you wouldn't know it from the Times, is a big topic in England. And, again, though you wouldn't know it from the Times happy talk version of the incident, it's leading to public comments from "official sources." From the BBC:
But Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell said: "It is hard to see how relations between the British military and the civilian Iraqi authorities in Basra will ever be the same again.
"This is bound to be seen as a humiliation by many Iraqis - something the insurgents will use to their advantage."
From The Independent:
Calling for Mr Blair to set an exit date, Labour MPs said the scenes from Basra had echoes of the killing of two British soldiers who were murdered by a mob in Northern Ireland during the Troubles after driving into a republican funeral cortège in March 1988.
Clare Short, the former international development secretary, who resigned over the war, said: "We should negotiate an end to the occupation. They are all saying 'no' because it's such a mess we cannot leave now. But the occupation is the major problem now.
Note to UK members, I've read all the articles you sent. I'm going with the BBC and The Independent for this entry because they were the articles sent in repeatedly. But the overall view all of the articles painted were and are helpful. From Anthony Loyd's "Army storms jail to free seized soldiers" (Times of London), we'll note the following:
The British military sent a small force to rescue the soldiers, but it was beaten off by an angry mob which set fire to two Warrior armoured fighting vehicles. One soldier was seen tumbling from the vehicle in flames, another being pelted with rocks.The second attempt last night was more organised. Before the prison was attacked nearby roads were sealed and reinforcements surrounded the police station. "We are not leaving without our men," said a British commander. The former Iraq commander, Tim Collins, said it was "not a good turn of events", but added that he believed the events did not represent a breakdown of law and order in Basra.British diplomats had demanded the release of the men, reminding the Iraqi authorities that British troops in Iraq were answerable only to British military justice. But the Government in Baghdad had appeared unable to impose its will on the authorities in Basra.
The incident presents an acute problem for Tony Blair. More than 8,000 British troops are deployed to maintain order and to train the very police that were holding the two soldiers prisoner. The coalition’s entire exit strategy depends on Iraqi security forces being able to take over.
There is a wider fear that yesterday’s developments could herald an unravelling of the fragile peace that has prevailed to date in southern Iraq. In the past two months six British soldiers and two British security guards have been killed as Islamic fundamentalists, backed by Iran, have tightened their grip on the region. There was a strong suspicion that the police in Basra were acting in collusion with followers of the populist Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who wants British and American troops out of Iraq and has been increasingly fomenting unrest in the south.
Paints a different story than does the Times of New York. It's some sort of incident that doesn't really matter all that much in the Times of New York. If it did, they'd tell us what the reaction in England was, but they don't . . .
We'll also note Abbas Fayadh, Lucy Bannerman, and Ian Bruce's "British soldiers freed after tanks 'smashed jail wall'" (Scotland's The Herald):
TWO undercover soldiers seized by Iraqi forces were freed last night when British tanks breached their prison walls, according to reports.
About 10 Warrior armoured vehicles were said to have been involved in the operation, before troops stormed in to release the special forces servicemen.
[. . .]
Dramatic images showed one soldier scrambling out of a burning vehicle, engulfed by flames. Gun battles broke out between the two sides, leaving two civilians dead and 15 injured.
Mohammed al Waili, the governor of the province, said the British jail raid was "barbaric, savage and irresponsible". He said: "A British force of more than 10 tanks backed by helicopters attacked the central jail and destroyed it. This is an irresponsible act."
[. . .]
Sir Menzies Campbell, LibDem deputy leader, condemned the force shown by the army, warning the decision to break into the prison would fuel the insurgency. He said: "It is hard to see how relations between the British military and the civilian Iraqi authorities in Basra will ever be the same again. This is bound to be seen as a humiliation by many Iraqis, something the insurgents will use to their advantage."An operation of this kind must have gone to the highest level. I would be surprised if the prime minister had not been consulted."
[. . .]
Sources say the British soldiers, possibly members of the new Special Reconnaissance Regiment formed earlier this month to provide intelligence for SAS operations, were looking at infiltration of the city's police by the followers of the outspoken Shi'ite cleric, Moqtada al Sadr.
In all, I'm reading through over sixty different articles sent in by UK members (I'd guess it's sixty-three but don't make me swear to it, that's sixty-three different articles -- as often happens, members sometimes note an article that others have noted as well -- The Independent and the BBC were noted repeatedly, I've credited the first person who sent them in according to the time on the e-mails). And when you read the coverage from outside the New York Timid, you get a different view.
Which is why Gareth asks if this is how they honour the journalist who died? On the same day as they note his death, they're also printing a narrow, limited scope of the events that relies on select "official sources" and seems unable to find any eye witnesses at all.
That's the New York Timid. And that's the problem with the Iraq coverage. This isn't an isolated incident that just flared up (Basra) and if the Times wants to report reality, they're going to have to work a great deal harder. I'm saying the Times because we don't know what was in the original draft of this article and what was removed from it. (Note to ____, I did read your e-mail. We've noted that before but thanks for the reminder.)
Does the paper of record set out to censor the news for fear of offending Americans? Or is this part of the problem it has with covering Iraq (which combines their love of "official sources" -- even when not named -- with 'reported live from the Green Zone')?
Whatever the problem is, Basra reported in the Times today is reported differently outside the Times. In England, this is a huge issue. In the Times, it's one article, one very weak article that leaves out key points and only finds "happy talkers" to quote. Even the anonymous ones are part of Operation Happy Talk.
Is the Times? If so, the article on Fakher Haider was a waste of time this morning. Don't tell us of the realities in Basra in one story and, in another, deny basic reality reported elsewhere (all over the place -- "reported all over the place" might be the better way to put that).
There are quotes in the Times article that aren't presented as having been told to the Times one on one. Which is probably good because those quotes pop up in most of the other reporting. What doesn't pop up in the Times is the non-Happy Talkers. Other news sources report "Happy Talker said this and ___ said this." The Times gives you one view of the events and one view of the impact. Both are limited and both fail to allow readers to grasp what actually happened and what it's impact has been.
Rod e-mails to note today's scheduled topics for Democracy Now!:
Hugo Chavez: We broadcast the rest of our exclusive interview with the Venezuelan president. An in-studio on the state of African with 2004 Nobel Peace Prize winning Wangari Maathai, of Kenya; and human rights activist and journalist KenWiwa, of Nigeria.
Iraq
Basra
the common ills
cedric's big mix
mikey likes it!
kat's korner
9/19/2005
bully boy goes after environmentalists
does it get worse? you know it does, we live in a bully boy world.
so after inadequate response, after his phoney photo-op and his less than reassuring words, the no-accountability bully boy apparently has a new mission.
this is from democracy now:
White House Tries To Blame Flooding on Environmentalists
The Mississippi Clarion Ledger is reporting that it has obtained internals emails from the Justice Department that indicates the Bush administration may be seeking to blame the flooding caused by Hurricane Katrina on environmentalists. The Justice Department is seeking information from various U.S. attorneys offices on whether they have defended any cases involving environmental groups seeking to block the Army Corps of Engineers from working on the levees around New Orleans.
you read that correctly.
why would they do that?
it's all part of the war on the environment.
blame the environmentalist and then what do you need?
restrictions and laws on them.
they're trying to outlaw dissent and protest already, now they want to make life even easier for those who would destroy our environment.
this is step 1. i'm making a prediction here.
if they can run with this, they will use to go after so-called 'eco-terrorists.'
have you heard that word?
lots of little nobodies in congress, little repubes who were excited that their pubes did grow back after shaving, were fond of it in the 90s. it took bully boy staggering into the oval office to make it popular with the administration.
'eco-terrorists' bad. bombers of abortion clinics they remain 'non-committal' on.
so having used the false term repeatedly and gotten many in the press to use it, they'll now begin expanding the term. it'll include the sierra club and on down the list all the way to your aunt sally that wrote her senator saying 'i do not want a nuclear power plant in my backyard!'
fbi agent: did you write this?
sally: i wrote my senator.
fbi agent: with exclamation points. cuff her, we're taking her in.
i'm not really sure what's going on with bob somerby. i think he's in his tangle up in blue period.
i called c.i. this morning and c.i. was about to post and i said, 'you don't mention the daily howler, do you?' and c.i. says yeah, the friday post is quoted because it looked like bob was off that 1 topic. i said, 'the new 1's gone up' and read it over the phone.
i don't know what's going on with bob.
it's like the film what's the matter with bob?
and that film wasn't funny either.
i keep thinking of this line melanie griffith says in the movie in the spirit, 'he's like a really mean cat with a bird.'
c.i. told me that e-mails were coming in to the common ills about people saying how glad they were to see sunday i was feeling better.
i've gotten a few of those here as well. i appreciate the concern. the whole john roberts junior thing really brings me down.
wally asked me to put my stuff up here so i will.
this is from "the third estate sunday review news review:"
C.I.: Thank you, Jess. I'll add that NOW is participating in the D.C. activites as well. Many organizations are, but the reason I mention NOW is that if people are unable to come to D.C. but wish to be heard, they can call their local chapters of NOW to inquire about activities in their area. We now go to Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude with an editorial report on Roberts and the state of Roe.
Rebecca: Disclosure, I've had an abortion and in the same set of circumstances, I would have one again. The dog & pony show that was the John Roberts hearings were disgusting. This is NOW's Kim Gandy cutting through the crap:
But I think it's clear from what he has said, I don't think he has been dishonest in the sense of what "is" is, but he has been misleading. He has very brilliantly -- I agree with the right wing commentator that he has brilliantly given answers that have led some people, including ones on the committee, to believe that he supports the right to privacy and the Roe framework, when infact he has been laying out, and I hope never to need to say, "I told you so," because I hope he won't be confirmed, but if he is confirmed, I think that people will look back and they will say, "Oh, yeah. See here, right here in the hearing, he talked about erosion. He talked about workability. He talked about extensive disagreement as being grounds for reversal, and gee, isn't it interesting? These are the exact grounds they used to reverse Roe."
Rebecca (con't): That was Kim Gandy on Democracy Now! Tuesday stating what the mainstream press wouldn't tell you either because they don't understand Roe or because they don't care about Roe. For those who care about Roe, it was difficult to get through the 'happy-happy, let's all laughs and hey, there's John Roberts Junior listing his favorite movies and what do you know Porky's didn't make the cut.' Those expecting a hard grilling of Roberts from Diane Feinstein, were disappointed. Never has she played it so demure. Listening to her offer "I don't know nothing about no lawyering" and other similar comments, one wondered if she longed for the day when "ladies" wore hats and gloves. When Anita Hill faced the Senate Judiciary Committee, there were no women sitting on the committee. For all of her sunny disposition, Feinstein might as well have not been sitting on the committee. If she thinks that cuts it, she better think again. As Bully Boy begins preparations to fill the other seat, Roberts is up for the late Rehnquist's seat not O'Connor's, Democrats better be more prepared and more combative. And unless Lindsey Graham intends to french kiss the next nominee, perhaps Arlen Specter better put a leash on him. Listening to his annoying dipthong bounce up and down in a pitter-patter motion not unlike the way his heart appeared to flutter over John Roberts Junior, it was difficult to tell which was more annoying "Miss Diane," soft and genteel, or the Senate's apparent Blanche Du Bois fussing over Roberts the way Blanche attempted to make Mitch seem much more than he was. Keep it up, Graham, and people will start saying, "'Lindsey. It's a French name. It means no wood. You can remember it by that!" Watching the nonsense, you were aware that even those participating knew it was nonsense, as when Arlen Specter stated, "They may be misleading, but they are his answers." But was their a method to his misleading?
Kim Gandy, president of NOW:
Roberts in fact appears to be laying out a roadmap for how he would overturn Roe. As grounds for overturning precedent, he cited both "extensive disagreement" and whether a core holding has become "unworkable," both of which are very common arguments made by the right-wing for overturning Roe. Additionally, by repeatedly turning to Casey v. Planned Parenthood while addressing Roe, Roberts suggested erosion of the precedent as additional grounds, since Casey significantly eroded the Roe protections and reasoning, as has subsequent state and federal legislation.
C.I.: Thank you, Rebecca, for that editorial report. For those who missed it, "It means no wood" is a play on Blanche DuBois's lines in A Streetcar Named Desire. We now go to Mike of Mikey Likes It! who will give us what The New York Times doesn't.
a lot of you liked my comments about feinstein and the 'hats' and 'gloves.' but most of you liked my comments about lindsey graham and 'it means no wood' best.
i was in a funk all last week. being with everyone and working on the thing above helped me a lot (so thank you guys!).
now this is what i said at the common ills sunday:
C.I.: Good because between Kat's finding and Dona's I need a bottle of aspirin, Excedrin Tension Headache, and a handful of Tylenols. Rebecca, talk about the men's fashion thing you grabbed.
Rebecca: Well, they go with Joaquin Phoenix as their cover boy but the photos take pains to hide his scar. I think everyone knows he has it. I don't know whom the photographer or the paper thinks they're protecting. I also don't know why in "Men's Fall Fashion 2005" it was needed for a full page ad of a woman's naked back to be run. They do a spread entitled "The Great Rock and Roll Swindle" and I've never seen a group of uglier young men. In uglier clothes. Including one sweater that is so ugly no one would even use it as a bath mat if it was the only thing in the house and they needed to take a shower. This sweater, I'll also note, is worn off one shoulder as though Jennifer Beals popularized a "rock look" for men in Flashdance. I can't figure out the caption on a page in "Mad Togs and Englishmen." It reads ""Fashion Editor: Allan Kennedy." If that means the photo of the aged man in low slung jeans and shirtless is the fashion editor, that certainly explains the fashion disasters that have appeared for two weeks now in this paper. A hint, your pecs sag and you're too old for the outfit you wear. It doesn't look cool, it doesn't look sexy. You look like a homeless man. The only totally do-able man appears in the Supima cotton ad. This is what Matt Lauer would look like if Lauer weren't bald and ugly. The guy in the Macy & Bloomingdale's 2 (x)ist underwear ad was sexy until I noticed his hairy legs. That's not a problem; however, they're very hairy and it's obvious that he must wax his chest and his stomach. As I've stated before, shaving legs is murder for women. We're really not in the mood to go out with a man who finds time to remove more hair than we do.
Jess: How do you know he doesn't just have hairy legs.
Rebecca: Sweet, innocent Jess. When you've seen as many naked men as I have, you learn that when a man's legs are that hairy, that thick with hair as they run up to his crotch, his chest is not usually as hairless as a new borns. In addition, he usually has hair below his bellly button. The model doesn't. He looks like a freshly plucked chicken from above the groin. It's a turn off, even if you can make out, I'm trying to keep this as clean as possible, the head of his unit including the slit through which urine passes. That better have passed the "work safe" standard because I could really go to town at my own site. Also check out how thick his eyebrows are, after they've been shaped. There's no way that his chest doesn't sprout hair. Free Country has one of the ugliest models in their ads and he's not helped by the fact that he's apparently borrowing Donna Mills' fall 1984 hair style. One that looked foolish even on her and was quickly abandoned before winter.
Kat: What about the guy in the Prada ad?
Rebecca: Ick! He looks like he's on psychotropics but hasn't taken them in days. Look at his eyes, what's going on there?
Kat: Check out the All My Children actor, I don't watch the show, it says in the ad for Hathaway shirts that he's on All My Children.
Rebecca: Too much lipstick and he looks like such a Republican.
Dona: Jim likes Jennifer Jason Leigh. She's in a photo and she looks really good.
Rebecca: I didn't even recognize her. "Romanov Holiday" makes Romanov look like it's populated by ugly gay porn performers. What is it? Bel Ami that puts out those videos? Silence. Total silence. I guess I'm the only one who's ever watched two men get it on. (Laughing) Prudes.
we were being silly. we is
**Participating are The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Ava, Jess, Ty and myself, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Mike of Mikey Likes It! and C.I. of both The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review. **
we had been up all night having nothing but problems at the third estate sunday review had kept us up even later. the time on that piece is when we started, and a lot got edited out because the decision was made to go funny so we were all looking over it and debating what to leave in and what to take out. jim had a funny bit that he took out and i wished he had left it in.
i'm glad everyone enjoyed the jokes but kat and i weren't the only 1s being silly. maybe next time when we're all that tired (and the thing didn't get done until after meet the press was on because i had the tv on the background and remember thinking 'are we ever going to sleep?' poor mike fell asleep during it) we can be silly again.
kat didn't take out anything. you know kat and her 'it is what it is.'
the other thing i wanted to point out is that we used my site to put up the stuff isaiah did for the
"From the work area of the Bully Boy ("It's Hard Work")" to go up. we ended up putting it up here so my readers did get a treat if they came by sunday. if you missed it you can scroll down.
isaiah was on the phone with us before we spoke to maria and he was at a drug store, i think, naming off the coloring books that they carried. the wiggles was 1 i was pushing for because they make me laugh. isaiah ended up mentioning them in his intentionally crude sketches. (thank you isaiah) but there was 1 that isaiah said something like 'oh there's a hog on the cover' and no 1 was really paying attention there except c.i. who started saying 'you got to get that coloring book!' and so isaiah picks it up and tells us what's in it and there's a pig on a skateboard.
so my readers got 1st glance at the drawings and since there's a problem with that post, i've still go the exclusive if you want to see the illustrations ha ha.
so after inadequate response, after his phoney photo-op and his less than reassuring words, the no-accountability bully boy apparently has a new mission.
this is from democracy now:
White House Tries To Blame Flooding on Environmentalists
The Mississippi Clarion Ledger is reporting that it has obtained internals emails from the Justice Department that indicates the Bush administration may be seeking to blame the flooding caused by Hurricane Katrina on environmentalists. The Justice Department is seeking information from various U.S. attorneys offices on whether they have defended any cases involving environmental groups seeking to block the Army Corps of Engineers from working on the levees around New Orleans.
you read that correctly.
why would they do that?
it's all part of the war on the environment.
blame the environmentalist and then what do you need?
restrictions and laws on them.
they're trying to outlaw dissent and protest already, now they want to make life even easier for those who would destroy our environment.
this is step 1. i'm making a prediction here.
if they can run with this, they will use to go after so-called 'eco-terrorists.'
have you heard that word?
lots of little nobodies in congress, little repubes who were excited that their pubes did grow back after shaving, were fond of it in the 90s. it took bully boy staggering into the oval office to make it popular with the administration.
'eco-terrorists' bad. bombers of abortion clinics they remain 'non-committal' on.
so having used the false term repeatedly and gotten many in the press to use it, they'll now begin expanding the term. it'll include the sierra club and on down the list all the way to your aunt sally that wrote her senator saying 'i do not want a nuclear power plant in my backyard!'
fbi agent: did you write this?
sally: i wrote my senator.
fbi agent: with exclamation points. cuff her, we're taking her in.
i'm not really sure what's going on with bob somerby. i think he's in his tangle up in blue period.
i called c.i. this morning and c.i. was about to post and i said, 'you don't mention the daily howler, do you?' and c.i. says yeah, the friday post is quoted because it looked like bob was off that 1 topic. i said, 'the new 1's gone up' and read it over the phone.
i don't know what's going on with bob.
it's like the film what's the matter with bob?
and that film wasn't funny either.
i keep thinking of this line melanie griffith says in the movie in the spirit, 'he's like a really mean cat with a bird.'
c.i. told me that e-mails were coming in to the common ills about people saying how glad they were to see sunday i was feeling better.
i've gotten a few of those here as well. i appreciate the concern. the whole john roberts junior thing really brings me down.
wally asked me to put my stuff up here so i will.
this is from "the third estate sunday review news review:"
C.I.: Thank you, Jess. I'll add that NOW is participating in the D.C. activites as well. Many organizations are, but the reason I mention NOW is that if people are unable to come to D.C. but wish to be heard, they can call their local chapters of NOW to inquire about activities in their area. We now go to Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude with an editorial report on Roberts and the state of Roe.
Rebecca: Disclosure, I've had an abortion and in the same set of circumstances, I would have one again. The dog & pony show that was the John Roberts hearings were disgusting. This is NOW's Kim Gandy cutting through the crap:
But I think it's clear from what he has said, I don't think he has been dishonest in the sense of what "is" is, but he has been misleading. He has very brilliantly -- I agree with the right wing commentator that he has brilliantly given answers that have led some people, including ones on the committee, to believe that he supports the right to privacy and the Roe framework, when infact he has been laying out, and I hope never to need to say, "I told you so," because I hope he won't be confirmed, but if he is confirmed, I think that people will look back and they will say, "Oh, yeah. See here, right here in the hearing, he talked about erosion. He talked about workability. He talked about extensive disagreement as being grounds for reversal, and gee, isn't it interesting? These are the exact grounds they used to reverse Roe."
Rebecca (con't): That was Kim Gandy on Democracy Now! Tuesday stating what the mainstream press wouldn't tell you either because they don't understand Roe or because they don't care about Roe. For those who care about Roe, it was difficult to get through the 'happy-happy, let's all laughs and hey, there's John Roberts Junior listing his favorite movies and what do you know Porky's didn't make the cut.' Those expecting a hard grilling of Roberts from Diane Feinstein, were disappointed. Never has she played it so demure. Listening to her offer "I don't know nothing about no lawyering" and other similar comments, one wondered if she longed for the day when "ladies" wore hats and gloves. When Anita Hill faced the Senate Judiciary Committee, there were no women sitting on the committee. For all of her sunny disposition, Feinstein might as well have not been sitting on the committee. If she thinks that cuts it, she better think again. As Bully Boy begins preparations to fill the other seat, Roberts is up for the late Rehnquist's seat not O'Connor's, Democrats better be more prepared and more combative. And unless Lindsey Graham intends to french kiss the next nominee, perhaps Arlen Specter better put a leash on him. Listening to his annoying dipthong bounce up and down in a pitter-patter motion not unlike the way his heart appeared to flutter over John Roberts Junior, it was difficult to tell which was more annoying "Miss Diane," soft and genteel, or the Senate's apparent Blanche Du Bois fussing over Roberts the way Blanche attempted to make Mitch seem much more than he was. Keep it up, Graham, and people will start saying, "'Lindsey. It's a French name. It means no wood. You can remember it by that!" Watching the nonsense, you were aware that even those participating knew it was nonsense, as when Arlen Specter stated, "They may be misleading, but they are his answers." But was their a method to his misleading?
Kim Gandy, president of NOW:
Roberts in fact appears to be laying out a roadmap for how he would overturn Roe. As grounds for overturning precedent, he cited both "extensive disagreement" and whether a core holding has become "unworkable," both of which are very common arguments made by the right-wing for overturning Roe. Additionally, by repeatedly turning to Casey v. Planned Parenthood while addressing Roe, Roberts suggested erosion of the precedent as additional grounds, since Casey significantly eroded the Roe protections and reasoning, as has subsequent state and federal legislation.
C.I.: Thank you, Rebecca, for that editorial report. For those who missed it, "It means no wood" is a play on Blanche DuBois's lines in A Streetcar Named Desire. We now go to Mike of Mikey Likes It! who will give us what The New York Times doesn't.
a lot of you liked my comments about feinstein and the 'hats' and 'gloves.' but most of you liked my comments about lindsey graham and 'it means no wood' best.
i was in a funk all last week. being with everyone and working on the thing above helped me a lot (so thank you guys!).
now this is what i said at the common ills sunday:
C.I.: Good because between Kat's finding and Dona's I need a bottle of aspirin, Excedrin Tension Headache, and a handful of Tylenols. Rebecca, talk about the men's fashion thing you grabbed.
Rebecca: Well, they go with Joaquin Phoenix as their cover boy but the photos take pains to hide his scar. I think everyone knows he has it. I don't know whom the photographer or the paper thinks they're protecting. I also don't know why in "Men's Fall Fashion 2005" it was needed for a full page ad of a woman's naked back to be run. They do a spread entitled "The Great Rock and Roll Swindle" and I've never seen a group of uglier young men. In uglier clothes. Including one sweater that is so ugly no one would even use it as a bath mat if it was the only thing in the house and they needed to take a shower. This sweater, I'll also note, is worn off one shoulder as though Jennifer Beals popularized a "rock look" for men in Flashdance. I can't figure out the caption on a page in "Mad Togs and Englishmen." It reads ""Fashion Editor: Allan Kennedy." If that means the photo of the aged man in low slung jeans and shirtless is the fashion editor, that certainly explains the fashion disasters that have appeared for two weeks now in this paper. A hint, your pecs sag and you're too old for the outfit you wear. It doesn't look cool, it doesn't look sexy. You look like a homeless man. The only totally do-able man appears in the Supima cotton ad. This is what Matt Lauer would look like if Lauer weren't bald and ugly. The guy in the Macy & Bloomingdale's 2 (x)ist underwear ad was sexy until I noticed his hairy legs. That's not a problem; however, they're very hairy and it's obvious that he must wax his chest and his stomach. As I've stated before, shaving legs is murder for women. We're really not in the mood to go out with a man who finds time to remove more hair than we do.
Jess: How do you know he doesn't just have hairy legs.
Rebecca: Sweet, innocent Jess. When you've seen as many naked men as I have, you learn that when a man's legs are that hairy, that thick with hair as they run up to his crotch, his chest is not usually as hairless as a new borns. In addition, he usually has hair below his bellly button. The model doesn't. He looks like a freshly plucked chicken from above the groin. It's a turn off, even if you can make out, I'm trying to keep this as clean as possible, the head of his unit including the slit through which urine passes. That better have passed the "work safe" standard because I could really go to town at my own site. Also check out how thick his eyebrows are, after they've been shaped. There's no way that his chest doesn't sprout hair. Free Country has one of the ugliest models in their ads and he's not helped by the fact that he's apparently borrowing Donna Mills' fall 1984 hair style. One that looked foolish even on her and was quickly abandoned before winter.
Kat: What about the guy in the Prada ad?
Rebecca: Ick! He looks like he's on psychotropics but hasn't taken them in days. Look at his eyes, what's going on there?
Kat: Check out the All My Children actor, I don't watch the show, it says in the ad for Hathaway shirts that he's on All My Children.
Rebecca: Too much lipstick and he looks like such a Republican.
Dona: Jim likes Jennifer Jason Leigh. She's in a photo and she looks really good.
Rebecca: I didn't even recognize her. "Romanov Holiday" makes Romanov look like it's populated by ugly gay porn performers. What is it? Bel Ami that puts out those videos? Silence. Total silence. I guess I'm the only one who's ever watched two men get it on. (Laughing) Prudes.
we were being silly. we is
**Participating are The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Ava, Jess, Ty and myself, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Mike of Mikey Likes It! and C.I. of both The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review. **
we had been up all night having nothing but problems at the third estate sunday review had kept us up even later. the time on that piece is when we started, and a lot got edited out because the decision was made to go funny so we were all looking over it and debating what to leave in and what to take out. jim had a funny bit that he took out and i wished he had left it in.
i'm glad everyone enjoyed the jokes but kat and i weren't the only 1s being silly. maybe next time when we're all that tired (and the thing didn't get done until after meet the press was on because i had the tv on the background and remember thinking 'are we ever going to sleep?' poor mike fell asleep during it) we can be silly again.
kat didn't take out anything. you know kat and her 'it is what it is.'
the other thing i wanted to point out is that we used my site to put up the stuff isaiah did for the
"From the work area of the Bully Boy ("It's Hard Work")" to go up. we ended up putting it up here so my readers did get a treat if they came by sunday. if you missed it you can scroll down.
isaiah was on the phone with us before we spoke to maria and he was at a drug store, i think, naming off the coloring books that they carried. the wiggles was 1 i was pushing for because they make me laugh. isaiah ended up mentioning them in his intentionally crude sketches. (thank you isaiah) but there was 1 that isaiah said something like 'oh there's a hog on the cover' and no 1 was really paying attention there except c.i. who started saying 'you got to get that coloring book!' and so isaiah picks it up and tells us what's in it and there's a pig on a skateboard.
so my readers got 1st glance at the drawings and since there's a problem with that post, i've still go the exclusive if you want to see the illustrations ha ha.
9/18/2005
9/16/2005
roberts is the beads of sweat off satan's ass
for mike, let's note something from democracy now:
O'Reilly: Many Katrina Survivors "Drug-Addicted"
Meanwhile Fox News host Bill O'Reilly has been attempting to downplay the government's failure in helping residents of New Orleans evacuate ahead of the hurricane by claiming that many of those who stayed in the city were addicted to drugs or suffered severe emotional problems. "Many, many, many of the poor in New Orleans are in that condition," O'Reilly said. "They weren't going to leave no matter what you did. They were drug-addicted. They weren't going to get turned off from their source. They were thugs, whatever.
the evacuees are drug addicts? wait!
rush was an evacuee? i had no idea he was in new orleans. rush limbaugh just can't catch a break these days. under investigation for his drug addiction, had to go into rehab, dropped as a football commentator and now it seems he was in new orleans on top of everything else. bill o'reilly can be such a catty, mean girl.
why for mike? i love democracy now as well. but mike's dream world is where democracy now is the most linked to news organization in the world. that's a pretty good dream. so i've done my part this week. (my dream world would contain democracy now heard and/or watched in every home in the country as well as men required to work out to achieve various levels of buff - i'll determine for each - and allowed to wear nothing more than shorts or, in the case of hunky ike on mad tv, tighty-whities non-stop.)
thank you to everyone who's been worried about me. i'm feeling better now that the roberts hearings are over. i feel he'll be confirmed and no 1 really cares enough (politicians) to work to stop it. that was depressing, extremely depressing.
kat saved me today by telling me to get off my butt, get dressed and go buy some music. per kat, i bought some laura nyro. i'm not that familiar with her but i'm loving these cds. christmas and the beads of sweat is what's playing right now.
i'm not sure what the title means but i've thought of john roberts and decided that he is beads of sweat off satan's ass. we're about to be stuck with him for life and i'll shut up before i get more depressed.
O'Reilly: Many Katrina Survivors "Drug-Addicted"
Meanwhile Fox News host Bill O'Reilly has been attempting to downplay the government's failure in helping residents of New Orleans evacuate ahead of the hurricane by claiming that many of those who stayed in the city were addicted to drugs or suffered severe emotional problems. "Many, many, many of the poor in New Orleans are in that condition," O'Reilly said. "They weren't going to leave no matter what you did. They were drug-addicted. They weren't going to get turned off from their source. They were thugs, whatever.
the evacuees are drug addicts? wait!
rush was an evacuee? i had no idea he was in new orleans. rush limbaugh just can't catch a break these days. under investigation for his drug addiction, had to go into rehab, dropped as a football commentator and now it seems he was in new orleans on top of everything else. bill o'reilly can be such a catty, mean girl.
why for mike? i love democracy now as well. but mike's dream world is where democracy now is the most linked to news organization in the world. that's a pretty good dream. so i've done my part this week. (my dream world would contain democracy now heard and/or watched in every home in the country as well as men required to work out to achieve various levels of buff - i'll determine for each - and allowed to wear nothing more than shorts or, in the case of hunky ike on mad tv, tighty-whities non-stop.)
thank you to everyone who's been worried about me. i'm feeling better now that the roberts hearings are over. i feel he'll be confirmed and no 1 really cares enough (politicians) to work to stop it. that was depressing, extremely depressing.
kat saved me today by telling me to get off my butt, get dressed and go buy some music. per kat, i bought some laura nyro. i'm not that familiar with her but i'm loving these cds. christmas and the beads of sweat is what's playing right now.
i'm not sure what the title means but i've thought of john roberts and decided that he is beads of sweat off satan's ass. we're about to be stuck with him for life and i'll shut up before i get more depressed.
9/15/2005
feeling a little better
so how is everyone feeling this evening?
i'm feeling much better after i got to sound off in last night's gina & krista round-robin roundtable. i'll be participating again tonight and i will be apologizing to c.i. during that. i've asked members to put a tag at the bottom of the posts (i'll explain why in the round-robin so you can read that tomorrow). that's why the morning posts wouldn't go up at the common ills.
you get an error message sometimes with that and you just check to publish anyway in a little square. if c.i. would have seen the screen, no problem. but with dictating and using some 1 not familiar with the blogger program, there was a problem.
so i'll apologize for that tonight in the round-robin and i'll say i'm sorry to any of my readers who are also common ills community members.
for mike, i'll note this from democracy now:
State of Texas Executes Frances Newton
The state of Texas has executed Frances Newton. She was killed by lethal injection shortly after 6 o'clock last night despite widespread calls for a stay of her execution. She is the first African-American woman to be executed in Texas since Reconstruction. Her supporters included Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, the Austin American Statesman and the head of the American Bar Association. Numerous questions were raised about whether Newton received a fair trial when she was convicted of killing her husband and two children 18 years ago. Her state-appointed attorney, Ron Mock, did not interview a single witness in preparation for her trial. He has since been barred from handling capital cases due to incompetence. Hours before her execution, the Supreme Court denied a petition to stop her execution.
by the way, be sure to check out mike's interview with cedric. i'll be interviewed next week. i'm emerging from my funk so hopefully i'll be semi-amusing.
but i watched democracy now this morning and i wasn't amused. i can't believe they really went through with the execution. on the one hand, i can believe it. on the other hand, it makes perfect sense, in the world we live in, that we're all comfortable with the execution of a woman that was given no real defense (the problem for that falls on the state) and that serious questions of guilt had been raised about.
it was too much for us to say, 'hold on, let's seriously look at the new developments.' in 20 or 30 years, i expect that we'll hear that she's been posthumously pardoned. that it turns out she wasn't guilty. and the media will run with it as an example of 'justice.' they may note that many people voiced her probably innocence before she was executed, but they won't make an effort to put any of the officials on the hot spot, if they're still around.
i know that the issues of devestation are important but i do wonder why we could spend so little time on issues like iraq and frances newton? the john roberts confirmation hearings have taken up a large amount of media space. i wish i could say i've been impressed. i haven't. i've listened to pacifica like ruth's recommended and they've done a good job. democracy now has done an excellent job. but most of the media wants to, as c.i. has noted, just since 'you're a good man, charlie brown' over and over.
so it's not even as if they used all the space they devoted to john roberts junior to seriously explore john roberts. the new york times has filed one fan piece after another, many times each day. frances newton gets one small story in the paper of record today.
bully boy's going to speak tonight. god save us all.
gina and krista have a long essay on children's lit in tomorrow's round-robin. so i'll note my pick from sunday's the third estate sunday review book discussion:
Rebecca: I'm going with a book I hated. It left an impression, but I hated it. Martha Tolles' Katie For President. So here's the basic plot. Katie wants to be president of the class. Her rival is Lynne Colby. They don't like each other. Turns out Lynne envies her just as much as Katie envies Lynne. What that has to do with election, I don't know. But Katie has to deliberate over whether to even vote for herself. That's before she finds out that Lynne's an okay person. The "happy" ending? Katie loses the election to Lynne. Katie's fine with it. Even when a note that destroyed her chances to win was written by Lynne's friend and Lynne knew about it. It was all too much to stomach and another "Empathy, girls!" story. Young girls need more victory stories, not lessons in how to be happy about losing.
lauren asked me in an e-mail if i had a book that i really loved when i was little. like ava, i would pick charlotte's web. here's what ava had to say about that book:
Ava: I asked to go first because when this feature was discussed, I claimed E.B. White's Charlotte's Web which was something that many of us involved would have selected. The illustrations are done by Garth Williams and this is a book that had a huge impact on me. It was read to me before I could read myself and it's one I read repeatedly in elementary school. Confession, it's also a book I still pick up when I'm feeling depressed. Last paragraph of the book:
charlotte's web was my favorite book growing up. ava called it first and got dibs on it but a number of us would have named it. read gina & krista tomorrow because i've read part of their essay and it's amazing.
http://www.blogger.com/ rel="tag">common ills
i'm feeling much better after i got to sound off in last night's gina & krista round-robin roundtable. i'll be participating again tonight and i will be apologizing to c.i. during that. i've asked members to put a tag at the bottom of the posts (i'll explain why in the round-robin so you can read that tomorrow). that's why the morning posts wouldn't go up at the common ills.
you get an error message sometimes with that and you just check to publish anyway in a little square. if c.i. would have seen the screen, no problem. but with dictating and using some 1 not familiar with the blogger program, there was a problem.
so i'll apologize for that tonight in the round-robin and i'll say i'm sorry to any of my readers who are also common ills community members.
for mike, i'll note this from democracy now:
State of Texas Executes Frances Newton
The state of Texas has executed Frances Newton. She was killed by lethal injection shortly after 6 o'clock last night despite widespread calls for a stay of her execution. She is the first African-American woman to be executed in Texas since Reconstruction. Her supporters included Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, the Austin American Statesman and the head of the American Bar Association. Numerous questions were raised about whether Newton received a fair trial when she was convicted of killing her husband and two children 18 years ago. Her state-appointed attorney, Ron Mock, did not interview a single witness in preparation for her trial. He has since been barred from handling capital cases due to incompetence. Hours before her execution, the Supreme Court denied a petition to stop her execution.
by the way, be sure to check out mike's interview with cedric. i'll be interviewed next week. i'm emerging from my funk so hopefully i'll be semi-amusing.
but i watched democracy now this morning and i wasn't amused. i can't believe they really went through with the execution. on the one hand, i can believe it. on the other hand, it makes perfect sense, in the world we live in, that we're all comfortable with the execution of a woman that was given no real defense (the problem for that falls on the state) and that serious questions of guilt had been raised about.
it was too much for us to say, 'hold on, let's seriously look at the new developments.' in 20 or 30 years, i expect that we'll hear that she's been posthumously pardoned. that it turns out she wasn't guilty. and the media will run with it as an example of 'justice.' they may note that many people voiced her probably innocence before she was executed, but they won't make an effort to put any of the officials on the hot spot, if they're still around.
i know that the issues of devestation are important but i do wonder why we could spend so little time on issues like iraq and frances newton? the john roberts confirmation hearings have taken up a large amount of media space. i wish i could say i've been impressed. i haven't. i've listened to pacifica like ruth's recommended and they've done a good job. democracy now has done an excellent job. but most of the media wants to, as c.i. has noted, just since 'you're a good man, charlie brown' over and over.
so it's not even as if they used all the space they devoted to john roberts junior to seriously explore john roberts. the new york times has filed one fan piece after another, many times each day. frances newton gets one small story in the paper of record today.
bully boy's going to speak tonight. god save us all.
gina and krista have a long essay on children's lit in tomorrow's round-robin. so i'll note my pick from sunday's the third estate sunday review book discussion:
Rebecca: I'm going with a book I hated. It left an impression, but I hated it. Martha Tolles' Katie For President. So here's the basic plot. Katie wants to be president of the class. Her rival is Lynne Colby. They don't like each other. Turns out Lynne envies her just as much as Katie envies Lynne. What that has to do with election, I don't know. But Katie has to deliberate over whether to even vote for herself. That's before she finds out that Lynne's an okay person. The "happy" ending? Katie loses the election to Lynne. Katie's fine with it. Even when a note that destroyed her chances to win was written by Lynne's friend and Lynne knew about it. It was all too much to stomach and another "Empathy, girls!" story. Young girls need more victory stories, not lessons in how to be happy about losing.
lauren asked me in an e-mail if i had a book that i really loved when i was little. like ava, i would pick charlotte's web. here's what ava had to say about that book:
Ava: I asked to go first because when this feature was discussed, I claimed E.B. White's Charlotte's Web which was something that many of us involved would have selected. The illustrations are done by Garth Williams and this is a book that had a huge impact on me. It was read to me before I could read myself and it's one I read repeatedly in elementary school. Confession, it's also a book I still pick up when I'm feeling depressed. Last paragraph of the book:
Wilbur never forgot Charlotte. Although he loved her children and grandchildren
dearly, none of the new spiders ever quite took her place in his heart. She was
in a class by herself. It is not often that someone comes along who is a true
friend and a good writer. Charlotte was both.
charlotte's web was my favorite book growing up. ava called it first and got dibs on it but a number of us would have named it. read gina & krista tomorrow because i've read part of their essay and it's amazing.
http://www.blogger.com/
9/14/2005
sick still
don't expect much tonight. i'm listening to the george galloway debate with christopher hitchesn that democracy now's amy goodman is moderating. besides having my attention on that, i'm also still sick.
sherry wondered about that. i do think it's psychosomatic, sherry. i think the whole possibility that we might lose roe has just really depressed me. add in that, as readers know, my ex-in-laws nixed me writing in detail about my own abortion here and the whole thing is just making me sick.
you can check out friday's gina & krista round-robin which will have the thing i can't post here because god forbid ex-in-laws be embarrassed. i told my ex-husband i was doing that. he's fine with it and fine with it going up here but his parents will make his life hell if i put it up here so i'll just give it to the round-robin. when gina and krista asked me yesterday if i'd like to participate in their round-robin, i told them i was honestly starting to think i'd somehow pissed them off since they hadn't asked. they said that due to the whole 'you will not put the story of your abortion up at your site' bullshit they didn't want to pressure me since they knew it was a sore subject.
i 1st talked about it at their round-robin so maybe it's karmic that they get the essay?
i'm just glad that it's going out somewhere. not just because i slaved over it but also because i don't like being told to shut up no matter how politely.
Sen. Robert Byrd Calls for Withdrawal From Iraq
Meanwhile on Capitol Hill, the Senate's most senior member, Robert Byrd called for the Bush administration to withdraw from Iraq and bring the troops home. Byrd said "We cannot continue to commit billions in Iraq when our own people are so much in need, not only now, in New Orleans, but all across America for everything from education to health care to homeland security to securing our own borders."
i'm glad byrd stood up. i am wondering where the others are. the party better grasp where the people stand and grasp it quick.
i've been listening to the debate and need to stop here pretty abrupt. i'm going to go do the round-table. i know this hasn't been much and hopefully i'll be feeling better soon.
here are some quotes from the george galloway and christopher hitchens debate moderated by amy goodman.
'i didn't interrupt you so maybe you won't slobber over my remarks' - george galloway to christopher hitchens tonight at the debate. best line of the night so far.
'now it will be a little more free wheeling' amy goodman just said to much laughter. she really is the coolest news broadcaster we have. i can't say enough good things about her.
http://www.blogger.com/ rel="tag">the common ills
sherry wondered about that. i do think it's psychosomatic, sherry. i think the whole possibility that we might lose roe has just really depressed me. add in that, as readers know, my ex-in-laws nixed me writing in detail about my own abortion here and the whole thing is just making me sick.
you can check out friday's gina & krista round-robin which will have the thing i can't post here because god forbid ex-in-laws be embarrassed. i told my ex-husband i was doing that. he's fine with it and fine with it going up here but his parents will make his life hell if i put it up here so i'll just give it to the round-robin. when gina and krista asked me yesterday if i'd like to participate in their round-robin, i told them i was honestly starting to think i'd somehow pissed them off since they hadn't asked. they said that due to the whole 'you will not put the story of your abortion up at your site' bullshit they didn't want to pressure me since they knew it was a sore subject.
i 1st talked about it at their round-robin so maybe it's karmic that they get the essay?
i'm just glad that it's going out somewhere. not just because i slaved over it but also because i don't like being told to shut up no matter how politely.
Sen. Robert Byrd Calls for Withdrawal From Iraq
Meanwhile on Capitol Hill, the Senate's most senior member, Robert Byrd called for the Bush administration to withdraw from Iraq and bring the troops home. Byrd said "We cannot continue to commit billions in Iraq when our own people are so much in need, not only now, in New Orleans, but all across America for everything from education to health care to homeland security to securing our own borders."
i'm glad byrd stood up. i am wondering where the others are. the party better grasp where the people stand and grasp it quick.
i've been listening to the debate and need to stop here pretty abrupt. i'm going to go do the round-table. i know this hasn't been much and hopefully i'll be feeling better soon.
here are some quotes from the george galloway and christopher hitchens debate moderated by amy goodman.
'i didn't interrupt you so maybe you won't slobber over my remarks' - george galloway to christopher hitchens tonight at the debate. best line of the night so far.
'now it will be a little more free wheeling' amy goodman just said to much laughter. she really is the coolest news broadcaster we have. i can't say enough good things about her.
http://www.blogger.com/
9/13/2005
p.r. dept goes to work on colin powell
i had another opening. ava wanted to reply to an asshole who wrote the third estate sunday review. she wanted to do it here to reply immediately and not wait for sunday when 3rd publishes. she's already phoned to ask if she can delete the post.
no problem. but i'll leave in my remarks to the asshole:
i helped with that editorial so i know what it says. we don't need someone trying to rescue john roberts junior. jim encourages that crap because he replies to those lunatics.
let me boil it down to you if you're in a hurry. the editorial basically says 'we don't think john roberts junior is qualifed to be an apple.' the idiot writes us 'well other people have been apples in the past!' so what? loser. take it over to your right-wing buddies. no 1 on the left needs to hear from you. what a dumb ass ---- ----- is.
he's a right-winger for john roberts junior and he thinks we're running some mainstream community, that we're the new york times or something.
we're a community for the left.
only a dumb ass comes to any of our sites and expects to find something they'll agree with.
maybe this is how he gets his jollies?
maybe it gets him hot and bothered to write his nonsense?
who knows.
loser.
for mike, here's my democracy now link for the day:
72% of African-Americans Say Bush Doesn't Care About Them
A new USA Today Poll has found that 72 percent of African-Americans feel that President Bush does not care about the country's Black population. 67 percent of white respondents said he did.
i don't think it needs a lot of further comment. this is what african-americans are feeling. condi rice says 'that's not true!' well condi, it's what people are feeling. it is valid. and the gop and the bully boy have a history so if people want to make conclusions, especially after what happened in florida in 2000 and in ohio in 2004, they have every right to.
now let's talk about abc. c.i. and ava have both written about this and i'm offended as well.
colin powell put on the spot. he hems, he haws, he sputters. on tv. for the whole world to see.
and yet abc pretties it up.
i represented a pot head, tv actor once. he lit up during an interview. i knew that was going to make it into the story. but he also stumbled the higher he got.
i had to beg to get the starts and stops, the 'uhs' and the 'man's out of the interview. i did that because p.r. was my job.
(and because he was a teeny favorite who's image was that he was thoughtful and well spoken.)
to get the junk removed, i had to arrange an interview with this very minor magazine for a much bigger name. that was the trade off.
there was nothing journalistic about the trade off.
the reporter (and the magazine) wanted the bigger name. so they were willing to go along with me. my job was to make teen cheech not look like a chong.
if colin powell was my client, i would've done the same thing.
but i was in p.r. i wasn't a journalist.
p.r. ethics, such as they are, allowed me to do that. my job was to make a client look better than he or she was. short of committing a crime, anything i did to see that a client came off good was within the ethics of my profession.
but the journalist who not only removed the "uh"s and the "man"s but also added in a literary reference that the kid couldn't have made with a book open in front of him? the journalist wasn't upholding any ethics.
now that happens all the time in entertainment coverage.
'straight' actors and actresses drink too much and proposition the same-sex interviewer.
i'm not talking about flirting or flattery. the smart ones do that and the interview turns into its own seduction.
but they do sometimes do more. and it doesn't make into the published reporting. or when they're doing drugs.
tom cruise is getting his worst publicity ever. that has to do with the fact that pat kingsley is no longer there to protect him. he's no represented by his sister who is probably very loyal but she's in over her head (my opinion). she's also dealing with all the rules that kingsley laid down and all the demands that were made.
the press has wanted to trash tom cruise for years. mainly because of the rules imposed. including, but not limited to:
*10-20 minute interviews for a cover story
*being lied to - such as when tom cruise was about to divorce mimi rogers but reporters were told their marriage was great. when time and rolling stone hit the stands with their cover stories on tom cruise and the wonderful marriage, the daily news papers were already reporting that the marriage was over - and embarrassed.
*being told when it would run and being told that information gathered could only be used for that piece. not for a later piece.
there were many more rules.
tom cruise may or may not have wanted the rules. but the press was pissed for years. now he's got his sister representing him and stuff they would have covered up or ignored they now address.
over and over.
that's the way things go in entertainment reporting.
that's not supposed to be how real news is handled.
so why did abc clean up colin powell's quote?
why did they make him sound calm, smooth and not upset?
if powell comes off in print as he did on tv, what does that say?
does it say that he's not as determined if he's stammering? if he's saying 'uh' over and over?
from a public relations point of view it does.
his statement, from a p.r. point of view, are a nightmare.
he needs to be firm, resolute and the words just rolling off his tongue to reflect that we are at war and we need to be at war.
putting the truth in changes that.
read c.i.'s 'ABC "fixes" Colin Powell' and read ava's 'Note from Ava on ABC's altering Colin Powell's remarks' and realize how the so called 'news' will always suck up to certain individuals even if means altering the public record.
and read ava and c.i.'s "TV Review: Barbara and Colin remake The Way We Were" which will bring you the reality that abc doesn't want to.
no problem. but i'll leave in my remarks to the asshole:
i helped with that editorial so i know what it says. we don't need someone trying to rescue john roberts junior. jim encourages that crap because he replies to those lunatics.
let me boil it down to you if you're in a hurry. the editorial basically says 'we don't think john roberts junior is qualifed to be an apple.' the idiot writes us 'well other people have been apples in the past!' so what? loser. take it over to your right-wing buddies. no 1 on the left needs to hear from you. what a dumb ass ---- ----- is.
he's a right-winger for john roberts junior and he thinks we're running some mainstream community, that we're the new york times or something.
we're a community for the left.
only a dumb ass comes to any of our sites and expects to find something they'll agree with.
maybe this is how he gets his jollies?
maybe it gets him hot and bothered to write his nonsense?
who knows.
loser.
for mike, here's my democracy now link for the day:
72% of African-Americans Say Bush Doesn't Care About Them
A new USA Today Poll has found that 72 percent of African-Americans feel that President Bush does not care about the country's Black population. 67 percent of white respondents said he did.
i don't think it needs a lot of further comment. this is what african-americans are feeling. condi rice says 'that's not true!' well condi, it's what people are feeling. it is valid. and the gop and the bully boy have a history so if people want to make conclusions, especially after what happened in florida in 2000 and in ohio in 2004, they have every right to.
now let's talk about abc. c.i. and ava have both written about this and i'm offended as well.
colin powell put on the spot. he hems, he haws, he sputters. on tv. for the whole world to see.
and yet abc pretties it up.
i represented a pot head, tv actor once. he lit up during an interview. i knew that was going to make it into the story. but he also stumbled the higher he got.
i had to beg to get the starts and stops, the 'uhs' and the 'man's out of the interview. i did that because p.r. was my job.
(and because he was a teeny favorite who's image was that he was thoughtful and well spoken.)
to get the junk removed, i had to arrange an interview with this very minor magazine for a much bigger name. that was the trade off.
there was nothing journalistic about the trade off.
the reporter (and the magazine) wanted the bigger name. so they were willing to go along with me. my job was to make teen cheech not look like a chong.
if colin powell was my client, i would've done the same thing.
but i was in p.r. i wasn't a journalist.
p.r. ethics, such as they are, allowed me to do that. my job was to make a client look better than he or she was. short of committing a crime, anything i did to see that a client came off good was within the ethics of my profession.
but the journalist who not only removed the "uh"s and the "man"s but also added in a literary reference that the kid couldn't have made with a book open in front of him? the journalist wasn't upholding any ethics.
now that happens all the time in entertainment coverage.
'straight' actors and actresses drink too much and proposition the same-sex interviewer.
i'm not talking about flirting or flattery. the smart ones do that and the interview turns into its own seduction.
but they do sometimes do more. and it doesn't make into the published reporting. or when they're doing drugs.
tom cruise is getting his worst publicity ever. that has to do with the fact that pat kingsley is no longer there to protect him. he's no represented by his sister who is probably very loyal but she's in over her head (my opinion). she's also dealing with all the rules that kingsley laid down and all the demands that were made.
the press has wanted to trash tom cruise for years. mainly because of the rules imposed. including, but not limited to:
*10-20 minute interviews for a cover story
*being lied to - such as when tom cruise was about to divorce mimi rogers but reporters were told their marriage was great. when time and rolling stone hit the stands with their cover stories on tom cruise and the wonderful marriage, the daily news papers were already reporting that the marriage was over - and embarrassed.
*being told when it would run and being told that information gathered could only be used for that piece. not for a later piece.
there were many more rules.
tom cruise may or may not have wanted the rules. but the press was pissed for years. now he's got his sister representing him and stuff they would have covered up or ignored they now address.
over and over.
that's the way things go in entertainment reporting.
that's not supposed to be how real news is handled.
so why did abc clean up colin powell's quote?
why did they make him sound calm, smooth and not upset?
if powell comes off in print as he did on tv, what does that say?
does it say that he's not as determined if he's stammering? if he's saying 'uh' over and over?
from a public relations point of view it does.
his statement, from a p.r. point of view, are a nightmare.
he needs to be firm, resolute and the words just rolling off his tongue to reflect that we are at war and we need to be at war.
putting the truth in changes that.
read c.i.'s 'ABC "fixes" Colin Powell' and read ava's 'Note from Ava on ABC's altering Colin Powell's remarks' and realize how the so called 'news' will always suck up to certain individuals even if means altering the public record.
and read ava and c.i.'s "TV Review: Barbara and Colin remake The Way We Were" which will bring you the reality that abc doesn't want to.
9/12/2005
democracy now, 'commerical free' newshour, c.i. on reporting from the green zone
never let it be said i didn't help mike. he called and asked me if i would please highlight one item from democracy now each day this week.
John Roberts Nomination Hearing Begins Today
The nomination hearing of John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States begins today. The Senate Judiciary Committee will begin meeting at noon in Washington. Democrats plan to question Roberts on another of issues including his attacks on affirmative action and school busing; his criticism of a proposal to equalize pay between men and women; and his narrow interpretation of the Voting Rights Act and other civil rights laws. Several national groups, including People for the American Way, have already called on the Senate to reject Roberts' nomination in part because so little is known about his judicial views. He has only served as a judge for three years. If confirmed to this lifetime post, the 50-year-old Roberts will become the youngest chief justice in over 200 years. President Bush has yet to announce whom he will nominate to fill the other open seat on the Supreme Court.
john roberts. i left on vacation and the democrats didn't have a plan. i listened to hearings today on pacifica and they still don't have a plan. and since the democrats, elected 1s, won't do anything, the press won't either. that's how the mainstream press works. 'balance' means they'll grab a quote here and then one from the opposing side.
they wouldn't really report on it regardless. but if senate dems were making noises, the press would report on it. instead the new york times run sheryl gay stolbergs' "Roberts Spotlight Falls on Senators, Too" which seems amazed that no one's talking about roberts. as though the press didn't play a strong role in that.
i've had the tv on and i want to note something about the newshour on pbs, they do commercials. quit pretending otherwise. yes, they just did a title card for pacific lite and c.i.t.
but they showed actual commericals for smith barney and adm.
eddie e-mailed me asking me to please note c.i.'s editorial from saturday. i really don't feel well today (i'm sneezy and a snot factory) and probably would have forgotten it if eddie hadn't e-mailed so i appreciate eddie reminding me of it because this is an important editorial. hopefully, you've already seen it but if you haven't, read it. take my word, take eddie's, this is important and needs to be said.
how important was it to c.i. to say it? c.i. got no sleep friday. woke up and mid-day discovered there was a last minute trip out of time. c.i. had to dictate the entries that made it up friday night. then when it could have been sleep after a late night strategy meeting, c.i. was back on the phone (check the times on those entries) dictating the editorial.
no sleep friday night and the next day is saturday which means an all nighter. c.i. was up from friday morning until sunday after the morning posts were done at the common ills because saturdays, we all assist at the third estate sunday review. 'no sleep till brooklyn' cried the beasties boys. for c.i., i'll say 'and then some.'
when i say c.i. needs to take time off, i always get a few e-mails ragging me on that. but that's why i say it. no sleep from friday morning until sunday morning after the chat and chews were off the air.
so while c.i. could have been grabbing a few hours sleep, instead the time was spent dictating this editorial. it was important to c.i. and it's important to eddie and it's important to me. i hope it's important to you too.
"Editorial Reading press releases, live from the Green Zone"
[Note: This is an editorial.]
What the hell goes on in the Green Zone? Forget the rumors that led to a guild becoming involved (rumors of wild behavior on the part of Times reporters, rumors that someone was fired for telling truths to wives back in the United States, rumors, rumors, rumors), exactly what do they do?
Not a whole hell of a lot.
The big Iraq news of the week was Tal Afar. The Times front paged Kirk Semple's " Baseball in Iraq: As Pastimes Go, It's Anything But." Apparently the jock fumes reach the Green Zone as well. (Though I'll refrain from pinning this one on Todd S. Purdum.)
This is a front page story. Why? Not because it's a big story in Iraq. It's not. It's a piece of disgraceful fluff. It's Operation Happy Talk. And while it goes on, while we're bored with a non-story passing for front page news, the Times can't even report on Tal Afar.
What do they do in the Green Zone?
Yes, Friday, finally, a story ran in the Times on Tel Afar: "U.S.-Iraqi Sweep Arrests 200 in Rebel Staging Area" but the Times receives no credit for that article, it's an Associated Press article. Whatever it's positives or minuses, all the Times did was run a report by another news organization.So what do they do in the Green Zone?
And what the hell is Robert F. Worth? Is he a reporter? Is he an op-ed writer? Read"Basra Bombs Kill 16 Iraqis and 4 U.S. Contractors" and try to answer that question.
I'm unable to grasp how, in a story on bombings, this opening qualifies for a news report:
There was also a piece of good news: American military officials said [. . .]
What did "American military officials" say? It doesn't matter for this discussion. (A contractor was released.) What is that judgement call ("good news") doing in the paper? Is Worth channeling Matt Lauer? Tip to Worth: "In other news . . ." You're supposed to be reporting. You're not there to editorialize. The sentence, the part noted above, reveals all that is wrong with the Times reporting on Iraq.
"American military officials said . . ." That's the basis for every damn thing. (Yes, I'm tossing around "damn." Call me Bumiller. But "damn" is much more mild than the word I'm saying outloud as I dictate this.) Reporters are supposed to serve as the eyes and ears of the public. That's why they're called the "watch dogs." That's not happening when every "report" is a press release. "American military officials said . . ." And what did you see Robert F. Worth? What did you hear? Not what were you told. What did you observe all by yourself?
Or does that require leaving the Green Zone? From all accounts, it's Delta House there so who would want to leave -- other than someone with a modicum of taste?
Look they can Boys Gone Wild it or not all they want in the Green Zone, I don't care. I do care what makes into print but I wonder if anyone reporting from the Green Zone does?
I did a conference call with three friends (reporters) on this asking them to play devil's advocate so I could anticipate the responses. (The Times would call the phone call "reporting.")
So here's the big argument. "It's not safe. I could lose my life."You know what, cover cook-offs. If that's your excuse, cover cook-offs. No one's forcing you to be there. The paper certainly isn't forcing anyone. Reporters are choosing to be there. If you're a reporter and you're there, you need to be reporting.
It's not safe, doesn't cut it. It wasn't safe for Daniel Pearl. He went after the story. Others have before him and will after. The attitude of "Oh it's tough here so you have to cut me slack" doesn't wash. You get off your asses or the Times needs to appoint J-school graduates who are ready to dig in and find stories. (Which the Times, being the Times, will water down. But a diluted news report is still more powerful than any of the diluted press releases that regularly get filed.)
There is nothing, I repeat nothing, that reporters can point to with pride coming out of Iraq for the paper. You're not making a name for yourself. The t-shirt you should be furnished with when you depart can only proclaim: "I SURVIVED THE GREEN ZONE." That's all that's being done. Reporting isn't being done. (And the Times is becoming a joke to other print organizations over their "reporting" from Iraq.)
Want a blast from the past? Try this ("More Iraqi Army Dead Found in Mosul; 2 Clerics Slain," November 23, 2004):
Basic services are still unavailable in Falluja, and the valves in the city's main water-treatment plant are still not working. But troops will provide bottled water until the plant and the city's heavily damaged water and sewer pipes can be fixed, the general said.
The general said it, did he? Well Richard A. Oppel. Jr. and James Glanz, did you follow up on that? Or did you just print what you were told? (Rhetorical question.)
Does anyone working for the Times in Iraq do anything more than play telephone chain? Does anyone not buckle immediately?
From Molly Bingham's "Home From Iraq" (Atlanta Journal-Constitution):
The intimidation to not work on this story was evident. Dexter Filkins, who writes for The New York Times, related a conversation he had in Iraq with an American military commander... Towards the end of one of their conversations, Dexter declined an invitation for the next day by explaining that he'd lined up a meeting with a "resistance guy." The commander's face went stony cold and he said, "We have a position on that." For Dexter the message was clear. He cancelled the appointment.
If you're going to discuss Iraq, you have to discuss Filkins at some point. I'm aware it's more pleasing to discuss Judith Miller. But if she had a part in getting us over into Iraq, it's the "reporters" like Filkins who keep us there. For the record, Filkins has denied Bingham's version of the events. People will have to make up their own minds as to whom to take the word of.
While you're attempting to sort that out, let's again note this:
Christian Parenti mentioned Filkins last night on The Laura Flanders Show: "Dexter Filkins politics are very different from the Dexter Filkins politics we know in the New York Times. [In person, he's saying] 'Oh it's awful, the situation is totally out of control.'" That's a paraphrase (I've left out a "Dude" among other things).
Oh, it's awful, the situation is totally out of control?Didn't seem that way when Filkins reported "In Faulluja, Young Marines Saw the Savagery of an Urban War" -- his rah-rah-rah piece of "award winning" journalism. Six days after the battle (Nov. 15), Filkins' story makes it into print. Exactly how slowly does he type? Exactly whom edited that copy?
From Dahr Jamail's "Iraqi Hospitals Ailing Under Occupation" (pdf format, you can find the quote below at this site here):
Burhan Fasa'a, a cameramn with the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation (LBC), witnessed the first eight days of the fighting. "I entered Falljuah near the Julan Quarter, which is near the General Hospital," he said during an interview in Baghdad. "There were American snipers on top of the hospital," who, he testified, "were shooting everyone in sight." The Iraqi Red Crescent would have to wait a full week before being permitted to dispatch three ambulances into the city.
Not quite the way Filkins reported it. For that matter, not quite the way Richard A. Oppel, Jr. and James Glanz report it. (They report that the Iraqi Red Crescent found no one when they entered Falluja. They just fail to seriously address why that is.) It goes beyond Filkins but Filkins has the prize and he contributed the go-go boy gone wild story that portrays a massacre as a video game. Reality: Preceding the blood bath, males of "fighting age" were prevented from leaving that city. The destruction was severe and has not been "fixed." (Does the United States military still provide bottled water? Did they ever? Not what they told you, but what you could verify, please.)
Press releases continue to pass for reporting ("Hussein Confessed to Massacre Order, Iraqi President Says") and they should all be worried. They're the upcoming Judy Millers. They're the laughingstock of many of their peers. (Filkins epecially whose appearance on Terry Gross's Fresh Air is legendary -- and the tales repeated of it are far more interesting than what he actually said on air.)
Let's note this:
On this 60th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Amy Goodman, host of the national radio and TV show "Democracy Now!" is submitting a formal request to the board of the Pulitzer Prize, calling for The New York Times and its reporter William Laurence to be stripped of the 1946 Pulitzer Prize for their coverage of the atomic bomb. Laurence was also on the payroll of the US War Department. Goodman recently wrote an Op-Ed in The Baltimore Sun (written with journalist David Goodman, her brother) called "The Hiroshima Coverup" (see http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0805-20.htm ).Goodman said, "William Laurence and the New York Times won a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on the atomic bomb, and his faithful parroting of the government line was crucial in launching a half-century of silence about the deadly lingering effects of the bomb. It is time for the Pulitzer board to strip the atomic bomb apologist and his newspaper of this undeserved prize."
This is Filkins future. I used to assume that it would take place long after he was gone. (And long after I was gone.) But he's the one reporters bring up to me. They're friends and they know I consider his reporting proganda. (Had the election gone differently, would his story have been more realistic?) So maybe they're just saying what they say to please me? I don't think so. (I could, as always, be wrong.)
But away from them, when you walk someone through Filkins reporting, someone who has no idea who he is, they grasp that its people like Filkins that keep us in Iraq.
By failing to report accurately what Operation Enduring Falsehood did (and what they do) they allow a number of otherwise well meaning people to think "fine tuning" is an answer. (Filkins is also a laughing stock for a TV appearance I missed. He supposedly minimized a trial for the abuses of Abu Ghraib -- with regard to instructions from above.) Fine tuning isn't an answer. As Filkins allegedy told Parenti, "It's totally out of control." Until that truth makes it into the reports, I'm saddened by those who argue fine tuning and aren't war hawks but I don't blame them for the failures of the press to report reality. They're being short changed. (Hawks aren't. They don't need excuses to continue war. They thrive on it the way some in the Green Zone thrive on the chaos.)
But here's the reason Filkins may feel the bite while he's still alive. Some domestic reporters in the United States aren't speaking fondly of the embeds. They're pointing fingers right now as the clampdowns that reporters have gone along with in Iraq come home to the United States.
The Boys Gone Wild are also a joke to people who've served in the area. And those first hand accounts will continue to come out. A Worth or Glanz will be embarrassed for being so quick to print press releases, but Filkins was in Falluja. He saw with his own eyes and he didn't report.
The bodies, the limbs piled up in the streets, Filkins somehow missed. And he was there. A friend at one of the top ten (circulation) dailies has gone from lukewarm support of Filkins' infamous "reporting" to outright disgust with it. The opinion is there is no "comeback" from it. That Filkins could do a mea culpa and return his prize and he'd still be damaged goods.
That kind of talk may not make it into the Green Zone but Filkins should worry. And so should the paper.
In an early November piece on Falluja (this one co-written with James Glanz), a military officer told Filkins that "it ought to go down in history." Filkins accepted the gung-hu attitude, too bad he didn't consider the words themselves. This will go down in history. This will haunt the Times and it will haunt Filkins.
Amy and David Goodman may not get the Times stripped of a Pulitizer (though I hope they do) but just addressing the issue accomplishes something. And when the issue of Dexter Filkins is seriously addressed it will further tarnish the paper's name.
With Judith Miller, the paper waited far too late to address the situation. (Both her reporting itself and the legal argument they attempt to make -- they not Millers' attornies.) If they hem and haw with regards to what passes for "reporting" from Iraq currently, they'll further hurt their already badly damaged reputation. In the meantime, by not revisiting the press releases they published, they do real reporting, democracy and the people of the United States a huge disservice because they're not reporting. It took Cindy Sheehan to act as the spark to wake up a nation. The Times could have done that long ago with some strong reporting. It shouldn't be the job of the editorials to try to later straighten out the reporting.
And as the press in the United States feels they're under attack, they're making some rather rude comments about those in the Green Zone that they feel have condoned this sort of behavior.
Democracy Now! noted the following Friday:
The journalists who have been covering Hurricane Katrina have literally been risking their lives for the last week. Reporters have been stationed in and around New Orleans since the Hurricane hit and have tirelessly reported on the devastation to the city. Some journalists have expressed enormous outrage at government officials for their slow response. A few television reporters openly broke down on air as they report the horrific conditions and the desperation of victims. Reporters have witnessed the militarization of the city and are starting to feel the effects of the government crack-down on information gathering. FEMA is now rejecting requests by journalists to accompany rescue boats searching for storm victims. In addition, journalists are being asked not to photograph any dead bodies in the region. NBC News Anchor Brian Williams reported on his blog, that police officers had been seen aiming their weapons at members of the media. And a blogger named Bob Brigham wrote a widely read dispatch that the National Guard in Jefferson County are under orders to turn all journalists away. Brigham writes: "Bush is now censoring all reporting from New Orleans, Louisiana. The First Amendment sank with the city."Earlier this week, Reporters Without Borders issued a warning about police violence against journalists working in New Orleans. They highlighted two cases – in one case police detained a Times-Picayune photographer and smashed his equipment to the ground after he was seen covering a shoot-out with police. In the second case, a photographer from the Toronto Star was detained by police and his photos taken from him when police realized that he had snapped photos of a clash between them and citizens who the police claimed were looters.
Those in the Green Zone may have kidded themselves, if they were non-Arabic, that they weren't being controlled. It was just the Arabic reporters suffering, right?
A Dexter Filkins could cancel the meeting with the resistance and kid himself that he made the choice. (Like Madonna' s ludicrous claim in the nineties that the difference was she chained herself.) The "choices" that have been made are now impacting reporters outside the Green Zone and they aren't amused. That's why the Times should be concerned. The rumblings and grumblings are coming from their competitors. Not from independent media, which the Times would easily dismiss (as it so often does). I don't know that other dailies are doing a better job than the Times (the daily I read is the New York Times). They seem to think to think they are. Three reporters in particular (two at one organization, one at another) are mentioned repeatedly (by press not affiliated with the two organizations).
The Times is aware that Judith Miller has become the fall guy for every reporter that gave breathless (and non questioning) coverage to WMD claims. So they're familiar with the concept of a fall guy. (They've also created a few over the years.) They should be really concerned right now because although Filkins isn't the "name" that Miller is (even people who didn't read her reporting in real time can now list the problems with it), he'll quickly become that. One reporter trying to cover New Orleans has already used Filkins as an adjective to express dismay over conditions that authorities attempted to impose. ("They thought I'd do a Filkins!")
Whereas the derision of Miller began with the independent press, Filkins' is starting at the top. Again, he wrote a first person account of what happened in Falluja. That's hard to come back from as details continue to emerge about what didn't get reported in that piece of melodrama.
The paper should be very worried. It took years for the criticism of Miller to go beyond independent media. If Filkins gets burned by the mainstream press, it will be a much harder hit than any criticism the Times faces over Miller.
The fact that they've continued to offer press releases won't help them either. They should have dealt with this long ago. They need a new chief in Baghdad and they need it right away.
What Americans need is some honest reporting.
John Roberts Nomination Hearing Begins Today
The nomination hearing of John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States begins today. The Senate Judiciary Committee will begin meeting at noon in Washington. Democrats plan to question Roberts on another of issues including his attacks on affirmative action and school busing; his criticism of a proposal to equalize pay between men and women; and his narrow interpretation of the Voting Rights Act and other civil rights laws. Several national groups, including People for the American Way, have already called on the Senate to reject Roberts' nomination in part because so little is known about his judicial views. He has only served as a judge for three years. If confirmed to this lifetime post, the 50-year-old Roberts will become the youngest chief justice in over 200 years. President Bush has yet to announce whom he will nominate to fill the other open seat on the Supreme Court.
john roberts. i left on vacation and the democrats didn't have a plan. i listened to hearings today on pacifica and they still don't have a plan. and since the democrats, elected 1s, won't do anything, the press won't either. that's how the mainstream press works. 'balance' means they'll grab a quote here and then one from the opposing side.
they wouldn't really report on it regardless. but if senate dems were making noises, the press would report on it. instead the new york times run sheryl gay stolbergs' "Roberts Spotlight Falls on Senators, Too" which seems amazed that no one's talking about roberts. as though the press didn't play a strong role in that.
i've had the tv on and i want to note something about the newshour on pbs, they do commercials. quit pretending otherwise. yes, they just did a title card for pacific lite and c.i.t.
but they showed actual commericals for smith barney and adm.
eddie e-mailed me asking me to please note c.i.'s editorial from saturday. i really don't feel well today (i'm sneezy and a snot factory) and probably would have forgotten it if eddie hadn't e-mailed so i appreciate eddie reminding me of it because this is an important editorial. hopefully, you've already seen it but if you haven't, read it. take my word, take eddie's, this is important and needs to be said.
how important was it to c.i. to say it? c.i. got no sleep friday. woke up and mid-day discovered there was a last minute trip out of time. c.i. had to dictate the entries that made it up friday night. then when it could have been sleep after a late night strategy meeting, c.i. was back on the phone (check the times on those entries) dictating the editorial.
no sleep friday night and the next day is saturday which means an all nighter. c.i. was up from friday morning until sunday after the morning posts were done at the common ills because saturdays, we all assist at the third estate sunday review. 'no sleep till brooklyn' cried the beasties boys. for c.i., i'll say 'and then some.'
when i say c.i. needs to take time off, i always get a few e-mails ragging me on that. but that's why i say it. no sleep from friday morning until sunday morning after the chat and chews were off the air.
so while c.i. could have been grabbing a few hours sleep, instead the time was spent dictating this editorial. it was important to c.i. and it's important to eddie and it's important to me. i hope it's important to you too.
"Editorial Reading press releases, live from the Green Zone"
[Note: This is an editorial.]
What the hell goes on in the Green Zone? Forget the rumors that led to a guild becoming involved (rumors of wild behavior on the part of Times reporters, rumors that someone was fired for telling truths to wives back in the United States, rumors, rumors, rumors), exactly what do they do?
Not a whole hell of a lot.
The big Iraq news of the week was Tal Afar. The Times front paged Kirk Semple's " Baseball in Iraq: As Pastimes Go, It's Anything But." Apparently the jock fumes reach the Green Zone as well. (Though I'll refrain from pinning this one on Todd S. Purdum.)
This is a front page story. Why? Not because it's a big story in Iraq. It's not. It's a piece of disgraceful fluff. It's Operation Happy Talk. And while it goes on, while we're bored with a non-story passing for front page news, the Times can't even report on Tal Afar.
What do they do in the Green Zone?
Yes, Friday, finally, a story ran in the Times on Tel Afar: "U.S.-Iraqi Sweep Arrests 200 in Rebel Staging Area" but the Times receives no credit for that article, it's an Associated Press article. Whatever it's positives or minuses, all the Times did was run a report by another news organization.So what do they do in the Green Zone?
And what the hell is Robert F. Worth? Is he a reporter? Is he an op-ed writer? Read"Basra Bombs Kill 16 Iraqis and 4 U.S. Contractors" and try to answer that question.
I'm unable to grasp how, in a story on bombings, this opening qualifies for a news report:
There was also a piece of good news: American military officials said [. . .]
What did "American military officials" say? It doesn't matter for this discussion. (A contractor was released.) What is that judgement call ("good news") doing in the paper? Is Worth channeling Matt Lauer? Tip to Worth: "In other news . . ." You're supposed to be reporting. You're not there to editorialize. The sentence, the part noted above, reveals all that is wrong with the Times reporting on Iraq.
"American military officials said . . ." That's the basis for every damn thing. (Yes, I'm tossing around "damn." Call me Bumiller. But "damn" is much more mild than the word I'm saying outloud as I dictate this.) Reporters are supposed to serve as the eyes and ears of the public. That's why they're called the "watch dogs." That's not happening when every "report" is a press release. "American military officials said . . ." And what did you see Robert F. Worth? What did you hear? Not what were you told. What did you observe all by yourself?
Or does that require leaving the Green Zone? From all accounts, it's Delta House there so who would want to leave -- other than someone with a modicum of taste?
Look they can Boys Gone Wild it or not all they want in the Green Zone, I don't care. I do care what makes into print but I wonder if anyone reporting from the Green Zone does?
I did a conference call with three friends (reporters) on this asking them to play devil's advocate so I could anticipate the responses. (The Times would call the phone call "reporting.")
So here's the big argument. "It's not safe. I could lose my life."You know what, cover cook-offs. If that's your excuse, cover cook-offs. No one's forcing you to be there. The paper certainly isn't forcing anyone. Reporters are choosing to be there. If you're a reporter and you're there, you need to be reporting.
It's not safe, doesn't cut it. It wasn't safe for Daniel Pearl. He went after the story. Others have before him and will after. The attitude of "Oh it's tough here so you have to cut me slack" doesn't wash. You get off your asses or the Times needs to appoint J-school graduates who are ready to dig in and find stories. (Which the Times, being the Times, will water down. But a diluted news report is still more powerful than any of the diluted press releases that regularly get filed.)
There is nothing, I repeat nothing, that reporters can point to with pride coming out of Iraq for the paper. You're not making a name for yourself. The t-shirt you should be furnished with when you depart can only proclaim: "I SURVIVED THE GREEN ZONE." That's all that's being done. Reporting isn't being done. (And the Times is becoming a joke to other print organizations over their "reporting" from Iraq.)
Want a blast from the past? Try this ("More Iraqi Army Dead Found in Mosul; 2 Clerics Slain," November 23, 2004):
Basic services are still unavailable in Falluja, and the valves in the city's main water-treatment plant are still not working. But troops will provide bottled water until the plant and the city's heavily damaged water and sewer pipes can be fixed, the general said.
The general said it, did he? Well Richard A. Oppel. Jr. and James Glanz, did you follow up on that? Or did you just print what you were told? (Rhetorical question.)
Does anyone working for the Times in Iraq do anything more than play telephone chain? Does anyone not buckle immediately?
From Molly Bingham's "Home From Iraq" (Atlanta Journal-Constitution):
The intimidation to not work on this story was evident. Dexter Filkins, who writes for The New York Times, related a conversation he had in Iraq with an American military commander... Towards the end of one of their conversations, Dexter declined an invitation for the next day by explaining that he'd lined up a meeting with a "resistance guy." The commander's face went stony cold and he said, "We have a position on that." For Dexter the message was clear. He cancelled the appointment.
If you're going to discuss Iraq, you have to discuss Filkins at some point. I'm aware it's more pleasing to discuss Judith Miller. But if she had a part in getting us over into Iraq, it's the "reporters" like Filkins who keep us there. For the record, Filkins has denied Bingham's version of the events. People will have to make up their own minds as to whom to take the word of.
While you're attempting to sort that out, let's again note this:
Christian Parenti mentioned Filkins last night on The Laura Flanders Show: "Dexter Filkins politics are very different from the Dexter Filkins politics we know in the New York Times. [In person, he's saying] 'Oh it's awful, the situation is totally out of control.'" That's a paraphrase (I've left out a "Dude" among other things).
Oh, it's awful, the situation is totally out of control?Didn't seem that way when Filkins reported "In Faulluja, Young Marines Saw the Savagery of an Urban War" -- his rah-rah-rah piece of "award winning" journalism. Six days after the battle (Nov. 15), Filkins' story makes it into print. Exactly how slowly does he type? Exactly whom edited that copy?
From Dahr Jamail's "Iraqi Hospitals Ailing Under Occupation" (pdf format, you can find the quote below at this site here):
Burhan Fasa'a, a cameramn with the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation (LBC), witnessed the first eight days of the fighting. "I entered Falljuah near the Julan Quarter, which is near the General Hospital," he said during an interview in Baghdad. "There were American snipers on top of the hospital," who, he testified, "were shooting everyone in sight." The Iraqi Red Crescent would have to wait a full week before being permitted to dispatch three ambulances into the city.
Not quite the way Filkins reported it. For that matter, not quite the way Richard A. Oppel, Jr. and James Glanz report it. (They report that the Iraqi Red Crescent found no one when they entered Falluja. They just fail to seriously address why that is.) It goes beyond Filkins but Filkins has the prize and he contributed the go-go boy gone wild story that portrays a massacre as a video game. Reality: Preceding the blood bath, males of "fighting age" were prevented from leaving that city. The destruction was severe and has not been "fixed." (Does the United States military still provide bottled water? Did they ever? Not what they told you, but what you could verify, please.)
Press releases continue to pass for reporting ("Hussein Confessed to Massacre Order, Iraqi President Says") and they should all be worried. They're the upcoming Judy Millers. They're the laughingstock of many of their peers. (Filkins epecially whose appearance on Terry Gross's Fresh Air is legendary -- and the tales repeated of it are far more interesting than what he actually said on air.)
Let's note this:
On this 60th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Amy Goodman, host of the national radio and TV show "Democracy Now!" is submitting a formal request to the board of the Pulitzer Prize, calling for The New York Times and its reporter William Laurence to be stripped of the 1946 Pulitzer Prize for their coverage of the atomic bomb. Laurence was also on the payroll of the US War Department. Goodman recently wrote an Op-Ed in The Baltimore Sun (written with journalist David Goodman, her brother) called "The Hiroshima Coverup" (see http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0805-20.htm ).Goodman said, "William Laurence and the New York Times won a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on the atomic bomb, and his faithful parroting of the government line was crucial in launching a half-century of silence about the deadly lingering effects of the bomb. It is time for the Pulitzer board to strip the atomic bomb apologist and his newspaper of this undeserved prize."
This is Filkins future. I used to assume that it would take place long after he was gone. (And long after I was gone.) But he's the one reporters bring up to me. They're friends and they know I consider his reporting proganda. (Had the election gone differently, would his story have been more realistic?) So maybe they're just saying what they say to please me? I don't think so. (I could, as always, be wrong.)
But away from them, when you walk someone through Filkins reporting, someone who has no idea who he is, they grasp that its people like Filkins that keep us in Iraq.
By failing to report accurately what Operation Enduring Falsehood did (and what they do) they allow a number of otherwise well meaning people to think "fine tuning" is an answer. (Filkins is also a laughing stock for a TV appearance I missed. He supposedly minimized a trial for the abuses of Abu Ghraib -- with regard to instructions from above.) Fine tuning isn't an answer. As Filkins allegedy told Parenti, "It's totally out of control." Until that truth makes it into the reports, I'm saddened by those who argue fine tuning and aren't war hawks but I don't blame them for the failures of the press to report reality. They're being short changed. (Hawks aren't. They don't need excuses to continue war. They thrive on it the way some in the Green Zone thrive on the chaos.)
But here's the reason Filkins may feel the bite while he's still alive. Some domestic reporters in the United States aren't speaking fondly of the embeds. They're pointing fingers right now as the clampdowns that reporters have gone along with in Iraq come home to the United States.
The Boys Gone Wild are also a joke to people who've served in the area. And those first hand accounts will continue to come out. A Worth or Glanz will be embarrassed for being so quick to print press releases, but Filkins was in Falluja. He saw with his own eyes and he didn't report.
The bodies, the limbs piled up in the streets, Filkins somehow missed. And he was there. A friend at one of the top ten (circulation) dailies has gone from lukewarm support of Filkins' infamous "reporting" to outright disgust with it. The opinion is there is no "comeback" from it. That Filkins could do a mea culpa and return his prize and he'd still be damaged goods.
That kind of talk may not make it into the Green Zone but Filkins should worry. And so should the paper.
In an early November piece on Falluja (this one co-written with James Glanz), a military officer told Filkins that "it ought to go down in history." Filkins accepted the gung-hu attitude, too bad he didn't consider the words themselves. This will go down in history. This will haunt the Times and it will haunt Filkins.
Amy and David Goodman may not get the Times stripped of a Pulitizer (though I hope they do) but just addressing the issue accomplishes something. And when the issue of Dexter Filkins is seriously addressed it will further tarnish the paper's name.
With Judith Miller, the paper waited far too late to address the situation. (Both her reporting itself and the legal argument they attempt to make -- they not Millers' attornies.) If they hem and haw with regards to what passes for "reporting" from Iraq currently, they'll further hurt their already badly damaged reputation. In the meantime, by not revisiting the press releases they published, they do real reporting, democracy and the people of the United States a huge disservice because they're not reporting. It took Cindy Sheehan to act as the spark to wake up a nation. The Times could have done that long ago with some strong reporting. It shouldn't be the job of the editorials to try to later straighten out the reporting.
And as the press in the United States feels they're under attack, they're making some rather rude comments about those in the Green Zone that they feel have condoned this sort of behavior.
Democracy Now! noted the following Friday:
The journalists who have been covering Hurricane Katrina have literally been risking their lives for the last week. Reporters have been stationed in and around New Orleans since the Hurricane hit and have tirelessly reported on the devastation to the city. Some journalists have expressed enormous outrage at government officials for their slow response. A few television reporters openly broke down on air as they report the horrific conditions and the desperation of victims. Reporters have witnessed the militarization of the city and are starting to feel the effects of the government crack-down on information gathering. FEMA is now rejecting requests by journalists to accompany rescue boats searching for storm victims. In addition, journalists are being asked not to photograph any dead bodies in the region. NBC News Anchor Brian Williams reported on his blog, that police officers had been seen aiming their weapons at members of the media. And a blogger named Bob Brigham wrote a widely read dispatch that the National Guard in Jefferson County are under orders to turn all journalists away. Brigham writes: "Bush is now censoring all reporting from New Orleans, Louisiana. The First Amendment sank with the city."Earlier this week, Reporters Without Borders issued a warning about police violence against journalists working in New Orleans. They highlighted two cases – in one case police detained a Times-Picayune photographer and smashed his equipment to the ground after he was seen covering a shoot-out with police. In the second case, a photographer from the Toronto Star was detained by police and his photos taken from him when police realized that he had snapped photos of a clash between them and citizens who the police claimed were looters.
Those in the Green Zone may have kidded themselves, if they were non-Arabic, that they weren't being controlled. It was just the Arabic reporters suffering, right?
A Dexter Filkins could cancel the meeting with the resistance and kid himself that he made the choice. (Like Madonna' s ludicrous claim in the nineties that the difference was she chained herself.) The "choices" that have been made are now impacting reporters outside the Green Zone and they aren't amused. That's why the Times should be concerned. The rumblings and grumblings are coming from their competitors. Not from independent media, which the Times would easily dismiss (as it so often does). I don't know that other dailies are doing a better job than the Times (the daily I read is the New York Times). They seem to think to think they are. Three reporters in particular (two at one organization, one at another) are mentioned repeatedly (by press not affiliated with the two organizations).
The Times is aware that Judith Miller has become the fall guy for every reporter that gave breathless (and non questioning) coverage to WMD claims. So they're familiar with the concept of a fall guy. (They've also created a few over the years.) They should be really concerned right now because although Filkins isn't the "name" that Miller is (even people who didn't read her reporting in real time can now list the problems with it), he'll quickly become that. One reporter trying to cover New Orleans has already used Filkins as an adjective to express dismay over conditions that authorities attempted to impose. ("They thought I'd do a Filkins!")
Whereas the derision of Miller began with the independent press, Filkins' is starting at the top. Again, he wrote a first person account of what happened in Falluja. That's hard to come back from as details continue to emerge about what didn't get reported in that piece of melodrama.
The paper should be very worried. It took years for the criticism of Miller to go beyond independent media. If Filkins gets burned by the mainstream press, it will be a much harder hit than any criticism the Times faces over Miller.
The fact that they've continued to offer press releases won't help them either. They should have dealt with this long ago. They need a new chief in Baghdad and they need it right away.
What Americans need is some honest reporting.
9/09/2005
jess & joan the two diamonds in the rust
thank yous to everyone who wrote about yesterday's post. telling it like it is, that's why i'm here. i'm going to note something from the common ills right off the bat:
I understand you're angry. Rebecca's angry as well and should have a post up about this. I haven't read it yet (and honestly don't have time -- I'm tired, it's late, we've got entries to do here) so go read her. She wasn't able to reach Cedric (and he's e-mailed a highlight for tonight's roundup and notes that he's not even going to read "the nonsense" that's going up at that site). Betty spent the day taking one of her kids to the doctor. I returned her call while I was reading through the e-mails. Her attitude is that no matter how he intends it, it's hurtful. She has no time for it. (A point echoed in the e-mails.)
a number of you had e-mailed last night asking where cedric and betty stood. i wasn't able to reach betty. she was in the waiting room for most of the day. cedric did e-mail that he hadn't read it and that he'd write later. by the time he had, i had already posted. they want to do some kind of editorial comment during the third estate sunday review news review this weekend. they feel since they are community members and since they are african-american, they need to have a statement of some kind. they're still attempting to figure out what they want to say and how they want to say it but look for that in the next edition of the third estate sunday review. betty wants to invite ty to help as well but they haven't been able to get ahold of him yet.
betty told me that if you look at our community, the common ills community, we're very inclusive and if you then look at the people who blog from the community, it shows. she traces that to c.i. who won't back down from an issue just because 'oh only the irish catholics care about that' or some such nonsense. i think she's right. from the start of this community, women have been just as much a part of it as any 1 else. it's not catered to a white audience. betty thinks that's part of the reason it's grown so much and continues to grow.
and i want to thank cedric for the support he gave me in his 1st post (and the support he gives me whenever we're talking). no, it's not always easy but you do what you think you have to or you become a centrist.
3 people wrote to ask if i was serious/sincere about mike getting to break the news about elaine?
yes, i was. mike earned the scoop due to his work on getting people to weigh in to elaine. there's also the fact that everyone loves mike. he can be a big goof or the most sensitive guy in the world. which is always weird because he's a manly dude. but there's just something about him that draws you to him. he's like a puppy.
i was serious about letting secrets slip. i let 1 slip this week here. i didn't know it was a secret about the cd of his own music that jess burned for me. his mother called today and asked if it was okay to come visit after she finished up in the city. i told her of course but was wondering if some thing was wrong because when i offered to take the ferry in and meet her, she made it clear that she wanted to come here.
turns out, she wanted to hear jess's music. i didn't realize it was a secret that he'd put some down. or that he hadn't made a copy for a lot of people. she was blown away, just like i was. he has this amazing baritone and he sings so cool. he also plays the hell out of a guitar. this was really a treat and something i'll treasure.
and his mom wanted a copy and i didn't have the heart to say 'ask your son' so i burned her off a copy of my copy. i was dreading jess's reaction because he's a peaceful kind of feeling guy but i knew he wouldn't be pleased. turns out it all worked out for the best. she told him as long as he'd do that at least once a year, she'd stop pestering him about dropping journalism and making music.
jess said her concern was that he would become a reporter after college and never pick up the guitar again. that's a valid concern because he is incredible.
i'm glad it worked out but that's the sort of secret i end up letting slip. and sometimes i'm not even aware of it until after the fact.
i want to note kat's review of joan baez's bowery songs cd which is really just amazing. i've had a wealth of great music to listen to this week with jess and joan both. here's kat's review:
"Kat's Korner: Joan Baez Bringing It All Back Home on Bowery Songs"
So there we were at The Fillmore. Sumner, Maggie, Dak-Ho and me. Toni couldn't go because she'd just started a new job and had to be on call. We'd driven to San Francisco so it was just as well because Toni swears the city is out to get her and every other smoker in the country.
It was 2004. March. That much we can agree on.
After that, it gets messy. Maggie's convinced it was the 21st of March. Sumner says it was the 12th. Dak-Ho can't remember. My ticket stub says March 13th. You might think my ticket stub would settle it. If so, you don't know my crowd. All the ticket stub led to was debates of "What if the stub had the wrong date on it?"
All four of us agree that we were at The Fillmore in 2004. Except for Dak-Ho, we can agree it was in March. Maggie can remember her exact outfit. You might be thinking, "But Kat, she's got the date wrong!" (Because, Maggie, you do have the date wrong. And I'm still waiting for you to return that Judy Collins CD.) Maggie can remember her exact outfit on any day, any event."Maggie, remember that time we saw Dylan?"
"We never saw Dylan."
"Maggie, remember that time we saw Dylan and you wore the black mini-skirt?"
"Oh, the leather one!" she'll squeal. "I remember I had on the cameo and when he performed 'Just Like A Woman' . . ."
Point is, there's never a great deal of agreement. But on one thing we do agree. Joan Baez was phenomenal. We're disputing the opening act. (I'm sure it was a female with an acoustic guitar and I'll put money on that.) We're disputing where we ate after the show. We were too nervous to eat before because when you're seeing the Queen, you don't want to show up stuffed -- the music will feed you.
Dark Chords On A Big Guitar was the album she was touring behind and we were all agreed that it was one of her finest. We tried to remember that Baez had been hitting the road for four decades now and that what could be accomplished in the studio might not be replicated live.
Point is, we were concerned about the voice. Forget Mel Gibson, Joan Baez is the road warrior. What, you thought it was Dylan? You obviously missed his periodic retirements.
After four decades plus of touring, what was the voice going to sound like? Sumner said it didn't matter what she sounded like, that it was important to support real music in an age of plastique. He's French so he can travel down the high minded road. Dak-Ho said as long as she sang "Amazing Grace," he didn't care about anything else. Maggie was swearing she'd cry and worse if Joan Baez's voice was anything "less than better than okay."Maggie cried. She ended up crying nonstop. I think I first noticed it when Baez was singing "Rosemary Moore." But here's the thing, she wasn't crying because Baez had lost it, she was crying because Baez seemed to have gained so much more than any of us expected.
That voice was more powerful than any of us remembered or realized. She could still hit those high notes she first gained fame for. Still take you back. But there was this force and body behind the voice that we weren't used to.
We've pretty much seen everyone. Stones? Check. McCartney? Check. Dave Matthews Band? Check. Tori Amos? Check, check, check. Nirvana? Check. Aretha Franklin? Check. Ryan Adams? Check. We even saw the Return to Love tour that teamed Diana Ross with two Supremes she'd never seemed to have met before they took the stage. But this was our first time seeing Joan Baez.We're used to a ragged voice and an off night. We're used to a lot of things.
We weren't prepared for that concert.
Now comes Bowery Songs which captures Joan Baez on that tour, eight months later.
I was nervous when I finally got the plastic nightmare wrapping and the mocking sticker off-off the case. I was nervous when I put the CD in the stereo. Sumner called and I used that as an excuse not to listen. Told myself I wanted to give it my full attention.
Truth is, I was afraid I'd be disappointed.
After twenty minutes of chatting with Sumner about the nightmare that is John Roberts Jr., I hung up and felt like the stereo and I were headed for a huge confrontation.
Too early in the day for conflict, so I made myself some toast and intended to read the paper.
But since I'd be in the kitchen, what harm could it do to have the stereo in the living room playing in the background?
Sort of ease myself into it.
Seemed like a good idea.
I turn on the stereo and arrive back in the kitchen just as the toast bounces up from the slots.
I'm buttering and realizing Baez's starting off sans instruments.
Forget the toast, I'm back in the living room. Song's called "Finlandia."
I am, not by nature, a worry wart. I'm pretty laid back. Except when it comes to musical expectations. By the time Baez was holding the "I" in "holy shrine," my worries were gone.
It was a brave choice to open the concert (and the album) with. It instantly answers everyone's worries about the voice (which should actually be "The Voice"). Having laid the doubts to rest, we're all ready for the gentle sway and jangle that is "Rexroth's Daughter."
Here's the thing about the CD that was true of the concert as well, Baez is so vested in the songs, all of them, that you're not sitting there thinking, "Where's 'Diamonds & Rust?' Hey, we want 'Diamonds & Rust!'" That's the power of a singer, a real one. You don't feel cheated if they don't immediately launch into the catalogue.
I have From Every Stage and love the album. But I really think Baez has found the best band she's ever recorded with. The music accents the voice instead of competing with it. (For an example of that, listen to Baez's Blowing Away.) The voice has always had warmth.
That instrument was so stunning from the start. Maybe because the songs were mournful ballads the warmth of Baez's voice didn't get the attention it should have? That's part of what moves you when you listen to those Vanguard CDs now. The sadness is all the more tragic because it's coming from a voice that like. What's been added now is wisdom and experience. You notice it in her phrasing, in the way she accents a line or goes soft where you don't expect it but where it perfectly serves the song.
"Deportee (Plane Wreck at Los Gatos)" is the perfect example. Listen to it on Blessed Are from the end of her tenure with Vanguard and listen to the live version. How many singers can sing a song over thirty year later that improves on their original recording? I count one.
Baez was The Voice and I don't mean to take away anything from those recordings that she made her name with. But when you listen to her sing "Deportee" on Bowery Songs, you wonder, "Where did she learn to caress the lyric like that?" That's wisdom and experience.
It's not melodrama.
It could be. It could very easily be. Put her in a long wig, hand her the acoustic guitar and let her turn in some gross caricature of her 60s self. Nancy Sinatra does that and a lot of people are pleased by it. "It's like she hasn't changed a bit!" you can hear people say.Forty years passed and the artist is exactly the same? That may comfort on some level but on another level, it's frightening. Makes you wonder what they've done with the last forty years?
Baez's life is as famous as her music, sometimes more famous.
Bowery Songs should go a long away in evening the balance on that score because she's working a winning streak these days. This is the perfect follow up to 2003 Dark Chords On A Big Guitar. In fact, "follow up" doesn't really capture it because that strikes me as implying she's "coasting." This is a further progression. So much so, that I'll need a pot of green tea and a handful of something stronger when the next album comes out. Joan Baez will give me hyper tension at this rate.
Take "Christmas In Washington," Steve Earle's meditation on the state of humanity. Baez nailed that song, for the first time, in 2003. How does she find new layers -- trust me, she finds them -- in a song she only been performing on the road for a year?
"Okay, Kat, she's on a hot streak. She does a great job with the new and newer material and maybe with that Woody Guthrie song, but come on, the album can't be that amazing. Can it?"
It can. It is.
If you grew up listening to her, or if you saw the Lili Taylor & River Phoenix film Dogfight, you're probably familiar with "Silver Daggers." It's a hallmark. Listen to the line "She says that I can't be your bride" and contrast it with the original. Baez nailed it the first time and if she went for the same notes, same tone, same phrasing, we'd all applaud the jukebox quality of the performance. But she's living that song, living that line. You're hearing the song anew and noting moments that weren't there before. Note the band here as well. They're giving the song room to breathe and adding additional textures. The band, by the way, is George Javori, Erik Della Penna, Graham Maby and Duke McVinnie. Note how their accents are like gentle drops of rain and how much that brings to the mood of "Silver Daggers."
That may be part of the reason this live CD works so well. There's a tendency for a lot of acts to rush the songs, especially the well known ones. "Okay, they all want to hear '____' so let's just toss that one out and get it over with." The tempo on Dylan's last tour, for instance, seemed to have been thought up while he was snorting crushed Ritalin.
Joan Baez was never a studio rat. She was a live performer before she stepped into a studio. Bowery Songs will remind you just how much of a live performer she is.
Back in March of 2004, at The Fillmore, the song that gave me goosebumps was "Rosemary Moore." As her voice echoed, rose and fell, climbed the highs and bottomed out so perfectly, I looked over and there was Maggie crying. Baez performed the song that beautifully. It's a sign of how perfectly this album captures Baez that I haven't lamented the fact that "Rosemary Moore" doesn't appear on the album.
This is a new classic for Baez. There are three months left in 2005 and there's not been a great deal of new material that you had to have or you were missing out on something great, but this album is something you need to hear. I can tell you we saw Joan Baez on March 13th. I can tell you Maggie wore a suede dress. (On the dress, Maggie agrees.) But with Bowery Songs, there's not a whole lot more I can tell you. I can tell you to check it out. I can tell you it will delight you, amaze you. But I can't bring home how wonderful it is. You have to hear it for yourself.
I understand you're angry. Rebecca's angry as well and should have a post up about this. I haven't read it yet (and honestly don't have time -- I'm tired, it's late, we've got entries to do here) so go read her. She wasn't able to reach Cedric (and he's e-mailed a highlight for tonight's roundup and notes that he's not even going to read "the nonsense" that's going up at that site). Betty spent the day taking one of her kids to the doctor. I returned her call while I was reading through the e-mails. Her attitude is that no matter how he intends it, it's hurtful. She has no time for it. (A point echoed in the e-mails.)
a number of you had e-mailed last night asking where cedric and betty stood. i wasn't able to reach betty. she was in the waiting room for most of the day. cedric did e-mail that he hadn't read it and that he'd write later. by the time he had, i had already posted. they want to do some kind of editorial comment during the third estate sunday review news review this weekend. they feel since they are community members and since they are african-american, they need to have a statement of some kind. they're still attempting to figure out what they want to say and how they want to say it but look for that in the next edition of the third estate sunday review. betty wants to invite ty to help as well but they haven't been able to get ahold of him yet.
betty told me that if you look at our community, the common ills community, we're very inclusive and if you then look at the people who blog from the community, it shows. she traces that to c.i. who won't back down from an issue just because 'oh only the irish catholics care about that' or some such nonsense. i think she's right. from the start of this community, women have been just as much a part of it as any 1 else. it's not catered to a white audience. betty thinks that's part of the reason it's grown so much and continues to grow.
and i want to thank cedric for the support he gave me in his 1st post (and the support he gives me whenever we're talking). no, it's not always easy but you do what you think you have to or you become a centrist.
3 people wrote to ask if i was serious/sincere about mike getting to break the news about elaine?
yes, i was. mike earned the scoop due to his work on getting people to weigh in to elaine. there's also the fact that everyone loves mike. he can be a big goof or the most sensitive guy in the world. which is always weird because he's a manly dude. but there's just something about him that draws you to him. he's like a puppy.
i was serious about letting secrets slip. i let 1 slip this week here. i didn't know it was a secret about the cd of his own music that jess burned for me. his mother called today and asked if it was okay to come visit after she finished up in the city. i told her of course but was wondering if some thing was wrong because when i offered to take the ferry in and meet her, she made it clear that she wanted to come here.
turns out, she wanted to hear jess's music. i didn't realize it was a secret that he'd put some down. or that he hadn't made a copy for a lot of people. she was blown away, just like i was. he has this amazing baritone and he sings so cool. he also plays the hell out of a guitar. this was really a treat and something i'll treasure.
and his mom wanted a copy and i didn't have the heart to say 'ask your son' so i burned her off a copy of my copy. i was dreading jess's reaction because he's a peaceful kind of feeling guy but i knew he wouldn't be pleased. turns out it all worked out for the best. she told him as long as he'd do that at least once a year, she'd stop pestering him about dropping journalism and making music.
jess said her concern was that he would become a reporter after college and never pick up the guitar again. that's a valid concern because he is incredible.
i'm glad it worked out but that's the sort of secret i end up letting slip. and sometimes i'm not even aware of it until after the fact.
i want to note kat's review of joan baez's bowery songs cd which is really just amazing. i've had a wealth of great music to listen to this week with jess and joan both. here's kat's review:
"Kat's Korner: Joan Baez Bringing It All Back Home on Bowery Songs"
So there we were at The Fillmore. Sumner, Maggie, Dak-Ho and me. Toni couldn't go because she'd just started a new job and had to be on call. We'd driven to San Francisco so it was just as well because Toni swears the city is out to get her and every other smoker in the country.
It was 2004. March. That much we can agree on.
After that, it gets messy. Maggie's convinced it was the 21st of March. Sumner says it was the 12th. Dak-Ho can't remember. My ticket stub says March 13th. You might think my ticket stub would settle it. If so, you don't know my crowd. All the ticket stub led to was debates of "What if the stub had the wrong date on it?"
All four of us agree that we were at The Fillmore in 2004. Except for Dak-Ho, we can agree it was in March. Maggie can remember her exact outfit. You might be thinking, "But Kat, she's got the date wrong!" (Because, Maggie, you do have the date wrong. And I'm still waiting for you to return that Judy Collins CD.) Maggie can remember her exact outfit on any day, any event."Maggie, remember that time we saw Dylan?"
"We never saw Dylan."
"Maggie, remember that time we saw Dylan and you wore the black mini-skirt?"
"Oh, the leather one!" she'll squeal. "I remember I had on the cameo and when he performed 'Just Like A Woman' . . ."
Point is, there's never a great deal of agreement. But on one thing we do agree. Joan Baez was phenomenal. We're disputing the opening act. (I'm sure it was a female with an acoustic guitar and I'll put money on that.) We're disputing where we ate after the show. We were too nervous to eat before because when you're seeing the Queen, you don't want to show up stuffed -- the music will feed you.
Dark Chords On A Big Guitar was the album she was touring behind and we were all agreed that it was one of her finest. We tried to remember that Baez had been hitting the road for four decades now and that what could be accomplished in the studio might not be replicated live.
Point is, we were concerned about the voice. Forget Mel Gibson, Joan Baez is the road warrior. What, you thought it was Dylan? You obviously missed his periodic retirements.
After four decades plus of touring, what was the voice going to sound like? Sumner said it didn't matter what she sounded like, that it was important to support real music in an age of plastique. He's French so he can travel down the high minded road. Dak-Ho said as long as she sang "Amazing Grace," he didn't care about anything else. Maggie was swearing she'd cry and worse if Joan Baez's voice was anything "less than better than okay."Maggie cried. She ended up crying nonstop. I think I first noticed it when Baez was singing "Rosemary Moore." But here's the thing, she wasn't crying because Baez had lost it, she was crying because Baez seemed to have gained so much more than any of us expected.
That voice was more powerful than any of us remembered or realized. She could still hit those high notes she first gained fame for. Still take you back. But there was this force and body behind the voice that we weren't used to.
We've pretty much seen everyone. Stones? Check. McCartney? Check. Dave Matthews Band? Check. Tori Amos? Check, check, check. Nirvana? Check. Aretha Franklin? Check. Ryan Adams? Check. We even saw the Return to Love tour that teamed Diana Ross with two Supremes she'd never seemed to have met before they took the stage. But this was our first time seeing Joan Baez.We're used to a ragged voice and an off night. We're used to a lot of things.
We weren't prepared for that concert.
Now comes Bowery Songs which captures Joan Baez on that tour, eight months later.
I was nervous when I finally got the plastic nightmare wrapping and the mocking sticker off-off the case. I was nervous when I put the CD in the stereo. Sumner called and I used that as an excuse not to listen. Told myself I wanted to give it my full attention.
Truth is, I was afraid I'd be disappointed.
After twenty minutes of chatting with Sumner about the nightmare that is John Roberts Jr., I hung up and felt like the stereo and I were headed for a huge confrontation.
Too early in the day for conflict, so I made myself some toast and intended to read the paper.
But since I'd be in the kitchen, what harm could it do to have the stereo in the living room playing in the background?
Sort of ease myself into it.
Seemed like a good idea.
I turn on the stereo and arrive back in the kitchen just as the toast bounces up from the slots.
I'm buttering and realizing Baez's starting off sans instruments.
Forget the toast, I'm back in the living room. Song's called "Finlandia."
I am, not by nature, a worry wart. I'm pretty laid back. Except when it comes to musical expectations. By the time Baez was holding the "I" in "holy shrine," my worries were gone.
It was a brave choice to open the concert (and the album) with. It instantly answers everyone's worries about the voice (which should actually be "The Voice"). Having laid the doubts to rest, we're all ready for the gentle sway and jangle that is "Rexroth's Daughter."
Here's the thing about the CD that was true of the concert as well, Baez is so vested in the songs, all of them, that you're not sitting there thinking, "Where's 'Diamonds & Rust?' Hey, we want 'Diamonds & Rust!'" That's the power of a singer, a real one. You don't feel cheated if they don't immediately launch into the catalogue.
I have From Every Stage and love the album. But I really think Baez has found the best band she's ever recorded with. The music accents the voice instead of competing with it. (For an example of that, listen to Baez's Blowing Away.) The voice has always had warmth.
That instrument was so stunning from the start. Maybe because the songs were mournful ballads the warmth of Baez's voice didn't get the attention it should have? That's part of what moves you when you listen to those Vanguard CDs now. The sadness is all the more tragic because it's coming from a voice that like. What's been added now is wisdom and experience. You notice it in her phrasing, in the way she accents a line or goes soft where you don't expect it but where it perfectly serves the song.
"Deportee (Plane Wreck at Los Gatos)" is the perfect example. Listen to it on Blessed Are from the end of her tenure with Vanguard and listen to the live version. How many singers can sing a song over thirty year later that improves on their original recording? I count one.
Baez was The Voice and I don't mean to take away anything from those recordings that she made her name with. But when you listen to her sing "Deportee" on Bowery Songs, you wonder, "Where did she learn to caress the lyric like that?" That's wisdom and experience.
It's not melodrama.
It could be. It could very easily be. Put her in a long wig, hand her the acoustic guitar and let her turn in some gross caricature of her 60s self. Nancy Sinatra does that and a lot of people are pleased by it. "It's like she hasn't changed a bit!" you can hear people say.Forty years passed and the artist is exactly the same? That may comfort on some level but on another level, it's frightening. Makes you wonder what they've done with the last forty years?
Baez's life is as famous as her music, sometimes more famous.
Bowery Songs should go a long away in evening the balance on that score because she's working a winning streak these days. This is the perfect follow up to 2003 Dark Chords On A Big Guitar. In fact, "follow up" doesn't really capture it because that strikes me as implying she's "coasting." This is a further progression. So much so, that I'll need a pot of green tea and a handful of something stronger when the next album comes out. Joan Baez will give me hyper tension at this rate.
Take "Christmas In Washington," Steve Earle's meditation on the state of humanity. Baez nailed that song, for the first time, in 2003. How does she find new layers -- trust me, she finds them -- in a song she only been performing on the road for a year?
"Okay, Kat, she's on a hot streak. She does a great job with the new and newer material and maybe with that Woody Guthrie song, but come on, the album can't be that amazing. Can it?"
It can. It is.
If you grew up listening to her, or if you saw the Lili Taylor & River Phoenix film Dogfight, you're probably familiar with "Silver Daggers." It's a hallmark. Listen to the line "She says that I can't be your bride" and contrast it with the original. Baez nailed it the first time and if she went for the same notes, same tone, same phrasing, we'd all applaud the jukebox quality of the performance. But she's living that song, living that line. You're hearing the song anew and noting moments that weren't there before. Note the band here as well. They're giving the song room to breathe and adding additional textures. The band, by the way, is George Javori, Erik Della Penna, Graham Maby and Duke McVinnie. Note how their accents are like gentle drops of rain and how much that brings to the mood of "Silver Daggers."
That may be part of the reason this live CD works so well. There's a tendency for a lot of acts to rush the songs, especially the well known ones. "Okay, they all want to hear '____' so let's just toss that one out and get it over with." The tempo on Dylan's last tour, for instance, seemed to have been thought up while he was snorting crushed Ritalin.
Joan Baez was never a studio rat. She was a live performer before she stepped into a studio. Bowery Songs will remind you just how much of a live performer she is.
Back in March of 2004, at The Fillmore, the song that gave me goosebumps was "Rosemary Moore." As her voice echoed, rose and fell, climbed the highs and bottomed out so perfectly, I looked over and there was Maggie crying. Baez performed the song that beautifully. It's a sign of how perfectly this album captures Baez that I haven't lamented the fact that "Rosemary Moore" doesn't appear on the album.
This is a new classic for Baez. There are three months left in 2005 and there's not been a great deal of new material that you had to have or you were missing out on something great, but this album is something you need to hear. I can tell you we saw Joan Baez on March 13th. I can tell you Maggie wore a suede dress. (On the dress, Maggie agrees.) But with Bowery Songs, there's not a whole lot more I can tell you. I can tell you to check it out. I can tell you it will delight you, amaze you. But I can't bring home how wonderful it is. You have to hear it for yourself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)