Friday, February 10, 2006

"Performing the dual roles of confessor and confessee . . ."

Mike and I are both wiped out from the week (and the cold especially). So we're doing two items from Democracy Now! and that's it for tonight. We're trying to do them in a different manner and I have no idea if we'll succeed at that or not. But please visit Mikey Likes It! because I'm sure he'll have more luck than I do.

Libby Testifies "Superiors" Ordered Leak of Classified Information (Democracy Now!):
New evidence has emerged linking Vice President Dick Cheney to the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. Investigative journalist Murray Waas has revealed testimony from Lewis "Scooter" Libby -- Cheney's indicted former chief of staff -- before a federal grand jury. Libby testified he had been "authorized" by Cheney and other White House "superiors" to disclose classified information to journalists to defend the Bush administration’s use of prewar intelligence in making the case to invade Iraq. Larry Johnson, a former intelligence official and colleague of Plame's said: "This was not some rogue operation, but was directed at the highest levels, and specifically by Dick Cheney. Libby was definitely a man with a mission, but a man who was given a mission."

Scoots. Is he learning to walk? Is he trying out new strategies to see what will play best?

"Anything I did, I did on Cheney's orders" sounds like one more "strong executive branch" argument to me. I know we're supposed to be excited at the prospect that Scooter will roll over on Cheney but we're talking about a case that's not being heard tomorrow. So what does this really mean if anything?

Ex-CIA Mideast Officer Accuses Bush Admin. Of "Cherry-Picking" Iraq Intel (Democracy Now!):
Meanwhile, the CIA's former national intelligence officer for the Middle East has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence to justify the Iraq invasion. In a new article in Foreign Affairs, Paul Pillar writes: "It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions. Intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made…and the intelligence community's own work was politicized."

What if, this is the new thing, Mike's doing it for the first topic, I'm doing it for this one . . .
What if all the CIA analysts who'd been ignored and shunted aside by the administration held a collective press conference where they came forward with everything they knew? I'm sure Porter Goss would try to retaliate but, if they stuck together, it would be harder to do it to everyone.

It takes more than one whistleblower and, as the case of Sibel Edmunds demonstrates, it takes the press being willing to run with the story. They weren't interested in Sibel's story. Why was that? While beating their chests and rubbing their eyes regarding 9/11, they've never reallly been interested in any story that went beyond what you saw in the footage that was aired on TV.

If 30 or 50 analysts decided to hold a joint press conference, would the media cover it?

Is there a magic number? Does it take a hundred if there is?

C.I. noted last night that between Sunday evening and today, 13 more American military fatalities have occurred in Iraq. 13 sounds like a big number to me but I haven't seen the media discussing this issue.

No peace quote tonight. Instead . . .

"Laugh Note" (Betty, Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man):
Performing the dual roles of confessor and confessee, his own Linda Tripp and Monica Lewinsky, my husband Thomas Friedman found a new way to embarrass himself this week with "No More Mr. Tough Guy."

Wednesday, February 08, 2006

Friendship and the Bully Boy

Ava called and told me Amy Goodman was going to be on Hardball so I ended up watching Chris Matthews. I can't take Matthews, but it was good to see Goodman.

"Over 10,000 Attend Funeral Service for Coretta Scott King" (Democracy Now!):
In Georgia Tuesday, an estimated 10,000 people filled the pews of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in the Atlanta suburb of Lithonia, for the funeral of civil rights pioneer Coretta Scott King. Former presidents Jimmy Carter, George Herbert Walker Bush, Bill Clinton, and President George W. Bush attended the funeral along with 14 US senators and public figures including Maya Angelou, Oprah Winfrey and Stevie Wonder. King died January 30th at the age of 78 after seeking treatment in Mexico for ovarian cancer. She had just recently suffered a rehabilitating stroke and heart attack. At Tuesday’s service both former President Jimmy Carter and the former head of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Reverend Joseph Lowery, made subtle criticism of President Bush. They cited the war in Iraq, civil liberties transgressions and accused the president of ignoring the plight of the US poor.

Day 8 and no editorial on the life and/or legacy of Coretta Scott King by the New York Times, no op-ed on her life and/or legacy. They did find time to mock Reverend Joseph Lowery today as C.I. pointed out here and here. They found time to act as though Poppy Bush thought of a "funny" when all he did was steal a joke that Lowery told. The paper didn't note that Lowery had made the joke first. They were too busy mocking Lowery. "At Mrs. King's Funeral, a Mix of Elegy and Politics" is the article the New York Times ran. It makes for an interesting case study in bias. It doesn't, however, make for good reporting.

"Report: Rove Threatens GOP Senate Judiciary Members Over Spy Program" (Democracy Now!):
Meanwhile, the conservative publication Insight on the News is reporting White House deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove is threatening any Republican Senate Judiciary members who challenge the White House on the domestic surveillance program. According to Insight, "Sources said the blacklist would mean a halt in any White House political or financial support of senators running for re-election in November." A senior Republican aide told the publication: "It's hardball all the way."

You know how you take on Karl Rove? It's not that hard. You say, "No." You say "no" and you start the Senate investigation into the outing of Valerie Plame that should have been started a long time ago. You tell Pat Roberts it's time for that hearing. Karl Rove's never been more vulnerable and any Republican who lets Rove threaten them at this point deserves their party and to be bossed around by Karl Rove. To think, we thought only the Dems were spineless.

Ava mentioned the post Rebecca wrote last night (I also got an e-mail on it from Joan) and wondered if I'd read it? I did go read it tonight. I'm usually rushing to get offline. Good for the people who can stare at a computer screen for hours each day but if gives me a headache. It was really nice. In terms of myself, I felt Rebecca was very kind and hope that I can live up to what she wrote about me. But Rebecca's every man's dream of beautiful, sexy, gorgeous, you name it. Always has been since I've known her.

I don't doubt that she was self-aware (due to her large breast size) and I think that was probably something important to write. I don't "suffer" from that. I'm average. (I hope I'm average.) In that department, I'm average. I think it can be very easy for us, women, to look at the women in Rebecca's "condition" and think, "They got all the breaks."

I know I was frequently embarrassed when I started developing and I can imagine that it would have been more embarrassing had I developed to the degree that Rebecca did. I think it's good when people share the way she did because it takes us out of our own heads and let's us glimpse inside someone else. If you're my size, you might think, "Oh those lucky women never had a moment's trouble." But what we might envy or wish for from someone else might not be all easy breaks for them.

For the record, I'm comfortable with my size now. I jog four times a week (and wish I ran more) and sports bras are a pain. I'd hate to have to deal with what Rebecca's got. (Really, sports bras irk me. If you know a decent one, as opposed to the ones that make you think you've strapped an Ace bandage around your chest, let me know.) I think that's something that comes with age. In my twenties, I was so focused on what others were seeing when they looked at me and, as I've grown older, I've gotten more comfortable in my own skin.

I enjoyed the post. I always love Rebecca's writing but Joan and Ava had both noted the friendship bond that came through in it and I did as well when I read it. Rebecca's many things, many wonderful things, but what she is most to me is a really great friend. I have no idea how she, C.I. and I have remained friends (Joan's question). I think we were lucky early on because others were falling away (especially after college) and I think we were lucky enough to realize at some point how lucky we were. Then we worked at and it's a really strong bond. It won't break. I really don't see how it could.

Rebecca, as she is when she writes, is very in your face. She's very upfront about what she feels. So there's no baggage left over from the previous week. I have no idea how I am but I can tell you C.I. usually doesn't let anything become an issue (either by ignoring it or by saying, "I'm confused here, we need to talk"). They're very good about addressing their feelings (Rebecca more so and I'd argue she's more in touch with her personal feelings -- that's not an insult) and you know going in that a discussion is about what's going on not an excuse to bail.

C.I.'s more focused on external things (causes, the world) and so I think Rebecca and I sensed long ago that when C.I. brings up a personal issue (very rare), that means this is something major. It may not seem major to one of us, or both of us, but we both know it's rare and have the good sense to shut up and listen so we can hear why it does matter.

I think that with long friendships, you learn things like that. You learn your friends moves and you pay attention. "Moves" not "moods." If we're all talking, here's one move, Rebecca's going to bring up her most important issue first. She's going to dive right in with whatever's most important in her life at that moment. Some people don't do that. They'll work towards it. I always tease her that she must have eaten her vegetables first as a child to get them out of the way early. With C.I. it's going to be near the end of the conversation because C.I.'s not going to want to jump in until everyone's had a chance to discuss what matters to them. I think I'm more the type who brings up an issue in the middle of the conversation and that may be another reason we're all best friends, we mesh nicely. If we were all like Rebecca, it might get hard for us to speak, or, if we were all like C.I., it might be impossible because the end of the conversation would be where all the activity was.

I really do think we're friends to the end at this point and that we've been through everything together. Joan wondered who'd changed the most? That's a judgement call but C.I. and I would both say "Rebecca" and I think she would as well. I feel like I've just gotten dull. Rebecca's really found a new life in the last year and a new outlook. She was shy unless she was angry in the old days. C.I.? Hmm. I think C.I.'s become the old C.I.

Trina and I talk fiction, novels that we enjoy that aren't today's bestsellers. I was telling Trina, when Bully Boy leaves office in 2008, she could talk to C.I. about those things. C.I.'s very well read but with Bully Boy in the oval office, it's been nonstop activity. I've never known C.I. not to be politically concerned, but I have to go back many years to remember this level of activity. I voted for Al Gore (and would again) in 2000 but I wasn't aware of how dangerous Bully Boy was until we invaded Iraq. I felt he'd be inept. I felt his actions in Afghanistan were inept and was offended he was trying to couch his war on feminist stances. (Claiming to be concerned about women. Bombing the hell out of the country didn't help the women, the children or the men.)
But I thought that and the economy were just his inept actions. It was only when he ordered the invasion of Iraq that I really started to feel he was a danger to democracy.

All during the leadup, I was convinced that reason would previal. (I don't watch TV news.) C.I. was warning me and saying they were lying us into war. I thought Bully Boy was lying but I didn't think he'd be able to trick to the nation and the international community. He pulled it off, he accomplished that. Then his ineptitude really kicked in.

But when we invaded, I felt, for the first time, that he wasn't just someone not up to the job, but something far worse. I think his cocky attitude that increased after 9/11 when people were trying to turn him into a hero (most heroes don't hide in childhood classrooms) added to his ineptitude. I think he believes he's above the rule of the law. I think he's quite serious about starting another war (with Iran) and I don't think he has the brains to realize how costly that will be to good will, to America or to Iran. I also think that our Congress has lost the will to check him and that is why he's focused so much on the judiciary. From compiling records of their decisions (Aschroft) to just about everything else, he's gone beyond the usual bluster (and this is true of many in his party) about the media and the opposition in Congress, to a degredation of our judiciary.

I also feel that the media has refused to call him on that which has only fueled his ambition.

Remember, I'm off tomorrow night, no post. Also remember to visit Mikey Likes It! Mike has an interview with Wally tonight, if you need further reason to visit his site (which you shouldn't, but consider it an added bonus).

Tuesday, February 07, 2006

"If we are so powerless and unimportant, why are they spying on us?"

Tuesday but it feels like a Thursday. Hope things are better for you and I also hope you will visit Mikey Likes It! to get Mike's commentary.

Bush Proposes Big Increase in Defense Spending, Cuts in Social Programs (Democracy Now!):
In his proposed nearly $2.8 trillion budget President Bush is calling for major increases in defense spending but deep cuts in Medicare and other domestic social programs. Under the proposed budget, defense spending will increase nearly 7 percent to $440 billion. If approved the Pentagon’s budget will become 45 percent larger than when Bush took office five years ago. The military spending is actually far higher because the proposed budget does not include the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. One recent estimate put the cost of the Iraq war at $100,000 every minute. At the same time, the president is proposing to make his tax cuts permanent. This would cost about $1.5 trillion over the next decade. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld discussed the budget on Monday: "The President's budget request for the Department of Defense represents an increase over last year. It reflects what we believe should be the country's national security priorities. Namely to help defend the United States of America and the American people and their interests, to give flexibility to commanders, to prepare for both conventional and unconventional or irregular warfare, and, importantly, to work closely with partner nations to help them develop the capabilities needed to defeat terrorists within their borders and to co-operate with us and other countries with respect to this global threat."

C.I. addressed this. It's about something but it's not about the people's priorities. There's always money for a new toy, gadget, or any other weapon. When they don't work, it's no big thing. We pour more money down the drain for the next one (and sometimes continue to fund the ones that don't work). We're told that it's for "safety" despite the fact that some don't work, never work, and the fact that 9/11 demonstrated there is no 'safety.'

So our cities are in ruins, our education systems struggle, we don't have national healthcare, we've done nothing, as a nation, to address the homeless issue which has only grown over the last two decades. We don't talk about it much now. We're used to it. The Reagan era cuts created a huge influx in the numbers of homeless Americans. We didn't deal with it under Clinton's two terms.

We've grown used to it. If it bothers us, we'll look the other way or complain to a friend about how "those people" are bothering us just by their presence. Mainly, we just ignore it.

At some point, will we ever address the massive military buildup? Tonight, which feels like a Thursday, I don't think we will. I think we're encouraged to be in this cycle and we've bought the hype for so long that we really can't think out of the paradigm that's been imposed.

Jimmy Carter: Warantless Spying is "Disgraceful and Illegal" (Democracy Now!):
A new critic of the domestic spying program has emerged -- former President Jimmy Carter. He described the Bush administration’s decision to go ahead with the warrantless spying as "disgraceful and illegal." Carter said, "No one knows how many innocent Americans have had their privacy violated under this secret act." Carter made the statement in Nevada at an event where his son, Jack, announced he is running for U.S. Senate.

C.I. pointed out that the Times did a "brief" (from Associated Press) on this event. It noted that Jack Carter was running for the Senate but somehow, careful editing, overlooked the fact that at this event Jimmy Carter had spoken out against the domestic spying. It's so interesting what makes it into the paper of record and what doesn't. Of course, the New York Times has done their part, and then some, to make sure we remain in the paradigm of "danger! danger! we must spend on war!" mode. Currently, they can barely go a day without sounding the drum beat for war with Iran.

It's enough to make you sick to your stomach. So let's note courage rewarded which happens so rarely these days. This item is from the middle of last month and C.I. phoned mid-day. Sensing I was down today, C.I. forwarded it. If you've already seen it, it's worth noting again. However, it was new for me. (The award, not Katherine Jahsinski's bravery.)

"Spc Katherine Jashinski awarded anti-war medal of courage" (Not in Our Name):
Not in Our Name awards "Courage to Resist" medal to Katherine Jashinski
WHEREAS Army SPC Katherine Jashinski became the first woman to speak out publicly against participating in the ongoing Iraq War at a press conference on the morning of November 17, 2005 near the gates of Fort Benning, Georgia.
WHEREAS Army SPC Katherine Jashinski has showed great courage in publicly speaking out against war, including the following that she read at a press conference on November 17, 2005: "Now I have come to the point where I am forced to choose between my legal obligation to the Army and my deepest moral values. I want to make it clear that I will not compromise my beliefs for any reason. I have a moral obligation not only to myself but to the world as a whole, and this is more important than any contract."

So good for Jashinski and applause to Not in Our Name for recognizing her bravery.
This item actually goes to a conversation C.I. and I had with a friend not long ago. First, she called me and I was honestly kind of stunned. Then she called C.I. who went into activist mode. The woman had no idea that anyone in the military had resisted the war. She watches C-Span fairly often and CNN too much. C.I. and I both push Democracy Now! to her but when she's online she always ends up playing games (she doesn't have a dish and DN! isn't broadcast in her area). She's an educated woman and it just stunned me to realize how completely corporate media has been successful in limiting the debate. After she got off the phone with C.I., she called me back and said she was told to ask me about Kevin and Monica Benderman. C.I. had gone over a number of individuals with her (she remembered Camilo Mejias story but had forgotten the other ones C.I. had told her about).

So I started from scratch and spoke to her about Kevin Benderman's stand and the retaliation against him. After we got off the phone, she knew people from the service had spoken out and she knew of two names she could cite as examples (Camilo Mejia and Kevin Benderman).

There remains a clampdown on this topic as well as on the topic of those who go AWOL. Why is that? The answer brings us to our end quote tonight which answers that question and also addresses the spying issue.

Reality Quote (from Tom Hayden's "No Peace Movement, No Peace"):
Just ask yourselves one simple question: if we are so powerless and unimportant, why are they spying on us? Why are they keeping so many secrets from us? You spy and keep secrets from people you fear, not people you dismiss. They don’t trust you with information. They are afraid of your potential power.

Monday, February 06, 2006

"When evil is allowed to compete with good . . ."

Monday greetings. No post on Friday. I did try blogging but Blogger was having technical problems all night and most of Saturday. Remember that I will be taking Thursdays off starting this week. Remember to visit Mikey Likes It! for Mike's take on today's news.

AG Gonzales to Testify Before Senate Over Domestic Spying (Democracy Now!):
On Capitol Hill, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is testifying today before the Senate over the Bush administration's domestic spying program. While Gonzales is expected to claim the Bush administration can legally carry out the warrantless spying, Senate Judiciary Committee Arlen Specter has admitted the administration's legal reasoning does not hold up. He appeared on Tim Russert's program Meet the Press on Sunday. Meanwhile a new article in the Washington Post raises questions over the effectiveness of the domestic spy program.. Intelligence officers who took part in the eavesdropping on thousands of Americans say they dismissed nearly all of them as potential suspects after hearing nothing pertinent to a terrorist threat. According to the Post, fewer than 10 U.S. citizens or residents a year have aroused enough suspicion during warrantless eavesdropping to justify interception of their domestic calls.

I caught bits and pieces of the hearings today a few minutes after a session here and there, basically, and then during lunch. Impressed? No. But I missed Russ Feingold. Mike says he spoke twice and was strong. The only one I heard speaking powerfully was Senator Patrick Leahy.

Democracy Now: Al Lewis; Senate Hearings (Miss Priss Instant Cuckoo and more)" (C.I., The Common Ills):
So the hearings . . .
Miss Priss Instant Cuckoo should be played by Oliver Platt who would put just the right amount of priss into the performance.
So Arlen Specter stabbed democracy in the back right at the start of the hearings. His spin was so amazing you kept expecting him to come up with some theory on a "magic bullet" . . . Oh wait, he pulled that trick decades ago.
His trick today? Albie Gonzales won't be under oath. Hand on heart, Specter swears that Albie is okay with being under oath, but Specter, like the lead singer of a sixties girl group, just keeps right on singing "Oh No, Not My Baby" and "Don't Say Nothing Bad About My Baby."
You saw Russ Feingold and Patrick Leahy object strongly. And? A vote was called. This is where Miss Priss Instant Cuckoo asked, "What are we voting on?"
You saw Repube Sessions cluck, "It's a question of propriety and good taste."
Leahy fought. He was the first Dem to question and he was on point, he did a wonderful job. And?
Then others spoke.
Ted Kennedy? Is he awake? Herbert Kohl, the Invisible Man? Get real. Dianne Feinstein has her best, white, kid gloves on again.
Let's watch as Dianne Feinstein throws in the towel yet again. Let's note BuzzFlash called her on her inept behavior in the Alito hearings. I'm missing anyone else doing that. (We called her here and in this community.)
DiFi, why do you ask questions? Or why do you ask your meandering questions?
Do you want answers?
If so, why say the following when Albie refuses to answer your questions:

Fair enough, let's move along.
Okay, that's fine.
I just want to ask some others [questions], you don't have to answer if you don't want to.

If that's it, if that's the best you can do, quit wasting everyone's time.
She was useless in the Alito hearings and she's useless so far today.
Why doesn't she get called on this nonsense?

40,000 Pay Tribute to Coretta Scott King (Democracy Now!):
In Georgia, over 40,000 mourners paid their respects to civil rights pioneer Coretta Scott King by filing past her open casket in the state Capitol's rotunda. She became the first woman and the first African-American person to lie in honor there. She died last Monday at the age of 78. Today's Coretta Scott King's body will lie in honor at the original Ebenezer Baptist Church where her late husband, Martin Luther King, once preached.

40,000 people paying tribute to a legendary civil rights leader. But who hasn't paid tribute to her?

"Editorial: Does The New York Times editorial board not know that Coretta Scott King died or do they just not care?" (The Third Estate Sunday Review):
Coretta Scott King died last week. We think most of you heard of her passing. We sure many of you noted it and mourned the loss. But are you aware that The New York Times, the paper of record, hasn't seen fit to write an editorial or op-ed on King's passing? Or that they haven't run one by someone outside that the paper that they commissioned to write on the topic?

Are you aware that in the same week that section of the paper ignored Coretta Scott King as a topic, Gail Collins penned a ten paragraph editorial to a friend of her's who died? It happened.
The friend was a playwright. It's a tragedy she passed away. But it's editorial news how? Because the woman was White or because she was Collins' friend or some comibination of the two?
Sunday's paper contains no editorial or op-ed on Coretta Scott King. This was the fifth day they passed on the chance to salute her.
Now King never wrote a Broadway play but she accomplished plenty. Let's start with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. That's where most people start. She was committed to the struggle for civil rights before she met him and he credited her with inspiring him.
As one of the widows of the sixties (MLK was assassinated), one would think she would receive at least an editorial. Jackie O received much more. Possibly because she was also a First Lady or possibly because she was White. But she got coverage.
Coretta Scott King conducted herself in the wake of her loss with dignity and grace as well. That doesn't rate a mention in The New York Times.
In addition to being there to inspire the dream, she was active in the civil rights struggle while Dr. King was alive and she kept his legacy alive after he was murdered. She also took leadership in the fight against poverty and in opposition to the war in Vietnam. She raised four children and inspired many more, of many, many generations.
In her later years, she could have rested. She could have taken easy positions. But she didn't. She refused to complacent in a world where so much still needed doing. She spoke out against the war in Iraq. She spoke out in favor of gay rights. She wasn't playing it safe.
This legendary woman played many roles in our national history. You'd think that would result in an editorial or op-ed addressing her life and accomplishments.

I also want to note something Betty wrote for her ongoing novel Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man. I always love Betty's chapters (and am delighted to be an occassional minor character in them) but this is one she's happy with. She's never happy with any of them -- but this one she is and if you read it, I think you'll see why. Here's a section of it.

"The Pig Is Racism, The Pig Is The New York Times" (Betty, Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man):
I thought, "Well maybe Gail considers these important topics for editorials?" Then I saw "Oh, Oscar!" about the Oscar nominations. The Oscar nominations? The Times needs to editorialize about Oscar nominations? But has no time for Coretta Scott King?"

Oh, Oscar!"? Oh, Gail.
I was fuming. I was raging. Thomas Friedman was kvetching, "Who the hell knew I married Angela Dickinson!"
"Angela Davis!" I corrected.
"Oh yeah," Thomas Friedman snorted. "One played Police Woman, the other was hunted by the police."
I just stared him until he stopped laughing.
"Um," he said staring at the ground. "Um, it's, see it's funny because it's juxtaposition."
"And funny because a Black woman is the butt of the joke? Or maybe you thinking Blacks should be hunted down?"
Thomas Friedman retreated to his office where, no doubt, he continued surfing online for fake nudes of the male cast from Saved By The Bell.
This morning, Thomas Friedman hands me the paper and tells me I'll be happy with it today.
Knowing the New York Timid too well, I finish my coffee before opening and flipping to the op-eds and editorials. Editorials? Four. None on Coretta Scott King. Opinion pieces? Paul Krugman writes of the "State of Delusion" which does not cover the paper's own delusion that they're somehow inclusive. Thomas Friedman writes about Bully Boy (he's got a poster of Bully Boy in a onesie nailed to the bedroom closet door) and oil in "Will Pigs Fly" (sooner than Lard Butts, Tommy, sooner than Lard Butts). Graphic designer Barbara Blauber does "Op-Art" about judging books by their cover. (Why not judge papers by what they choose to cover?) And not one, but two guest columnists are brought in to write two separate columns on Pope Joseph Ratzinger who, for the record, didn't die.
I guess Coretta Scott King doesn't matter to the paper. I guess her passing doesn't matter. She's known globally at least as well as Mother Teresa was. She dedicated her life to fighting for equality and peace. She was known around the world as a leader and her husband was as well -- her husband who was targeted by the FBI and who was assassinated. She fought for civil rights, for women's rights, for peace. She fought against poverty, against homophobia. On the national stage, she was certainly as graceful as Jackie Kennedy and she never felt the need to draw the veil and retire from public service.
So I found myself wondering, "Exactly what didn't Mrs. King do? What should she have done to have her death noted by the editorial and opinion staff of the New York Times?"
At first, I thought, "Well she should have written a play length version of Designing Women!" But then I remembered how August Wilson's passing was down played.
Then I thought, "She should have befriended Gail Collins!" Because women with unibrows are too often the butt of the jokes. Gail Collins should not be laughed at for her unibrow. There are plenty of other reasons to laugh at Gail Collins, trust me.
Which left only one thing that Coretta Scott King 'forgot' to do: Be born White.

So let's all ask this question of where is the editorial or op-ed devoted to the life of a brave civil rights activist who stood up against war, against poverty . . . An internationally known figure, a beloved figure, and somehow the New York Times can't find the time? Why is that?

Wally's back to blogging at The Daily Jot. Here's one of the two pieces he did today, in full.

"This Just In! Bully Boy Will Attend Coretta Scott King Funeral!" (Wally, The Daily Jot):
RELATED: "Editorial: Does The New York Times editorial board not know that Coretta Scott King died or do they just not care?"

Please visit Mikey Likes It! to get Mike's take on today's events.

Back to the hearings, I wish I could tell you that I heard strong fighters when I was able to listen today. I didn't. I heard people playing patty cakes with an issue that goes to heart of why this country was founded.

And quickly, please check out "Silence" and "silence" which are links to Kat and Rebecca's joint post. I'm rushing because there's a Blogger scheduled blackout tonight while they fix the program (which seems to have more bugs after each fix). But I need to note Trina. She has a new entry (remember, she blogs only on Saturdays) entitled "Mashed Potatoes in the kitchen."

"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center):
When evil is allowed to compete with good, evil has an emotional populist appeal that wins out unless good men and women stand as a vanguard against abuse.
Hannah Arendt, 20th-century German political philosopher and author