It's cold and getting colder. I hope everyone found a moment of peace this weekend (hard as that can be these days). Remember to check out Mike's site (Mikey Likes It!) for his commentary.
Bush Okd Secret Wiretapping of Americans Without Warrants (Democracy Now!):
President Bush has admitted that he secretly ordered the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans without ever seeking constitutionally required court approved warrants. The president initially refused to answer any questions about the secret program but on Saturday he spoke openly about it and defended the practice
President Bush: "I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations."
The admission came just days after NBC News reported the Pentagon has vastly expanded its domestic surveillance operations including the monitoring of peaceful anti-war protesters.
He has betrayed the nation. Someone can try to pretty it up all they want but that is what he did. Let's move to the second one.
Sen. Leahy: No More Secret Orders, Secret Courts, Secret Torture (Democracy Now!):
Many legal experts have accused the President of breaking the law by ordering the wiretappings without a court warrant as required under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT): "This warrant-less eavesdropping program is not authorized by the patriot act, it's not authorized by any act of congress, and it's not overseen by any court. And according to reports it has been conducted under a secret presidential order, based on secret legal opinions by the same justice department, lawyers who argued secretly, that the president could order the use of torture. Mr. President, it is time to have some checks and balances in this country, we are a democracy. We are a democracy. Let's have checks and balances, not secret orders and secret courts and secret torture, and on and on."
King Bully Boy and his court of fools. They aren't working for America. They're working for King Bully Boy. They're loyalties aren't with the public, aren't with the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or any belief, written or not, that speaks to the higher nature of what our nation is supposed to aspire to.
They are working for a crook. Outing CIA agents, lying and scare mongering a nation into war, spying on citizens, refusing citizens access to public events . . . It's a long, long list. Mike told me about our online latter day Dylan (C.I.'s term) and how he embarrassed himself today. He used to stand tall but now he rushes to hold hands with someone he's inferred is the enemy. That's truly sad. It's also truly sad that he (and his hand holding mate) think they can hand down rules on how people must converse. A bit of the Bully Boy seems to be seeping in. That's all I'll say on it because C.I.'s biting the tongue re: latter day Dylan and, if I write more on this, I won't be able to.
The affront isn't from people who speak in their own voices, it's from those who remain silent.
What's going on in the oval office needs to be called out by people in their own voices, in their own way of speaking. Not to call it out is far more dangerous and destructive than to use what someone feels are the "wrong words." We need to be discussing this, all of us, because if we don't, if we stay silent, we're saying it's okay and we're turning our backs on what we are supposed to believe in.
When you do that, you destroy your own character as well as the nation's character.
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center):
We used to wonder where war lived, what it was that made it so vile. And now we realize that we know where it lives, that it is inside ourselves.
Albert Camus
Monday, December 19, 2005
Friday, December 16, 2005
Monica Benderman: "What Peace Needs"
Remember to check out Mike's site (Mikey Likes It!) for his commentary.
WTO Talks At Standstill in Hong Kong (Democracy Now!):
In Hong Kong, considerable divisions between industrialized and developing countries at the ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organization are lowering expectations for significant agreements before talks end Sunday.
European Union Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson: "It is hard to see where progress can be achieved in Hong Kong if talks continue in their present direction. I do not want to contemplate failure at Hong Kong. So much is at stake. Equally, I see no point in an outcome here that simply locks in low ambition, diminishes benefits for developing countries and falls short of our responsibilities to the global economy."
EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson. Negotiations have stalled on a number of key trade issues. On Thursday, the Group of 77 -- the coalition of 132 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries in the Third World -- announced they would reject any deal that eliminates protections for their farmers and access to foreign markets. Another group of developing nations, the Group of 20 -- which represents half the world’s population -- accused the US and European Union of holding up talks by refusing to cut state agricultural subsidies.
Meanwhile, outside the meetings, thousands of protesters continue to make their voices heard.
Oxfam’s Alison Woodhead: "The system in theory should work, but at the moment it's riggedin favour of the richest countries. The rich countries benefit from the trade rules as they exist at the moment. They're able to protect their own markets and destroy the markets of poorer countries."
The WTO probably enrages so many due to the false manner in which it presents itself. Rebecca likens it to The New Republic. It talks about "fairness" but developing nations are not idiots and they've seen what the WTO and the IMF can do (such as Argentina). Some see the orgs as modern day colonization and I would agree with that.
Report: Bush-Enacted NSA Program Monitors Phone Conversations, E-Mails (Democracy Now!):
The New York Times is reporting the National Security Agency has been eavesdropping on U.S. citizens and foreign nationals without court-approved warrants. Under a Bush administration directive enacted in 2002, the agency has monitored the international phone calls and e-mails of hundreds, and possibly thousands of people inside the country. The National Security Agency’s mission is to spy on communications abroad. Although officials said the program had helped thwart at least two potential attacks, most people monitored by the N.S.A. have never been charged with a crime.
The Times says it delayed publishing details of the program after a request from the Bush administration at least one year ago. At the request of the White House, the Times also says it has omitted information administration officials said could be useful to terrorists. The disclosure comes two days after NBC News revealed the Pentagon has kept detailed records on the events and meetings of anti-war groups across the country.
The news of the NSA spying came out at the perfect time. I'm not thrilled that the New York Times sat on the story for a year or that the government had a say in the editing process. However, in terms of today, when the Patriot Act was being pushed in the Senate, the news of the spying came at the perfect time. I really think that helped prevent the act from being pushed through for a blind renewal.
Suggested readings, Cedric's "Megachurches and a megabully," Seth's "Tales from Holiday Retail," Rebecca's "screech has no customer service skills (are you surprised)" and C.I.'s "Other Items" which rightly takes the New York Times to task for looking at Iraq and seeing only males.
Yes, if you sense that I'm rushing tonight, you are correct. But before I post and hit the door, let me note one more thing.
"What Peace Needs" (Monica Benderman, CounterPunch):
The Regional Corrections Facility at Ft. Lewis, Washington is vintage World War II. The windows are cracked and can't be closed. It's below freezing on most nights now.
I could go on--but what good will it do in this country of warmongers, idealistic pacifists, and evangelicals? Nothing like love for a cause--any cause--as long as it's impersonal enough that everyone can remain detached, can share their emotions through the war cries and protest chants, staring out into a field of people whose gazes are just as vacant as the featured speaker of the day.
The military prison is filled with the usual criminal element, narcotics and alcohol abusers, thieves, and child molesters. It has been said that the best chance of parole from this facility is for the child molesters--tells you a lot about our society--the society that professes such a high moral standard that we can dare to invade other countries to bring that same standard to their shores.
In among the criminals, sleeping on a three inch thick mattress, sitting in plastic chairs staring at the walls all day, and waiting for months at a time to have his request for a call to his attorney fulfilled, is one who is furthest from the criminal element, a man the Anti-War movement lovingly refers to as a "Prisoner of Conscience." Labels, always the labels. Sgt. Kevin Benderman stands for everything that should be right in this country. This man stands for liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, FREEDOM to be himself and live as he chooses.
And thanks to Judy and C.I. I take Thursdays off. Monica Benderman's article came out that day. Judy knew I wouldn't be able to note it here yesterday and suggested it to C.I.
I really feel for Monica and Kevin Benderman. I hope people are paying attention to their story. And when Kevin's released I hope Amy Goodman has them both on Democracy Now! the next day. Last hope, that everyone has a peaceful and pleasant weekend.
WTO Talks At Standstill in Hong Kong (Democracy Now!):
In Hong Kong, considerable divisions between industrialized and developing countries at the ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organization are lowering expectations for significant agreements before talks end Sunday.
European Union Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson: "It is hard to see where progress can be achieved in Hong Kong if talks continue in their present direction. I do not want to contemplate failure at Hong Kong. So much is at stake. Equally, I see no point in an outcome here that simply locks in low ambition, diminishes benefits for developing countries and falls short of our responsibilities to the global economy."
EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson. Negotiations have stalled on a number of key trade issues. On Thursday, the Group of 77 -- the coalition of 132 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries in the Third World -- announced they would reject any deal that eliminates protections for their farmers and access to foreign markets. Another group of developing nations, the Group of 20 -- which represents half the world’s population -- accused the US and European Union of holding up talks by refusing to cut state agricultural subsidies.
Meanwhile, outside the meetings, thousands of protesters continue to make their voices heard.
Oxfam’s Alison Woodhead: "The system in theory should work, but at the moment it's riggedin favour of the richest countries. The rich countries benefit from the trade rules as they exist at the moment. They're able to protect their own markets and destroy the markets of poorer countries."
The WTO probably enrages so many due to the false manner in which it presents itself. Rebecca likens it to The New Republic. It talks about "fairness" but developing nations are not idiots and they've seen what the WTO and the IMF can do (such as Argentina). Some see the orgs as modern day colonization and I would agree with that.
Report: Bush-Enacted NSA Program Monitors Phone Conversations, E-Mails (Democracy Now!):
The New York Times is reporting the National Security Agency has been eavesdropping on U.S. citizens and foreign nationals without court-approved warrants. Under a Bush administration directive enacted in 2002, the agency has monitored the international phone calls and e-mails of hundreds, and possibly thousands of people inside the country. The National Security Agency’s mission is to spy on communications abroad. Although officials said the program had helped thwart at least two potential attacks, most people monitored by the N.S.A. have never been charged with a crime.
The Times says it delayed publishing details of the program after a request from the Bush administration at least one year ago. At the request of the White House, the Times also says it has omitted information administration officials said could be useful to terrorists. The disclosure comes two days after NBC News revealed the Pentagon has kept detailed records on the events and meetings of anti-war groups across the country.
The news of the NSA spying came out at the perfect time. I'm not thrilled that the New York Times sat on the story for a year or that the government had a say in the editing process. However, in terms of today, when the Patriot Act was being pushed in the Senate, the news of the spying came at the perfect time. I really think that helped prevent the act from being pushed through for a blind renewal.
Suggested readings, Cedric's "Megachurches and a megabully," Seth's "Tales from Holiday Retail," Rebecca's "screech has no customer service skills (are you surprised)" and C.I.'s "Other Items" which rightly takes the New York Times to task for looking at Iraq and seeing only males.
Yes, if you sense that I'm rushing tonight, you are correct. But before I post and hit the door, let me note one more thing.
"What Peace Needs" (Monica Benderman, CounterPunch):
The Regional Corrections Facility at Ft. Lewis, Washington is vintage World War II. The windows are cracked and can't be closed. It's below freezing on most nights now.
I could go on--but what good will it do in this country of warmongers, idealistic pacifists, and evangelicals? Nothing like love for a cause--any cause--as long as it's impersonal enough that everyone can remain detached, can share their emotions through the war cries and protest chants, staring out into a field of people whose gazes are just as vacant as the featured speaker of the day.
The military prison is filled with the usual criminal element, narcotics and alcohol abusers, thieves, and child molesters. It has been said that the best chance of parole from this facility is for the child molesters--tells you a lot about our society--the society that professes such a high moral standard that we can dare to invade other countries to bring that same standard to their shores.
In among the criminals, sleeping on a three inch thick mattress, sitting in plastic chairs staring at the walls all day, and waiting for months at a time to have his request for a call to his attorney fulfilled, is one who is furthest from the criminal element, a man the Anti-War movement lovingly refers to as a "Prisoner of Conscience." Labels, always the labels. Sgt. Kevin Benderman stands for everything that should be right in this country. This man stands for liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, FREEDOM to be himself and live as he chooses.
And thanks to Judy and C.I. I take Thursdays off. Monica Benderman's article came out that day. Judy knew I wouldn't be able to note it here yesterday and suggested it to C.I.
I really feel for Monica and Kevin Benderman. I hope people are paying attention to their story. And when Kevin's released I hope Amy Goodman has them both on Democracy Now! the next day. Last hope, that everyone has a peaceful and pleasant weekend.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
"Peace won't be found in people who can't face reality"
Remember to check out Mike's site Mikey Likes It! for his take on the two headlines we selected from Democracy Now!
Pentagon Monitoring Anti-War Events Across the Country (Democracy Now!):
Meanwhile, NBC News is reporting the Pentagon has been extensively monitoring the events and gatherings of peaceful anti-war groups across the country. A military database obtained by the network lists small activist meetings and events among 1,500 "suspicious incidents" over a 10-month period. The events included a gathering at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth, Florida, to plan a protest of military recruiting at local high schools. In total, the database listed over four dozen anti-war meetings or protests.
This is something that Matthew Rothschild's been covering. This happened in California, it happened elsewhere. It happened in this country before as well. One time that comes to mind is when another bully was in the White House, Richard Nixon. No, Bully Boy wasn't the first Bully. It's also not hard to see that when you have a Bully Boy in the White House, civil liberties go out in the window because bullies always think they're more important than democracy.
As do the those serving a Bully Boy. Which is a point Ava and C.I. made.
"TV Review: Barbara and Colin remake The Way We Were" (The Third Estate Sunday Review):
This is how he [Colin Powell] wants to be remembered:
"A good public servant somebody who truly believes in his country. . . . Somebody who cared, somebody who served."
Yeah well, Nixon wanted to be remembered a certain way as well. Liar's the way many remember him now. Liar's the way many will remember Colin Powell. Belief in your country doesn't allow you to lie to your country. Belief in your Bully Boy does. That's something this adminstration fails to grasp. They all think they're working for the Bully Boy. Powell makes statements to that effect. He's full of many things including his "service" to the Bully Boy.
The administration is supposed to be working for the country. Presidents come and go. The nation is what is supposed to matter. Belief in your country would mean you tell the peoplethe truth.
That's what happens when the people who are supposed to be upholding the Constitution decide that the Bully Boy, or any single person, is more important than the ideas of democracy.
Iraq Officials Deny Report on Seized Forged Ballots (Democracy Now!):
Meanwhile, Iraqi officials are denying a New York Times report that said border guards have seized a tanker filled with thousands of forged electoral ballots headed from Iran. According to the Times, the driver of the vehicle reportedly told interrogators another three trucks carrying forged ballots have already crossed into Iraq.
The article being noted was by Dexter Filkins. Here's C.I. on the story:
Dexter Filkins does love what he's told. (Spoonfed in the Green Zone?) "Police Seize Forged Ballots Headed to Iraq From Iran" relies on "official said" four times. Sometimes, to spice up the single source for his story, an anonymice one, he will add a subclause between "official" and "said." Maybe you'll count more. For fun, go through the article and find named sources and note if they spoke to Filkins or not? (I think you already know the answer to that one.)
So I called C.I. and asked, "What was the tip off, other than it being written by Filkins?" C.I. said listening to Democracy Now! broke the story of possible questions about the story. Reading it, C.I. just noted that the story was basically built around a single source who was anonymous and the rest of the article was an attempt to pad out what couldn't be verified by using public statements from "official sources" on other topics.
I want to note that Mike interviewed new community member "Kansas" and that Rebecca interviewed Martha (who is wonderful) and Maria (who provided the title for this site so you know she's wonderful as well). Following Mike's interview, my name came up. Kansas wondered, actually his wife had wondered, if I'd look at the e-mail he was sent and weigh in?
So reading it, my first question would be this: What was the goal of the person who wrote this e-mail?
The backstory is that the person was supposedly wanting to contact Kansas. She apparently attempted to, after C.I. noted that we had contacted Kansas, and had problems doing so. At which point, Ava contacted Kansas who gave permission for something to be passed on to the woman.
So the woman gets Kansas' e-mail that Ava forwards. The woman writes "apology" in her e-mail heading. It would be easy to conclude that the woman wanted to apologize.
The confusion results from the fact that the woman never apologizes. She doesn't. I read the e-mail. She lectures Kansas on Kat. She notes that she had the wrong e-mail address. That's pretty much it except for the weak ending of "I'm sorry you won't be visiting" her site "anymore."
Did I think it was an apology?
That was Kansas and his wife's question?
No, I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that the text of the e-mail offers any form of an apology. I think to call it an apology is to distort what it is. I also believe, quite firmly, that whether it was intended to be antagonistic or not, it comes off as antagonistic.
Kansas felt he was at a mature site where people conducted themselves in a mature manner. When Maria pointed out the nature of the comments on that site, at that site Maria pointed this out, the woman wrote of how the comments were more than she would like or something similar. There's no statement making that in the e-mail to Kansas, the e-mail that has been labled an "apology."
The sincerity in e-mailing such an e-mail is questionable. Possibly, the woman is so focused on Kat that she couldn't focus on what she thought she was doing. Possibly, the woman wasn't even attempting to be sincere. Possibly, she just wants the last word.
But it's not an apology and labeling it that won't make it one.
Kansas and his wife are offended. They have every right to be. It is a reasonable expectation when someone writes you an apology that it, indeed, be an apology. That's a reasonable expectation. It is a realistic one.
When someone has been hurt and what's labeled as an attempt to apologize for the hurt that was caused isn't a realistic attempt to do that, you have to be realistic because it's not reasonable to expect that someone who thinks that is an apology can be realistic.
Kansas can't blink his eyes and make the woman grasp how she has now twice offended him. What he can do is take steps on his own to avoid further disappointment from the woman.
Hope that addresses the issue.
Peace Quote (from me):
Peace won't be found in people who can't face reality.
Remember Mike's motto:
The Common Ills community is important and the Common Ills community is important to me. So I'll do my part for the Common Ills community.
the new york times
the common ills
democracy now
the third estate sunday review
like maria said paz
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
kats korner
Pentagon Monitoring Anti-War Events Across the Country (Democracy Now!):
Meanwhile, NBC News is reporting the Pentagon has been extensively monitoring the events and gatherings of peaceful anti-war groups across the country. A military database obtained by the network lists small activist meetings and events among 1,500 "suspicious incidents" over a 10-month period. The events included a gathering at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth, Florida, to plan a protest of military recruiting at local high schools. In total, the database listed over four dozen anti-war meetings or protests.
This is something that Matthew Rothschild's been covering. This happened in California, it happened elsewhere. It happened in this country before as well. One time that comes to mind is when another bully was in the White House, Richard Nixon. No, Bully Boy wasn't the first Bully. It's also not hard to see that when you have a Bully Boy in the White House, civil liberties go out in the window because bullies always think they're more important than democracy.
As do the those serving a Bully Boy. Which is a point Ava and C.I. made.
"TV Review: Barbara and Colin remake The Way We Were" (The Third Estate Sunday Review):
This is how he [Colin Powell] wants to be remembered:
"A good public servant somebody who truly believes in his country. . . . Somebody who cared, somebody who served."
Yeah well, Nixon wanted to be remembered a certain way as well. Liar's the way many remember him now. Liar's the way many will remember Colin Powell. Belief in your country doesn't allow you to lie to your country. Belief in your Bully Boy does. That's something this adminstration fails to grasp. They all think they're working for the Bully Boy. Powell makes statements to that effect. He's full of many things including his "service" to the Bully Boy.
The administration is supposed to be working for the country. Presidents come and go. The nation is what is supposed to matter. Belief in your country would mean you tell the peoplethe truth.
That's what happens when the people who are supposed to be upholding the Constitution decide that the Bully Boy, or any single person, is more important than the ideas of democracy.
Iraq Officials Deny Report on Seized Forged Ballots (Democracy Now!):
Meanwhile, Iraqi officials are denying a New York Times report that said border guards have seized a tanker filled with thousands of forged electoral ballots headed from Iran. According to the Times, the driver of the vehicle reportedly told interrogators another three trucks carrying forged ballots have already crossed into Iraq.
The article being noted was by Dexter Filkins. Here's C.I. on the story:
Dexter Filkins does love what he's told. (Spoonfed in the Green Zone?) "Police Seize Forged Ballots Headed to Iraq From Iran" relies on "official said" four times. Sometimes, to spice up the single source for his story, an anonymice one, he will add a subclause between "official" and "said." Maybe you'll count more. For fun, go through the article and find named sources and note if they spoke to Filkins or not? (I think you already know the answer to that one.)
So I called C.I. and asked, "What was the tip off, other than it being written by Filkins?" C.I. said listening to Democracy Now! broke the story of possible questions about the story. Reading it, C.I. just noted that the story was basically built around a single source who was anonymous and the rest of the article was an attempt to pad out what couldn't be verified by using public statements from "official sources" on other topics.
I want to note that Mike interviewed new community member "Kansas" and that Rebecca interviewed Martha (who is wonderful) and Maria (who provided the title for this site so you know she's wonderful as well). Following Mike's interview, my name came up. Kansas wondered, actually his wife had wondered, if I'd look at the e-mail he was sent and weigh in?
So reading it, my first question would be this: What was the goal of the person who wrote this e-mail?
The backstory is that the person was supposedly wanting to contact Kansas. She apparently attempted to, after C.I. noted that we had contacted Kansas, and had problems doing so. At which point, Ava contacted Kansas who gave permission for something to be passed on to the woman.
So the woman gets Kansas' e-mail that Ava forwards. The woman writes "apology" in her e-mail heading. It would be easy to conclude that the woman wanted to apologize.
The confusion results from the fact that the woman never apologizes. She doesn't. I read the e-mail. She lectures Kansas on Kat. She notes that she had the wrong e-mail address. That's pretty much it except for the weak ending of "I'm sorry you won't be visiting" her site "anymore."
Did I think it was an apology?
That was Kansas and his wife's question?
No, I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that the text of the e-mail offers any form of an apology. I think to call it an apology is to distort what it is. I also believe, quite firmly, that whether it was intended to be antagonistic or not, it comes off as antagonistic.
Kansas felt he was at a mature site where people conducted themselves in a mature manner. When Maria pointed out the nature of the comments on that site, at that site Maria pointed this out, the woman wrote of how the comments were more than she would like or something similar. There's no statement making that in the e-mail to Kansas, the e-mail that has been labled an "apology."
The sincerity in e-mailing such an e-mail is questionable. Possibly, the woman is so focused on Kat that she couldn't focus on what she thought she was doing. Possibly, the woman wasn't even attempting to be sincere. Possibly, she just wants the last word.
But it's not an apology and labeling it that won't make it one.
Kansas and his wife are offended. They have every right to be. It is a reasonable expectation when someone writes you an apology that it, indeed, be an apology. That's a reasonable expectation. It is a realistic one.
When someone has been hurt and what's labeled as an attempt to apologize for the hurt that was caused isn't a realistic attempt to do that, you have to be realistic because it's not reasonable to expect that someone who thinks that is an apology can be realistic.
Kansas can't blink his eyes and make the woman grasp how she has now twice offended him. What he can do is take steps on his own to avoid further disappointment from the woman.
Hope that addresses the issue.
Peace Quote (from me):
Peace won't be found in people who can't face reality.
Remember Mike's motto:
The Common Ills community is important and the Common Ills community is important to me. So I'll do my part for the Common Ills community.
the new york times
the common ills
democracy now
the third estate sunday review
like maria said paz
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
kats korner
Monday, December 12, 2005
Saddened
Remeber to check out Mike's take on the two headlines from Democracy Now! by visiting his site Mikey Likes It!
Stanley Tookie Williams Scheduled to be Executed Tonight (Democracy Now!):
In California the state Supreme Court has unanimously denied an emergency request by lawyers of death row prisoner Stanley Tookie Williams to halt his execution. Williams' life now largely rests in the hands of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. If he is not granted clemency, Williams is scheduled to be executed a minute past midnight tonight pacific time. Williams is a co-founder of the Crips street gang who became an advocate against gang violence while on death row. We'll have more on Williams' case in a few minutes.
This is what we do. You're found guilty of someone, we kill you. That's how simple we see things.
This isn't the way it necessarily is in the rest of the world. But here we just think we're right and we can only see it from that angle.
I look the issues of the case being raised and I see what looks to me like an innocent man.
Others are quite sure of themselves and not at all concerned that an innocent may be exceucted.
Ex-Iraqi General Says Shiites Torturing Sunni in Prisons (Democracy Now!):
Meanwhile a former Iraqi general told Agence France Press that he witnessed horrific scenes of torture while he worked in Iraqi-run prisons. He showed the news agency videotapes recorded inside the prison. Men were seen with whip marks and acid burns. One prisoner had lost an eye. Another prisoner had nails driven into his body. The general -- Muntazar al-Samarrai - said at least three people died as a result of torture at the prison, The general - who is a Sunni now living in Jordan - said the abuse is being carried out at nine secret prisons run by pro-Iranian Shiite militias who work for the Interior Ministry.
Every day something else. Yet even so, some people still can't find their voices. After awhile, you seriously do begin to wonder if anything can reach them?
They'll tell you about something they "read" in In Style but if you bring up Iraq, they get a blank look on their faces. If you mention Falluja, watch the confusion spread across their faces.
There are periods in anyone's life where things will be so stressful that they truly do need to shut out the world. But there are people content to veg in front of the TV and "escape" from something they can't name.
They isolate themselves. On an issue as serious as war (or peace), you need to engage.
That's my opinion.
Which brings us to the issue of opinions.
I intended to blog Saturday. That's not an apology. I participated in an all night marathon on Thursday night/Friday morning but that's not an excuse. I will have something up when I can.
On Saturday I intended to blog. Then I saw Cedric had and knew Rebecca had. Kat always blogs on Saturday.
So I thought I would save my voice for Sunday.
I hadn't thought we would end up with a more than all nighter at The Third Estate Sunday Review; however, that is what happened. It will probably happen again.
Tonight I'm blogging.
I am, of course, bothered by what happened to Kat.
I want to avoid naming anyone but obviously we're speaking of Kat. I'm refraining from naming otherwise because C.I. believe we have some sort of peace agreement. Far be it from me to ever be accused of breaking a peace agreement unintentionally.
I don't wish to break it intentionally.
However, I do wish to pick up on thoughts C.I. and Kat have both voiced but I'm not sure the point has gotten across. That will be my attempt at a contribution.
Kat's entire entry that bothered someone is about "can." The ability to do something. She's referring to the ability to hold an opinion in favor or opposed. The argument she sets forward in her post that bothered some people was that a contrary opinion was voiced and there was a dog pile from other posters. It is clear to me from the post Kat did that she was speaking of "can."
"Can" is key to her entry and it is why so many have focused on the fact that, once the responses began, "can" would be left out of a quote she made.
The point Kat was making was that we all have the ability and right to have an opinion. No one has to agree but we have that right to have one.
Dropping the "can" wasn't just missing a word, it was missing the message.
On their end, I don't think they ever grasped Kat's message.
Hopefully, on their end they were attempting to figure out where the breakdown was.
I know on our end, C.I. was trying to present their opinion, as C.I. understood it, all last week. Present it. Not agree with it or endorse it.
What it came down to, besides the message, was the style. Kat's style is not common today. There aren't many women writing about music at large outlets and when they do, they provide an NPR/PBS style of commentary. Kat doesn't speak in that voice.
Her reviews, her writing on topics other than music, are written with passion.
It is too much passion for some people because, while we're used to men arguing passionately about sports, music, film and go down the list of topics, we really don't get that from many women. Maureen Dowd writes like a lazy tiger. I'm not calling her lazy. But I'm saying she's like a tiger lying down that will still send that arm out at the most unexpected place. You may think, "Oh, pretty tiger" and that's just about the time the arm shoots out. But the tiger's not prowling.
A number of people have a problem with Dowd's writing. So it doesn't surprise me that some might have a problem with Kat's. Though she belongs to a long history of women writing about rock, most people today aren't aware of rock criticism. If they do know it, they can usually tell you Lester Bangs' name. But there's a whole history of women doing criticism that they've never heard of or read the work of.
I don't have a problem if another site doesn't like Kat's style or if they disagree with her opinion.
I do have a problem with the implication that Kat can't write as well as someone. Especially when one appears to be presenting a cool, detached look and that's held as the standard.
Kat doesn't have to meet anyone's standard but her own.
Her success, the fact that so many enjoy her writing, is due to her utilizing her own voice.
I don't feel that I do that. I feel like I come off, online, as the most monotone, drab voice in the world. That is one of the many reasons I didn't want to start my own blog. But some people enjoy this site and I'm flattered.
You may prefer me to Kat, but that wouldn't make me better than Kat. Our styles are too different to be compared.
So I think the difference of opinion stems from the fact that Kat is clearly not the style of the other site. That's fine and they can (can) pursue any style of criticism they wish to. They can disagree with Kat's opinion.
But what they cannot do is downgrade the quality or the opinion because they disagree with it when their standards are not her standards. It's not as though she wanted to write like the man involved. Kat would hate writing like that as much as he would hate writing like her. They are both entitled to feel that way.
I don't want to go into what happened but I will note that clearly I felt Kat was wronged.
But the thing that saddens me the most, if there's a peace and apparently there is now, is that I still feel Kat was graded by standards she's never tried to meet, standards she has rejected. In writing, she has rejected them. I am saddened that instead of just noting that she is pursuing a different path than they are, there was a need to downgrade Kat's abilities and talents.
I think that all stems from the same area that makes someone think "can" is just a word that Kat used in a sentence which they forgot to include in their quoting. "Can" isn't just a word. It is the whole point of Kat's writing in pretty much everything she writes.
Stanley Tookie Williams Scheduled to be Executed Tonight (Democracy Now!):
In California the state Supreme Court has unanimously denied an emergency request by lawyers of death row prisoner Stanley Tookie Williams to halt his execution. Williams' life now largely rests in the hands of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. If he is not granted clemency, Williams is scheduled to be executed a minute past midnight tonight pacific time. Williams is a co-founder of the Crips street gang who became an advocate against gang violence while on death row. We'll have more on Williams' case in a few minutes.
This is what we do. You're found guilty of someone, we kill you. That's how simple we see things.
This isn't the way it necessarily is in the rest of the world. But here we just think we're right and we can only see it from that angle.
I look the issues of the case being raised and I see what looks to me like an innocent man.
Others are quite sure of themselves and not at all concerned that an innocent may be exceucted.
Ex-Iraqi General Says Shiites Torturing Sunni in Prisons (Democracy Now!):
Meanwhile a former Iraqi general told Agence France Press that he witnessed horrific scenes of torture while he worked in Iraqi-run prisons. He showed the news agency videotapes recorded inside the prison. Men were seen with whip marks and acid burns. One prisoner had lost an eye. Another prisoner had nails driven into his body. The general -- Muntazar al-Samarrai - said at least three people died as a result of torture at the prison, The general - who is a Sunni now living in Jordan - said the abuse is being carried out at nine secret prisons run by pro-Iranian Shiite militias who work for the Interior Ministry.
Every day something else. Yet even so, some people still can't find their voices. After awhile, you seriously do begin to wonder if anything can reach them?
They'll tell you about something they "read" in In Style but if you bring up Iraq, they get a blank look on their faces. If you mention Falluja, watch the confusion spread across their faces.
There are periods in anyone's life where things will be so stressful that they truly do need to shut out the world. But there are people content to veg in front of the TV and "escape" from something they can't name.
They isolate themselves. On an issue as serious as war (or peace), you need to engage.
That's my opinion.
Which brings us to the issue of opinions.
I intended to blog Saturday. That's not an apology. I participated in an all night marathon on Thursday night/Friday morning but that's not an excuse. I will have something up when I can.
On Saturday I intended to blog. Then I saw Cedric had and knew Rebecca had. Kat always blogs on Saturday.
So I thought I would save my voice for Sunday.
I hadn't thought we would end up with a more than all nighter at The Third Estate Sunday Review; however, that is what happened. It will probably happen again.
Tonight I'm blogging.
I am, of course, bothered by what happened to Kat.
I want to avoid naming anyone but obviously we're speaking of Kat. I'm refraining from naming otherwise because C.I. believe we have some sort of peace agreement. Far be it from me to ever be accused of breaking a peace agreement unintentionally.
I don't wish to break it intentionally.
However, I do wish to pick up on thoughts C.I. and Kat have both voiced but I'm not sure the point has gotten across. That will be my attempt at a contribution.
Kat's entire entry that bothered someone is about "can." The ability to do something. She's referring to the ability to hold an opinion in favor or opposed. The argument she sets forward in her post that bothered some people was that a contrary opinion was voiced and there was a dog pile from other posters. It is clear to me from the post Kat did that she was speaking of "can."
"Can" is key to her entry and it is why so many have focused on the fact that, once the responses began, "can" would be left out of a quote she made.
The point Kat was making was that we all have the ability and right to have an opinion. No one has to agree but we have that right to have one.
Dropping the "can" wasn't just missing a word, it was missing the message.
On their end, I don't think they ever grasped Kat's message.
Hopefully, on their end they were attempting to figure out where the breakdown was.
I know on our end, C.I. was trying to present their opinion, as C.I. understood it, all last week. Present it. Not agree with it or endorse it.
What it came down to, besides the message, was the style. Kat's style is not common today. There aren't many women writing about music at large outlets and when they do, they provide an NPR/PBS style of commentary. Kat doesn't speak in that voice.
Her reviews, her writing on topics other than music, are written with passion.
It is too much passion for some people because, while we're used to men arguing passionately about sports, music, film and go down the list of topics, we really don't get that from many women. Maureen Dowd writes like a lazy tiger. I'm not calling her lazy. But I'm saying she's like a tiger lying down that will still send that arm out at the most unexpected place. You may think, "Oh, pretty tiger" and that's just about the time the arm shoots out. But the tiger's not prowling.
A number of people have a problem with Dowd's writing. So it doesn't surprise me that some might have a problem with Kat's. Though she belongs to a long history of women writing about rock, most people today aren't aware of rock criticism. If they do know it, they can usually tell you Lester Bangs' name. But there's a whole history of women doing criticism that they've never heard of or read the work of.
I don't have a problem if another site doesn't like Kat's style or if they disagree with her opinion.
I do have a problem with the implication that Kat can't write as well as someone. Especially when one appears to be presenting a cool, detached look and that's held as the standard.
Kat doesn't have to meet anyone's standard but her own.
Her success, the fact that so many enjoy her writing, is due to her utilizing her own voice.
I don't feel that I do that. I feel like I come off, online, as the most monotone, drab voice in the world. That is one of the many reasons I didn't want to start my own blog. But some people enjoy this site and I'm flattered.
You may prefer me to Kat, but that wouldn't make me better than Kat. Our styles are too different to be compared.
So I think the difference of opinion stems from the fact that Kat is clearly not the style of the other site. That's fine and they can (can) pursue any style of criticism they wish to. They can disagree with Kat's opinion.
But what they cannot do is downgrade the quality or the opinion because they disagree with it when their standards are not her standards. It's not as though she wanted to write like the man involved. Kat would hate writing like that as much as he would hate writing like her. They are both entitled to feel that way.
I don't want to go into what happened but I will note that clearly I felt Kat was wronged.
But the thing that saddens me the most, if there's a peace and apparently there is now, is that I still feel Kat was graded by standards she's never tried to meet, standards she has rejected. In writing, she has rejected them. I am saddened that instead of just noting that she is pursuing a different path than they are, there was a need to downgrade Kat's abilities and talents.
I think that all stems from the same area that makes someone think "can" is just a word that Kat used in a sentence which they forgot to include in their quoting. "Can" isn't just a word. It is the whole point of Kat's writing in pretty much everything she writes.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
"Peace is not the product of a victory . . ."
As always, Mike and I both have two of the same headlines from Democracy Now! so visit Mike's site (Mikey Likes It!) to get his take on them.
Democrats Split Over Iraq War (Democracy Now!):
In this country, the war in Iraq is threatening to open up a serious divide within the Democratic Party. On Monday, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean told a San Antonio radio station: "the idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong." Dean’s remarks came after House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi last week endorsed Congressman John Murtha’s call for withdraw US troops from Iraq within six months. Several Democrats rebuked Dean on Tuesday. Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman said: "It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he'll be commander in chief for three more years. We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril."
I'm really sick of Joe Lieberman and glad to know that Lowell P. Weicker Jr.is thinking of running against him. For more on that, see C.I.'s entry.
On that entry, I agree with C.I. completely. Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, No. 04-1152 is not about free speech for the government. Free speech is for citizens. Free speech does not apply to the government since the government already has the power and structure behind it.
Universities should be allowed to bar military recruiters because the military discriminates against gays and lesbians. To argue that the university is infringing upon the government's "free speech" is ludicrous. That argument is the same nonsense that's allowed corporations to have "personhood." It goes against the reason free speech was cited in the Constitution.
More importantly, recruiters are not part of a market of ideas.They are an area of employment.
The ACLU is one of the staunchest defenders of free speech. If the government had a free speech issue, the ACLU would be filing a brief for their side.
Back to Joe Lieberman, it's past time that Democrats stopped putting out the kind of nonsense he does. If he wants to play Republican-lite, go ahead and switch parties already because he does Democrats no favors. If this is how he feels, he's only a few years away from a Zell Miller turn.
I don't like his politics and I don't care for him. I remember seeing the Democratic candidates for president at an ice cream social on PBS's NewsHour. John Edwards and John Kerry ate the icecream the children made and went out of there way to be supportive of the kids. Joe Lieberman was apparently worried about his figure.
I didn't like his politics before that. Seeing the way he refused to interact with the children, he fell even lower in my eyes.
Government Fails to Convict Palestinian Professor on Terror Charges (Democracy Now!):
In a case observers are calling a major blow the Bush administration, a prominent Palestinian-American professor has been acquitted of several terrorism charges. Sami Al-Arian was accused of helping finance and direct the militant group Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Al-Arian was found not guilty on eight charges. Jurors deadlocked on nine others, leading the judge to declare a mistrial. Three other co-defendants were also cleared of most of the charges against them. We’ll have more on the Al-Arian case in a few minutes.
It was a huge blow for the government. They have pushed this case as proof that their so-called Patriot Act works. It doesn't work. It chills dissent and goes against the principles this nation is supposed to stand for. Sami Al-Arian's life was nearly destroyed. Hopefully, he'll be able to pick up the pieces of his life. Be sure to check out Democracy Now! because his daughter speaks with Amy Goodman. The government threw everything they had at him and a jury of his peers found him not guilty on eight charges and couldn't find guilt on nine more. The administration couldn't prove their case. After years of spinning to the press, they couldn't prove their case. As C.I. pointed out, their "wins" are not convictions but on plea bargains.
There's been a lot of blogging in the community. Be sure to read Kat's "White mobs do love their Bobby Dylan," Wally's "Florida, Florida, Florida" which brings more news about the after effects of Hurricane Wilma, Cedric's "Carols, etc" and Rebecca's "peanuts and the press" which should make you laugh.
Mike's Motto: The Common Ills community is important and the Common Ills community is important to me. So I'll do my part for the Common Ills community.
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center):
Peace is not the product of a victory or a command. It has no finishing line, no final deadline, no fixed definition of achievement. Peace is a never-ending process, the work of many decisions.
Oscar Arias
democracy now
like maria said paz
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
mikey likes it
the common ills
cia rendition
cedrics big mix
the daily jot
kats korner
Democrats Split Over Iraq War (Democracy Now!):
In this country, the war in Iraq is threatening to open up a serious divide within the Democratic Party. On Monday, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean told a San Antonio radio station: "the idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong." Dean’s remarks came after House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi last week endorsed Congressman John Murtha’s call for withdraw US troops from Iraq within six months. Several Democrats rebuked Dean on Tuesday. Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman said: "It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he'll be commander in chief for three more years. We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril."
I'm really sick of Joe Lieberman and glad to know that Lowell P. Weicker Jr.is thinking of running against him. For more on that, see C.I.'s entry.
On that entry, I agree with C.I. completely. Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, No. 04-1152 is not about free speech for the government. Free speech is for citizens. Free speech does not apply to the government since the government already has the power and structure behind it.
Universities should be allowed to bar military recruiters because the military discriminates against gays and lesbians. To argue that the university is infringing upon the government's "free speech" is ludicrous. That argument is the same nonsense that's allowed corporations to have "personhood." It goes against the reason free speech was cited in the Constitution.
More importantly, recruiters are not part of a market of ideas.They are an area of employment.
The ACLU is one of the staunchest defenders of free speech. If the government had a free speech issue, the ACLU would be filing a brief for their side.
Back to Joe Lieberman, it's past time that Democrats stopped putting out the kind of nonsense he does. If he wants to play Republican-lite, go ahead and switch parties already because he does Democrats no favors. If this is how he feels, he's only a few years away from a Zell Miller turn.
I don't like his politics and I don't care for him. I remember seeing the Democratic candidates for president at an ice cream social on PBS's NewsHour. John Edwards and John Kerry ate the icecream the children made and went out of there way to be supportive of the kids. Joe Lieberman was apparently worried about his figure.
I didn't like his politics before that. Seeing the way he refused to interact with the children, he fell even lower in my eyes.
Government Fails to Convict Palestinian Professor on Terror Charges (Democracy Now!):
In a case observers are calling a major blow the Bush administration, a prominent Palestinian-American professor has been acquitted of several terrorism charges. Sami Al-Arian was accused of helping finance and direct the militant group Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Al-Arian was found not guilty on eight charges. Jurors deadlocked on nine others, leading the judge to declare a mistrial. Three other co-defendants were also cleared of most of the charges against them. We’ll have more on the Al-Arian case in a few minutes.
It was a huge blow for the government. They have pushed this case as proof that their so-called Patriot Act works. It doesn't work. It chills dissent and goes against the principles this nation is supposed to stand for. Sami Al-Arian's life was nearly destroyed. Hopefully, he'll be able to pick up the pieces of his life. Be sure to check out Democracy Now! because his daughter speaks with Amy Goodman. The government threw everything they had at him and a jury of his peers found him not guilty on eight charges and couldn't find guilt on nine more. The administration couldn't prove their case. After years of spinning to the press, they couldn't prove their case. As C.I. pointed out, their "wins" are not convictions but on plea bargains.
There's been a lot of blogging in the community. Be sure to read Kat's "White mobs do love their Bobby Dylan," Wally's "Florida, Florida, Florida" which brings more news about the after effects of Hurricane Wilma, Cedric's "Carols, etc" and Rebecca's "peanuts and the press" which should make you laugh.
Mike's Motto: The Common Ills community is important and the Common Ills community is important to me. So I'll do my part for the Common Ills community.
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center):
Peace is not the product of a victory or a command. It has no finishing line, no final deadline, no fixed definition of achievement. Peace is a never-ending process, the work of many decisions.
Oscar Arias
democracy now
like maria said paz
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
mikey likes it
the common ills
cia rendition
cedrics big mix
the daily jot
kats korner
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
"If we do not change our direction . . ."
In an editorial at The Third Estate Sunday Review ("Editorial: Looks Who's Screaming 'Special Rights'"), this was noted:
Elaine and C.I. saw a ridiculous "film" about the "haters" this week. "Haters" try to deny rights, the film argued, they want everyone to believe as they do. Do you know who the haters were? Everyone living in a secular world. (Regardless of their own personal beliefs.) The whole world, according to the film, was out to get evangicals. Talk about a persecution complex.
That was two Sundays ago. This past Sunday (in "NYT: 'Report Finds Cover-Up in an F.B.I. Terror Case' (Eric Lichtblau)"), C.I. noted:
Note on the film mentioned in the editorial above. I have no comment on it other than a friend brought it over as a laugh (it's seeking distribution but finding no takers at present) on the Thanksgiving holiday. That's why Elaine and I ended up watching it. There were a few e-mails wondering about it. I'll pass the interest on Elaine and she can write about it at her site (Like Maria Said Paz) if she wants.
There have been several e-mails on it. We watched it the day after Thanksgiving when a friend of C.I.'s brought over a DVD copy. It was brought over as a joke. I thought it would be interesting (C.I. didn't want to watch it). So we sat down and watched and it was laughable. The plot? The "haters" are destroying the world (but it all took place in America -- "all" was really just a few "sets"). The 'poor put upons' were headed for salvation, provided they continued hating gays and lesbians, opposing women's rights, go down the list. All these groups were "haters." They were forcing the poor 'vangicals (to use C.I.'s term) to embrace their lifestyle because that is their 'goal.' The haters wanted everyone to be gay was a point that was made over and over. The 'logic' was that gays and lesbians can't reproduce so they have to recruit and they were doing some major recruiting.
It was badly acted and had a few F-list celebs that you wouldn't be able to name because they are so forgettable. "I thought he was dead" was something I said about one to which C.I. replied, "No, just his career."
I was laughing at the thing because it truly was created by someone with a persecution complex unless they were just trying to ride some Mel Gibson wave. It's not getting distribution or that was the hunch. It's really poorly lit and poorly acted with everyone saying their lines in a wooden manner. There's an 'explosion' that looks like someone just turned on the light switch.
So that's what the movie was about. Someone's deluded belief (or belief that delusions could be marketed) that the whole country wants to destroy churches and turn everyone into a gay male or lesbian woman preaching respect for all and embracing equality for all races. (There was a subplot about races "mixing" as a result of an interracial marriage. Both died. Apparently for their 'transgression.')
Now let's move on to Democracy Now! and remember to check out Mike's commentaries at Mikey Likes It!
Rice Denies U.S. Engages In Torture (Democracy Now!):
Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice denied Monday that the U.S. is engaging in torture and defended how the Bush administration's waging of the so-called war on terror. Rice's comments came ahead of a trip to Europe where she is expected to be questioned about the existence of secret CIA prisons and about the CIA's practice of kidnapping wanted individuals overseas. Rice did not deny the U.S. has secretly picked up detainees overseas and flying them to other countries but she denied this is being done "for the purpose of being tortured." "The United States does not permit, tolerate, or condone torture under any circumstances. Moreover, in accordance with the policy of this administration, the United States has respected and will continue to respect the sovereignty of other countries," Rice said. "The U.S. does not transport and has not transported detainees from one country to another for the purpose of being tortured. The United States does not use the airspace or the airports of any country for the purpose of transporting a detainee to a country where he or she will be tortured."
Mike and I both felt like C.I. covered all we could say on this with "NYT: 'U.S. Interrogations Are Saving European Lives, Rice Says' (Joel Brinkley)." The only thing I can add to that is that it truly is shocking how in this country skepticism greets every reports from a human rights's group or report from the foreign press (or our own independent press) but Condi just has to move her lips and it's taken as reality.
Iraqi VP Al-Yawer Criticizes State of Iraqi Security Forces (Democracy Now!):
The bombings come just a day after Iraq's Vice President Ghazi al-Yawer publicly disputed comments made last week by President Bush about the improved state of the Iraqi security forces. Al-Yawer said the training of Iraqi security forces has suffered a big "setback" in recent months because the army and other forces have been increasingly used to settle personal and political scores. In addition al-Yawer warned that armed Shiite militias in the south might be trying to incite a civil war in Iraq.
Which follows up on the previous comments. Above you learn reality. From the mainstream, you learn what Bully Boy pushes as reality. Flaps his lips and it's truth and worth noting without questioning. That passes for reporting. I don't think it even qualifies for "minutes" let alone reporting.
Katrina was supposed to have been the big change in the press. It was their wake up call, supposedly. But not much has changed. They're still happy noting statements with the weight of truth even though it's quite obvious that there's no truth to be found in the statements even from the most casual examination. Which brings us to the peace quote. Think about it.
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center):
If we do not change our direction we are likely to end up where we are headed for.
Chinese Proverb
mikey likes it
the common ills
democracy now
like maria said paz
iraq
peace
anti-war
Elaine and C.I. saw a ridiculous "film" about the "haters" this week. "Haters" try to deny rights, the film argued, they want everyone to believe as they do. Do you know who the haters were? Everyone living in a secular world. (Regardless of their own personal beliefs.) The whole world, according to the film, was out to get evangicals. Talk about a persecution complex.
That was two Sundays ago. This past Sunday (in "NYT: 'Report Finds Cover-Up in an F.B.I. Terror Case' (Eric Lichtblau)"), C.I. noted:
Note on the film mentioned in the editorial above. I have no comment on it other than a friend brought it over as a laugh (it's seeking distribution but finding no takers at present) on the Thanksgiving holiday. That's why Elaine and I ended up watching it. There were a few e-mails wondering about it. I'll pass the interest on Elaine and she can write about it at her site (Like Maria Said Paz) if she wants.
There have been several e-mails on it. We watched it the day after Thanksgiving when a friend of C.I.'s brought over a DVD copy. It was brought over as a joke. I thought it would be interesting (C.I. didn't want to watch it). So we sat down and watched and it was laughable. The plot? The "haters" are destroying the world (but it all took place in America -- "all" was really just a few "sets"). The 'poor put upons' were headed for salvation, provided they continued hating gays and lesbians, opposing women's rights, go down the list. All these groups were "haters." They were forcing the poor 'vangicals (to use C.I.'s term) to embrace their lifestyle because that is their 'goal.' The haters wanted everyone to be gay was a point that was made over and over. The 'logic' was that gays and lesbians can't reproduce so they have to recruit and they were doing some major recruiting.
It was badly acted and had a few F-list celebs that you wouldn't be able to name because they are so forgettable. "I thought he was dead" was something I said about one to which C.I. replied, "No, just his career."
I was laughing at the thing because it truly was created by someone with a persecution complex unless they were just trying to ride some Mel Gibson wave. It's not getting distribution or that was the hunch. It's really poorly lit and poorly acted with everyone saying their lines in a wooden manner. There's an 'explosion' that looks like someone just turned on the light switch.
So that's what the movie was about. Someone's deluded belief (or belief that delusions could be marketed) that the whole country wants to destroy churches and turn everyone into a gay male or lesbian woman preaching respect for all and embracing equality for all races. (There was a subplot about races "mixing" as a result of an interracial marriage. Both died. Apparently for their 'transgression.')
Now let's move on to Democracy Now! and remember to check out Mike's commentaries at Mikey Likes It!
Rice Denies U.S. Engages In Torture (Democracy Now!):
Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice denied Monday that the U.S. is engaging in torture and defended how the Bush administration's waging of the so-called war on terror. Rice's comments came ahead of a trip to Europe where she is expected to be questioned about the existence of secret CIA prisons and about the CIA's practice of kidnapping wanted individuals overseas. Rice did not deny the U.S. has secretly picked up detainees overseas and flying them to other countries but she denied this is being done "for the purpose of being tortured." "The United States does not permit, tolerate, or condone torture under any circumstances. Moreover, in accordance with the policy of this administration, the United States has respected and will continue to respect the sovereignty of other countries," Rice said. "The U.S. does not transport and has not transported detainees from one country to another for the purpose of being tortured. The United States does not use the airspace or the airports of any country for the purpose of transporting a detainee to a country where he or she will be tortured."
Mike and I both felt like C.I. covered all we could say on this with "NYT: 'U.S. Interrogations Are Saving European Lives, Rice Says' (Joel Brinkley)." The only thing I can add to that is that it truly is shocking how in this country skepticism greets every reports from a human rights's group or report from the foreign press (or our own independent press) but Condi just has to move her lips and it's taken as reality.
Iraqi VP Al-Yawer Criticizes State of Iraqi Security Forces (Democracy Now!):
The bombings come just a day after Iraq's Vice President Ghazi al-Yawer publicly disputed comments made last week by President Bush about the improved state of the Iraqi security forces. Al-Yawer said the training of Iraqi security forces has suffered a big "setback" in recent months because the army and other forces have been increasingly used to settle personal and political scores. In addition al-Yawer warned that armed Shiite militias in the south might be trying to incite a civil war in Iraq.
Which follows up on the previous comments. Above you learn reality. From the mainstream, you learn what Bully Boy pushes as reality. Flaps his lips and it's truth and worth noting without questioning. That passes for reporting. I don't think it even qualifies for "minutes" let alone reporting.
Katrina was supposed to have been the big change in the press. It was their wake up call, supposedly. But not much has changed. They're still happy noting statements with the weight of truth even though it's quite obvious that there's no truth to be found in the statements even from the most casual examination. Which brings us to the peace quote. Think about it.
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center):
If we do not change our direction we are likely to end up where we are headed for.
Chinese Proverb
mikey likes it
the common ills
democracy now
like maria said paz
iraq
peace
anti-war
Monday, December 05, 2005
"No matter how big a nation is . . ."
I'm adding this paragraph to this post from earlier. If you didn't see it earlier it's because Blogspot accepted it but told me I'd have to come back later and publish. I was wiped out from the day and just wanted to go to sleep. Unlike what Rebecca thought (and wrote), I didn't go to bed. I grabbed an afghan and laid down on the couch. If I'd gotten into bed, I probably wouldn't have woken up when Rebecca phoned a few minutes ago.
Please read Rebecca's post 'obligations' because she's very upset. She's not sure it makes sense. I read it and it does. She was bothered by CBS Evening News "reporting" on Saddam Hussein's trial because they felt they could spin because no one would challenge them on it. I agree with Rebecca that when reporting something that won't lead to anyone challenging them because the subject is so unpopular you do see the actual news "ethics" at work. I also think it applies to the peace quote I'd selected for this entry. What follows is my original post plus I'll add Rebecca to the tags at the bottom.
So Blogger/Blogspot is having problems today and you can't view some sites. Mike's posting anyway and I was on the fence about whether to or not? I was thinking about waiting and posting later but I'm really sleepy despite the hour. So I'll go ahead and attempt this despite my fear that since the sites aren't viewable, I'll hit "post" and learn that my entry is lost.
Be sure to check out Mike's site because he's going to cover the same two headlines from Democracy Now!
U.S. Acknowledges Admits It Paid Iraqi Press to Run Propaganda (Democracy Now!):
The U.S. military acknowledged on Friday for the first time that it has paid Iraqi newspapers to carry positive news about U.S. efforts in Iraq. The admission came after a series of news reports indicated the U.S. paid a private company called the Lincolon Group to plant stories in the Iraqi press and to pay off sympathetic Iraqi journalists. The Knight Ridder news agency reported U.S. psychological-warfare officers have been involved in writing news releases and drafting media strategies for top commanders. In addition the news agency reported that on at least one occasion, psychological warfare specialists took a group of international journalists on a tour of Iraq's border with Syria.
They aren't even ashamed by this. They're arguing that you do what you have to. They lied. They were caught. There's no apologizing and there's no embarrassment. To them, it appears to be business as usual. They lie with impunity.
They are caught planting stories in a supposed free press and it's not a big deal to them. That tells you everything you need to know about the "values" of this administration as they continue to practice situational ethics and demonstrate their disregard for democracy and the free exchange of information.
Tens of Thousands in 30 Cities Protest Global Warming (Democracy Now!):
Tens of thousands of people demonstrated Saturday in 30 cities across the globe to call on world governments to do more to halt global warming. The largest protests took place in Montreal which is hosting the UN Climate Change Conference -- the largest international conference ever on global warming. In London environmentalists held banners declaring President Bush to be wanted "for crimes against the planet." In Washington, drivers of hybrid cars circled the White House. And in New Orleans, residents held a "Save New Orleans, Stop Global Warming" party in the French Quarter. On Saturday environmental groups presented a petition signed by 600,000 Americans urging President Bush to do more to stop global warming. The Bush administration has rejected the Kyoto Protocol to limit greenhouse gases. The United States emits 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gases even though it has just five percent of the world's population.
Mike was depressed by this story when we spoke of it. He's aware that environmentalism is a global movement of many years but it saddened him that a movment that began before he was born (by many years) is still having to battle. As a feminist, maybe I'm more accustomed to it.
Feminism started a century prior to my birth. Like feminism, environmentalism is a long term movement.
Which doesn't mean that I'm not worried. It seems like the damage we've done is now surfacing in hurricanes. The hole in the ozone is no longer an abstract worry. I think we're seeing the results of pollution and there's no quick fix.
But in terms of the movement itself, I never knew anyone who thought, "I'll sign a petition and tomorrow everything will change." The desire to choose profit over the environment is one that business and governments have acted on for years.
I think great strides have been made in awareness. I'm honestly not sure where we stand at this moment. But I'm trying to remain hopeful.
C.I. highlighted a piece by Tom Hayden that I wanted to note but I don't remember where it appeared and The Common Ills, like all the other Blogspot sites isn't viewable. I'll catch that tomorrow. I also wanted to highlight C.I.'s comments about Green Zone "reporting" from this morning. I can't for the same reason but Julie did e-mail me about that so I have the link at least. If you missed it and Blogspot is not still having problems, click here to read the commentary.
I don't have a link for Ruth's latest Ruth's Morning Edition Report. But I did read it this weekend and did listen Sunday to Sunday Salon. The topics were Iraq and executions. Tom Hayden was a guest for both hours so if you missed it, it's worth listening to.
I wasn't familiar with another guest who impressed me and I called C.I. about that Sunday evening. Her name is Judith Coburn and they spoke of an article she'd written. C.I. was kind enough to e-mail the article to me and I'll note it in a moment.
But I want to say thanks to Ruth for the heads up to Sunday Salon and to remind everyone of her other heads up. Pacifica Radio is digging into their archives Tuesday for a broadcast that will begin early in the morning and last through Wednesday morning. This is part of a pledge drive to preserve the Pacifica Radio archives so, if you have the money, please donate. If you don't, you should still listen, without guilt because it's public radio. If you've never listened to Pacifica Radio you don't know what you're missing. Tomorrow they'll focus on a number of things including civil rights and a reading of War & Peace. (Partial reading from their original marathon reading where various notables read from Tolstoy's classic.)
I want to talk about the guilt factor for a moment because I know guilt can be a burden. Pacifica Radio depends on the donations of their listeners and if you can afford to give, I can't think of a better cause. However, Pacifica Radio also has power through it's reach and you can contribute by listening as well as by getting the word out.
Some won't have the money to give, especially during the holidays. That shouldn't prevent you from enjoying the broadcasts or getting the word out.
"Worse than Watergate?" (Judith Coburn, Mother Jones):
On July 31, 1973, while the Vietnam war was still being fought, Representative Robert Drinan, a Massachusetts Democrat, introduced the first impeachment resolution against President Richard Nixon. One of the grounds for indictment Drinan proposed was the secret bombing of Cambodia, ordered by the President. To Drinan, this was a crime at least as great as the domestic scandals which had already come to be known as "Watergate." The fourteen months of massive B-52 "carpet bombings," which killed tens of thousands of Cambodian villagers and an unknown number of Vietnamese communist soldiers in border sanctuaries, were run outside the military's chain of command. They were also kept completely secret from Congress and the public (until exposed by New York Times reporter William Beecher). In recently released transcripts of telephone conversations between Nixon and his closest aides, the President ordered "a massive bombing campaign in Cambodia [using] anything that flies on anything that moves." (The transcript then records an unintelligible comment that "sounded like [General Alexander] Haig laughing.")
The secret bombing of Cambodia involved the same abuse of power and political manipulation of government agencies as Watergate, but only a few Congressional representatives like John Conyers, Elizabeth Holtzman, and Edward Mezvinsky supported Drinan's Cambodia article, which was soundly defeated by the House impeachment committee 26-12.
There are many myths about Watergate -- among them that Woodward and Bernstein rode into Dodge and rescued the republic all by themselves, that the impeachment of Richard Nixon saved American constitutional democracy from destruction, and that the grounds on which Nixon was impeached were a fair reflection of what he and "all the President's men" had actually done. In American mythology, "the system worked."
To most Americans, the slaughter of millions of Cambodians, Vietnamese, and Lao, as well as the destruction of their countries, seem unrelated to "Watergate." Henry Kissinger, one of the architects of the secret bombing of Cambodia, who had ordered his own dissenting staffers and several journalists illegally wiretapped to stop leaks, escaped indictment and would soon be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Few now remember that it was Indochina, not the burglary of Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate Complex that really set Watergate, the scandal, in motion and led to a pattern of Presidential conduct which seems eerily familiar today. In his 1974 book, Time of Illusion, Jonathan Schell wrote of "the distortions in the conduct of the presidency which deformed national politics in the Vietnam years -- the isolation from reality, the rage against political opposition, the hunger for unconstitutional power, the conspiratorial mindedness, the bent for repressive action." He concluded that three presidents "consistently sacrificed the welfare of the nation at home to what they saw as the demands of foreign affairs."
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center):
No matter how big a nation is, it is no stronger that its weakest people, and as long as you keep a person down, some part of you has to be down there to hold him down, so it means you cannot soar as you might otherwise.
Marian Anderson
the common ills
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
mikey likes it
democracy now
like maria said paz
Please read Rebecca's post 'obligations' because she's very upset. She's not sure it makes sense. I read it and it does. She was bothered by CBS Evening News "reporting" on Saddam Hussein's trial because they felt they could spin because no one would challenge them on it. I agree with Rebecca that when reporting something that won't lead to anyone challenging them because the subject is so unpopular you do see the actual news "ethics" at work. I also think it applies to the peace quote I'd selected for this entry. What follows is my original post plus I'll add Rebecca to the tags at the bottom.
So Blogger/Blogspot is having problems today and you can't view some sites. Mike's posting anyway and I was on the fence about whether to or not? I was thinking about waiting and posting later but I'm really sleepy despite the hour. So I'll go ahead and attempt this despite my fear that since the sites aren't viewable, I'll hit "post" and learn that my entry is lost.
Be sure to check out Mike's site because he's going to cover the same two headlines from Democracy Now!
U.S. Acknowledges Admits It Paid Iraqi Press to Run Propaganda (Democracy Now!):
The U.S. military acknowledged on Friday for the first time that it has paid Iraqi newspapers to carry positive news about U.S. efforts in Iraq. The admission came after a series of news reports indicated the U.S. paid a private company called the Lincolon Group to plant stories in the Iraqi press and to pay off sympathetic Iraqi journalists. The Knight Ridder news agency reported U.S. psychological-warfare officers have been involved in writing news releases and drafting media strategies for top commanders. In addition the news agency reported that on at least one occasion, psychological warfare specialists took a group of international journalists on a tour of Iraq's border with Syria.
They aren't even ashamed by this. They're arguing that you do what you have to. They lied. They were caught. There's no apologizing and there's no embarrassment. To them, it appears to be business as usual. They lie with impunity.
They are caught planting stories in a supposed free press and it's not a big deal to them. That tells you everything you need to know about the "values" of this administration as they continue to practice situational ethics and demonstrate their disregard for democracy and the free exchange of information.
Tens of Thousands in 30 Cities Protest Global Warming (Democracy Now!):
Tens of thousands of people demonstrated Saturday in 30 cities across the globe to call on world governments to do more to halt global warming. The largest protests took place in Montreal which is hosting the UN Climate Change Conference -- the largest international conference ever on global warming. In London environmentalists held banners declaring President Bush to be wanted "for crimes against the planet." In Washington, drivers of hybrid cars circled the White House. And in New Orleans, residents held a "Save New Orleans, Stop Global Warming" party in the French Quarter. On Saturday environmental groups presented a petition signed by 600,000 Americans urging President Bush to do more to stop global warming. The Bush administration has rejected the Kyoto Protocol to limit greenhouse gases. The United States emits 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gases even though it has just five percent of the world's population.
Mike was depressed by this story when we spoke of it. He's aware that environmentalism is a global movement of many years but it saddened him that a movment that began before he was born (by many years) is still having to battle. As a feminist, maybe I'm more accustomed to it.
Feminism started a century prior to my birth. Like feminism, environmentalism is a long term movement.
Which doesn't mean that I'm not worried. It seems like the damage we've done is now surfacing in hurricanes. The hole in the ozone is no longer an abstract worry. I think we're seeing the results of pollution and there's no quick fix.
But in terms of the movement itself, I never knew anyone who thought, "I'll sign a petition and tomorrow everything will change." The desire to choose profit over the environment is one that business and governments have acted on for years.
I think great strides have been made in awareness. I'm honestly not sure where we stand at this moment. But I'm trying to remain hopeful.
C.I. highlighted a piece by Tom Hayden that I wanted to note but I don't remember where it appeared and The Common Ills, like all the other Blogspot sites isn't viewable. I'll catch that tomorrow. I also wanted to highlight C.I.'s comments about Green Zone "reporting" from this morning. I can't for the same reason but Julie did e-mail me about that so I have the link at least. If you missed it and Blogspot is not still having problems, click here to read the commentary.
I don't have a link for Ruth's latest Ruth's Morning Edition Report. But I did read it this weekend and did listen Sunday to Sunday Salon. The topics were Iraq and executions. Tom Hayden was a guest for both hours so if you missed it, it's worth listening to.
I wasn't familiar with another guest who impressed me and I called C.I. about that Sunday evening. Her name is Judith Coburn and they spoke of an article she'd written. C.I. was kind enough to e-mail the article to me and I'll note it in a moment.
But I want to say thanks to Ruth for the heads up to Sunday Salon and to remind everyone of her other heads up. Pacifica Radio is digging into their archives Tuesday for a broadcast that will begin early in the morning and last through Wednesday morning. This is part of a pledge drive to preserve the Pacifica Radio archives so, if you have the money, please donate. If you don't, you should still listen, without guilt because it's public radio. If you've never listened to Pacifica Radio you don't know what you're missing. Tomorrow they'll focus on a number of things including civil rights and a reading of War & Peace. (Partial reading from their original marathon reading where various notables read from Tolstoy's classic.)
I want to talk about the guilt factor for a moment because I know guilt can be a burden. Pacifica Radio depends on the donations of their listeners and if you can afford to give, I can't think of a better cause. However, Pacifica Radio also has power through it's reach and you can contribute by listening as well as by getting the word out.
Some won't have the money to give, especially during the holidays. That shouldn't prevent you from enjoying the broadcasts or getting the word out.
"Worse than Watergate?" (Judith Coburn, Mother Jones):
On July 31, 1973, while the Vietnam war was still being fought, Representative Robert Drinan, a Massachusetts Democrat, introduced the first impeachment resolution against President Richard Nixon. One of the grounds for indictment Drinan proposed was the secret bombing of Cambodia, ordered by the President. To Drinan, this was a crime at least as great as the domestic scandals which had already come to be known as "Watergate." The fourteen months of massive B-52 "carpet bombings," which killed tens of thousands of Cambodian villagers and an unknown number of Vietnamese communist soldiers in border sanctuaries, were run outside the military's chain of command. They were also kept completely secret from Congress and the public (until exposed by New York Times reporter William Beecher). In recently released transcripts of telephone conversations between Nixon and his closest aides, the President ordered "a massive bombing campaign in Cambodia [using] anything that flies on anything that moves." (The transcript then records an unintelligible comment that "sounded like [General Alexander] Haig laughing.")
The secret bombing of Cambodia involved the same abuse of power and political manipulation of government agencies as Watergate, but only a few Congressional representatives like John Conyers, Elizabeth Holtzman, and Edward Mezvinsky supported Drinan's Cambodia article, which was soundly defeated by the House impeachment committee 26-12.
There are many myths about Watergate -- among them that Woodward and Bernstein rode into Dodge and rescued the republic all by themselves, that the impeachment of Richard Nixon saved American constitutional democracy from destruction, and that the grounds on which Nixon was impeached were a fair reflection of what he and "all the President's men" had actually done. In American mythology, "the system worked."
To most Americans, the slaughter of millions of Cambodians, Vietnamese, and Lao, as well as the destruction of their countries, seem unrelated to "Watergate." Henry Kissinger, one of the architects of the secret bombing of Cambodia, who had ordered his own dissenting staffers and several journalists illegally wiretapped to stop leaks, escaped indictment and would soon be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Few now remember that it was Indochina, not the burglary of Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate Complex that really set Watergate, the scandal, in motion and led to a pattern of Presidential conduct which seems eerily familiar today. In his 1974 book, Time of Illusion, Jonathan Schell wrote of "the distortions in the conduct of the presidency which deformed national politics in the Vietnam years -- the isolation from reality, the rage against political opposition, the hunger for unconstitutional power, the conspiratorial mindedness, the bent for repressive action." He concluded that three presidents "consistently sacrificed the welfare of the nation at home to what they saw as the demands of foreign affairs."
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center):
No matter how big a nation is, it is no stronger that its weakest people, and as long as you keep a person down, some part of you has to be down there to hold him down, so it means you cannot soar as you might otherwise.
Marian Anderson
the common ills
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
mikey likes it
democracy now
like maria said paz
Friday, December 02, 2005
Be sure to check out Mike's comments on the Democracy Now! items by visiting his site Mikey Likes It! I've got a few things to note this evening.
National Guard Offering $1,000 Recruiting "Finders Fee" (Democracy Now!):
Faced with dwindling recruiting numbers, the Army National Guard is offering a finder’s fee to soldiers who can enlist new recruits. This according to a report in USA Today. The Guard Recruiter Assistant Program, launched this week in five states, offers National Guard members rewards of $1,000 dollars for enlisting a recruit and an additional $1,000 dollars if the recruit shows up for basic training. The National Guard says recruiting has fallen 20% short of its goal this year.
This is a bit like Subway offering their employees bonuses for every new hire they can scare up.
The military trains people to recruit. It spends a lot of money on that. It also pays people who hold the job of recruiter.
Justice Dept.: Delay Redistricting Plan Violated Voting Act (Democracy Now!):
A memo obtained by the Washington Post shows lawyers at the Justice Department concluded a controversial Texas redistricting plan spearheaded by indicted Congressmember Tom Delay violated the Voting Rights Act. The memo argued the redistricting plan illegally diluted the voting influence of minorities in several Texas congressional districts. The memo said: "The State of Texas has not met its burden in showing that the proposed congressional redistricting plan does not have a discriminatory effect." Texas lawmakers approved the plan anyway, the memo says, because it stood to increase the number of elected federal Texas Republicans. Following the plan's approval in 2003, Republicans gained five seats in the following year's congressional elections. The redistricting plan is currently being challenged before the U.S. Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Congressmember Delay is facing state charges of money laundering and conspiracy in connection with state elections.
The "violated" the Voting Rights Act. They broke the act. They packed the districts in to formations that were beneifical to them. It didn't matter if it was beneficial to voters because it's all about them and them getting ahead. It's as though you agreed to play Go Fish and mid-game, they decided you'd play Gin instead. Their lack of character is demonstrated in their eagerness to sell out tradition while screaming that tradition must be respected.
Yesterday, the online topic was race. In this community, four members weighed in. I want to note Cedric's because I think it's strong writing.
"Race" (Cedric's Big Mix):
So we're all supposed to write about race today. Everyone in the community. It's a web project and here I thought I was done with homework a long time ago.
I told C.I. that I would be happy to write about it but that I might not have anything anyone wanted to hear. C.I. said, "Even better. Be true to you."
Is this the day where the web purges the guilt for being white-white-white every other day of the year?
Will we see "fab post! hat tip to . . ." nonsense all over the net?
Rebecca wrote something brave. In it she talked about the ways Whites can aid racists. It was brave, it was Rebecca. But maybe some White person will write a "moving post" about Rosa Parks and it will gather steam all over the net and we'll once again here how wonderful the net is and how brave.
I don't expect much from it.
I'd love to be wrong but we can't talk about racism online.
We're not supposed to. We're supposed to look the other way.
Certainly if the net was racist, people of color would be shut out.
Oh wait, we are.
There's a token voice they include on their blog rolls and we're all supposed to be happy about that.
"One of us made it!"
Today is apparently Black day.
Women get ready because you're day will be coming soon.People of color and women get a day or two each year.
Otherwise it's white-white-white male-male-male.
So today a lot of people will get to feel good about themselves and sleep easy knowing that they did "their part."
Or maybe they'll kid themselves that because they blogged on TD Jakes/TD Jokes they're down with the peeps. You have to be pretty white to think TD Jokes speaks to African-American liberals.
But hey, you looked in the paper, you saw a Black man and thought, "I'll write about this!"Didn't matter that he's got nothing to say to the left. Doesn't matter what he preaches because us Blacks just love our preachers, right?
I like Danny Schechter's writing and wish I took the time to note it more but this was sent to me and ended up in the trash folder for spam. I almost missed it. If you've already seen it, well now you get to see it again.
"WAR ON THE MEDIA: 'Don't Bomb Us'" (Danny Schechter, BuzzFlash):
For some time, Mediachannel.org and other outlets have been reporting on the Bush Administration's contempt for the media and its attempts to manage and spin coverage.
Writing in this week's Nation, John Nichols and Robert McChesney catalogue the various strategies that have been deployed, charging, "with its unprecedented campaign to undermine and, where possible, eliminate independent journalism, the Bush Administration has demonstrated astonishing contempt for the Constitution and considerable fear of an informed public."
But would it actually attempt to "take-out" media institutions and kill or otherwise silence journalists? Would it bomb a TV station? How far will this government go?
We know that other governments have shown little restraint. An Indonesian and a Russian journalist were poisoned on airplanes in high profile cases. Others have been "disappeared," killed, jailed and tortured. Groups like Reporters Without Borders and the International Federation of reporters compile the cases and regularly call for justice.
And tonight, instead of a peace quote, I want to excerpt C.I. on Dexter Filkins, the Green Zone, et al. I think it's really important that people are aware that "reporting" isn't what they might think. The reporters are like chickens on a corporate farm, piled one on top of another, no free ranging, confinded in the Green Zone.
"Democracy Now: Sami Rasuli, Arun Gupta, Jose Serrano; Margaret Kimberley, Robert Parry, Danny Schechter" (The Common Ills):
Lastly, a number of e-mails came in regarding Dexter Filkins & John F. Burns' "For Once, President and His Generals See the Same War" in the New York Times this morning. All want to know why no comment? I can imagine few things worse in the morning than having to read through Dexy's "reporting" (his "award winning" "reporting").
What do I think of the article after reading it? I think it's a real shame that Burns' attached his once formidable name to this nonsense. They do not "see the same war," the Bully Boy and the generals (note that I didn't say "his"). That flies in the face of not only logic but public record. (See Seymour Hersh's" Up In The Air: Where is the Iraq war headed next?" in The New Yorker to name the most recent example.) Sunning themselves in the Green Zone, Dexy and Burns think they're on to something. What?
Fakery? It's not reporting. With their team of black t-shirt clad bodyguards escorting them through the Green Zone (Dexy reportedly still packs his own heat), hiding behind stringers who risk their lives (and may get a brief obit if they die, otherwise they'll get nothing but "end credits"), they lie to readers each and every day. LIE.
That's the only word for it since no article notes "We're trapped in the Green Zone! We can't leave without a military escort!" That's they're choice, they chose to be embedded in the Green Zone from day one. So tell the truth already. Quit letting readers think that you're traveling through Iraq when you're hiding in the safety of the Green Zone that's not so safe now and supposedly is about to get a great deal less safe.
The Green Zone section of Baghdad is in danger of being lost. One of the few areas the American military controlled. And safe from the Green Zone, the embedded reporters have never told you how out of control other areas in Iraq are. If Americans had known a year ago, two, that "reporters" "in Iraq" for the mainstream media were Green Zone confined and why, it would be a lot harder for Bully Boy to spin Operation Happy Talk.
Today Dexter Filkins and John F. Burns disgrace themselves and their profession yet again by carrying water for the administration, pretending to be journalists who do more than report from their hotels in the Green Zone (a sub-section of Baghdad, they can't even roam through Baghdad freely) and spinning wildly even though public record refutes their nonsense.
democracy now
the common ills
like maria said paz
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
cedrics big mix
danny schechter
the new york times
national guard
recruiting
National Guard Offering $1,000 Recruiting "Finders Fee" (Democracy Now!):
Faced with dwindling recruiting numbers, the Army National Guard is offering a finder’s fee to soldiers who can enlist new recruits. This according to a report in USA Today. The Guard Recruiter Assistant Program, launched this week in five states, offers National Guard members rewards of $1,000 dollars for enlisting a recruit and an additional $1,000 dollars if the recruit shows up for basic training. The National Guard says recruiting has fallen 20% short of its goal this year.
This is a bit like Subway offering their employees bonuses for every new hire they can scare up.
The military trains people to recruit. It spends a lot of money on that. It also pays people who hold the job of recruiter.
Justice Dept.: Delay Redistricting Plan Violated Voting Act (Democracy Now!):
A memo obtained by the Washington Post shows lawyers at the Justice Department concluded a controversial Texas redistricting plan spearheaded by indicted Congressmember Tom Delay violated the Voting Rights Act. The memo argued the redistricting plan illegally diluted the voting influence of minorities in several Texas congressional districts. The memo said: "The State of Texas has not met its burden in showing that the proposed congressional redistricting plan does not have a discriminatory effect." Texas lawmakers approved the plan anyway, the memo says, because it stood to increase the number of elected federal Texas Republicans. Following the plan's approval in 2003, Republicans gained five seats in the following year's congressional elections. The redistricting plan is currently being challenged before the U.S. Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Congressmember Delay is facing state charges of money laundering and conspiracy in connection with state elections.
The "violated" the Voting Rights Act. They broke the act. They packed the districts in to formations that were beneifical to them. It didn't matter if it was beneficial to voters because it's all about them and them getting ahead. It's as though you agreed to play Go Fish and mid-game, they decided you'd play Gin instead. Their lack of character is demonstrated in their eagerness to sell out tradition while screaming that tradition must be respected.
Yesterday, the online topic was race. In this community, four members weighed in. I want to note Cedric's because I think it's strong writing.
"Race" (Cedric's Big Mix):
So we're all supposed to write about race today. Everyone in the community. It's a web project and here I thought I was done with homework a long time ago.
I told C.I. that I would be happy to write about it but that I might not have anything anyone wanted to hear. C.I. said, "Even better. Be true to you."
Is this the day where the web purges the guilt for being white-white-white every other day of the year?
Will we see "fab post! hat tip to . . ." nonsense all over the net?
Rebecca wrote something brave. In it she talked about the ways Whites can aid racists. It was brave, it was Rebecca. But maybe some White person will write a "moving post" about Rosa Parks and it will gather steam all over the net and we'll once again here how wonderful the net is and how brave.
I don't expect much from it.
I'd love to be wrong but we can't talk about racism online.
We're not supposed to. We're supposed to look the other way.
Certainly if the net was racist, people of color would be shut out.
Oh wait, we are.
There's a token voice they include on their blog rolls and we're all supposed to be happy about that.
"One of us made it!"
Today is apparently Black day.
Women get ready because you're day will be coming soon.People of color and women get a day or two each year.
Otherwise it's white-white-white male-male-male.
So today a lot of people will get to feel good about themselves and sleep easy knowing that they did "their part."
Or maybe they'll kid themselves that because they blogged on TD Jakes/TD Jokes they're down with the peeps. You have to be pretty white to think TD Jokes speaks to African-American liberals.
But hey, you looked in the paper, you saw a Black man and thought, "I'll write about this!"Didn't matter that he's got nothing to say to the left. Doesn't matter what he preaches because us Blacks just love our preachers, right?
I like Danny Schechter's writing and wish I took the time to note it more but this was sent to me and ended up in the trash folder for spam. I almost missed it. If you've already seen it, well now you get to see it again.
"WAR ON THE MEDIA: 'Don't Bomb Us'" (Danny Schechter, BuzzFlash):
For some time, Mediachannel.org and other outlets have been reporting on the Bush Administration's contempt for the media and its attempts to manage and spin coverage.
Writing in this week's Nation, John Nichols and Robert McChesney catalogue the various strategies that have been deployed, charging, "with its unprecedented campaign to undermine and, where possible, eliminate independent journalism, the Bush Administration has demonstrated astonishing contempt for the Constitution and considerable fear of an informed public."
But would it actually attempt to "take-out" media institutions and kill or otherwise silence journalists? Would it bomb a TV station? How far will this government go?
We know that other governments have shown little restraint. An Indonesian and a Russian journalist were poisoned on airplanes in high profile cases. Others have been "disappeared," killed, jailed and tortured. Groups like Reporters Without Borders and the International Federation of reporters compile the cases and regularly call for justice.
And tonight, instead of a peace quote, I want to excerpt C.I. on Dexter Filkins, the Green Zone, et al. I think it's really important that people are aware that "reporting" isn't what they might think. The reporters are like chickens on a corporate farm, piled one on top of another, no free ranging, confinded in the Green Zone.
"Democracy Now: Sami Rasuli, Arun Gupta, Jose Serrano; Margaret Kimberley, Robert Parry, Danny Schechter" (The Common Ills):
Lastly, a number of e-mails came in regarding Dexter Filkins & John F. Burns' "For Once, President and His Generals See the Same War" in the New York Times this morning. All want to know why no comment? I can imagine few things worse in the morning than having to read through Dexy's "reporting" (his "award winning" "reporting").
What do I think of the article after reading it? I think it's a real shame that Burns' attached his once formidable name to this nonsense. They do not "see the same war," the Bully Boy and the generals (note that I didn't say "his"). That flies in the face of not only logic but public record. (See Seymour Hersh's" Up In The Air: Where is the Iraq war headed next?" in The New Yorker to name the most recent example.) Sunning themselves in the Green Zone, Dexy and Burns think they're on to something. What?
Fakery? It's not reporting. With their team of black t-shirt clad bodyguards escorting them through the Green Zone (Dexy reportedly still packs his own heat), hiding behind stringers who risk their lives (and may get a brief obit if they die, otherwise they'll get nothing but "end credits"), they lie to readers each and every day. LIE.
That's the only word for it since no article notes "We're trapped in the Green Zone! We can't leave without a military escort!" That's they're choice, they chose to be embedded in the Green Zone from day one. So tell the truth already. Quit letting readers think that you're traveling through Iraq when you're hiding in the safety of the Green Zone that's not so safe now and supposedly is about to get a great deal less safe.
The Green Zone section of Baghdad is in danger of being lost. One of the few areas the American military controlled. And safe from the Green Zone, the embedded reporters have never told you how out of control other areas in Iraq are. If Americans had known a year ago, two, that "reporters" "in Iraq" for the mainstream media were Green Zone confined and why, it would be a lot harder for Bully Boy to spin Operation Happy Talk.
Today Dexter Filkins and John F. Burns disgrace themselves and their profession yet again by carrying water for the administration, pretending to be journalists who do more than report from their hotels in the Green Zone (a sub-section of Baghdad, they can't even roam through Baghdad freely) and spinning wildly even though public record refutes their nonsense.
democracy now
the common ills
like maria said paz
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
cedrics big mix
danny schechter
the new york times
national guard
recruiting
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
House Republicans move to split up the 9th Circuit
Be sure to check out Mike's comments at Mikey Likes It! because we're offering our take on the same issues.
"Target: the 9th Circuit (The Republican war on the judiciary continues)" (The Common Ills):
Note Sander's last sentence, "They are now attempting to destroy the judiciary system, which will have profound implications for the future of this country." (The article's from the latest issue of the magazine and it's not available online at present.) Why note the last sentence? Zachary Coile's "A quiet move in House to split the 9th Circuit" (San Francisco Chronicle):
A little-noticed provision in the massive House budget bill would fulfill the longtime goal of conservatives to split the San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, creating a new 12th circuit appellate court and allowing President Bush to name a slate of new federal judges.
Conservatives long have claimed that the Ninth Circuit is too liberal, and that reputation was reinforced by the court's 2002 ruling that reciting the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
But legal observers say the outcome of such a split is likely to be a more liberal court making decisions for California, Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands and a more conservative court serving seven other Western states now part of the Ninth Circuit -- Alaska, Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Nevada and Arizona.
[. . .]
And who would pack the newly created circuit? (You know the answer.) It's thought that one of the states effected would be Oregon. (We have several members in Oregon.) Oregon hasbeen very active with measures that Bully Boy's Justice Department has opposed. For instance, Oregon's physician-assisted suicide. From CNN's "Federal judge upholds Oregon assisted-suicide law" (April 17, 2002):
In his ruling, Judge Robert E. Jones criticized U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft for seeking to nullify the state law, saying he "fired the first shot in the battle" and had sought to "stifle" a debate on the matter through a Nov. 6 directive.Jones ordered the federal government to halt any efforts to prosecute Oregon physicians, pharmacists and other health-care providers who participate in assisted suicide of terminally ill patients under Oregon's law.
How bothered is the Bully Boy's Justice Department over this law? When the Ninth Circuit upheld Oregon's law, the Justice Department appealed to the Supreme Court. The case that began as Ashcroft v. Oregon became Gonzales v. Oregon and the Court heard testimony on it in October. (Oral arguments before the Court can be found here.)
C.I. and I were talking on the phone and C.I. brings this up and I had no idea. I asked, "What are you talking about?" I hadn't heard anything about it. This is pretty big and I'm really surprised that I hear it over the phone. I read the main sections of more than one daily paper, I follow the news.
At first, C.I. had to read the article from the San Francisco Chronicle over the phone to me because I still couldn't believe that a) the Republicans would be that sneaky and b) that the national media wouldn't be all over this story.
I know, I should know better when it comes to the national media.
But C.I. has a Bernie Sanders quote at the start and what Congress member Sanders is saying is accurate. They change the rules, they make them up and they cheat. Which is how they could think it was "normal" to try to sneak something like this into a budget bill.
What they can do by playing by the accepted rules, they attempt to force through via covert means. That's today Republican Party.
US Paying Iraqi Media to Publish US-Authored Reports (Democracy Now!):
The Los Angeles Times is reporting the US military is secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish American-written articles favorable to the U.S. presence in Iraq. The Times reports articles written by U.S. military "information operations" are translated into Arabic and then placed in Iraqi newspapers with the help of Washington-based defense contractor the Lincoln Group. The articles are presented to an Iraqi audience as unbiased news accounts written by independent journalists. The Lincoln Group's contract is worth up to $100 million dollars over five years. A senior Pentagon official commented : "Here we are trying to create the principles of democracy in Iraq. Every speech we give in that country is about democracy. And we’re breaking all the first principles of democracy when we’re doing it."
The same administration that put Armstrong Williams on the payroll and wanted to start an office to put out false information is now seen to be planting Operation Happy Talk (to use C.I.'s term) stories in the Iraqi press.
Think about that. They lied us into war. The mainstream media won't report reality on Iraq and couldn't if they wanted to because, like Dexter Filkins, they're all stuck in the Green Zone.
They can't walk around. They can't see things with their own eyes.
So who do you really think these stories are for? I'm sure they're partly for Iraqis but I'm willing to bet that they are also for Americans. For the press over there to read from the safety of the Green Zone (some via their translators) and to travel back over here via blowback.
Supreme Court to Hear New Hampshire Abortion Case (Democracy Now!):
And the Supreme Court will hear arguments today that observers expect to shed new light on Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ views on abortion. The case deals with a New Hampshire parental notification law that an Appeals court ruled was unconstitutional. The case will be heard as the Senate Judiciary Committee prepares to consider the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito. Twenty years ago, Alito said there was no constitutional right to abortion.
Mike and I both agreed that Ruth was right when she said she was sick of hearing male pundits explain why abortion wasn't an important issue (statistically it hardly ever comes up). I guess if it's not your body at stake, you're a little more willing to cede rights? I don't want to hear another man on TV or on radio tell us how unimportant abortion is, or how the Supreme Court decides so many other issues, or any other nonsense.
I'll applaud Democracy Now! for having women like Kim Gandy come on and speak. But I'm not too pleased with some of the other left media because it wasn't just the mainstream that gave these male pundits their platform.
Roe v. Wade is based upon the right to privacy. Overturn Roe and you're overturning all of our rights to privacy because that is the goal. Conservative "thinkers" have been very clear on that. If they get their way, women will have no say over their bodies (though their husbands, if they're married to men, will). That's all reproductive rights, not just abortion. It will also effect same-sex relations because that's a privacy right as well as Lawrence v. Texas found.
If Lawrence falls, give up any expectation to any form of privacy in your own home for any reason.
All those (presumably straight) male pundits never felt the need to bring up Lawrence. Without Roe's foundation in privacy rights, you've just lost one of the strongest Court arguments for the right to privacy.
The same press that won't explore this (or explore the attempts to split up the 9th Circuit) will take down dictation as Bully Boy goes into more of his nonsense about "stay the course" and about how we have to be over there. We have to be over there, apparently, because he lied us over there. That makes sense, actually. Withdrawing the troops would pull away the one excuse he loves best: whenever his actions are questioned, he wraps himself in the flag and starts whining that tough questions (the core of a democracy) will undermine his mission.
His mission is apparently to see more people die in Iraq.
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center):
War would end if the dead could return.
Stanley Baldwin
lawrence v. texas
mikey likes it
physician-assisted suicide
ninth circuit
judiciary
democracy now
the common ills
iraq
roe v. wade
reproductive rights
like maria said paz
"Target: the 9th Circuit (The Republican war on the judiciary continues)" (The Common Ills):
Note Sander's last sentence, "They are now attempting to destroy the judiciary system, which will have profound implications for the future of this country." (The article's from the latest issue of the magazine and it's not available online at present.) Why note the last sentence? Zachary Coile's "A quiet move in House to split the 9th Circuit" (San Francisco Chronicle):
A little-noticed provision in the massive House budget bill would fulfill the longtime goal of conservatives to split the San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, creating a new 12th circuit appellate court and allowing President Bush to name a slate of new federal judges.
Conservatives long have claimed that the Ninth Circuit is too liberal, and that reputation was reinforced by the court's 2002 ruling that reciting the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
But legal observers say the outcome of such a split is likely to be a more liberal court making decisions for California, Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands and a more conservative court serving seven other Western states now part of the Ninth Circuit -- Alaska, Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Nevada and Arizona.
[. . .]
And who would pack the newly created circuit? (You know the answer.) It's thought that one of the states effected would be Oregon. (We have several members in Oregon.) Oregon hasbeen very active with measures that Bully Boy's Justice Department has opposed. For instance, Oregon's physician-assisted suicide. From CNN's "Federal judge upholds Oregon assisted-suicide law" (April 17, 2002):
In his ruling, Judge Robert E. Jones criticized U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft for seeking to nullify the state law, saying he "fired the first shot in the battle" and had sought to "stifle" a debate on the matter through a Nov. 6 directive.Jones ordered the federal government to halt any efforts to prosecute Oregon physicians, pharmacists and other health-care providers who participate in assisted suicide of terminally ill patients under Oregon's law.
How bothered is the Bully Boy's Justice Department over this law? When the Ninth Circuit upheld Oregon's law, the Justice Department appealed to the Supreme Court. The case that began as Ashcroft v. Oregon became Gonzales v. Oregon and the Court heard testimony on it in October. (Oral arguments before the Court can be found here.)
C.I. and I were talking on the phone and C.I. brings this up and I had no idea. I asked, "What are you talking about?" I hadn't heard anything about it. This is pretty big and I'm really surprised that I hear it over the phone. I read the main sections of more than one daily paper, I follow the news.
At first, C.I. had to read the article from the San Francisco Chronicle over the phone to me because I still couldn't believe that a) the Republicans would be that sneaky and b) that the national media wouldn't be all over this story.
I know, I should know better when it comes to the national media.
But C.I. has a Bernie Sanders quote at the start and what Congress member Sanders is saying is accurate. They change the rules, they make them up and they cheat. Which is how they could think it was "normal" to try to sneak something like this into a budget bill.
What they can do by playing by the accepted rules, they attempt to force through via covert means. That's today Republican Party.
US Paying Iraqi Media to Publish US-Authored Reports (Democracy Now!):
The Los Angeles Times is reporting the US military is secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish American-written articles favorable to the U.S. presence in Iraq. The Times reports articles written by U.S. military "information operations" are translated into Arabic and then placed in Iraqi newspapers with the help of Washington-based defense contractor the Lincoln Group. The articles are presented to an Iraqi audience as unbiased news accounts written by independent journalists. The Lincoln Group's contract is worth up to $100 million dollars over five years. A senior Pentagon official commented : "Here we are trying to create the principles of democracy in Iraq. Every speech we give in that country is about democracy. And we’re breaking all the first principles of democracy when we’re doing it."
The same administration that put Armstrong Williams on the payroll and wanted to start an office to put out false information is now seen to be planting Operation Happy Talk (to use C.I.'s term) stories in the Iraqi press.
Think about that. They lied us into war. The mainstream media won't report reality on Iraq and couldn't if they wanted to because, like Dexter Filkins, they're all stuck in the Green Zone.
They can't walk around. They can't see things with their own eyes.
So who do you really think these stories are for? I'm sure they're partly for Iraqis but I'm willing to bet that they are also for Americans. For the press over there to read from the safety of the Green Zone (some via their translators) and to travel back over here via blowback.
Supreme Court to Hear New Hampshire Abortion Case (Democracy Now!):
And the Supreme Court will hear arguments today that observers expect to shed new light on Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ views on abortion. The case deals with a New Hampshire parental notification law that an Appeals court ruled was unconstitutional. The case will be heard as the Senate Judiciary Committee prepares to consider the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito. Twenty years ago, Alito said there was no constitutional right to abortion.
Mike and I both agreed that Ruth was right when she said she was sick of hearing male pundits explain why abortion wasn't an important issue (statistically it hardly ever comes up). I guess if it's not your body at stake, you're a little more willing to cede rights? I don't want to hear another man on TV or on radio tell us how unimportant abortion is, or how the Supreme Court decides so many other issues, or any other nonsense.
I'll applaud Democracy Now! for having women like Kim Gandy come on and speak. But I'm not too pleased with some of the other left media because it wasn't just the mainstream that gave these male pundits their platform.
Roe v. Wade is based upon the right to privacy. Overturn Roe and you're overturning all of our rights to privacy because that is the goal. Conservative "thinkers" have been very clear on that. If they get their way, women will have no say over their bodies (though their husbands, if they're married to men, will). That's all reproductive rights, not just abortion. It will also effect same-sex relations because that's a privacy right as well as Lawrence v. Texas found.
If Lawrence falls, give up any expectation to any form of privacy in your own home for any reason.
All those (presumably straight) male pundits never felt the need to bring up Lawrence. Without Roe's foundation in privacy rights, you've just lost one of the strongest Court arguments for the right to privacy.
The same press that won't explore this (or explore the attempts to split up the 9th Circuit) will take down dictation as Bully Boy goes into more of his nonsense about "stay the course" and about how we have to be over there. We have to be over there, apparently, because he lied us over there. That makes sense, actually. Withdrawing the troops would pull away the one excuse he loves best: whenever his actions are questioned, he wraps himself in the flag and starts whining that tough questions (the core of a democracy) will undermine his mission.
His mission is apparently to see more people die in Iraq.
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center):
War would end if the dead could return.
Stanley Baldwin
lawrence v. texas
mikey likes it
physician-assisted suicide
ninth circuit
judiciary
democracy now
the common ills
iraq
roe v. wade
reproductive rights
like maria said paz
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
"It is not reasonable that those who gamble with men's lives should not stake their own"
Be sure to check out Mike's Mikey Likes It! for his take on the Democracy Now! items.
Time Magazine Reporter Testifies in CIA Leak Case (Democracy Now!):
This update on the CIA leak case - the Washington Post is reporting Karl Rove's defense team is hoping the testimony of a reporter from Time Magazine might help Rove escape indictment. On Sunday Time revealed that its reporter Viveca Novak had agreed to testify about a conversation she had last year with Rove's attorney Robert Luskin. A person familiar with the investigation told the Washington Post that Luskin cited his conversations with Novak in persuading Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald not to indict Rove in late October. So far Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff Lewis Scooter Libby is the only administration to be indicted over the outing of Valerie Plame's identity as an undercover CIA operative.
What's the deal with Time? It's a weekly, not a daily. But already they've got two "reporters" who've had to testify in this leak case. First there was Matt Cooper, the little boy with beliefs as long as he didn't have to go to prison. Now there's Viveca Novak. Novak's a popular name on the list. But there's plenty of others including Bob Woodward and Judith Miller.
Is anyone else bothered that so many reporters received the leak and didn't cover the fact that the White House was leaking? It's a nice setup that exists today if you're the administration. But when the press whines that they aren't trusted, they better start figuring out what excuse they'll offer to the shouts of "Plamegate!"
Big names (Woodward & Miller) and no names (Cooper & V. Novak), they all make the very exclusive list of "reporters" willing to cover up for the adminstration instead of covering the administration.
The press has bristled at being called lap dogs but the jingle-jangle of the tags on their dog collars make it hard to hear their latest excuses.
Greenpeace Disrupts Blair Speech About Nuclear Energy (Democracy Now!):
In Britain, members of Greenpeace disrupted a speech of Prime Minister Tony Blair's in which he launched an energy review which could lead to new nuclear power stations. The Greenpeace activists climbed into the roof above the podium and unfurled a banner saying: "Nuclear: Wrong Answer." They also dropped stickers onto the delegates below them.
You know what this made me think of? When the New York Times' Felicity Barringer pimped for the nuclear industry with her article that gave lots of space to pro-nuclear positions and tried to pass three twerps off as a groundswell.
If you missed it Felicity Barringer felt she was unfairly critiqued by C.I. C.I. printed her response (with her permission). That's nicer than I would be. C.I.'s attitude was, "I've had my say, she can have her say." Her say was woefully short on the facts and spun even more than her article did.
If your new to this site, C.I. and I have been friends for years. I know C.I. doesn't argue "opinion." Letting FB have her say was perfectly in keeping with C.I. What did C.I. think about her reality-free spin? Even a best friend can't find that out. Privately, C.I. just repeated what got posted at the site, that at least FB was willing to take her comments public unlike other reporters who gripe in e-mails.
My opinion of FB? It must be nice to marry into job security.
In the real world, the less secure world, Monica Benderman's still tackling the hard issues. When I was substituting for Rebecca, I posted about Monica and her husband Kevin. My opinion? He was found guilty because the administration will take no criticism. (Wonder if they have a spot for FB?) Monica's not going to fade away and, when Kevin finally has a his freedom, I bet he won't be silent either.
"How Do You Save a Country?" (Monica Benderman, The Ruminations on America Project)
How do you trust a country that cannot keep its word?
How do you trust a country that allows decisions to be made by leaders not elected for their integrity, but because their beliefs were accepted by "the party" that chose them to be their candidate, and "the party" had enough money to finance the campaign?
How do you trust a country that says it supports you for standing for what it believes in, and then turns its back on you unless you sing your own praises, and publicize your accomplishments, and tell your supporters how wonderful they are for the warm feelings they give you?
How do you trust a country that allows a soldier who refuses to participate in war crimes to be sent to prison for 15 months, and allows a slap on the hand for soldiers who burn bodies, desecrate religious material and openly abuse a culture they do not understand?
How do you trust a people when there are those who believe that the greatest way to protest the indiscretions of our administration is to commit flagrant, planned indiscretions of their own?
That's a powerful essay Monica Benderman has written. I hope you check it out. Monica Benderman is one of those voices you won't hear in the New York Times (check out C.I.'s "Other Items" from this morning). Monica Benderman's essay reminded me of a quote by H.G. Wells.
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center):
A time will come when a politician who has willfully made war and promoted international dissension will be as sure of the dock and much surer of the noose than a private homicide. It is not reasonable that those who gamble with men's lives should not stake their own.
H.G. Wells
mikey likes it
the common ills
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
democracy now
monica benderman
plamegate
Time Magazine Reporter Testifies in CIA Leak Case (Democracy Now!):
This update on the CIA leak case - the Washington Post is reporting Karl Rove's defense team is hoping the testimony of a reporter from Time Magazine might help Rove escape indictment. On Sunday Time revealed that its reporter Viveca Novak had agreed to testify about a conversation she had last year with Rove's attorney Robert Luskin. A person familiar with the investigation told the Washington Post that Luskin cited his conversations with Novak in persuading Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald not to indict Rove in late October. So far Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff Lewis Scooter Libby is the only administration to be indicted over the outing of Valerie Plame's identity as an undercover CIA operative.
What's the deal with Time? It's a weekly, not a daily. But already they've got two "reporters" who've had to testify in this leak case. First there was Matt Cooper, the little boy with beliefs as long as he didn't have to go to prison. Now there's Viveca Novak. Novak's a popular name on the list. But there's plenty of others including Bob Woodward and Judith Miller.
Is anyone else bothered that so many reporters received the leak and didn't cover the fact that the White House was leaking? It's a nice setup that exists today if you're the administration. But when the press whines that they aren't trusted, they better start figuring out what excuse they'll offer to the shouts of "Plamegate!"
Big names (Woodward & Miller) and no names (Cooper & V. Novak), they all make the very exclusive list of "reporters" willing to cover up for the adminstration instead of covering the administration.
The press has bristled at being called lap dogs but the jingle-jangle of the tags on their dog collars make it hard to hear their latest excuses.
Greenpeace Disrupts Blair Speech About Nuclear Energy (Democracy Now!):
In Britain, members of Greenpeace disrupted a speech of Prime Minister Tony Blair's in which he launched an energy review which could lead to new nuclear power stations. The Greenpeace activists climbed into the roof above the podium and unfurled a banner saying: "Nuclear: Wrong Answer." They also dropped stickers onto the delegates below them.
You know what this made me think of? When the New York Times' Felicity Barringer pimped for the nuclear industry with her article that gave lots of space to pro-nuclear positions and tried to pass three twerps off as a groundswell.
If you missed it Felicity Barringer felt she was unfairly critiqued by C.I. C.I. printed her response (with her permission). That's nicer than I would be. C.I.'s attitude was, "I've had my say, she can have her say." Her say was woefully short on the facts and spun even more than her article did.
If your new to this site, C.I. and I have been friends for years. I know C.I. doesn't argue "opinion." Letting FB have her say was perfectly in keeping with C.I. What did C.I. think about her reality-free spin? Even a best friend can't find that out. Privately, C.I. just repeated what got posted at the site, that at least FB was willing to take her comments public unlike other reporters who gripe in e-mails.
My opinion of FB? It must be nice to marry into job security.
In the real world, the less secure world, Monica Benderman's still tackling the hard issues. When I was substituting for Rebecca, I posted about Monica and her husband Kevin. My opinion? He was found guilty because the administration will take no criticism. (Wonder if they have a spot for FB?) Monica's not going to fade away and, when Kevin finally has a his freedom, I bet he won't be silent either.
"How Do You Save a Country?" (Monica Benderman, The Ruminations on America Project)
How do you trust a country that cannot keep its word?
How do you trust a country that allows decisions to be made by leaders not elected for their integrity, but because their beliefs were accepted by "the party" that chose them to be their candidate, and "the party" had enough money to finance the campaign?
How do you trust a country that says it supports you for standing for what it believes in, and then turns its back on you unless you sing your own praises, and publicize your accomplishments, and tell your supporters how wonderful they are for the warm feelings they give you?
How do you trust a country that allows a soldier who refuses to participate in war crimes to be sent to prison for 15 months, and allows a slap on the hand for soldiers who burn bodies, desecrate religious material and openly abuse a culture they do not understand?
How do you trust a people when there are those who believe that the greatest way to protest the indiscretions of our administration is to commit flagrant, planned indiscretions of their own?
That's a powerful essay Monica Benderman has written. I hope you check it out. Monica Benderman is one of those voices you won't hear in the New York Times (check out C.I.'s "Other Items" from this morning). Monica Benderman's essay reminded me of a quote by H.G. Wells.
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center):
A time will come when a politician who has willfully made war and promoted international dissension will be as sure of the dock and much surer of the noose than a private homicide. It is not reasonable that those who gamble with men's lives should not stake their own.
H.G. Wells
mikey likes it
the common ills
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
democracy now
monica benderman
plamegate
Monday, November 28, 2005
In the absence of justice, what is sovereignty but organized robbery?"
Remember to check out Mike's comments at Mikey Likes It! because we've picked the same two items from Democracy Now!
UK investigates Shootings by Private Contractors in Iraq (Democracy Now!)
The British Foreign Office is investigating allegations that private contractors with the defense company Aegis have randomly shot at Iraqi cars. According to the Telegraph newspaper, a video recently appeared on a site affiliated with Aegis that contained four clips of an unidentified gunman shooting at cars in Iraq. In one clip a Mercedes is fired on at a distance of several hundred yards before it crashes in to a civilian taxi. One Iraqi Interior Ministry officials confirmed such shootings occur. He said: "When the security companies kill people they just drive away and nothing is done... I would say we have had about 50-60 incidents of this kind."
England's investigating and I'm not sure how many people will assume "British company, England's investigation . . . Uh oh, England's in trouble!"
"Shameless in Iraq" (Naomi Klein, The Nation):
Good news out of Baghdad: the Program Management Office, which oversees the $18.4 billion in US reconstruction funds, has finally set a goal it can meet. Sure, electricity is below prewar levels, streets are rivers of sewage and more Iraqis have been fired than hired. But now the PMO has contracted with British mercenary firm Aegis to protect its employees from "assassination, kidnapping, injury and"--get this--"embarrassment." I don't know if Aegis will succeed in protecting PMO employees from violent attack, but embarrassment? I'd say mission already accomplished. The people in charge of rebuilding Iraq can't be embarrassed, because clearly they have no shame.
In the run-up to the June 30 underhand (sorry, I can't bring myself to call it a "handover"), US occupation powers have been unabashed in their efforts to steal money that is supposed to aid a war-ravaged people. The State Department has taken $184 million earmarked for drinking water projects and moved it to the budget for the lavish new US Embassy in Saddam's former palace. Short $1 billion for the embassy, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said he might have to "rob from Peter in my fiefdom to pay Paul." In fact, he is robbing Iraq's people, who, according to a recent study by Public Citizen, are facing "massive outbreaks of cholera, diarrhea, nausea and kidney stones" from drinking contaminated water.
The reason for the quote above is to make sure we all get that the Pentagon, United States, was over awarding contracts. Aegis wouldn't be there, British company or not, without having been awarded a contract by the Pentagon.
C.I. and I were talking about this on the phone today. We wondered how that story would play because although we love Naomi Klein's writing, we're aware that if you don't watch or listen to Democracy Now! (or read) and you don't read either The Nation or The Guardian, you might not be aware of the work she's done explaining the occupation. If you've depended on the US mainstream media, you could read the headline and think, "Oh England's in trouble!" I know I have a few readers who are new to Democracy Now!, The Common Ills, et al. So I want to be sure we're all on the same page.
Al Jazeera Demands Answers from Bush Administration (Democracy Now!)
The director-general of the Arabic tv network Al-Jazeera has demanded Washington respond to reports that President Bush wanted to bomb the network's headquarters in Doha. Last week the Daily Mirror cited a secret British memo revealing that Bush told Tony Blair last year of his desire to bomb the news outlet. The Bush administration has described the Daily Mirror's report as "outlandish." Officials at Al Jazeera are now questioning whether the U.S. might have been targeting the network when it bombed its bureaus in Afghanistan in 2001 and in Baghdad in April 2003. The attack in Iraq killed Al Jazeera's correspondent Tariq Ayub. Ayub's widow, Dina, said she is now considering suing the U.S. government for her husband's death. She said "America always claimed it was an accident. But I believe the new revelations prove that claim was false or at least not trustworthy." Meanwhile in Britain a ban remains in place on all media outlets from disclosing the contents of the secret memo. But a member of parliament - Boris Johnson - has vowed to publish the memo and risk jail time if anyone leaks him the document.
A network is the topic of a bombing discussion by two world leaders. Is there a reason that the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune aren't digging deeply into this story? This isn't news? A former football player is busted and that's all I heard about walking through the airport Sunday. I'd pass a TV set, that was the big talk, someone had a radio on, that was the story. I get in the cab, that's the story on the radio.
I'm not really sure what the fate of a football player has to do with our world. I'm also shocked by the gossip passing as "reporting" on that. I don't want to make that the focus but I do want to point out that there's been no trial.
But to the press, this is a news story to focus on. For some reason, a discussion about attacking a news network isn't.
It's similar to how they can't find the anti-war voices even at this late date. If you missed C.I.'s
"NYT: 'Even Supporters Doubt President As Issues Pile Up" (Kate Zernike)," the New York Times still wants to do stories about people who supported the war only now they've maybe changed their minds. Apparently that paper is allergic (still) to the voices speaking out against the war before the invasion.
(Also check out Danny Schechter's "WAR ON THE MEDIA: 'Don't Bomb Us.'")
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center):
In the absence of justice, what is sovereignty but organized robbery?
St. Augustine
democracy now
the common ills
the new york times
iraq
aljazeera
peace
anti-war
like maria said paz
mikey likes it
UK investigates Shootings by Private Contractors in Iraq (Democracy Now!)
The British Foreign Office is investigating allegations that private contractors with the defense company Aegis have randomly shot at Iraqi cars. According to the Telegraph newspaper, a video recently appeared on a site affiliated with Aegis that contained four clips of an unidentified gunman shooting at cars in Iraq. In one clip a Mercedes is fired on at a distance of several hundred yards before it crashes in to a civilian taxi. One Iraqi Interior Ministry officials confirmed such shootings occur. He said: "When the security companies kill people they just drive away and nothing is done... I would say we have had about 50-60 incidents of this kind."
England's investigating and I'm not sure how many people will assume "British company, England's investigation . . . Uh oh, England's in trouble!"
"Shameless in Iraq" (Naomi Klein, The Nation):
Good news out of Baghdad: the Program Management Office, which oversees the $18.4 billion in US reconstruction funds, has finally set a goal it can meet. Sure, electricity is below prewar levels, streets are rivers of sewage and more Iraqis have been fired than hired. But now the PMO has contracted with British mercenary firm Aegis to protect its employees from "assassination, kidnapping, injury and"--get this--"embarrassment." I don't know if Aegis will succeed in protecting PMO employees from violent attack, but embarrassment? I'd say mission already accomplished. The people in charge of rebuilding Iraq can't be embarrassed, because clearly they have no shame.
In the run-up to the June 30 underhand (sorry, I can't bring myself to call it a "handover"), US occupation powers have been unabashed in their efforts to steal money that is supposed to aid a war-ravaged people. The State Department has taken $184 million earmarked for drinking water projects and moved it to the budget for the lavish new US Embassy in Saddam's former palace. Short $1 billion for the embassy, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said he might have to "rob from Peter in my fiefdom to pay Paul." In fact, he is robbing Iraq's people, who, according to a recent study by Public Citizen, are facing "massive outbreaks of cholera, diarrhea, nausea and kidney stones" from drinking contaminated water.
The reason for the quote above is to make sure we all get that the Pentagon, United States, was over awarding contracts. Aegis wouldn't be there, British company or not, without having been awarded a contract by the Pentagon.
C.I. and I were talking about this on the phone today. We wondered how that story would play because although we love Naomi Klein's writing, we're aware that if you don't watch or listen to Democracy Now! (or read) and you don't read either The Nation or The Guardian, you might not be aware of the work she's done explaining the occupation. If you've depended on the US mainstream media, you could read the headline and think, "Oh England's in trouble!" I know I have a few readers who are new to Democracy Now!, The Common Ills, et al. So I want to be sure we're all on the same page.
Al Jazeera Demands Answers from Bush Administration (Democracy Now!)
The director-general of the Arabic tv network Al-Jazeera has demanded Washington respond to reports that President Bush wanted to bomb the network's headquarters in Doha. Last week the Daily Mirror cited a secret British memo revealing that Bush told Tony Blair last year of his desire to bomb the news outlet. The Bush administration has described the Daily Mirror's report as "outlandish." Officials at Al Jazeera are now questioning whether the U.S. might have been targeting the network when it bombed its bureaus in Afghanistan in 2001 and in Baghdad in April 2003. The attack in Iraq killed Al Jazeera's correspondent Tariq Ayub. Ayub's widow, Dina, said she is now considering suing the U.S. government for her husband's death. She said "America always claimed it was an accident. But I believe the new revelations prove that claim was false or at least not trustworthy." Meanwhile in Britain a ban remains in place on all media outlets from disclosing the contents of the secret memo. But a member of parliament - Boris Johnson - has vowed to publish the memo and risk jail time if anyone leaks him the document.
A network is the topic of a bombing discussion by two world leaders. Is there a reason that the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune aren't digging deeply into this story? This isn't news? A former football player is busted and that's all I heard about walking through the airport Sunday. I'd pass a TV set, that was the big talk, someone had a radio on, that was the story. I get in the cab, that's the story on the radio.
I'm not really sure what the fate of a football player has to do with our world. I'm also shocked by the gossip passing as "reporting" on that. I don't want to make that the focus but I do want to point out that there's been no trial.
But to the press, this is a news story to focus on. For some reason, a discussion about attacking a news network isn't.
It's similar to how they can't find the anti-war voices even at this late date. If you missed C.I.'s
"NYT: 'Even Supporters Doubt President As Issues Pile Up" (Kate Zernike)," the New York Times still wants to do stories about people who supported the war only now they've maybe changed their minds. Apparently that paper is allergic (still) to the voices speaking out against the war before the invasion.
(Also check out Danny Schechter's "WAR ON THE MEDIA: 'Don't Bomb Us.'")
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center):
In the absence of justice, what is sovereignty but organized robbery?
St. Augustine
democracy now
the common ills
the new york times
iraq
aljazeera
peace
anti-war
like maria said paz
mikey likes it
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)