To link or not to link, that has become the question.
I am so furious that I'm about to pull CounterPunch. I'm going to give myself a cooling off period and then decide what to do.
C.I. said, "Do what you want and if you pull it, we'll pull it." That's true community wide.
I'm just not in the mood for these uninformed attacks on Gloria Steinem. I'm not in the mood for these uninformed attacks on feminism.
R. F. Blader is a liar. She's been sent in (I assume it's a "she") to try to make up for the crap they already ran this week. She only makes it worse scribbling:
Truly, Steinem deserves the criticism she has recently received for her efforts on the Clintons behalf. In my piece in the current Counterpunch newsletter, I explain why Hillary Clinton is a bad presidential candidate, for feminists and for everyone, and how Steinem's professed reasons for her endorsement of Clinton are totally implausible. However, in attempting to denigrate Clinton and elevate the struggle of black people against white women, or black women against white women, Reed is fighting a battle of former times, already lost by everyone involved.
The issues of race and class, and to some extent, sexuality, rocked the second-wave feminist movement of the 1970's to its core. The movement, which had been sustaining an impressive amount of national unity on most of its core issues, saw fragmentation as women who remained marginalized despite tremendous cultural and legal gains called into question the class privilege of feminism's spokeswomen.
Where'd you learn that, dear? In a book. I was there. I know what went down. You either don't want to say or you've got some animosity towards Gloria to work through. The fact that Betty Friedan was a communist is not an issue with me. The fact that she went to her grave denying it publicly (only publicly) is.
The issues of race and class go to the Friedan camp. The camp Steinem belonged to is not the one she's describing.
Steinem doesn't deserve the criticism she's getting, "truly," she doesn't deserve it. I'm not voting for Hillary (except maybe to twist the blade into The Nation) but I don't have to rip Gloria Steinem apart for her decision.
I can disagree with her on it and still respect ALL that she's done.
I can't figure out if these 'gals' like the one above or Katha Pollitt are closet communists or just dog ugly and that's why they relaunch the Freidan attacks.
I don't know and I don't care.
I do know that I am not in the mood for this s**t.
I do know that Katha Pollitt is a joke as a writer on every level. She's a joke on the information level, she's a joke the 'style' level. She's a bad writer going nowhere. She's gotten as far in life as she's ever getting and that must be really hard for her to face. Just like it must be hard to face that she can't even come up with 12 original columns a year.
We'll be writing about the lies and the liars (and you better believe Katha and her ugly mug will be in there -- and, yes, I know that when you call Katha ugly, you get an e-mail from her friends asking that you pull that remark -- I'm sorry my practice is about honesty -- if Katha can't face the truth, boo hoo) this Sunday at The Third Estate Sunday Review. C.I. and Ava have the whole thing basically roughed out in terms of topics and had to do that because this kept coming up all week on campus.
Attacks on Gloria? No, outrage over the attacks. The good news is that the Bambi groupies have seriously damaged their candidate with their attacks on Gloria. It is not playing well with Latinas, young or old. It is not playing well with Asians. It's obvious why and when Ava and C.I. were filling me in, I thought, "Well of course. It's one card. It's played all the time. It's not like the ones playing it were standing up for immigrant rights." So Bambi's groupies have achieved something this week: They've created a division for all women not prone to loving Bambi, whether they are White, African-American, Asian, Latina, bi-racial, multi-racial or Jewish, women are very offended.
Katha Pollitt meanwhile has ensured that she will never amount to anything. Her 'work' has always been laughable but, by joining in the attacks, she's revealed just how stupid she is. Katha Pollitt is very, very stupid.
Her little do-nothing Mud Flap Gals that made her den mother have achieved nothing either and never will. They're a bunch of spoiled, middle-class whiners.
Did the do-nothing Feministing.com track responses? R.F. Blader says they did. I was going to pull it up but Ava said "Don't bother" and handed me a copy. (They've been handed copies of that ugly site all week long.) Turns out, Blader's lying. There are as many people arguing in favor of Steinem as whiners.
R. F. Blader is a liar.
I don't like calling women liars but R. F. Blader makes it so easy as she lies non-stop in her column. I'm guessing she's a 'tweener' and, by that, I mean, she was at the tail end of the baby boom and has been nursing grudge over that her entire life.
She writes a 'back-biting' column and somewhere, in hell, Betty Friedan is screeching, "You go, girl!"
I really hate liars and I really hate Blader and Pollitt. Be sure to read Rebecca's "ugly katha pollitt sticks up for her 'mommy'."
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Friday, January 17, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, the illegal war keeps going (and gets extended?), John Edwards addresses the realities of Ronald Reagan, and more.
Starting with war resisters, Courage to Resist has posted a number of interviews with war resisters. Today we'll focus on their interview with Brandon Hughey who spoke of how he turned against the illegal war, advised his superior of it and finally took matters into his own hands by checking out from Fort Hood for 28 days (starting in January 2004) "to see if maybe they would boot me out. Once I go AWOL and once I show that I'm not a 'good soldier' maybe they'd just boot me out. So I came back in 28 days, instead of kicking me out of the army they said, 'We're glad to have you back. We're going to give you extra duty and dock your pay. But I suggest you pack your backs and start getting ready to go to Iraq.' So basically that idea I had backfired. I had tried to get myself booted out and even that didn't work. So at that point, I began to feel like I was trapped. There was no way out."
Courage to Resist: And none of your superiors ever informed you of Conscientious Objector status?
Brandon Hughey: No, I had never even heard of that. I didn't even know that existed until I after I came to Canada.
Courage to Resist: So you were told to get ready to ship out to Iraq after being AWOL for 28 days? What did you do then?
Brandon Hughey: Basically, I began to think of what other options I had to get out of the military. You know, I couldn't really think of anything. I tried going AWOL and coming back, at that point I just felt trapped. I had remembered that tens of thousands of people had come up -- during Vietnam -- had come up to Canada and I thought at the time, 'Maybe as a last resort option I could leave the country?" And so I kept that in the back of my mind and when I realized that, you know, there didn't seem like any other way I could get out I began to feel like, "Okay, leaving the country is an option." So, at that point, I began to make plans to go to Canada.
Courage to Resist: How did you prepare yourself to make this huge decision?
Brandon Hughey: I was just going to pack my bags and drive myself there -- try to set aside whatever money I could and hopefully have enough to get myself started in a new life and a new country. I really didn't have much a plan because I didn't know what I was getting myself into. And that was pretty much it.
Courage to Resist: And when did you actually make the move?
Brandon Hughey: I came up in March of 2004, when I arrived.
Courage to Resist: Did you make contact right away with anybody with the War Resisters Support Campaign or any other resisters.
Brandon Hughey: Well the War Resisters Support Campaign hadn't been formed yet when I arrived. But I was staying with a Quaker family for a few months when I first arrived. So the Quaker community did a lot and they, you know, they did a lot to support me. That was really my first support network when I came to Canada.
Courage to Resist's audio interviews are part of their ongoing Audio Project.
A number of war resisters have gone to Canada and attempted to be granted asylum.
November 15th, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the appeals of war resisters Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. Parliament is the solution.Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. Both War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist are calling for actions from January 24-26. The War Resisters Support Campaign has more on the action in Canada:
The War Resisters Support Campaign has called a pan-Canadian mobilization on Saturday, January 26th, 2008 to ensure : 1) that deportation proceedings against U.S. war resisters currently in Canada cease immediately; and 2) that a provision be enacted by Parliament ensuring that U.S. war resisters refusing to fight in Iraq have a means to gain status in Canada. For listings of local actions, see our Events page. If you are able to organize a rally in your community, contact the Campaign -- we will list events as details come in.
Courage to Resist notes:
Join and support January 25 vigils and delegations in support of U.S. war resisters currently seeking sanctuary Canada. Actions are being planned in Washington D.C., New York, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles. Supporters will meet with officials at Canadian Consulates across the United States in order underscore that many Americans hope that the Canadian Parliament votes (possible as early as February) in favor of a provision to allow war resisters to remain. Download and distribute Jan. 25-26 action leaflet (PDF).Supporting the war resisters in Canada is a concrete way to demonstrate your support of the troops who refuse to fight. Help end the war by supporting the growing GI resistance movement today!
Details January 25-26 actions/events in support of U.S. war resisters.
Sign the letter "Dear Canada: Let U.S. War Resisters Stay!" and encourage others to sign.
Organize a delegation to a Canadian Consulate near you .
Host an event or house-party in support of war resisters.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC event:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation. Dee Knight (Workers World) notes, "IVAW wants as many people as possible to attend the event. It is planning to provide live broadcasting of the sessions for those who cannot hear the testimony firsthand. 'We have been inspired by the tremendous support the movement has shown us,' IVAW says. 'We believe the success of Winter Soldier will ultimately depend on the support of our allies and the hard work of our members'."
And the war drags on and on. Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) pieces together several press conferences to explain, "Gates and top uniformed officers sketched out a plan that runs counter to pledges by Democratic presidential contenders to bring about a rapid drawdown of the U.S. military presence in Iraq" and cites Lt. General Raymond Odierno (the number two) declaring that it "could be five to 10 years" that the US forces remain in Iraq. Ann Scott Tyson (Washington Post) observes, "Senior U.S. military officials projected yesterday that the Iraqi army and police will grow to an estimated 580,000 members by the end of the year but that shortages of key personnel, equipment, weaponry and logistical capabilities mean that Iraq's security forces will probably require U.S. military support for as long as a decade." Julian E. Barnes (Los Angeles Times) reminds, "Iraq's defense minister, Abdul-Qader Mohammed Jassim Mifarji, has said Iraqi forces will not be able to assume responsibility for internal security until 2012 or be able to defend the country's borders before 2019."
In the face of that, the alleged 'anti-war groups' cave again. They aren't anti-war groups, they aren't peace groups. They are Win Without War and all the other useless groups that do nothing to end the illegal war. Nothing the reports of the cave, PR Watch explains that "Ryan Grim reports that the biggest and best-funded organizations in the liberal peace movement, primarily MoveOn and the groups in its Americans Against Escalation in Iraq (AAEI) coalition, are no longer advocating that Congress end the war. This year "the groups instead will lower their sights and push for legislation to prevent President Bush from entering into a long-term agreement with the Iraqi government that could keep significant numbers of troops in Iraq for years to come. ... The groups believe this switch in strategy can draw contrasts with Republicans that will help Democrats gain ground in November." AAEI's PR spokesperson, Moira Mack of Hildebrand Tewes Consulting, called it "the perfect legislative opportunity." In other words, as Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber pointed out last March, for MoveOn and other Democrat-aligned peace groups it's not about ending the war, it's about electing Democrats. Most of the tens of millions of dollars that MoveOn and AAEI have spent lobbying and organizing for "peace" has been directed at pressuring and embarrassing pro-war Republicans, while the Democratic Congress has continued to fund the war and pro-war Democrats have generally been given a pass." All those 'groups' have to offer is silent vigils and online petitions. And we've seen serveral years before.
A rude comment on IVAW comes from a surprising online source. We're not linking to it. We're not linking to that site while it's up. (The same way all the ones lying about Gloria Steinem aren't being linked to. See The Third Estate Sunday Review for a piece tentatively titled "Hey Little Girl Are You All Alone, Did You Go and Leave Your Brain at Home" dedicated to the Mud Flap Gals and all the other useless play-feminists online who never thought they needed to educated themselves on any topic before weighing in.) IVAW is being slammed for not allowing an event that marks the anniversary of the illegal war. Buy a clue, idiots, IVAW's Winter Soldier Investigation ends before the anniversary. But apparently, the 5th anniversary of the illegal war can't be marked if it can't be done on a weekend. Apparently, we're supposed to have "5th Anniversary of the Illegal War" observed and then, during the week, the actual date?
It's too damn bad that there are some hurt feelings and people whining and carping about IVAW. IVAW isn't preventing anyone from doing anything. They have planned the Winter Soldiers' Investigation and the dates are March 13th through March 16th. You have to be really STUPID not to grasp that the 5th anniversay of the illegal war is AFTER the Winter Soldiers' Investigation. IVAW's Kelly Dougherty observes:
As we enter 2008, please stop for a moment and consider where we are now, and where we are going. In just over a year, America will have a new President. We will have endured a year of campaign commercials and attack ads. We'll have watched debates devoid of any real discussion of the withdrawal from Iraq that a growing number of Americans now call for. We'll have waited, for yet another year, for our leaders to find a way to say what we know in our hearts: we must leave Iraq.
But what will have changed in the next year that will make that happen?
We must face this fact: we run the serious risk that one year from today we'll be right where we are now, but with another year's worth of casualties, a year's worth of grieving families, a year's worth of Iraqi anger and suffering built on our occupation of a country we now know was no threat to us. Ending this war in a year is different than ending it now, just as ending it now is different than ending it a year ago, or a year before that. There is a price to pay for every day that we wait.
She's exactly right. And in 2004, we saw the peace movement shut down shop because the most important thing wasn't ending the illegal war, it was 'elections!' The peace movement can't make the same mistake in 2008. If people have hurt little feelings, too damn bad. Too much time has been wasted with the peace movement wasting their energies on the John Kerry presidential bid or the Democrats 2006 Congressional races. People in the peace movement will most likely favor a candidate on their own. That's to be expected. But the peace movement is not a get-out-the-vote movement nor should it be hijacked (willingly or not) by political parties.
IVAW is not the only thing happening in DC. March for Peace exists around it and blocks out the 13th through the 16th for IVAW. Possibly, those whining online about IVAW don't believe students matter and that's why they flaunt their ignorance of March for Peace? You can find their schedule here.
CBS and AP report that Turkey is declaring that they "bombed nearly 60 Kurdish rebel targets in an attack this week in northern Iraq." Christian Peacemaker Teams have protested noting that the bombings -- as with all ariel bombings including the ones the US is doing in Iraq -- are indiscriminate and targeting civilians.
In other reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing that claimed 2 lives and left four wounded, a Baquba home bombing left 2 police officers dead and two more wounded while another Baquba home bombing claimed the lives of 2 children and four adults wounded.
Shootings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an armed clash in Basra that left at least two soldiers injured, three Iraqi police officers injured and an unknown number of civilians injured while Dr. Luma Salih was shot dead in a seperate incident as she left the hospital, a Wajihiyah armed clash left 2 police officers dead and three more wounded, 8 people were shot dead in Kirkuk and a Nasriyah Province clash in which 9 people were killed and at least forty wounded.
Corpses?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad and 3 in Diyala Province. Reuters reports 7 corpses "were found after one" US "air strike in the town of Riyadh".
In US political news, the Green Party has scheduled another presidential candidate forum for February 2nd at Busboys & Poets in DC (14th and V Streets) at ten in the morning -- Jesse Johnson and Kent Mesplay are confirmed to appear others may or may not. More info click here. They've also created a new webpage for videos with the San Francisco forum held Sunday already on it and plans for more videos to be added. The Green Party's official blog can be found here and certainly if it's happening and known Kimberly Wilder (On The Wilder Side) is probably posting about it. In Democratic presidential politics, Shailagh Murraqy (Washington Post) quotes John Edwards response to Barack Obama's praise of Ronald Reagan (see yesterday's snapshot): "When you think about what Ronald Reagan did to the American people, to the middle class to the working people. He was openly -- openly -- intolerant of unions and the right to organize. He openly fought against the union and the organized labor movement in this country . . . He openly did extraordinary damage to the middle class and working people, created a tax structure that favored the very wealthiest Americans and caused the middle class and working people to struggle every single day. The destruction of the environment, you know, eliminating regulation of companies that were polluting and doing extraordinary damage to the environment. I can promise you this: thie president will never use Ronald Reagan as an example of change."
This MLK weekend, PBS' Bill Moyers Journal includes an essay by Moyers (who served in the Johnson White House) reflecting on history and present day -- in addition, he speaks with the New York Times David Cay Johnston about the truths regarding taxation and spending. In most markets, that airs tonight. It will stream online and provide transcripts and audio.
iraq
iraq veterans against the war
nancy a. youssefmcclatchy newspapersann scott tysonthe washington postjulian e. barnesthe los angeles times
bill moyersbill moyers journal
kimberly wilder
Friday, January 18, 2008
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Susan Faludi and what we've learned
"The Correct Hillary Clinton Stereotype" (Susan Faludi, Common Dreams):
In their appraisals of Hillary Clinton, the pollsters and pundits who have not gotten beyond that mommy/ball-buster teeter-totter narrative of American womanhood also have not begun to diagnose gender dynamics beyond the perspective of the little boy and his mom. A lot of female voters, however, may be factoring in a whole other kind of female archetype, whose wet eyes do not signal weakness and whose flashes of anger do not signal coldness, only pragmatic perseverance.
If pundits ever tried to understand what some female voters know about the complexity of women's lives, they might begin to comprehend the appeal of a female candidate whose ethic of caring and whose posture of femininity derive from responsibilities beyond the maternal. And then they might begin to understand the affection of women in New Hampshire who put her over the top.
That's Susan Faludi, author of The Terror Dream, a book well worth reading.
I'm not doing any other highlights tonight. I generally try to but I'm not interested. I'm not interested in highlighting Cockburn's site after that piece of trash that got posted yesterday. When you're rushing to the Madonna loving 'scholar' to trash Gloria Steinem, you've reached rock bottom.
C.I. (The Common Ills) and I were on the phone this afternoon and I said I'd gladly grab Faludi. C.I. just wasn't in the mood to deal with the nonsense in the snapshot.
There was too much to cover as it is. So I said I'd grab that and I was sure Mike (Mikey Likes It!) would grab another topic (which he's grabbing tonight). I pointed out that I may not highlight CounterPunch Friday night and I'll decide about next week when next week gets here. Jeffrey St. Clair has a lame piece up right now. It's insulting and bad writing. It's also not surprising.
But I can take that and might even highlight a section of it normally; however, I do not forgive what ran yesterday.
Yesterday, a little nothing man who has never achieved anything was allowed to rip apart the entire feminist movement by going after Gloria Steinem and, for some reason, CounterPunch that qualified for "good" and "worthy." It didn't qualify as toilet paper if you were stuck in the woods.
I really do think we've been given a wonderful gift via the attacks on Gloria Steinem. I think it's revealed how many hate feminism.
My thought on reading yesterday's toilet paper was . . . Actually, I had several. The reporter at Truthout (Jason, something) got trashed by Alexander Cockburn and Cockburn declared that Jason's writing being published was a sign of how weak standards were. But Cockburn was apparently unaware that CounterPunch had repeatedly published Jason.
Reading Toilet Paper yesterday, my first thought was, "Cockburn didn't fact check this, did he?" There was no standards for that piece. I know two of the women quoted in it and I got on the phone to ask them about it. (They were slammed as well, all women got slammed in that piece of crap CounterPunch posted.)
That piece wouldn't stand up to a basic fact check.
But CounterPunch was happy to put it up.
It also had foul and objectionable language.
But CounterPunch was happy to put it up.
We're seeing some real hatred towards women being flaunted.
That actually is a gift because most of the time they pretend they respect us -- or pretend that if you're Alexander Cockburn while running a topless photo in your column.
There was no reason in the world to run a topless photo of a woman at CounterPunch. That was just cheesecake, it wasn't funny, and I am beginning to see, this week, how that got published online.
Women really are devalued. We knew that.
That is the point of Gloria Steinem's column, the gender barrier and how it's justified and ignored.
What we've seen this week is very revealing as well.
Last week, dopes like Robert Parry and Robert Scheer put forward the lie that Gloria Steinem was creating a caste system of suffering. She did no such thing.
She did, however, call out gender discrimination.
What really offends some people (and this includes some women) is that Gloria Steinem had the nerve to speak as if women mattered.
What we've seen in response demonstrates how many in this country do not believe women matter.
We've seen, this week, a small number of women front for the pigs.
That's really been depressing. But there were always women (of all races) willing to disown and ignore their own oppression and to call out any woman who dared to note the very real, very historical discrimination against all women.
They're still around.
So are the male pigs.
Gloria Steinem's under attack.
I know it's killing C.I. We were on the phone talking about the attacks late last night and C.I. pointed out Gloria's not a young woman now. She's closer to death and this is exactly the sort of thing that pops up (these attacks) to rob a woman of her legacy. C.I. was citing historical examples.
What you saw were sexists intentionally distort Gloria Steinem's words and work. Parallel Therapy is something she's been doing for years. (Revolution From Within contains a long passage explaining it, so if you're uninformed, check there.)
What Amy Goodman was even more disgusting than what people did last week.
Amy Goodman, you are a traitor to gender.
You stabbed Gloria Steinem in the back and did your ambush journalism. You said it would be a discussion and you egged on your little new friend before the broadcast. You had conversations with her on the phone before the broadcast while LYING to Gloria that this was someone who wanted to have a discussion. You LIED. You told Gloria she was going to be able to address race with someone who really was confused by her column. Gloria was happy to go on and discuss the issues with a woman. She assumed they might have differences of opinion and could and would talk to through them. There would be some sort of understanding for both of them at the end.
But Amy was also on the phone egging her new friend on. Really egging her on.
Amy Goodman played friend to Gloria Steinem to lure her into the sort of television Gloria would never agree to and has repeatedly turned down.
Amy Goodman is trash.
Amy Goodman didn't even correct the distortions of Gloria's column before the break. She didn't do anything on air but sit there gleefully, thinking, "This is going make me a star!"
Now in reality, Amy Goodman couldn't stand up to Michael Gordon. In reality, she couldn't stand up to Lou Dobbs.
But she was happy to LIE to Gloria Steinem and create ambush journalism.
Gloria Steinem is happy to listen to any type of criticism. She does not go on TV for what Amy offered. It's bad for the feminist movement and she's done more than anyone to educate on why that was.
Amy's little friend could have had a face to face. Gloria would have met with her. Gloria would have agreed to meet with her and other women. In front of other women. But not for the mainstream press.
But Amy's little friend's not a feminist. She's a Barack Obama groupie.
As C.I. pointed out last night on the phone, it really is disgusting how many people are being trashed and/or turned invisible to prop up that bad candidate.
Gloria has regularly faced women who were hostile about something she said or wrote. She's happy to. She doesn't think she's perfect. But she does that within the movement. She can be trashed to her face and will take it. She will listen, she will apologize, she'll clarify if something needs clarified. But she knows that these moments do not belong in the mainstream press because it becomes "cat fight" and one more way to try to destroy feminism.
Amy Goodman was happy to serve that up in her ambush journalism. She was happy to betray Gloria's trust. Gloria's only mistake was in trusting Amy Goodman that it would be a discussion. Instead it was an attack.
Amy Goodman's a piece of s**t. That's all she is. She's a liar and she's a back stabber.
She also better watch her back because her 'largest grassroots' can go grass really quickly. She can lose NPR stations and PBS stations. Not over what she did to Gloria but over the one-sided, undisclosed conflicts she has repeatedly allowed on air.
Amy could have stepped in (but she wanted TV 'drama') at any point. Gloria Steinem's not going to defend herself. But Amy could have interrupted at any point when false charges were being made. It was very hurtful for those of us who know that Gloria Steinem is for all women and has worked for all women to watch that crap Amy Goodman manufactured.
Hopefully, her new friend will grasp at some point that she didn't know she was talking about and that she was, in fact, used by Goodman to have TV 'drama.'
Gloria Steinem's is not that woman's enemy. If that woman knew anything of Gloria's work, she'd have grasped that before hand. Instead, she was encouraged to be angry by Amy. The same sort of way that Sally Jesse did on her TV show. Remember when Amy Goodman mocked Sally Jesse in her book? Amy Goodman is now Sally Jesse.
I think myself that Amy Goodman thought because many feminists overlooked her publishing in Hustler magazine that she was seen as "one of us." She wasn't. I think she's going to find out quickly how she has harmed herself with her own actions. Maybe Hustler will take her back?
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Wednesday, January 16, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces more deaths, officials continue to be targeted and a look at the Green Party debate.
Starting with war resisters. Heather Wokusch (American Chronicle) notes war resistance in Germany. She notes Agustin Aguayo's resistance, Clifton Hicks and "John." We noted John when we noted Wokusch's article earlier. Hicks' story is told in depth in Peter Laufer's Mission Rejected: U.S. Soldiers Who Say No to Iraq. Hicks would get his CO status after serving in Iraq (twice, his unit made it to Kuwait and were then sent back in instead of heading out of the Mid East as planned). Hicks shares this story with Laufer:
We heard a lot of gunfire up ahead and you could tell it wasn't just a couple AK-47s, it was some U.S. weapon firing back. We knew somebody was in a fight up there. We race ahead down the street and there's an 82 Airborne infantry platoon and they're all parked in their Humvees -- about four Humvees packed with guys. There's a house with the lights on and people are all around the place. There's a big fuss going on.
We pull up and we say, 'What's going on? We heard some shooting up here.' And they're like, 'Yeah, we got ambushed just now.' They started clearing buildings to find out who was firing at them. They kicked in this first door and there's a wedding party going on. What they do in Baghdad, when there's a wedding, they shoot into the air. These people were up on their roof, probably a little sauced up, happy there's a wedding, and I guess Grandpa is up on the roof shooting off his rifle at the same time as this 82nd patrol drives by and is engaged by insurgents from a field. They returned fire in both directions, and I think most of them returned fire on the wedding party. They returned fire on the wedding party and they shot three people, three people at a wedding party. Because somebody was shooting into the air to celebrate, these guys wanted to kill him.
The insurgents were fine, not a scrach on them. They made it just fine. The innocent people who were partying, just trying to celebrate a wedding, three of them had been shot. One man had been shot in the arm, a girl had been shot in the leg, and one younger girl who was about six was dead -- laying on the ground, dead. She was six years old, laying on the ground, face down, palms up, in a little flowery dress. She was stone dead. Mothers and women are all bawling and crying. The men are all standing in shock. We bandaged up the one guy. The one little girl was crying, she was maybe ten, shot in the leg. Everyone is sitting around like, 'Yeah, they f**king killed some little kid.' I'm like, 'What the f**k? That's pretty sh**ty.'
The 82nd called it up to their guys and their command said, 'Charlike Mike [military parlance for 'Continue the mission'], just keep going.' They packed up and drove off. So we just hopped in our humvees and we drove off too.
And that was the end of it. They applied first aid to the people who had been shot. The girl who was dead, they just left her there on the floor. We drove off and continued the mission.
War resisters have resisted in a number of ways throughout the Iraq War. That includes the ones who went to Canada seeking asylum. November 15th, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the appeals of war resisters Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. Parliament is the solution.Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. Both War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist are calling for actions from January 24-26. The War Resisters Support Campaign has more on the action in Canada:
The War Resisters Support Campaign has called a pan-Canadian mobilization on Saturday, January 26th, 2008 to ensure : 1) that deportation proceedings against U.S. war resisters currently in Canada cease immediately; and 2) that a provision be enacted by Parliament ensuring that U.S. war resisters refusing to fight in Iraq have a means to gain status in Canada. For listings of local actions, see our Events page. If you are able to organize a rally in your community, contact the Campaign -- we will list events as details come in.
Courage to Resist notes:
Join and support January 25 vigils and delegations in support of U.S. war resisters currently seeking sanctuary Canada. Actions are being planned in Washington D.C., New York, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles. Supporters will meet with officials at Canadian Consulates across the United States in order underscore that many Americans hope that the Canadian Parliament votes (possible as early as February) in favor of a provision to allow war resisters to remain. Download and distribute Jan. 25-26 action leaflet (PDF).Supporting the war resisters in Canada is a concrete way to demonstrate your support of the troops who refuse to fight. Help end the war by supporting the growing GI resistance movement today!
Details January 25-26 actions/events in support of U.S. war resisters.
Sign the letter "Dear Canada: Let U.S. War Resisters Stay!" and encourage others to sign.
Organize a delegation to a Canadian Consulate near you .
Host an event or house-party in support of war resisters.
Tomorrow (Thursday), Ann Wright (retired State Department, retired US Col.) will have an event for her new book Dissent: Voice of Conscience (Koa Books, out next week) that will benefit Courage to Resist's above campaign. She will be at Oakland's First Congressional Church on 2501 Harrison along with Daniel Ellsberg. Dissent: Voices of Conscience, written by Wright and Susan Dixon with an introduction by Ellsberg,
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC event:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation.
Today James Glanz (New York Times) reveals that the White House's September 'progress' report to the US Congress was 'creative' and citing the spending by the puppet government in Baghdad as a 'progress'; however, "in its report on Tuesday the accountability office said official Iraqi Finance Ministry records showed that Iraq had spent only 4.4 percent of the reconstruction budget by August 2007. It also said that the rate of spending had substantially slowed from the previous year." Reality, Congress should have had their own reports ready and been willing to say to Petraues, Crocker and anyone else the White House sent before them, "That figure it not correct."
Congress' inability to do their job is obvious regarding the September 16, 2007 slaughter of Iraqis in Baghdad by the mercenaries of Baghdad. On Sunday, Lara Jakes Jordan and Matt Apuzzo (AP) reported that the investigation into the slaughter is now complicated because Blackwater had the vehicles in their convoy "repaired and repainted . . . immediately after". Eye witness testimony says Blackwater wasn't fired on (that's the lie the mercenary corporation originally put out) and now Blackwater's actions have resulted in more road blocks. Congress should have been asking about this when they held a hearing on Blackwater -- however, if you remember, they decided to take a pass on that. It wasn't their pass to take. They had Erik Prince before them, they should have at the bare minimum asked whether evidence was secured? They didn't do their job. Today James Risen and David Johnston (New York Times) report that the immunity deals the US State Department made with Blackwater employees (without Justice Department approval) as well as the variances in the law (which falls right back onto Congress and their inaction) have created "serious legal difficulties in pursuing criminal prosecutions of Blackwater security guards involved in a September shooting that left at least 17 Iraqis dead. In a private briefing in mid-December, officials from the Justice and State Departments met with aides to the House Judiciary Committee and other Congressional staff members and warned them that there were major legal obstacles that might prevent prosecution."
Yesterday, Thom Shanker (New York Times) reported that Iraq's defense minister Abdul Qadir has declared that US forces will still be in Iraq as late as 2018. This followed Suleiman al-Khalidi (Reuters) reporting Saturday that Iraq's foreign minister, Hoshiyar Zebari raving over how the one-on-one agreements that didn't require UN approval: "Iraq is in need of this U.S. presence but the period will be defined in the pact." The pact? The US and their puppet government in Baghdad have made a show of getting UN approval each year. The pact by-passes the UN. The pact also by-passes the Iraqi parliament which has voiced their objection and it by-passes the US Congress which expresses outrage when it remembers to. (The Constitution bars Bully Boy from forming this pact/treaty without Congress.) Citing Shanker's article, the New York Times' editorial blog (I did not make that up, "The Board"), maintains, "Mr. Qadir and his Iraqi government colleagues should be firmly disbused of such thinking. America must quickly organize an orderly withdrawal of troops, not wait for another decade." Earlier this week, Michael Evans (Times of London) reported, "The invasion of Iraq and the occupation of the country by US led multinational forces had been 'a terrible episode for everybody', a Foreign Office minister admitted yesterday. Lord Malloch-Brown, who has acquired a reputation for making controversial remarks in public, said 'a lot of people' had been lost, and no one could feel any sense of triumphalism." He is quoted stating: "We've lost a lot of people there. This is not something that there's triumphalism on any side. This is a terrible episode for everybody."
Yesterday, Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) noted another US collaborator was shot dead ('Awakening' Council leader for Khuthair Lafta) and "American helicopter gunships injured five civilians in Baladiyat" while AP reports that a convoy carrying "Midhat al-Mahmoud, president of the Supreme Judicial minister" killed 5 children it ran into "during a chaotic gunbattle with checkpoint guards" in Baghdad yesterday. In Monday's snapshot, this was noted: "Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Judge Amir Jawdat Al-na'ib ('member of the federal appeal court') was shot dead in Baghdad along with his driver today." Yesterday, Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Abeer Mohammed (New York Times) reported that he had been "in his 60s" and that, "The attack appeared to be part of a longstanding campaign by militants to kill doctors, professors, lawyers and other professionals." Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) noted, "Many Iraqi judges and lawyers have been assassinated since 2003 as armed groups have sought to destroy the country's professional classes."
Turning to some of today's violence . . .
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing left six people wounded, an east Baghdad bombing claimed 2 lives and left ten others wounded, an "American army base in Shaab neighborhood north Baghdad" was attacked with mortar fire today, the Green Zone was attacked with mortar fire today, three Baghdad bombings on Palestine St. left three people wounded, a Kirkuk bombing left a police officer wounded, a woman blew herself up in Diyala and also took the lives of 8 other people with seven more injured and a Mosul car bombing left five people wounded. In the continued attacks on officials, Reuters notes a Sulaiman Pek truck bombing targeting the mayor -- he and three bodyguards were injured in the attack while a Dour car bombing targted and "wounded the head of the Iraqi-U.S. Joint Coordination Centre" as well as two of his bodyguards.
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports "clashes between the Iraqi army and gunmen" left six bystanders wounded in Mosul.
Kidnappings?
Reuters notes a police officer was kidnapped outside Tuz Khurmato Tuesday night and that "a university student" was killed in the same apparent action.
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 5 corpses were discovered in Baghdad and 1 in Khurmato.
Today the US military announced: "Three Multi-National -- North Soldiers were killed by small arms fire while conducting operations in Salah ad Din province Jan. 16. Additionally, two other Soldiers were wounded and evacuated to a Coalition hospital."
In the US, the search continues for Cesar Laurean who is suspected of killing Maria Laterbach who was due to testify against him -- to testify that he raped her. Maria disappeared in mid-December. The body found behind Cesar Laurean's home (in the 'burn pit') has been identified as Maria's. R. Gregg (Raleigh Chronicle) reports, "On Tuesday, during a nationally televised press conference, Onslow County District Attorney George Dewey Hudson, Jr. announced that Lance Cpl. Maria Lauterbach died of 'blunt force trauma' to the head." The US military knew of the rape charges in April when Maria made them. Yesterday, they began feeding the press (and some swallowed) that it wasn't really their fault because Maria said she didn't feel she was in danger. That claim may or may not be backed up but that does not push the burden off on the victim -- the US military had a responsible to do their jobs in a timely manner. They didn't. David Schoetz (ABC News) reports that spokesperson for the Marine Corps planned "to address the rape allegations Lautherbach had made against Laurean and how that information was handled after the woman was reported missing by her family Dec. 19 and her military status was changed to 'unauthorized absence'."
Turning to US politics. The Green Party held a debate in San Francisco Sunday with Cindy Sheehan and Matt Gonzalez moderating. Appearing were Cynthia McKinney, Kat Swift, Kent Mesplay, Jesse Johnson, Jared Ball and Ralph Nader. We'll note Cindy Sheehan is not only the Peace Mom, she's also running for the US Congress from California's 8th district and she is the only candidate running for office in 2008 that I am endorsing. As the debate continued, not unlike many Democratic debates and 'debates,' Iraq wasn't even noted.
Larry Bensky: It's distressing to me that we're about an hour into this program and the issue I'm about to bring up has been mentioned only in passing and not very much. I wonder if each of you would address how, if you are the nominee of the Green Party, you would speak to the American people to raise their awareness about what is going on with our tax dollars and the blood and psyches of our military in Iraq? And what you would do to stop it?
Here are the responses to Bensky's question.
Kent Mesplay: In my opening speech I had to gloss over my, of course, obvious disapproval of the war in Iraq, that it was a mistake. Our troops didn't make the mistake, I think, support our troops, impeach the president before he finds whatever specieous reasons are necessary to start another war. And really . . . there is no simple solution other than demanding immediate, unconditional withdrawal from Iraq.
Cynthia McKinney: I agree that we ought to demand immediate withdrawal from Iraq. I voted for that when I was in Congress. One of I think three people. But the problem is not just Iraq. The problem is the militaristic turn that our foreign policy has taken. And so I wouldn't just say "Bring the troops home from Iraq," I would say, "Bring them home period -- from all over the world." And then the second part of it is because the Congress is so powerful, we have to people who will run for Congress on a peace agenda, a peace platform. That's why it's so important that we have people like Cindy Sheehan running for Congress because she shows us the power of individuals, the power of one woman willing to take a stand. And we all have that power, we just have to recognize it and do it.
Kat Smith: Well talking to the masses about how their tax dollars can be spent is really simple, you just put out the figures and show people and once they see the numbers, they understand it. As far as -- we also need to talk about the reallocation of monies to take care of war veterans. I mean, homelessness after Vietnam spiked dramatically and we're already seeing the homelessness with Iraqi veterans starting to spike. And there are very few mental health services for veterans in this country and VA benefits are decreasing daily. And I work with homeless services and we're seeing a lot more vets come in and I'm also in San Antonio [Texas] where a lot of the hospitals are so, you know, we see a lot of this. But it's really simple to talk to the masses about how their tax dollars are spent when you show them the figures -- like Cynthia mentioned some of them -- when people see this, they're like "Well, what's going on?" and you just have to talk to them about changing it.
Jesse Johnson: We step away from this disaster capitalism that we're investing in in this nation. As I said, we dimilitarize the economy. We immediately withdrawal. Frankly, the Constitution states clearly that we're not supposed to have a standing army to begin with. We're not supposed to be traipsing around trying to police the entire world. The veterans are a huge issue. The very moment that we were marching into Baghdad this last time -- and frankly, we've been at war in Baghdad, as far as the peopl of Baghdad, for 16 years -- whether it was the first Gulf War, whether it was the embargos taking place that harmed only women, children and the elderly and the infirmed. Or this last illegal, immoral conflict
And ultimately, finally, without question, we hold the war profiteering perpetrators to task for what they have done and, as I said before in regards to what impeachment states in the Constitution, we all need to remember it and the audience participation is out there.
That's four. Nader spoke at the end and didn't take part in the debate (spoke for seven minutes). Jared Ball? Ball endorsed McKinney so presumably he dropped out. Had that not happened, we wouldn't waste our time on him in the snapshot. (A full transcript of the entire debate ran in Hilda's Mix Tuesday.) Why not? Larry Bensky asked about the Iraq War. Bell decided to name check his own organization and organizations he belonged to, decided to mention this and that and everything except the Iraq War. Bensky's question was very clear: how would you increase awareness of the costs of the illegal war and how would you stop it. I don't think there was anything confusing about that question. We don't have time for nonsense. Candidates linked to above either regularly address the Iraq War or at least note it at their website.
Note to the Green Party, you had a debate on Sunday. It is now Wednesday. You should have already issued a press release post-event. Already Grist magazine has posted their pooh-pah commentary. More will be coming. The Green Party needs to get their own opinion out there. Amanda Witherell (San Francisco Bay Guardian) points out Sunday's debate was "their only planned debate" and notes Nader has stated he hasn't decided yet whether he will run for the nominated or not but "I'll be deciding within the next months."
Links to video segments can be found here. For those who would like to hear it, KPFA has it archived. Host/MC Allison is, of course, co-author with David Solnit of Army Of None.
This Friday the Peace and Freedom Party debate will be broadcast on KPFA at noon PST.
iraq
heather wokuschagustin aguayo
peter laufer
kpfalarry bensky
army of noneaimeee allisondavid solnit
the new york timesjames glanz
james risen
david johnston
thom shanker
richard a. oppel jr.steve lannenmcclatchy newspapers
ned parkerlos angeles times
In their appraisals of Hillary Clinton, the pollsters and pundits who have not gotten beyond that mommy/ball-buster teeter-totter narrative of American womanhood also have not begun to diagnose gender dynamics beyond the perspective of the little boy and his mom. A lot of female voters, however, may be factoring in a whole other kind of female archetype, whose wet eyes do not signal weakness and whose flashes of anger do not signal coldness, only pragmatic perseverance.
If pundits ever tried to understand what some female voters know about the complexity of women's lives, they might begin to comprehend the appeal of a female candidate whose ethic of caring and whose posture of femininity derive from responsibilities beyond the maternal. And then they might begin to understand the affection of women in New Hampshire who put her over the top.
That's Susan Faludi, author of The Terror Dream, a book well worth reading.
I'm not doing any other highlights tonight. I generally try to but I'm not interested. I'm not interested in highlighting Cockburn's site after that piece of trash that got posted yesterday. When you're rushing to the Madonna loving 'scholar' to trash Gloria Steinem, you've reached rock bottom.
C.I. (The Common Ills) and I were on the phone this afternoon and I said I'd gladly grab Faludi. C.I. just wasn't in the mood to deal with the nonsense in the snapshot.
There was too much to cover as it is. So I said I'd grab that and I was sure Mike (Mikey Likes It!) would grab another topic (which he's grabbing tonight). I pointed out that I may not highlight CounterPunch Friday night and I'll decide about next week when next week gets here. Jeffrey St. Clair has a lame piece up right now. It's insulting and bad writing. It's also not surprising.
But I can take that and might even highlight a section of it normally; however, I do not forgive what ran yesterday.
Yesterday, a little nothing man who has never achieved anything was allowed to rip apart the entire feminist movement by going after Gloria Steinem and, for some reason, CounterPunch that qualified for "good" and "worthy." It didn't qualify as toilet paper if you were stuck in the woods.
I really do think we've been given a wonderful gift via the attacks on Gloria Steinem. I think it's revealed how many hate feminism.
My thought on reading yesterday's toilet paper was . . . Actually, I had several. The reporter at Truthout (Jason, something) got trashed by Alexander Cockburn and Cockburn declared that Jason's writing being published was a sign of how weak standards were. But Cockburn was apparently unaware that CounterPunch had repeatedly published Jason.
Reading Toilet Paper yesterday, my first thought was, "Cockburn didn't fact check this, did he?" There was no standards for that piece. I know two of the women quoted in it and I got on the phone to ask them about it. (They were slammed as well, all women got slammed in that piece of crap CounterPunch posted.)
That piece wouldn't stand up to a basic fact check.
But CounterPunch was happy to put it up.
It also had foul and objectionable language.
But CounterPunch was happy to put it up.
We're seeing some real hatred towards women being flaunted.
That actually is a gift because most of the time they pretend they respect us -- or pretend that if you're Alexander Cockburn while running a topless photo in your column.
There was no reason in the world to run a topless photo of a woman at CounterPunch. That was just cheesecake, it wasn't funny, and I am beginning to see, this week, how that got published online.
Women really are devalued. We knew that.
That is the point of Gloria Steinem's column, the gender barrier and how it's justified and ignored.
What we've seen this week is very revealing as well.
Last week, dopes like Robert Parry and Robert Scheer put forward the lie that Gloria Steinem was creating a caste system of suffering. She did no such thing.
She did, however, call out gender discrimination.
What really offends some people (and this includes some women) is that Gloria Steinem had the nerve to speak as if women mattered.
What we've seen in response demonstrates how many in this country do not believe women matter.
We've seen, this week, a small number of women front for the pigs.
That's really been depressing. But there were always women (of all races) willing to disown and ignore their own oppression and to call out any woman who dared to note the very real, very historical discrimination against all women.
They're still around.
So are the male pigs.
Gloria Steinem's under attack.
I know it's killing C.I. We were on the phone talking about the attacks late last night and C.I. pointed out Gloria's not a young woman now. She's closer to death and this is exactly the sort of thing that pops up (these attacks) to rob a woman of her legacy. C.I. was citing historical examples.
What you saw were sexists intentionally distort Gloria Steinem's words and work. Parallel Therapy is something she's been doing for years. (Revolution From Within contains a long passage explaining it, so if you're uninformed, check there.)
What Amy Goodman was even more disgusting than what people did last week.
Amy Goodman, you are a traitor to gender.
You stabbed Gloria Steinem in the back and did your ambush journalism. You said it would be a discussion and you egged on your little new friend before the broadcast. You had conversations with her on the phone before the broadcast while LYING to Gloria that this was someone who wanted to have a discussion. You LIED. You told Gloria she was going to be able to address race with someone who really was confused by her column. Gloria was happy to go on and discuss the issues with a woman. She assumed they might have differences of opinion and could and would talk to through them. There would be some sort of understanding for both of them at the end.
But Amy was also on the phone egging her new friend on. Really egging her on.
Amy Goodman played friend to Gloria Steinem to lure her into the sort of television Gloria would never agree to and has repeatedly turned down.
Amy Goodman is trash.
Amy Goodman didn't even correct the distortions of Gloria's column before the break. She didn't do anything on air but sit there gleefully, thinking, "This is going make me a star!"
Now in reality, Amy Goodman couldn't stand up to Michael Gordon. In reality, she couldn't stand up to Lou Dobbs.
But she was happy to LIE to Gloria Steinem and create ambush journalism.
Gloria Steinem is happy to listen to any type of criticism. She does not go on TV for what Amy offered. It's bad for the feminist movement and she's done more than anyone to educate on why that was.
Amy's little friend could have had a face to face. Gloria would have met with her. Gloria would have agreed to meet with her and other women. In front of other women. But not for the mainstream press.
But Amy's little friend's not a feminist. She's a Barack Obama groupie.
As C.I. pointed out last night on the phone, it really is disgusting how many people are being trashed and/or turned invisible to prop up that bad candidate.
Gloria has regularly faced women who were hostile about something she said or wrote. She's happy to. She doesn't think she's perfect. But she does that within the movement. She can be trashed to her face and will take it. She will listen, she will apologize, she'll clarify if something needs clarified. But she knows that these moments do not belong in the mainstream press because it becomes "cat fight" and one more way to try to destroy feminism.
Amy Goodman was happy to serve that up in her ambush journalism. She was happy to betray Gloria's trust. Gloria's only mistake was in trusting Amy Goodman that it would be a discussion. Instead it was an attack.
Amy Goodman's a piece of s**t. That's all she is. She's a liar and she's a back stabber.
She also better watch her back because her 'largest grassroots' can go grass really quickly. She can lose NPR stations and PBS stations. Not over what she did to Gloria but over the one-sided, undisclosed conflicts she has repeatedly allowed on air.
Amy could have stepped in (but she wanted TV 'drama') at any point. Gloria Steinem's not going to defend herself. But Amy could have interrupted at any point when false charges were being made. It was very hurtful for those of us who know that Gloria Steinem is for all women and has worked for all women to watch that crap Amy Goodman manufactured.
Hopefully, her new friend will grasp at some point that she didn't know she was talking about and that she was, in fact, used by Goodman to have TV 'drama.'
Gloria Steinem's is not that woman's enemy. If that woman knew anything of Gloria's work, she'd have grasped that before hand. Instead, she was encouraged to be angry by Amy. The same sort of way that Sally Jesse did on her TV show. Remember when Amy Goodman mocked Sally Jesse in her book? Amy Goodman is now Sally Jesse.
I think myself that Amy Goodman thought because many feminists overlooked her publishing in Hustler magazine that she was seen as "one of us." She wasn't. I think she's going to find out quickly how she has harmed herself with her own actions. Maybe Hustler will take her back?
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Wednesday, January 16, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces more deaths, officials continue to be targeted and a look at the Green Party debate.
Starting with war resisters. Heather Wokusch (American Chronicle) notes war resistance in Germany. She notes Agustin Aguayo's resistance, Clifton Hicks and "John." We noted John when we noted Wokusch's article earlier. Hicks' story is told in depth in Peter Laufer's Mission Rejected: U.S. Soldiers Who Say No to Iraq. Hicks would get his CO status after serving in Iraq (twice, his unit made it to Kuwait and were then sent back in instead of heading out of the Mid East as planned). Hicks shares this story with Laufer:
We heard a lot of gunfire up ahead and you could tell it wasn't just a couple AK-47s, it was some U.S. weapon firing back. We knew somebody was in a fight up there. We race ahead down the street and there's an 82 Airborne infantry platoon and they're all parked in their Humvees -- about four Humvees packed with guys. There's a house with the lights on and people are all around the place. There's a big fuss going on.
We pull up and we say, 'What's going on? We heard some shooting up here.' And they're like, 'Yeah, we got ambushed just now.' They started clearing buildings to find out who was firing at them. They kicked in this first door and there's a wedding party going on. What they do in Baghdad, when there's a wedding, they shoot into the air. These people were up on their roof, probably a little sauced up, happy there's a wedding, and I guess Grandpa is up on the roof shooting off his rifle at the same time as this 82nd patrol drives by and is engaged by insurgents from a field. They returned fire in both directions, and I think most of them returned fire on the wedding party. They returned fire on the wedding party and they shot three people, three people at a wedding party. Because somebody was shooting into the air to celebrate, these guys wanted to kill him.
The insurgents were fine, not a scrach on them. They made it just fine. The innocent people who were partying, just trying to celebrate a wedding, three of them had been shot. One man had been shot in the arm, a girl had been shot in the leg, and one younger girl who was about six was dead -- laying on the ground, dead. She was six years old, laying on the ground, face down, palms up, in a little flowery dress. She was stone dead. Mothers and women are all bawling and crying. The men are all standing in shock. We bandaged up the one guy. The one little girl was crying, she was maybe ten, shot in the leg. Everyone is sitting around like, 'Yeah, they f**king killed some little kid.' I'm like, 'What the f**k? That's pretty sh**ty.'
The 82nd called it up to their guys and their command said, 'Charlike Mike [military parlance for 'Continue the mission'], just keep going.' They packed up and drove off. So we just hopped in our humvees and we drove off too.
And that was the end of it. They applied first aid to the people who had been shot. The girl who was dead, they just left her there on the floor. We drove off and continued the mission.
War resisters have resisted in a number of ways throughout the Iraq War. That includes the ones who went to Canada seeking asylum. November 15th, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the appeals of war resisters Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. Parliament is the solution.Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. Both War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist are calling for actions from January 24-26. The War Resisters Support Campaign has more on the action in Canada:
The War Resisters Support Campaign has called a pan-Canadian mobilization on Saturday, January 26th, 2008 to ensure : 1) that deportation proceedings against U.S. war resisters currently in Canada cease immediately; and 2) that a provision be enacted by Parliament ensuring that U.S. war resisters refusing to fight in Iraq have a means to gain status in Canada. For listings of local actions, see our Events page. If you are able to organize a rally in your community, contact the Campaign -- we will list events as details come in.
Courage to Resist notes:
Join and support January 25 vigils and delegations in support of U.S. war resisters currently seeking sanctuary Canada. Actions are being planned in Washington D.C., New York, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles. Supporters will meet with officials at Canadian Consulates across the United States in order underscore that many Americans hope that the Canadian Parliament votes (possible as early as February) in favor of a provision to allow war resisters to remain. Download and distribute Jan. 25-26 action leaflet (PDF).Supporting the war resisters in Canada is a concrete way to demonstrate your support of the troops who refuse to fight. Help end the war by supporting the growing GI resistance movement today!
Details January 25-26 actions/events in support of U.S. war resisters.
Sign the letter "Dear Canada: Let U.S. War Resisters Stay!" and encourage others to sign.
Organize a delegation to a Canadian Consulate near you .
Host an event or house-party in support of war resisters.
Tomorrow (Thursday), Ann Wright (retired State Department, retired US Col.) will have an event for her new book Dissent: Voice of Conscience (Koa Books, out next week) that will benefit Courage to Resist's above campaign. She will be at Oakland's First Congressional Church on 2501 Harrison along with Daniel Ellsberg. Dissent: Voices of Conscience, written by Wright and Susan Dixon with an introduction by Ellsberg,
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC event:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation.
Today James Glanz (New York Times) reveals that the White House's September 'progress' report to the US Congress was 'creative' and citing the spending by the puppet government in Baghdad as a 'progress'; however, "in its report on Tuesday the accountability office said official Iraqi Finance Ministry records showed that Iraq had spent only 4.4 percent of the reconstruction budget by August 2007. It also said that the rate of spending had substantially slowed from the previous year." Reality, Congress should have had their own reports ready and been willing to say to Petraues, Crocker and anyone else the White House sent before them, "That figure it not correct."
Congress' inability to do their job is obvious regarding the September 16, 2007 slaughter of Iraqis in Baghdad by the mercenaries of Baghdad. On Sunday, Lara Jakes Jordan and Matt Apuzzo (AP) reported that the investigation into the slaughter is now complicated because Blackwater had the vehicles in their convoy "repaired and repainted . . . immediately after". Eye witness testimony says Blackwater wasn't fired on (that's the lie the mercenary corporation originally put out) and now Blackwater's actions have resulted in more road blocks. Congress should have been asking about this when they held a hearing on Blackwater -- however, if you remember, they decided to take a pass on that. It wasn't their pass to take. They had Erik Prince before them, they should have at the bare minimum asked whether evidence was secured? They didn't do their job. Today James Risen and David Johnston (New York Times) report that the immunity deals the US State Department made with Blackwater employees (without Justice Department approval) as well as the variances in the law (which falls right back onto Congress and their inaction) have created "serious legal difficulties in pursuing criminal prosecutions of Blackwater security guards involved in a September shooting that left at least 17 Iraqis dead. In a private briefing in mid-December, officials from the Justice and State Departments met with aides to the House Judiciary Committee and other Congressional staff members and warned them that there were major legal obstacles that might prevent prosecution."
Yesterday, Thom Shanker (New York Times) reported that Iraq's defense minister Abdul Qadir has declared that US forces will still be in Iraq as late as 2018. This followed Suleiman al-Khalidi (Reuters) reporting Saturday that Iraq's foreign minister, Hoshiyar Zebari raving over how the one-on-one agreements that didn't require UN approval: "Iraq is in need of this U.S. presence but the period will be defined in the pact." The pact? The US and their puppet government in Baghdad have made a show of getting UN approval each year. The pact by-passes the UN. The pact also by-passes the Iraqi parliament which has voiced their objection and it by-passes the US Congress which expresses outrage when it remembers to. (The Constitution bars Bully Boy from forming this pact/treaty without Congress.) Citing Shanker's article, the New York Times' editorial blog (I did not make that up, "The Board"), maintains, "Mr. Qadir and his Iraqi government colleagues should be firmly disbused of such thinking. America must quickly organize an orderly withdrawal of troops, not wait for another decade." Earlier this week, Michael Evans (Times of London) reported, "The invasion of Iraq and the occupation of the country by US led multinational forces had been 'a terrible episode for everybody', a Foreign Office minister admitted yesterday. Lord Malloch-Brown, who has acquired a reputation for making controversial remarks in public, said 'a lot of people' had been lost, and no one could feel any sense of triumphalism." He is quoted stating: "We've lost a lot of people there. This is not something that there's triumphalism on any side. This is a terrible episode for everybody."
Yesterday, Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) noted another US collaborator was shot dead ('Awakening' Council leader for Khuthair Lafta) and "American helicopter gunships injured five civilians in Baladiyat" while AP reports that a convoy carrying "Midhat al-Mahmoud, president of the Supreme Judicial minister" killed 5 children it ran into "during a chaotic gunbattle with checkpoint guards" in Baghdad yesterday. In Monday's snapshot, this was noted: "Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Judge Amir Jawdat Al-na'ib ('member of the federal appeal court') was shot dead in Baghdad along with his driver today." Yesterday, Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Abeer Mohammed (New York Times) reported that he had been "in his 60s" and that, "The attack appeared to be part of a longstanding campaign by militants to kill doctors, professors, lawyers and other professionals." Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) noted, "Many Iraqi judges and lawyers have been assassinated since 2003 as armed groups have sought to destroy the country's professional classes."
Turning to some of today's violence . . .
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing left six people wounded, an east Baghdad bombing claimed 2 lives and left ten others wounded, an "American army base in Shaab neighborhood north Baghdad" was attacked with mortar fire today, the Green Zone was attacked with mortar fire today, three Baghdad bombings on Palestine St. left three people wounded, a Kirkuk bombing left a police officer wounded, a woman blew herself up in Diyala and also took the lives of 8 other people with seven more injured and a Mosul car bombing left five people wounded. In the continued attacks on officials, Reuters notes a Sulaiman Pek truck bombing targeting the mayor -- he and three bodyguards were injured in the attack while a Dour car bombing targted and "wounded the head of the Iraqi-U.S. Joint Coordination Centre" as well as two of his bodyguards.
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports "clashes between the Iraqi army and gunmen" left six bystanders wounded in Mosul.
Kidnappings?
Reuters notes a police officer was kidnapped outside Tuz Khurmato Tuesday night and that "a university student" was killed in the same apparent action.
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 5 corpses were discovered in Baghdad and 1 in Khurmato.
Today the US military announced: "Three Multi-National -- North Soldiers were killed by small arms fire while conducting operations in Salah ad Din province Jan. 16. Additionally, two other Soldiers were wounded and evacuated to a Coalition hospital."
In the US, the search continues for Cesar Laurean who is suspected of killing Maria Laterbach who was due to testify against him -- to testify that he raped her. Maria disappeared in mid-December. The body found behind Cesar Laurean's home (in the 'burn pit') has been identified as Maria's. R. Gregg (Raleigh Chronicle) reports, "On Tuesday, during a nationally televised press conference, Onslow County District Attorney George Dewey Hudson, Jr. announced that Lance Cpl. Maria Lauterbach died of 'blunt force trauma' to the head." The US military knew of the rape charges in April when Maria made them. Yesterday, they began feeding the press (and some swallowed) that it wasn't really their fault because Maria said she didn't feel she was in danger. That claim may or may not be backed up but that does not push the burden off on the victim -- the US military had a responsible to do their jobs in a timely manner. They didn't. David Schoetz (ABC News) reports that spokesperson for the Marine Corps planned "to address the rape allegations Lautherbach had made against Laurean and how that information was handled after the woman was reported missing by her family Dec. 19 and her military status was changed to 'unauthorized absence'."
Turning to US politics. The Green Party held a debate in San Francisco Sunday with Cindy Sheehan and Matt Gonzalez moderating. Appearing were Cynthia McKinney, Kat Swift, Kent Mesplay, Jesse Johnson, Jared Ball and Ralph Nader. We'll note Cindy Sheehan is not only the Peace Mom, she's also running for the US Congress from California's 8th district and she is the only candidate running for office in 2008 that I am endorsing. As the debate continued, not unlike many Democratic debates and 'debates,' Iraq wasn't even noted.
Larry Bensky: It's distressing to me that we're about an hour into this program and the issue I'm about to bring up has been mentioned only in passing and not very much. I wonder if each of you would address how, if you are the nominee of the Green Party, you would speak to the American people to raise their awareness about what is going on with our tax dollars and the blood and psyches of our military in Iraq? And what you would do to stop it?
Here are the responses to Bensky's question.
Kent Mesplay: In my opening speech I had to gloss over my, of course, obvious disapproval of the war in Iraq, that it was a mistake. Our troops didn't make the mistake, I think, support our troops, impeach the president before he finds whatever specieous reasons are necessary to start another war. And really . . . there is no simple solution other than demanding immediate, unconditional withdrawal from Iraq.
Cynthia McKinney: I agree that we ought to demand immediate withdrawal from Iraq. I voted for that when I was in Congress. One of I think three people. But the problem is not just Iraq. The problem is the militaristic turn that our foreign policy has taken. And so I wouldn't just say "Bring the troops home from Iraq," I would say, "Bring them home period -- from all over the world." And then the second part of it is because the Congress is so powerful, we have to people who will run for Congress on a peace agenda, a peace platform. That's why it's so important that we have people like Cindy Sheehan running for Congress because she shows us the power of individuals, the power of one woman willing to take a stand. And we all have that power, we just have to recognize it and do it.
Kat Smith: Well talking to the masses about how their tax dollars can be spent is really simple, you just put out the figures and show people and once they see the numbers, they understand it. As far as -- we also need to talk about the reallocation of monies to take care of war veterans. I mean, homelessness after Vietnam spiked dramatically and we're already seeing the homelessness with Iraqi veterans starting to spike. And there are very few mental health services for veterans in this country and VA benefits are decreasing daily. And I work with homeless services and we're seeing a lot more vets come in and I'm also in San Antonio [Texas] where a lot of the hospitals are so, you know, we see a lot of this. But it's really simple to talk to the masses about how their tax dollars are spent when you show them the figures -- like Cynthia mentioned some of them -- when people see this, they're like "Well, what's going on?" and you just have to talk to them about changing it.
Jesse Johnson: We step away from this disaster capitalism that we're investing in in this nation. As I said, we dimilitarize the economy. We immediately withdrawal. Frankly, the Constitution states clearly that we're not supposed to have a standing army to begin with. We're not supposed to be traipsing around trying to police the entire world. The veterans are a huge issue. The very moment that we were marching into Baghdad this last time -- and frankly, we've been at war in Baghdad, as far as the peopl of Baghdad, for 16 years -- whether it was the first Gulf War, whether it was the embargos taking place that harmed only women, children and the elderly and the infirmed. Or this last illegal, immoral conflict
And ultimately, finally, without question, we hold the war profiteering perpetrators to task for what they have done and, as I said before in regards to what impeachment states in the Constitution, we all need to remember it and the audience participation is out there.
That's four. Nader spoke at the end and didn't take part in the debate (spoke for seven minutes). Jared Ball? Ball endorsed McKinney so presumably he dropped out. Had that not happened, we wouldn't waste our time on him in the snapshot. (A full transcript of the entire debate ran in Hilda's Mix Tuesday.) Why not? Larry Bensky asked about the Iraq War. Bell decided to name check his own organization and organizations he belonged to, decided to mention this and that and everything except the Iraq War. Bensky's question was very clear: how would you increase awareness of the costs of the illegal war and how would you stop it. I don't think there was anything confusing about that question. We don't have time for nonsense. Candidates linked to above either regularly address the Iraq War or at least note it at their website.
Note to the Green Party, you had a debate on Sunday. It is now Wednesday. You should have already issued a press release post-event. Already Grist magazine has posted their pooh-pah commentary. More will be coming. The Green Party needs to get their own opinion out there. Amanda Witherell (San Francisco Bay Guardian) points out Sunday's debate was "their only planned debate" and notes Nader has stated he hasn't decided yet whether he will run for the nominated or not but "I'll be deciding within the next months."
Links to video segments can be found here. For those who would like to hear it, KPFA has it archived. Host/MC Allison is, of course, co-author with David Solnit of Army Of None.
This Friday the Peace and Freedom Party debate will be broadcast on KPFA at noon PST.
iraq
heather wokuschagustin aguayo
peter laufer
kpfalarry bensky
army of noneaimeee allisondavid solnit
the new york timesjames glanz
james risen
david johnston
thom shanker
richard a. oppel jr.steve lannenmcclatchy newspapers
ned parkerlos angeles times
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Con Artist Amy Goodman ignores homophobia
For those who missed Democracy Now! today, Amy Goodman had the co-author of the article about Barack Obama using homophobia in South Carolina. The topic discussed was South Carolina. But apparently they both had agreed not to discuss homophobia.
Apparently homophobia isn't worthy of a discussion in the World of Goodman.
Apparently it was yet again important to use a guest to tear apart Hillary Clinton. So important that when you have the co-author of the homophobia article on, you ignore that topic.
There is no going to where the silence is, there is only creating new silences.
For those trying to keep track, it's hard. The list of what Goodman will ignore in the Bambi campaign continues to grow and grow. If you hear Democracy Now! on an NPR station and you're offended by all the Bambi-Love including Goodman allowing Bambi supporters on her show and presenting them as neutral on any of the Democratic candidates (as they shape their remarks to endorse Bambi), you might want to call your NPR station. You could start with yesterday's Dim Melissa whom Amy met on Jesse Jackson's radio show BEFORE she ever brought her on Democracy Now! and Amy KNEW she was supporting Bambi. However, last week, when Amy interviewed her from New Hampshire, Dim Melissa was just a little college professor with no dog in the fight. Of course, on Monday, when it was time for Amy to do her hit job on Gloria Steinem, she ran to Dim Melissa and then, and only then, did Democracy Now! consumers learn what Amy HAD ALWAYS KNOWN, Melissa supports Barack Obama's run for president.
For the record, JOURNALISM DOES NOT ALLOW for the presentation of guests as "neutral" when they are in fact campaigning for a candidate. Translation (to steal from C.I.), that's not up to NPR standards and Democracy Now! is carried by some NPR stations.
"Democracy For Who! with your hosts Ava and C.I." (Ava & C.I., The Common Ills):
Welcome to the "Where is peace?" report, not here, we are Ava and C.I. and we'll turn to headlines.
In news of Iraq we'll note one quick item and then quickly move on.
Now it's time to play our pre-selected unflattering clip of Hillary Clinton. We'll work that clip into a segment later in the show because why play it once when we can offer it twice.
Now we're going to pretend that a US government propaganda institution can testify to the 'fairness' of an election in Kenya.
We go to break with Nina Simone over images because it's MLK Day.
And why doesn't everyone snooze for a bit until we do our required Obama segment.
Wake up, we've got Kevin Alexander Gray.
We'll play dumb while Kevin Alexander Gray (who does not support Obama) says that the Clintons raised the issue of "drugs" and won't point out that Obama wrote about his drug use in two bestselling books and talked about it on Jay Leno's program which we assume someone watches. Gray co-wrote an article that popped up online, far too many places to mention, and made it into print in The Progressive.
We won't ask about that.
We'll continue Little Media's silence on that moment unless and until the Clinton campaign makes a statement -- at which point we'll talk about their "attacks" on Obama.
You know what, it's not worth it to sell our self-respect, so Americans we'll be signing off of Democracy For Who! at the end of this broadcast.
Having just finished a segment where we never asked Gray, while supposedly addressing the South Carolina primary, about his article, about the topic of it, we're ashamed and embarrassed and realize that we've allowed Exception For The Candidate to damage our credibility.
With Marshall Derks, Gray authored "Obama's Big Gay and Black Problem." We apologize to our listeners and viewers for not raising that article with him. From the article:
If Obama doesn't win South Carolina with its large African American voter base the race may be over for him. His poll numbers in South Carolina have been up and down. Right now Clinton appears to have the overall lead in the state as well as with black voters. Clinton also has the edge with black women who regularly vote at a higher rate than black men.
Oddly, Obama threw a premature haymaker but it wasn't aimed at Clinton. The target was the GLBT community. Obama's wild swing involved having four of the most abrasively anti-gay gospel singers represent his campaign on his "Embrace the Courage" gospel music tour in South Carolina. The gay bashing headliners included Reverends Donnie McClurkin and Hezekiah Walker, Pentecostal pastor of Brooklyn mega-church, the Love Fellowship Tabernacle and Mary Mary (a sister act duo).The Mary Mary sisters compare gays to murderers and prostitutes. In an interview with Vibe magazine, one of the singers said, "They [gays] have issues and need somebody to encourage them like everybody else -- just like the murderer, just like the one full of pride, just like the prostitute." McClurkin's previous political involvement was performing for George Bush at the Republican National Convention in 2004. Now he's singing for Obama. And, while stumping for the candidate McClurkin didn't just "get on stage, sing, and shut up" as some in the Obama campaign hoped he would do. He sermonized: "God delivered me from homosexuality" - as though one could simply "pray the gay away." The predominately black crowd inside the Township Auditorium in Columbia clapped their approval of McClurkin's message. Meanwhile a small, predominately white group of gay rights supporters picketed outside the venue.
Yeah, that is kind of big news and we never explored it on Democracy For Who! before. We didn't even note the campaign's statement of "We got what we wanted" out of parading homophobia. To do so would mean to indicate that Bambi was anything less than the most innocent and long-lashed candidate ever.
That's why we ignore his runs for the Illinois legislature, that's why we ignore how his campaigns spread rumors about others (most famously to knock out a Democratic rival for the US Senate nomination and then to knock out the only GOP contender he had). Having used personal dirt to his own gain, it's no surprise that he shows no respect, as a law maker, for the victims of sexual assault, is it? Oh, that is a surprise. We forgot to inform our listeners and viewers about that too.
Well, obviously, we threw the LBGT community under the bus. For which we will now ask forgiveness but grasp fully that having repeatedly called out homophobes in the GOP and made jokes, at many public appearances for our book Exception for the Candidate: Why We Want Bambi in the White House, about Jeff Guckertt that possibly the LBGT community will not be quick to forgive us since our lip service has raised the belief that we actually give a damn.
We have no Harvey Milk Day. Outside of AIDs, we really don't focus on LBGT issues on any programs during the year. We do no day, each year, honoring Stonewall. When we report on gays and the military by including the topic in a brief headline sentence or two, we avoid noting Perry Watkins. Telling the people of America about Watkins, and that he served in the US military as an openly gay man for 14 years, that the US courts sided with him, would add another context to the debate ongoing today. But maybe our listeners and viewers would find the topic 'icky' and, besides, how important is the LBGT community any way? We are community radio, just not that community.
That's why we ignored the article Gray had co-written when we had him on our program today. It's not that we support homophobia, it's just we're really not interested in talking about that. Unless it's the GOP. If it's the GOP we can go to town and talk about "those people in the GOP." But the reality of Democratic Bambi using homophobia as a campaign tactic?
If you read our book, Exception For the Candidate, on page 133, you'll see that we clearly outline that a bi-racial man making it into the White House is our goal. Yes, we have also joined the chorus in erasing the strides that the multi-racial movement had made, we've have rendered them invisible and that's outlined in Exception For the Candidate as well, in the introduction, where we declare, "A bi-racial male will be promoted as Black and/or African-American. He and he alone matters more than the 2% of the population that self-identifies as either bi-racial or multi-racial. He matters more than the LGBT community. He matters more than women of all races. He can and must be installed into the White House. It is his due. Or, at least, it is half his due. On the side of his father who willing came to the United States and went to Harvard where he received a doctorate."
Following that guideline outlined in our introduction of Exception For the Candidate, which is out in paperback (we mean "soft cover," but we always say paperback, we don't know why), we also noted our mission as, "Creating silences, where the oppressed voices are, to honor one man's bid for the presidency because, in the end, one man is more important than millions of Americans." We have lived up to that.
We have regularly booked Bambi supporters who denied their support on air. Yesterday, we got into a little bit of trouble with our guest Melissa Harris-Lacewell. We had her on the week prior. On that show she was just a professor helping students get involved in all campaigns. Yesterday, she was a fierce Bambi groupie. And we knew that last week.
Our apologies to our viewers and listeners for not informing them of that fact.
It probably was not fair to allow Harris-Lacewell to plug candidates except Bambi's perceived opponent, Hillary Clinton. And it probably wasn't fair, last week, to allow her to plug Bambi and act like she was just a disinterested professor and he was just one of the many candidates (John Edwards and, to make sure we don't lose our tax free status or being broadcast on NPR and PBS stations, Ron Paul) she happened to catch. Since the press had called the race between Hillary and Bambi, we probably should have at least asked Harris-Lacewell, "Did you catch Senator Clinton speaking at any event?"
We probably should have done that.
Just as, yesterday, we probably should have said, "Wait, hold on, Bambi's getting lynching threats?"
When she paraded that absurd claim, it was probably incumbent on our part to note the parallels to her statement with those who supported Clarence Thomas claiming he was "lynched" in the Senate to shut down his critics. We probably should have pointed out that we seriously doubt anyone's planning to lynch Bambi. But we realize that inflated talk actually serves to stir up anger and stop discussion. We're not really interested in discussion and are fond of starting segments with, "We only have one minute!" But, again, we should have identified her as a strong supporter of Bambi and we failed to do that.
It fits with pattern of allowing Bambi supporters on the program to praise Bambi (sometimes letting them not note that they are indeed already supporting his campaign). It fits with bringing on journalist Glen Ford (Black Agenda Report) who, as far as we actually know, is not supporting any candidate, and -- despite hours of broadcasts featuring Bambi-love -- feeling the need to pit him against a Bambi supporter.
Now we haven't done that when we've acted as a direct echo chamber for The Nation magazine and brought a reporter from there on to discuss their latest slam of Hillary. We haven't felt the need to "host a debate." We've let them launch their attacks and we've grinned and maybe we've giggled a little.
But we couldn't even have Glen Ford on by himself. Glen Ford is an investigative reporter and much more so than either of the Aris at The Nation. He and Bruce Dixon have been covering Barack Obama for years. But we needed a 'debate' with Ford because that's only fair, right?
Hillary gets attacked daily on our show and we bring on journalists to attack her and we feel no need to offer a debate. But when we have Glen Ford on our program, we feel the need to clamp down on his own investigative research by pairing him with a Bambi groupie.
We called it 'balance.' Or maybe we just think the White (and often, yes, Jewish) journalists at The Nation are fair by their very race and the African-American Ford suspect due to his. He must be balanced but the Bermans, et al can drop by any time and we will treat them as if they just won the Pulitzer.
We told Lou Dobbs that we do correct ourselves when a mistake is pointed out to us.
But we've been repeatedly told that Bambi has a post-2002 speech record on Iraq and we pointedly ignore that.
Yesterday, our Bambi-love was so great that we put a woman, a lifelong feminist, into a situation she had spent the bulk of her life avoiding because she knows how that plays outside the feminist community. We truly did ambush journalism yesterday. We threw a woman under the bus and the feminist movement itself and, again, the reasons for that are in our book Exception for the Candidate.
Having gone out of our way to alienate all women, the multi-racial community, the LBGT community and so many more we are left with the fact that the pool of independent media viewers or listeners is now so tiny that there's not much point in going on (although Katrina vanden Heuvel assures us we're a shoe-in for next year's Puffin grant).
Looking at our broadcast history, we grasp our motto should have been: "Creating new silences." We have certainly done that with Bambi. As with the bulk of 'independent media,' we've hated the Clintons for the years. That may confuse some of our most recent viewers and listeners since we went goo-goo over Wesley Clark in a broadcast last year. Early on in our program's history, we called him out regularly but there we were grinning and letting him sidestep questions because, as Cokie Roberts so aptly put it, "I'm a sucker for a man in a uniform."
But we are Clinton haters and we did spend hours on Monica Lewinsky in our program's early history. We invited on the worst of the worst including Mikey Cough-Cough-Turn-Your Head. Clinton and Bambi have no differences on the illegal war. So we have had to work overtime to create differences for them in our "Where is the peace?" report.
We have done that at the expense of the multi-racial community. We have done that at the expense of the LBGT community. We have done that, really, at the expense of all but one community: the community of Barack Obama.
One person matters more than the millions and millions of Americans.
Which is why we repeatedly, including yesterday, press supporters of candidates Edwards and Clinton about their candidates positions on the illegal war -- all three front runners have "positions" and not one steadfast, single position -- and why we avoid ever doing that with Bambi supporters.
Yesterday, we trotted out Hillary on Meet the Press but we never confront Bambi supporters with his quotes. We just grin and nod. And when a student, on the show to explain why her support is so intense for Bambi that she traveled out of state for the New Hampshire primaries, makes a fool of herself by not being able to name even one issue that Bambi connects with her on, we pretend not to notice and move on quickly. We understand the wet panty issue having attended Professor Patti Williams' symposium on "Dampness As The Electoral Pulse."
Creating new silences has been our hallmark and we hoped to continue that. But now, as we grasp that Adam Kokesh was brought onto the program and had to stop us to correct our statements and semi-nicely explain that we didn't know what we're talking about; as we grasp that we didn't, in fact, since we didn't grasp that the military's case against him had already been resolved in a Supreme Court decision during Vietnam; as we grasp that we missed the story of kill-teams in Iraq because we refused to cover the emerging war resisters of 2007; as we grasp that a real left wouldn't have created a "rock star" but should have held all candidates to the fire; as we grasp that the Green Party single debate being reduced to a headline as opposed to an entire show is one more way we have excluded voices; as we grasp that our work in the summer of 2006 did not include coverage of Camp Casey, Abeer or Ehren Watada's Article 32 August hearing; even we are a little disappointed and doubt we can grab the pom-poms tomorrow for another day of "Cheerleading Obama Into The White House."
And so we end Democracy For Who! by answering: Democracy For The Coronation of Barack Obama. He is more important than anything else. He matters more than anything else, more than the millions of people who are distorted and go uncovered. He matters not because he'll end the war (he's refused to pledge that US forces come home by 2013, forget the first year of his term). But who cares about Iraqis anyway?
Usually, on this program, we note Juan Gonzalez columns in The New York Daily News regularly. For some strange reason, despite making Obama a daily topic this week (as with every week), we forgot to note his column from last week: "I smell Barack Obama baloney."
For Democracy For Who!, this has been Ava and C.I.
adam kokesh
ehren watada
glen ford
juan gonzalez
democracy now
Apparently homophobia isn't worthy of a discussion in the World of Goodman.
Apparently it was yet again important to use a guest to tear apart Hillary Clinton. So important that when you have the co-author of the homophobia article on, you ignore that topic.
There is no going to where the silence is, there is only creating new silences.
For those trying to keep track, it's hard. The list of what Goodman will ignore in the Bambi campaign continues to grow and grow. If you hear Democracy Now! on an NPR station and you're offended by all the Bambi-Love including Goodman allowing Bambi supporters on her show and presenting them as neutral on any of the Democratic candidates (as they shape their remarks to endorse Bambi), you might want to call your NPR station. You could start with yesterday's Dim Melissa whom Amy met on Jesse Jackson's radio show BEFORE she ever brought her on Democracy Now! and Amy KNEW she was supporting Bambi. However, last week, when Amy interviewed her from New Hampshire, Dim Melissa was just a little college professor with no dog in the fight. Of course, on Monday, when it was time for Amy to do her hit job on Gloria Steinem, she ran to Dim Melissa and then, and only then, did Democracy Now! consumers learn what Amy HAD ALWAYS KNOWN, Melissa supports Barack Obama's run for president.
For the record, JOURNALISM DOES NOT ALLOW for the presentation of guests as "neutral" when they are in fact campaigning for a candidate. Translation (to steal from C.I.), that's not up to NPR standards and Democracy Now! is carried by some NPR stations.
"Democracy For Who! with your hosts Ava and C.I." (Ava & C.I., The Common Ills):
Welcome to the "Where is peace?" report, not here, we are Ava and C.I. and we'll turn to headlines.
In news of Iraq we'll note one quick item and then quickly move on.
Now it's time to play our pre-selected unflattering clip of Hillary Clinton. We'll work that clip into a segment later in the show because why play it once when we can offer it twice.
Now we're going to pretend that a US government propaganda institution can testify to the 'fairness' of an election in Kenya.
We go to break with Nina Simone over images because it's MLK Day.
And why doesn't everyone snooze for a bit until we do our required Obama segment.
Wake up, we've got Kevin Alexander Gray.
We'll play dumb while Kevin Alexander Gray (who does not support Obama) says that the Clintons raised the issue of "drugs" and won't point out that Obama wrote about his drug use in two bestselling books and talked about it on Jay Leno's program which we assume someone watches. Gray co-wrote an article that popped up online, far too many places to mention, and made it into print in The Progressive.
We won't ask about that.
We'll continue Little Media's silence on that moment unless and until the Clinton campaign makes a statement -- at which point we'll talk about their "attacks" on Obama.
You know what, it's not worth it to sell our self-respect, so Americans we'll be signing off of Democracy For Who! at the end of this broadcast.
Having just finished a segment where we never asked Gray, while supposedly addressing the South Carolina primary, about his article, about the topic of it, we're ashamed and embarrassed and realize that we've allowed Exception For The Candidate to damage our credibility.
With Marshall Derks, Gray authored "Obama's Big Gay and Black Problem." We apologize to our listeners and viewers for not raising that article with him. From the article:
If Obama doesn't win South Carolina with its large African American voter base the race may be over for him. His poll numbers in South Carolina have been up and down. Right now Clinton appears to have the overall lead in the state as well as with black voters. Clinton also has the edge with black women who regularly vote at a higher rate than black men.
Oddly, Obama threw a premature haymaker but it wasn't aimed at Clinton. The target was the GLBT community. Obama's wild swing involved having four of the most abrasively anti-gay gospel singers represent his campaign on his "Embrace the Courage" gospel music tour in South Carolina. The gay bashing headliners included Reverends Donnie McClurkin and Hezekiah Walker, Pentecostal pastor of Brooklyn mega-church, the Love Fellowship Tabernacle and Mary Mary (a sister act duo).The Mary Mary sisters compare gays to murderers and prostitutes. In an interview with Vibe magazine, one of the singers said, "They [gays] have issues and need somebody to encourage them like everybody else -- just like the murderer, just like the one full of pride, just like the prostitute." McClurkin's previous political involvement was performing for George Bush at the Republican National Convention in 2004. Now he's singing for Obama. And, while stumping for the candidate McClurkin didn't just "get on stage, sing, and shut up" as some in the Obama campaign hoped he would do. He sermonized: "God delivered me from homosexuality" - as though one could simply "pray the gay away." The predominately black crowd inside the Township Auditorium in Columbia clapped their approval of McClurkin's message. Meanwhile a small, predominately white group of gay rights supporters picketed outside the venue.
Yeah, that is kind of big news and we never explored it on Democracy For Who! before. We didn't even note the campaign's statement of "We got what we wanted" out of parading homophobia. To do so would mean to indicate that Bambi was anything less than the most innocent and long-lashed candidate ever.
That's why we ignore his runs for the Illinois legislature, that's why we ignore how his campaigns spread rumors about others (most famously to knock out a Democratic rival for the US Senate nomination and then to knock out the only GOP contender he had). Having used personal dirt to his own gain, it's no surprise that he shows no respect, as a law maker, for the victims of sexual assault, is it? Oh, that is a surprise. We forgot to inform our listeners and viewers about that too.
Well, obviously, we threw the LBGT community under the bus. For which we will now ask forgiveness but grasp fully that having repeatedly called out homophobes in the GOP and made jokes, at many public appearances for our book Exception for the Candidate: Why We Want Bambi in the White House, about Jeff Guckertt that possibly the LBGT community will not be quick to forgive us since our lip service has raised the belief that we actually give a damn.
We have no Harvey Milk Day. Outside of AIDs, we really don't focus on LBGT issues on any programs during the year. We do no day, each year, honoring Stonewall. When we report on gays and the military by including the topic in a brief headline sentence or two, we avoid noting Perry Watkins. Telling the people of America about Watkins, and that he served in the US military as an openly gay man for 14 years, that the US courts sided with him, would add another context to the debate ongoing today. But maybe our listeners and viewers would find the topic 'icky' and, besides, how important is the LBGT community any way? We are community radio, just not that community.
That's why we ignored the article Gray had co-written when we had him on our program today. It's not that we support homophobia, it's just we're really not interested in talking about that. Unless it's the GOP. If it's the GOP we can go to town and talk about "those people in the GOP." But the reality of Democratic Bambi using homophobia as a campaign tactic?
If you read our book, Exception For the Candidate, on page 133, you'll see that we clearly outline that a bi-racial man making it into the White House is our goal. Yes, we have also joined the chorus in erasing the strides that the multi-racial movement had made, we've have rendered them invisible and that's outlined in Exception For the Candidate as well, in the introduction, where we declare, "A bi-racial male will be promoted as Black and/or African-American. He and he alone matters more than the 2% of the population that self-identifies as either bi-racial or multi-racial. He matters more than the LGBT community. He matters more than women of all races. He can and must be installed into the White House. It is his due. Or, at least, it is half his due. On the side of his father who willing came to the United States and went to Harvard where he received a doctorate."
Following that guideline outlined in our introduction of Exception For the Candidate, which is out in paperback (we mean "soft cover," but we always say paperback, we don't know why), we also noted our mission as, "Creating silences, where the oppressed voices are, to honor one man's bid for the presidency because, in the end, one man is more important than millions of Americans." We have lived up to that.
We have regularly booked Bambi supporters who denied their support on air. Yesterday, we got into a little bit of trouble with our guest Melissa Harris-Lacewell. We had her on the week prior. On that show she was just a professor helping students get involved in all campaigns. Yesterday, she was a fierce Bambi groupie. And we knew that last week.
Our apologies to our viewers and listeners for not informing them of that fact.
It probably was not fair to allow Harris-Lacewell to plug candidates except Bambi's perceived opponent, Hillary Clinton. And it probably wasn't fair, last week, to allow her to plug Bambi and act like she was just a disinterested professor and he was just one of the many candidates (John Edwards and, to make sure we don't lose our tax free status or being broadcast on NPR and PBS stations, Ron Paul) she happened to catch. Since the press had called the race between Hillary and Bambi, we probably should have at least asked Harris-Lacewell, "Did you catch Senator Clinton speaking at any event?"
We probably should have done that.
Just as, yesterday, we probably should have said, "Wait, hold on, Bambi's getting lynching threats?"
When she paraded that absurd claim, it was probably incumbent on our part to note the parallels to her statement with those who supported Clarence Thomas claiming he was "lynched" in the Senate to shut down his critics. We probably should have pointed out that we seriously doubt anyone's planning to lynch Bambi. But we realize that inflated talk actually serves to stir up anger and stop discussion. We're not really interested in discussion and are fond of starting segments with, "We only have one minute!" But, again, we should have identified her as a strong supporter of Bambi and we failed to do that.
It fits with pattern of allowing Bambi supporters on the program to praise Bambi (sometimes letting them not note that they are indeed already supporting his campaign). It fits with bringing on journalist Glen Ford (Black Agenda Report) who, as far as we actually know, is not supporting any candidate, and -- despite hours of broadcasts featuring Bambi-love -- feeling the need to pit him against a Bambi supporter.
Now we haven't done that when we've acted as a direct echo chamber for The Nation magazine and brought a reporter from there on to discuss their latest slam of Hillary. We haven't felt the need to "host a debate." We've let them launch their attacks and we've grinned and maybe we've giggled a little.
But we couldn't even have Glen Ford on by himself. Glen Ford is an investigative reporter and much more so than either of the Aris at The Nation. He and Bruce Dixon have been covering Barack Obama for years. But we needed a 'debate' with Ford because that's only fair, right?
Hillary gets attacked daily on our show and we bring on journalists to attack her and we feel no need to offer a debate. But when we have Glen Ford on our program, we feel the need to clamp down on his own investigative research by pairing him with a Bambi groupie.
We called it 'balance.' Or maybe we just think the White (and often, yes, Jewish) journalists at The Nation are fair by their very race and the African-American Ford suspect due to his. He must be balanced but the Bermans, et al can drop by any time and we will treat them as if they just won the Pulitzer.
We told Lou Dobbs that we do correct ourselves when a mistake is pointed out to us.
But we've been repeatedly told that Bambi has a post-2002 speech record on Iraq and we pointedly ignore that.
Yesterday, our Bambi-love was so great that we put a woman, a lifelong feminist, into a situation she had spent the bulk of her life avoiding because she knows how that plays outside the feminist community. We truly did ambush journalism yesterday. We threw a woman under the bus and the feminist movement itself and, again, the reasons for that are in our book Exception for the Candidate.
Having gone out of our way to alienate all women, the multi-racial community, the LBGT community and so many more we are left with the fact that the pool of independent media viewers or listeners is now so tiny that there's not much point in going on (although Katrina vanden Heuvel assures us we're a shoe-in for next year's Puffin grant).
Looking at our broadcast history, we grasp our motto should have been: "Creating new silences." We have certainly done that with Bambi. As with the bulk of 'independent media,' we've hated the Clintons for the years. That may confuse some of our most recent viewers and listeners since we went goo-goo over Wesley Clark in a broadcast last year. Early on in our program's history, we called him out regularly but there we were grinning and letting him sidestep questions because, as Cokie Roberts so aptly put it, "I'm a sucker for a man in a uniform."
But we are Clinton haters and we did spend hours on Monica Lewinsky in our program's early history. We invited on the worst of the worst including Mikey Cough-Cough-Turn-Your Head. Clinton and Bambi have no differences on the illegal war. So we have had to work overtime to create differences for them in our "Where is the peace?" report.
We have done that at the expense of the multi-racial community. We have done that at the expense of the LBGT community. We have done that, really, at the expense of all but one community: the community of Barack Obama.
One person matters more than the millions and millions of Americans.
Which is why we repeatedly, including yesterday, press supporters of candidates Edwards and Clinton about their candidates positions on the illegal war -- all three front runners have "positions" and not one steadfast, single position -- and why we avoid ever doing that with Bambi supporters.
Yesterday, we trotted out Hillary on Meet the Press but we never confront Bambi supporters with his quotes. We just grin and nod. And when a student, on the show to explain why her support is so intense for Bambi that she traveled out of state for the New Hampshire primaries, makes a fool of herself by not being able to name even one issue that Bambi connects with her on, we pretend not to notice and move on quickly. We understand the wet panty issue having attended Professor Patti Williams' symposium on "Dampness As The Electoral Pulse."
Creating new silences has been our hallmark and we hoped to continue that. But now, as we grasp that Adam Kokesh was brought onto the program and had to stop us to correct our statements and semi-nicely explain that we didn't know what we're talking about; as we grasp that we didn't, in fact, since we didn't grasp that the military's case against him had already been resolved in a Supreme Court decision during Vietnam; as we grasp that we missed the story of kill-teams in Iraq because we refused to cover the emerging war resisters of 2007; as we grasp that a real left wouldn't have created a "rock star" but should have held all candidates to the fire; as we grasp that the Green Party single debate being reduced to a headline as opposed to an entire show is one more way we have excluded voices; as we grasp that our work in the summer of 2006 did not include coverage of Camp Casey, Abeer or Ehren Watada's Article 32 August hearing; even we are a little disappointed and doubt we can grab the pom-poms tomorrow for another day of "Cheerleading Obama Into The White House."
And so we end Democracy For Who! by answering: Democracy For The Coronation of Barack Obama. He is more important than anything else. He matters more than anything else, more than the millions of people who are distorted and go uncovered. He matters not because he'll end the war (he's refused to pledge that US forces come home by 2013, forget the first year of his term). But who cares about Iraqis anyway?
Usually, on this program, we note Juan Gonzalez columns in The New York Daily News regularly. For some strange reason, despite making Obama a daily topic this week (as with every week), we forgot to note his column from last week: "I smell Barack Obama baloney."
For Democracy For Who!, this has been Ava and C.I.
adam kokesh
ehren watada
glen ford
juan gonzalez
democracy now
Monday, January 14, 2008
Aura Bogado and hustling the left
Well, I pointed out last week that independent media wasn't worth giving your own money to, didn't I?
So what did Amy Goodman give us today?
Last week, women were under attack and all the "general interest" programs refused to explore it. Did we a get a look at women in the United States?
No, they had to share the stage with the "issue" of a candidate's "race." "Isssue" because he's not "Black." He is bi-racial. I know the professor and have heard her crazy argument that Barack Obama qualifies for "Black" because he would be enslaved if he had been alive back during the time of slavery -- meaning US slavery because no one in this country is apparently aware that slavery existed in previous societies.
Race has been a topic repeatedly each year on Democracy Now! Race they can cover and call themselves a "general interest" program. But to cover women they have to focus on women in other countries. They will not make time, and we saw that this morning, for women in the US as a topic.
Women in the US are not important enough to rate a topic on Democracy Now!
So Amy Goodman provided something too hideous for words and something I am sure took Gloria Steinem by surprise. I'm sure Steinem was told she was going to take part in a discussion. Instead she faced a non-stop attack -- from a woman who knew nothing about Steinem's history and a woman who's always struck me as having serious comprehension issues.
If Gloria Steinem wanted to do 'stunt TV' she'd do it. She has refused to for decades. Amy Goodman offered a betrayal and it was offensive.
It was offensive to women period but it was offensive to Steinem's life work.
She has refused to take part in cat fights -- and she refused to take part in what seemed to be today's surprise attempt at a cat fight -- but Amy Goodman's just another trashy broadcaster convinced that two people yelling at each other -- Steinem refused to attack the woman the woman so quick to attack her -- would be broadcasting paradise!
There was no discussion.
Feminism has made a point to avoid such stunts.
Amy Goodman stabbed feminism in the back.
I don't care if it's because she's ignorant of it or just doesn't care. The same answer applies for her willing publishing in Hustler before she was called out on it by Aura Bogado and other women. It shouldn't have required calling out.
But as with that, this calls for calling out.
"Hustling the Left" (Aura Bogado, ZNet):
In a full hour interview with Democracy Now's Amy Goodman, which aired on hundreds of stations throughout the country several months ago, Larry Flynt was briefly questioned about the exploitation of women in his work. Flynt's response was that, 'most of the criticism comes from the radical feminist movement, who really [sic] only claim to fame is to urge a bunch of ugly women to march behind.' This is the same group of women who screamed in the margins in the days leading to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, yet on hundreds of popular left stations, Flynt's words went unchallenged. Goodman did not include another guest to confront Flynt. Instead, she read a dated quote in which Gloria Steinem voiced her opposition to Flynt and compared his use of the First Amendment to racist and fascist publications that similarly serve to degrade people. Flynt's response was short and easy: that Steinem's work was useful in the 1960s, that she is out of touch today, and that if she is offended by his magazine, she should not read it. Goodman's questions quickly moved on to another topic. Before the interview ended, Flynt adds that '[T]here are only a handful of us that are lobbing grenades into the Bush camp. It's me, Michael Moore, Howard Stern, Molly Ivins, D.H. Hatfield, Greg Palast, you know, you can count them all on both hands.'
Flynt's myopic view of the world makes him blind to the work that so many others do. And, because he controls a tremendous amount of capital, he is able to dodge criticisms against his degradation of women while legitimizing himself to the popular left by publishing progressive journalists. Flynt has become sophisticated at amplifying his voice through his enormous means of production to avoid any real concerns about his product.
In the days that followed, the program was flooded with comments condemning Flynt and the broadcast. Democracy Now's response was to have two feminists, Susie Bright and Susan Brison, debate the merits of pornography, centered around the Flynt interview. Democracy Now attempted to have these women argue over the issue of pornography- while two weeks earlier the program featured a longer interview with a pornographer, unchallenged.
Perhaps taking its lead from Democracy Now, the February issue of Hustler featured an interview with Susie Bright. Besides several incorrect assumptions she makes about me, I was surprised to learn that Bright believes that Hustler is a 'deliberately proletariat' publication, with a 'working-class Southern flavor'. A white feminist who conveniently avoids the issues of racism in Hustler raised by women of color, Bright attempts to rely on an inconsistent class analysis and connects what are 'disgusting' and 'icky' images with that which she deems to be 'working-class', claiming that it makes the publication easier to attack. Rather than aligning herself with the real struggles of working women, Bright has chosen to align herself to millionaire Larry Flynt. Towards the end of the interview published by Hustler, Bright begins to critique the publication itself, alluding to 'disrespectful agreements' between herself and Hustler. At this point, Hustler cuts off the interview entirely, slashing any agency she may have thought she would have had in the interview. When I first read the Bright interview, I was hurt but only slightly surprised that a white feminist would allow Hustler to use her for their own ends. I have never met or spoken with Bright, but it saddens me that someone who calls herself a feminist could say that because of my critique of Hustler, I would wind up 'in a room all by [my]self.' I would not be alone in Bright's imaginary room if she had reached out to me, a working class woman, before postulating fallacies in a publication that serves to physically (and in the case of Bright, intellectually) use women for their immediate gratification.
What happened then? Amy Goodman brought a man who would publish his work and let him go unchallenged. For a debate, under pressure, she pitted two women against each other and called that an exploration. Not about women, of course, about pornography. That was a 'response.' Today was a 'response' as well. US women don't rate on Democracy Now! as worthy of their own topic. They can be brought in for a cat fight to respond to pressure over a really bad Democracy Now! segment, they can be brought in and pitted against one another if you attach gender to it. Women don't qualify otherwise.
It takes real ignorance to publish in Hustler magazine if you're a woman. Goodman didn't need to be called out unless she was ignorant. I don't think she's ignorant. I just think she's shameless and I think we saw that today as she stabbed the women's movement in the back by not finding women worthy of a topic, by not finding a discussion (as C.I. notes, a number of women of color who are feminists could have been brought on for a discussion) worthy but thinking she could stage manage a cat fight, and by having no shame. I'm embarrassed for her.
To see gender and race addressed in terms not put forth by last week's sexists (terms Amy Goodman obviously embraces since that's the set up for the segment she aired today), see Ava and C.I.' "TV: The Surreal Life stages comeback!" and the "Roundtable."
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Monday, January 14, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, a pregnant US marine is believed found murdered and a search is on for the killer something Democracy Now! shows no interest in but they consider journalism to be attempting to pit woman against woman in the hopes of a 'cat fight' -- Gloria Steinem refused to participate in that that Amy Goodman aired such nonsense and that the other woman involved was eager to take part in just that has outraged this community, delayed the snapshot by HOURS and ticked me off because I didn't have time for this nonsense today. Remember that when Democracy Now! asks for funds. Remember it as surely as the fact that in 2007 -- despite all the war resisters coming forward -- the program could not be bothered with interviewing one DAMN war resister. Rember that Adam Kokesh was brought on not when it could have mattered (before he went to trial) but after and even then he had to correct Goodman on the details of his case. Remember it when they ask for your money.
Starting with war resistance. Camilo Mejia is the first Iraq War veteran to go public about refusing to return. On Friday around the world (despite attempts by US embassies in other countries to create a panic by sending out e-mails to them proclaiming that the protests were dangerous) demonstrations against the unconstitutional, ongoing imprisonment of prisoners who have never received trials at the US' own gulag on Guantanamo Bay and among those participating, Carol Rosenberg (Miami Herald) reports, was war resister Camilo Mejia in Doral, Florida. "Due process" was the reason Mejia gave Rosenberg for his participation stating, "It's not about the people who are there. It's about us. Everybody's entitled to their day in court." Rosenberg explains, "Mejia served nearly nine months in a Fort Sill, Okla., lockup for refusing a Florida National Guard call-up to a second tour in Iraq in 2004. He was also busted from staff sergeant to private, and is presently appealing his conviction." Mejia was also among the many who applied for CO status and had his application rejected -- not only was Mejia's application rejected, the military attempted to strong arm him into writing another after he was in military custody because Mejia had documented the abuses of Iraqi civilians he had seen while serving in Iraq and the US military wanted that stripped out of the record. Fortunately for the US military, the 'judge' of the military court-martial wasn't interested in facts or truths refusing to allow them to be introduced. Equally true that Mejia was not a US citizen and his service contract expired while he was in Iraq. The US military had two choices, get him to sign an extension or let him go. Mejia refused to sign an extension and the US military -- despite being advised of their legal obligations by their own attornies -- refused to let him go. Camilo Mejia tells his story in Road from Ar Ramadi: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejia. As he notes in it:
The court-martial lasted three days and had three main phases. My lawyers began the first phase of the trial by contending that the military had no jurisdiction to try me because I was a noncitizen soldier who had completed his eight initial years of service and had never applied for U.S. citizenship. This, they argued, made me nonextendable under army regulations. In addition, Gale had come across an international treaty between the United States and Costa Rica (of which I am a citizen), which states that Costa Ricans residing in the United States are exempt from all compulsory military service whatsover. Based on the treaty and army regulation, together with a legal precedent in which the National Guard Bureau rejected a guard unit's request to extend another citizen soldier in almost exactly the same circumstances, the defense presented a motion to dismiss the trial.
The 'judge' agreed with the prosecution to ignore laws and international treaties, then agreed with the prosecution not to allow the lies that led to the illegal war to be brought up in the court-martial and the 'judge' agreed to allow the text of the CO application to be barred as well as any mention of it. That was allegedly a free and fair trial and military 'justice.' Mejia was railroaded and, to do that, testimony had to be suppressed, realities had to be silenced and laws and international treaties had to be treated as non-existant. Along with seeking real justice today with regards to that kangaroo court-martial, Mejia is also chair of Iraq Veterans Against the War.
War resisters have resisted in a number of ways throughout the Iraq War. That includes the ones who went to Canada seeking asylum. November 15th, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the appeals of war resisters Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. Parliament is the solution.Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. Both War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist are calling for actions from January 24-26. The War Resisters Support Campaign has more on the action in Canada:
The War Resisters Support Campaign has called a pan-Canadian mobilization on Saturday, January 26th, 2008 to ensure : 1) that deportation proceedings against U.S. war resisters currently in Canada cease immediately; and 2) that a provision be enacted by Parliament ensuring that U.S. war resisters refusing to fight in Iraq have a means to gain status in Canada. For listings of local actions, see our Events page. If you are able to organize a rally in your community, contact the Campaign -- we will list events as details come in.
Courage to Resist notes:
Join and support January 25 vigils and delegations in support of U.S. war resisters currently seeking sanctuary Canada. Actions are being planned in Washington D.C., New York, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles. Supporters will meet with officials at Canadian Consulates across the United States in order underscore that many Americans hope that the Canadian Parliament votes (possible as early as February) in favor of a provision to allow war resisters to remain. Download and distribute Jan. 25-26 action leaflet (PDF).Supporting the war resisters in Canada is a concrete way to demonstrate your support of the troops who refuse to fight. Help end the war by supporting the growing GI resistance movement today!
Details January 25-26 actions/events in support of U.S. war resisters.
Sign the letter "Dear Canada: Let U.S. War Resisters Stay!" and encourage others to sign.
Organize a delegation to a Canadian Consulate near you .
Host an event or house-party in support of war resisters.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Carla Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC event:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation.
Turning to the United States where a search is on for the killer of US marine Maria Lauterbach. As noted in Thursday's snapshot and Friday's snapshot, the Onslow County sheriff's office was doing what the US military refused to do: taking seriously the disapperence of 8-months pregnant Lauterbach. Maria Lauterbach went missing in mid-December and, for some strange reason, the US military didn't find that an issue or concern despite the fact that she was due to give testimony about the assault she had reported -- by a fellow marine -- in April. The US military refused to address the assault for months and months and when Maria disappeared, they didn't really think that was important either. On Saturday, Leo Standora (New York Daily News) reported that a body had been found in a grave of the back yard of Marine Cpl. Cesar Laurean and that police suspected him to be the murderer. This would be the same man that Lauterbach had filed assault charges against and the assault was rape. In April she filed those charges and the US military did nothing. In December she went missing and the US military did nothing. The sheriff's department was beginning the search for Laurean on Friday because he went missing on Friday. The US military despite knowing the details of the charges, knowing that the trial was finally approaching when Maria disappeared, despite knowing that Maria had disappeared did nothing to secure Laurean and he is believed to have slipped away from base in the early morning hours of Friday. The police suspected Laurean because his wife had earlier turned over a note he wrote her in which Lauren claimed that Maria killed herself and he just buried Maria's body. That's not what the evidence at the crime scene suggested with splattered blood and the fact that there was an effort to burn Maria's corpse.
Today, CNN reports that Onslow County sheriff's office believes Maria Lauterbach was murdered Dec. 15, 2007 apparently based on forsenic evidence (presumably gathered from the blood inside the house of Ceasar Armando Laurean and from the grave behind it). The autopsy results of the corpse aren't completed yet and they haven't announced that it is Maria Lauterbach (only that they think it is); however, she was eight months pregnant when she disappeared and the corpse buried behind Ceasar Armando Lauren's home was rpregnant as well. Maria Lauterbach's uncle Peter Steiner maintains, apparently speaking for Maria's family, that Laurean would have been the father of the child and that conception took the form of rape by Laurean. The US military, with a lot more than egg on their face, offer the excuse that the vanished Laurean (who vanished last week) was never "taken into custody after Lauterbach reported the alleged rape because there was information the two carried on 'some sort of friendly relationship'" -- which if the military thinks it's an excuse isn't. If they want to claim that they did nothing -- and they did nothing -- because they thought Lauterbach was bringing false assault charges then they had every duty and obligation to resolve the issue quickly. If they found her statements to be false, they were doing a disservice to Laurean by allowing the charges to stand month after month. She disappeared in the middle of December. She made her criminal charges to the military in April. If the military thinks 'we didn't believe her' is an excuse that'll give them a pass, they're mistaken. For nearly nine months, that would mean, they let what they assumed were false charges stand. Jerry Allegood (McClatchy Newspapers) reports, "Lauterbach's family has said authorities did not aggressively investigate her rape allegation against Laurean." That would be military authorities and that is an understatment. A full investigation into the command of Camp Lejune is needed and the death of Maria is one more example of what can happen when the US military command refuses to take seriously charges of assault, command rape, rape and other crimes taking place within the military.
On Sunday, Deborah Sontag and Lizzette Alvarez (New York Times) reported on the crimes being committed in this country by veterans of the Afghanistan and Iraq War which presumably result at least in part due to the lack of medical care being provided to returning veterans. The reporters note,
The New York Times found 121 cases in which veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan committed a killing in this country, or were charged with one, after their return from war. In many of those cases, combat trauma and the stress deployment -- along with alcohol abuse, family discord and other attendant problems -- appear to have set the stage for a tragedy that was part destruction, part self-destruction.Along with the issue of PTSD it may also be, in part, result of non-PTSD reactions to what was seen in combat as well as a result of lowering the standards and granting a record number of 'moral waivers' in order to meet recruitment goals. Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) explained today, " The Times said the numbers indicated a nearly 90 percent increase in homicides involving active-duty military personnel and new veterans since the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. The Times said about one-third of the victims were spouses, girlfriends, children or other relatives. The Times reports that while many of the veterans showed signs of combat trauma, they were often not evaluated for or diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder until after the homicides."
Also on Sunday came news of a 'benchmark' supposedly being reached. Not at all. Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Steven Myers (New York Times) wrote about the Iraqi parliament passing legislation (that still must be signed into law) which "would allow some former officials from Saddam Hussein's party to fill government positions but would impose a strict ban on others." The reporters note:However, it was unclear on Saturday how far the legislation would go toward soothing Sunni Arabs, because serious disagreements merged in the hours after the vote about how much the law would actually do.In other words -- we know this much, we don't know all. The legislation (we're pulling things, I'm told the snapshot is too long) means? Nothing. It's not signed into law. It's not clear what it would or would not do. There's no talk of a tracking measure for it. It's sop tossed out to the US to comfort them that 'progress' is being made.
In some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Diyala house bombing that went on during a raid and claimed the lives of 3 Iraqi 'security forces' and left seven more wounded, a Baghdad mortar attack wounded a child, and a Mosul car bombing claimed 1 life and wounded six.
Shootings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Judge Amir Jawdat Al-na'ib ("member of the federal appeal court") was shot dead in Baghdad along with his driver today.
Corpses?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 5 corpses were discovered in Baghdad while 2 corpses were discovered in Basra.
Turning to US political news, today on Democracy Now! a debate was hosted on gender and race. It's appalling that this passes for an issue, it's appalling that DN! took part in that nonsense. A discussion on the intersection of race and gender would have been more than fine. The refusal of DN! and every other public affairs program to address gender will never apparently deemed a topic worthy in an of itself. So today we got a White feminist and an African-American non-feminist woman pitted against one another. It was not a proud moment for public affairs broadcasting.
I found it personally offensive and I am very angry that we have to use the snapshot to address it. However, we reached a record number of e-mails on this with members outraged. Including everyone's comments would be impossible. A committee was created quickly composed of Gina, Krista, Liang, Keesha, Martha, Ava, Kat, Maria and myself. As we went through the e-mails and then grouped together on the phone to discuss them the key points were:
* It is offensive that Democracy Now! pitted two women against one another in a sort of CrossFire match up. What was needed was a discussion on gender. Gender is a discussion that may get a segment once a year on Democracy Now! if that. We are not referring to the overt attacks on women worldwide, we are talking about very real gender issues in this country. By contrast, racism is noted repeatedly each year on Democracy Now!
* While we're fully aware that it takes an idiot to front a racism charge against Gloria Steinem, there's no need to present an idiot in debate. There are many feminists of many races who could have been brought on. Some of whom may in fact disagree with Gloria. That's fine. There's no question that their sincere in their support for women. It would be equally true of those women that they knew history. Putting on a woman uneducated in women's history -- which is what happened -- is an embarrassment in and of itself.
* Amy Goodman (unlike Juan Gonzalez) continues to allow the hype of Barack Obama to be flashed on the program without question. On Iraq, Gloria was questioned about Hillary's record and quotes from Hillary were provided. No such thing happened with Obama. In 2004, he told the New York Times he didn't know how he would have voted if he'd been in the Senate in 2002, he told the same thing in 2006 to The New Yorker, he told a Chicago townhall (which no one has picked up on outside this community), after he was in the Senate, why he wouldn't advocate for withdrawal. Amy Goodman has one set of standards for the candidate Hillary Clinton and has no standards at all for Obama based upon the fact that Bambi supporters are NEVER asked about the illegal war. That was true last week as well with the debate there. Goodman repeatedly avoided asking the pro-Bambi guest on the issue of the war.
* The whole thing was an embarrassment for women because it pitted two women against one another and seemed to whip up a desire for a 'cat fight.' It was offensive. It was offensive that a woman who knew nothing was allowed to attack Gloria Steinem. It was offensive that feminism is only a topic we can get coverage of from DN! if there's a hope of a 'cat fight.' It was offensive that after having published in the skin magazine by the pervert (L.F.) regularly featured on Demcracy Now!, this is seen by some as Goodman's contribution to womanhood.
* As the e-mails were too large even for all of us to read any member wanting their comments noted should contact Gina and Krista for the gina & krista round-robin by Wednesday. After Wednesday, you should contact Polly or Maria, Francisco or Miguel and it will run in Polly's Brew or El Espirito on Sunday. Hilda will comment on the nonsense tomorrow in Hilda's Mix.
To address it today, and we have to address it because that b.s. passing off as a public affairs has enraged this community, it was decided Betty and Keesha were the go-to voices because they have regularly addressed race and gender and are feminists. These are the comments they made
Betty wants noted, "Professor Melissa Harris-Lacewell, you're an 'author' the way a porn maker is a film maker. Your book titles are nothing but rip-offs of popular culture, you're unable to make an argument in book form that's of interest without ripping off others. You're a Barack lover. You are complicit in oppressing other Black women and I will hold you accountable. You insulted, you distorted, you flat out lied. You shame not just yourself, you shame my race and you went on with a set of talking points -- all distortions -- but you're the water carrier for the Bambi campaign. If you are indeed a Black woman, as opposed to bi- or multi-racial, it's really sad to know that one of my own would lie so loudly and so cravenly in public to advance the needs of a bi-racial man at the expense of all women. Get a life, write a real book, one that has a real title and not your pop-culture rip offs. Educate yourself and learn history, you stupid, stupid woman. On Sunday, I quoted the same thing Gloria Steinem today, from Sojourner Truth. You're nothing but a ditzy, pop-culture faux academic and you're being sent out to trash a woman. You are disgusting. Save your soul, it's too late for your self-respect."
Keesha wants noted, "The woman is an idiot, an ahisotrical idiot, who is having an argument with Gloria Steinem -- when she finally gets to anything resembling an actual issue -- that is an argument with Betty Friedan. Dumb Ass Professor, learn your history, you dumb disgrace. Steinem was the one pushing sisterhood of all, races and sexuality, Betty Friedan was the one running from both and she did nothing but push middle-class, White women. Steinem regularly toured as a part of a team and did so in order that the Black feminist experience would be and could be heard not as a sidenote but front and center in the feminism debate. Steinem is not the one you have an argument with and there is no excuse for your shameful ignorance on feminism except that you are not one. You also say Steinem wrote an 'op-ed' when she wrote a column -- one more indication of how lacking your pathetic education has been. As for your laughable column you reference, it should have resulted in dumb threats. I am the one who led the argument at this site for the closing of the comments and the comments were closed off when I was insulted by 'Blue Dog Democrats' who haunted the site. I was insulted and degraded both for my gender and my race. It wasn't one or the other, it was both. You seem highly ignorant of that. If you want sympathy for death threats, you've come to the wrong community. Ava and C.I. have received threats of being gutted with knives for TV reviews -- for TV reviews -- and Betty had to step away from her e-mails due to the fact that her humor site was resulting in so many e-mails. You don't know anything and you're nothing but a woman making herself pathetic to prop up a man who is not Black, he is bi-racial. He has played the race card and you lie about that. He is a War Hawk and you lie about that. You are either the most uneducated woman put on a television as a professor or you are a liar. Regardless you are a disgrace and you need to learn a little history before you speak in public again. Whites should also be offended by your remarks and, were I a White who sent my child to Princeton, I would be on the phone complaining to the president of your university about your characterization of students where you teach. You are pathetic, and you've been working on your latest bad book -- I read your first, cut & paste journalism at its best passed off as an exploration -- throughout 2007. Focus on finishing that bad book and spare us all the embarrassment of flaunting your ignorance in public over the airwaves. My comment to Amy Goodman: I want a discussion on gender. I want women in the studio. I want to see as many races as possible and I want women there to discuss women, not to act as help-mates and cheerleaders for men."
Note the name Keesha mentioned is not mentioned here at any other time. She is referred to as The Ego Of Us All here. Because of her racism and homophobia we do not note her by name even when she passed away. (The Ego Of Us All is a jab at her giant ego and noting that, no, she is not the mother of us all.) Because Keesha included the woman's name in her comments, her name appears today. It will not ever appear here again.
On Sunday, the Green Party of the US held their first presidential debate for the 2008 election. Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted today, "The Green Party held a presidential debate on Sunday before 800 people in San Francisco featuring former Democratic Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney and four other candidates. Ralph Nader, who ran on the Green ticket in 2000, spoke at the event but did not take part in the debate. Nader has not yet announced whether he will run for president again."
Ralph Nader: You want healthcare for all? Who says no? It's the health insurance industry, the drug companies and the HMOs. You want living wage? Who says no and makes it stick? It's McDonald's. It's Burger King. It's Wal-Mart. You want peace in the world, and you want a country to wage peace and become a humanitarian superpower? Who's opposed to that? The Lockheed Martins. What Eisenhower condemned is a military-industrial complex. Just ask: Who keeps saying no? And you know what the focus of a Green Party and an alternative party political movement has to be.
Amy Goodman: Cynthia McKinney cited Ralph Nader as part of why she was running on the Green ticket.
Cynthia McKinney: Mr. Nader, in a recent piece, asked us to take the next step if we don't like what's happening in our country. I've heeded his advice: I've joined your party. I'm helping Green candidates, and I'm here with you today. I ask you to take the next step with me.
Amy Goodman: Also participating in the Green Party debate were Jared Ball, Jesse Johnson, Kent Mesplay and Kat Swift.
Below you'll see tags. I put in the tags and usually the links. Then I call and dictate the snapshot. Look at what's noted below and grasp all we missed because we had to address the embarrassment that was Democracy Now! today. That's not a complaint that we have addressed it, that is noting very clearly that it was an embarrassment, it was appalling and, let's note again, it was one more time the show avoided covering Iraq. And, let's note again, this happened on a day when there is a search for a killer of a woman -- another woman assaulted while serving in the US military and her charges not addressed. Find a mention of that on today's Democracy Now! -- you won't.
iraq
camilo mejia
iraq veterans against the war
richard a. oppel jr.the new york timessteven lee myers
deborah sontaglizette alvarez
solomon moorestephen farrell
mcclatchy newspaperswarren p. strobel
jerry allegoodthe new york daily newsjuan gonzalezleo standoradan frosch
andrew cockburncesar chelalajonathan sher
thomas friedman is a great man
gloria steinem
juan gonzalez
amy goodmandemocracy now
So what did Amy Goodman give us today?
Last week, women were under attack and all the "general interest" programs refused to explore it. Did we a get a look at women in the United States?
No, they had to share the stage with the "issue" of a candidate's "race." "Isssue" because he's not "Black." He is bi-racial. I know the professor and have heard her crazy argument that Barack Obama qualifies for "Black" because he would be enslaved if he had been alive back during the time of slavery -- meaning US slavery because no one in this country is apparently aware that slavery existed in previous societies.
Race has been a topic repeatedly each year on Democracy Now! Race they can cover and call themselves a "general interest" program. But to cover women they have to focus on women in other countries. They will not make time, and we saw that this morning, for women in the US as a topic.
Women in the US are not important enough to rate a topic on Democracy Now!
So Amy Goodman provided something too hideous for words and something I am sure took Gloria Steinem by surprise. I'm sure Steinem was told she was going to take part in a discussion. Instead she faced a non-stop attack -- from a woman who knew nothing about Steinem's history and a woman who's always struck me as having serious comprehension issues.
If Gloria Steinem wanted to do 'stunt TV' she'd do it. She has refused to for decades. Amy Goodman offered a betrayal and it was offensive.
It was offensive to women period but it was offensive to Steinem's life work.
She has refused to take part in cat fights -- and she refused to take part in what seemed to be today's surprise attempt at a cat fight -- but Amy Goodman's just another trashy broadcaster convinced that two people yelling at each other -- Steinem refused to attack the woman the woman so quick to attack her -- would be broadcasting paradise!
There was no discussion.
Feminism has made a point to avoid such stunts.
Amy Goodman stabbed feminism in the back.
I don't care if it's because she's ignorant of it or just doesn't care. The same answer applies for her willing publishing in Hustler before she was called out on it by Aura Bogado and other women. It shouldn't have required calling out.
But as with that, this calls for calling out.
"Hustling the Left" (Aura Bogado, ZNet):
In a full hour interview with Democracy Now's Amy Goodman, which aired on hundreds of stations throughout the country several months ago, Larry Flynt was briefly questioned about the exploitation of women in his work. Flynt's response was that, 'most of the criticism comes from the radical feminist movement, who really [sic] only claim to fame is to urge a bunch of ugly women to march behind.' This is the same group of women who screamed in the margins in the days leading to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, yet on hundreds of popular left stations, Flynt's words went unchallenged. Goodman did not include another guest to confront Flynt. Instead, she read a dated quote in which Gloria Steinem voiced her opposition to Flynt and compared his use of the First Amendment to racist and fascist publications that similarly serve to degrade people. Flynt's response was short and easy: that Steinem's work was useful in the 1960s, that she is out of touch today, and that if she is offended by his magazine, she should not read it. Goodman's questions quickly moved on to another topic. Before the interview ended, Flynt adds that '[T]here are only a handful of us that are lobbing grenades into the Bush camp. It's me, Michael Moore, Howard Stern, Molly Ivins, D.H. Hatfield, Greg Palast, you know, you can count them all on both hands.'
Flynt's myopic view of the world makes him blind to the work that so many others do. And, because he controls a tremendous amount of capital, he is able to dodge criticisms against his degradation of women while legitimizing himself to the popular left by publishing progressive journalists. Flynt has become sophisticated at amplifying his voice through his enormous means of production to avoid any real concerns about his product.
In the days that followed, the program was flooded with comments condemning Flynt and the broadcast. Democracy Now's response was to have two feminists, Susie Bright and Susan Brison, debate the merits of pornography, centered around the Flynt interview. Democracy Now attempted to have these women argue over the issue of pornography- while two weeks earlier the program featured a longer interview with a pornographer, unchallenged.
Perhaps taking its lead from Democracy Now, the February issue of Hustler featured an interview with Susie Bright. Besides several incorrect assumptions she makes about me, I was surprised to learn that Bright believes that Hustler is a 'deliberately proletariat' publication, with a 'working-class Southern flavor'. A white feminist who conveniently avoids the issues of racism in Hustler raised by women of color, Bright attempts to rely on an inconsistent class analysis and connects what are 'disgusting' and 'icky' images with that which she deems to be 'working-class', claiming that it makes the publication easier to attack. Rather than aligning herself with the real struggles of working women, Bright has chosen to align herself to millionaire Larry Flynt. Towards the end of the interview published by Hustler, Bright begins to critique the publication itself, alluding to 'disrespectful agreements' between herself and Hustler. At this point, Hustler cuts off the interview entirely, slashing any agency she may have thought she would have had in the interview. When I first read the Bright interview, I was hurt but only slightly surprised that a white feminist would allow Hustler to use her for their own ends. I have never met or spoken with Bright, but it saddens me that someone who calls herself a feminist could say that because of my critique of Hustler, I would wind up 'in a room all by [my]self.' I would not be alone in Bright's imaginary room if she had reached out to me, a working class woman, before postulating fallacies in a publication that serves to physically (and in the case of Bright, intellectually) use women for their immediate gratification.
What happened then? Amy Goodman brought a man who would publish his work and let him go unchallenged. For a debate, under pressure, she pitted two women against each other and called that an exploration. Not about women, of course, about pornography. That was a 'response.' Today was a 'response' as well. US women don't rate on Democracy Now! as worthy of their own topic. They can be brought in for a cat fight to respond to pressure over a really bad Democracy Now! segment, they can be brought in and pitted against one another if you attach gender to it. Women don't qualify otherwise.
It takes real ignorance to publish in Hustler magazine if you're a woman. Goodman didn't need to be called out unless she was ignorant. I don't think she's ignorant. I just think she's shameless and I think we saw that today as she stabbed the women's movement in the back by not finding women worthy of a topic, by not finding a discussion (as C.I. notes, a number of women of color who are feminists could have been brought on for a discussion) worthy but thinking she could stage manage a cat fight, and by having no shame. I'm embarrassed for her.
To see gender and race addressed in terms not put forth by last week's sexists (terms Amy Goodman obviously embraces since that's the set up for the segment she aired today), see Ava and C.I.' "TV: The Surreal Life stages comeback!" and the "Roundtable."
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Monday, January 14, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, a pregnant US marine is believed found murdered and a search is on for the killer something Democracy Now! shows no interest in but they consider journalism to be attempting to pit woman against woman in the hopes of a 'cat fight' -- Gloria Steinem refused to participate in that that Amy Goodman aired such nonsense and that the other woman involved was eager to take part in just that has outraged this community, delayed the snapshot by HOURS and ticked me off because I didn't have time for this nonsense today. Remember that when Democracy Now! asks for funds. Remember it as surely as the fact that in 2007 -- despite all the war resisters coming forward -- the program could not be bothered with interviewing one DAMN war resister. Rember that Adam Kokesh was brought on not when it could have mattered (before he went to trial) but after and even then he had to correct Goodman on the details of his case. Remember it when they ask for your money.
Starting with war resistance. Camilo Mejia is the first Iraq War veteran to go public about refusing to return. On Friday around the world (despite attempts by US embassies in other countries to create a panic by sending out e-mails to them proclaiming that the protests were dangerous) demonstrations against the unconstitutional, ongoing imprisonment of prisoners who have never received trials at the US' own gulag on Guantanamo Bay and among those participating, Carol Rosenberg (Miami Herald) reports, was war resister Camilo Mejia in Doral, Florida. "Due process" was the reason Mejia gave Rosenberg for his participation stating, "It's not about the people who are there. It's about us. Everybody's entitled to their day in court." Rosenberg explains, "Mejia served nearly nine months in a Fort Sill, Okla., lockup for refusing a Florida National Guard call-up to a second tour in Iraq in 2004. He was also busted from staff sergeant to private, and is presently appealing his conviction." Mejia was also among the many who applied for CO status and had his application rejected -- not only was Mejia's application rejected, the military attempted to strong arm him into writing another after he was in military custody because Mejia had documented the abuses of Iraqi civilians he had seen while serving in Iraq and the US military wanted that stripped out of the record. Fortunately for the US military, the 'judge' of the military court-martial wasn't interested in facts or truths refusing to allow them to be introduced. Equally true that Mejia was not a US citizen and his service contract expired while he was in Iraq. The US military had two choices, get him to sign an extension or let him go. Mejia refused to sign an extension and the US military -- despite being advised of their legal obligations by their own attornies -- refused to let him go. Camilo Mejia tells his story in Road from Ar Ramadi: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejia. As he notes in it:
The court-martial lasted three days and had three main phases. My lawyers began the first phase of the trial by contending that the military had no jurisdiction to try me because I was a noncitizen soldier who had completed his eight initial years of service and had never applied for U.S. citizenship. This, they argued, made me nonextendable under army regulations. In addition, Gale had come across an international treaty between the United States and Costa Rica (of which I am a citizen), which states that Costa Ricans residing in the United States are exempt from all compulsory military service whatsover. Based on the treaty and army regulation, together with a legal precedent in which the National Guard Bureau rejected a guard unit's request to extend another citizen soldier in almost exactly the same circumstances, the defense presented a motion to dismiss the trial.
The 'judge' agreed with the prosecution to ignore laws and international treaties, then agreed with the prosecution not to allow the lies that led to the illegal war to be brought up in the court-martial and the 'judge' agreed to allow the text of the CO application to be barred as well as any mention of it. That was allegedly a free and fair trial and military 'justice.' Mejia was railroaded and, to do that, testimony had to be suppressed, realities had to be silenced and laws and international treaties had to be treated as non-existant. Along with seeking real justice today with regards to that kangaroo court-martial, Mejia is also chair of Iraq Veterans Against the War.
War resisters have resisted in a number of ways throughout the Iraq War. That includes the ones who went to Canada seeking asylum. November 15th, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the appeals of war resisters Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. Parliament is the solution.Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. Both War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist are calling for actions from January 24-26. The War Resisters Support Campaign has more on the action in Canada:
The War Resisters Support Campaign has called a pan-Canadian mobilization on Saturday, January 26th, 2008 to ensure : 1) that deportation proceedings against U.S. war resisters currently in Canada cease immediately; and 2) that a provision be enacted by Parliament ensuring that U.S. war resisters refusing to fight in Iraq have a means to gain status in Canada. For listings of local actions, see our Events page. If you are able to organize a rally in your community, contact the Campaign -- we will list events as details come in.
Courage to Resist notes:
Join and support January 25 vigils and delegations in support of U.S. war resisters currently seeking sanctuary Canada. Actions are being planned in Washington D.C., New York, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles. Supporters will meet with officials at Canadian Consulates across the United States in order underscore that many Americans hope that the Canadian Parliament votes (possible as early as February) in favor of a provision to allow war resisters to remain. Download and distribute Jan. 25-26 action leaflet (PDF).Supporting the war resisters in Canada is a concrete way to demonstrate your support of the troops who refuse to fight. Help end the war by supporting the growing GI resistance movement today!
Details January 25-26 actions/events in support of U.S. war resisters.
Sign the letter "Dear Canada: Let U.S. War Resisters Stay!" and encourage others to sign.
Organize a delegation to a Canadian Consulate near you .
Host an event or house-party in support of war resisters.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Carla Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC event:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation.
Turning to the United States where a search is on for the killer of US marine Maria Lauterbach. As noted in Thursday's snapshot and Friday's snapshot, the Onslow County sheriff's office was doing what the US military refused to do: taking seriously the disapperence of 8-months pregnant Lauterbach. Maria Lauterbach went missing in mid-December and, for some strange reason, the US military didn't find that an issue or concern despite the fact that she was due to give testimony about the assault she had reported -- by a fellow marine -- in April. The US military refused to address the assault for months and months and when Maria disappeared, they didn't really think that was important either. On Saturday, Leo Standora (New York Daily News) reported that a body had been found in a grave of the back yard of Marine Cpl. Cesar Laurean and that police suspected him to be the murderer. This would be the same man that Lauterbach had filed assault charges against and the assault was rape. In April she filed those charges and the US military did nothing. In December she went missing and the US military did nothing. The sheriff's department was beginning the search for Laurean on Friday because he went missing on Friday. The US military despite knowing the details of the charges, knowing that the trial was finally approaching when Maria disappeared, despite knowing that Maria had disappeared did nothing to secure Laurean and he is believed to have slipped away from base in the early morning hours of Friday. The police suspected Laurean because his wife had earlier turned over a note he wrote her in which Lauren claimed that Maria killed herself and he just buried Maria's body. That's not what the evidence at the crime scene suggested with splattered blood and the fact that there was an effort to burn Maria's corpse.
Today, CNN reports that Onslow County sheriff's office believes Maria Lauterbach was murdered Dec. 15, 2007 apparently based on forsenic evidence (presumably gathered from the blood inside the house of Ceasar Armando Laurean and from the grave behind it). The autopsy results of the corpse aren't completed yet and they haven't announced that it is Maria Lauterbach (only that they think it is); however, she was eight months pregnant when she disappeared and the corpse buried behind Ceasar Armando Lauren's home was rpregnant as well. Maria Lauterbach's uncle Peter Steiner maintains, apparently speaking for Maria's family, that Laurean would have been the father of the child and that conception took the form of rape by Laurean. The US military, with a lot more than egg on their face, offer the excuse that the vanished Laurean (who vanished last week) was never "taken into custody after Lauterbach reported the alleged rape because there was information the two carried on 'some sort of friendly relationship'" -- which if the military thinks it's an excuse isn't. If they want to claim that they did nothing -- and they did nothing -- because they thought Lauterbach was bringing false assault charges then they had every duty and obligation to resolve the issue quickly. If they found her statements to be false, they were doing a disservice to Laurean by allowing the charges to stand month after month. She disappeared in the middle of December. She made her criminal charges to the military in April. If the military thinks 'we didn't believe her' is an excuse that'll give them a pass, they're mistaken. For nearly nine months, that would mean, they let what they assumed were false charges stand. Jerry Allegood (McClatchy Newspapers) reports, "Lauterbach's family has said authorities did not aggressively investigate her rape allegation against Laurean." That would be military authorities and that is an understatment. A full investigation into the command of Camp Lejune is needed and the death of Maria is one more example of what can happen when the US military command refuses to take seriously charges of assault, command rape, rape and other crimes taking place within the military.
On Sunday, Deborah Sontag and Lizzette Alvarez (New York Times) reported on the crimes being committed in this country by veterans of the Afghanistan and Iraq War which presumably result at least in part due to the lack of medical care being provided to returning veterans. The reporters note,
The New York Times found 121 cases in which veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan committed a killing in this country, or were charged with one, after their return from war. In many of those cases, combat trauma and the stress deployment -- along with alcohol abuse, family discord and other attendant problems -- appear to have set the stage for a tragedy that was part destruction, part self-destruction.Along with the issue of PTSD it may also be, in part, result of non-PTSD reactions to what was seen in combat as well as a result of lowering the standards and granting a record number of 'moral waivers' in order to meet recruitment goals. Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) explained today, " The Times said the numbers indicated a nearly 90 percent increase in homicides involving active-duty military personnel and new veterans since the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. The Times said about one-third of the victims were spouses, girlfriends, children or other relatives. The Times reports that while many of the veterans showed signs of combat trauma, they were often not evaluated for or diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder until after the homicides."
Also on Sunday came news of a 'benchmark' supposedly being reached. Not at all. Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Steven Myers (New York Times) wrote about the Iraqi parliament passing legislation (that still must be signed into law) which "would allow some former officials from Saddam Hussein's party to fill government positions but would impose a strict ban on others." The reporters note:However, it was unclear on Saturday how far the legislation would go toward soothing Sunni Arabs, because serious disagreements merged in the hours after the vote about how much the law would actually do.In other words -- we know this much, we don't know all. The legislation (we're pulling things, I'm told the snapshot is too long) means? Nothing. It's not signed into law. It's not clear what it would or would not do. There's no talk of a tracking measure for it. It's sop tossed out to the US to comfort them that 'progress' is being made.
In some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Diyala house bombing that went on during a raid and claimed the lives of 3 Iraqi 'security forces' and left seven more wounded, a Baghdad mortar attack wounded a child, and a Mosul car bombing claimed 1 life and wounded six.
Shootings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Judge Amir Jawdat Al-na'ib ("member of the federal appeal court") was shot dead in Baghdad along with his driver today.
Corpses?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 5 corpses were discovered in Baghdad while 2 corpses were discovered in Basra.
Turning to US political news, today on Democracy Now! a debate was hosted on gender and race. It's appalling that this passes for an issue, it's appalling that DN! took part in that nonsense. A discussion on the intersection of race and gender would have been more than fine. The refusal of DN! and every other public affairs program to address gender will never apparently deemed a topic worthy in an of itself. So today we got a White feminist and an African-American non-feminist woman pitted against one another. It was not a proud moment for public affairs broadcasting.
I found it personally offensive and I am very angry that we have to use the snapshot to address it. However, we reached a record number of e-mails on this with members outraged. Including everyone's comments would be impossible. A committee was created quickly composed of Gina, Krista, Liang, Keesha, Martha, Ava, Kat, Maria and myself. As we went through the e-mails and then grouped together on the phone to discuss them the key points were:
* It is offensive that Democracy Now! pitted two women against one another in a sort of CrossFire match up. What was needed was a discussion on gender. Gender is a discussion that may get a segment once a year on Democracy Now! if that. We are not referring to the overt attacks on women worldwide, we are talking about very real gender issues in this country. By contrast, racism is noted repeatedly each year on Democracy Now!
* While we're fully aware that it takes an idiot to front a racism charge against Gloria Steinem, there's no need to present an idiot in debate. There are many feminists of many races who could have been brought on. Some of whom may in fact disagree with Gloria. That's fine. There's no question that their sincere in their support for women. It would be equally true of those women that they knew history. Putting on a woman uneducated in women's history -- which is what happened -- is an embarrassment in and of itself.
* Amy Goodman (unlike Juan Gonzalez) continues to allow the hype of Barack Obama to be flashed on the program without question. On Iraq, Gloria was questioned about Hillary's record and quotes from Hillary were provided. No such thing happened with Obama. In 2004, he told the New York Times he didn't know how he would have voted if he'd been in the Senate in 2002, he told the same thing in 2006 to The New Yorker, he told a Chicago townhall (which no one has picked up on outside this community), after he was in the Senate, why he wouldn't advocate for withdrawal. Amy Goodman has one set of standards for the candidate Hillary Clinton and has no standards at all for Obama based upon the fact that Bambi supporters are NEVER asked about the illegal war. That was true last week as well with the debate there. Goodman repeatedly avoided asking the pro-Bambi guest on the issue of the war.
* The whole thing was an embarrassment for women because it pitted two women against one another and seemed to whip up a desire for a 'cat fight.' It was offensive. It was offensive that a woman who knew nothing was allowed to attack Gloria Steinem. It was offensive that feminism is only a topic we can get coverage of from DN! if there's a hope of a 'cat fight.' It was offensive that after having published in the skin magazine by the pervert (L.F.) regularly featured on Demcracy Now!, this is seen by some as Goodman's contribution to womanhood.
* As the e-mails were too large even for all of us to read any member wanting their comments noted should contact Gina and Krista for the gina & krista round-robin by Wednesday. After Wednesday, you should contact Polly or Maria, Francisco or Miguel and it will run in Polly's Brew or El Espirito on Sunday. Hilda will comment on the nonsense tomorrow in Hilda's Mix.
To address it today, and we have to address it because that b.s. passing off as a public affairs has enraged this community, it was decided Betty and Keesha were the go-to voices because they have regularly addressed race and gender and are feminists. These are the comments they made
Betty wants noted, "Professor Melissa Harris-Lacewell, you're an 'author' the way a porn maker is a film maker. Your book titles are nothing but rip-offs of popular culture, you're unable to make an argument in book form that's of interest without ripping off others. You're a Barack lover. You are complicit in oppressing other Black women and I will hold you accountable. You insulted, you distorted, you flat out lied. You shame not just yourself, you shame my race and you went on with a set of talking points -- all distortions -- but you're the water carrier for the Bambi campaign. If you are indeed a Black woman, as opposed to bi- or multi-racial, it's really sad to know that one of my own would lie so loudly and so cravenly in public to advance the needs of a bi-racial man at the expense of all women. Get a life, write a real book, one that has a real title and not your pop-culture rip offs. Educate yourself and learn history, you stupid, stupid woman. On Sunday, I quoted the same thing Gloria Steinem today, from Sojourner Truth. You're nothing but a ditzy, pop-culture faux academic and you're being sent out to trash a woman. You are disgusting. Save your soul, it's too late for your self-respect."
Keesha wants noted, "The woman is an idiot, an ahisotrical idiot, who is having an argument with Gloria Steinem -- when she finally gets to anything resembling an actual issue -- that is an argument with Betty Friedan. Dumb Ass Professor, learn your history, you dumb disgrace. Steinem was the one pushing sisterhood of all, races and sexuality, Betty Friedan was the one running from both and she did nothing but push middle-class, White women. Steinem regularly toured as a part of a team and did so in order that the Black feminist experience would be and could be heard not as a sidenote but front and center in the feminism debate. Steinem is not the one you have an argument with and there is no excuse for your shameful ignorance on feminism except that you are not one. You also say Steinem wrote an 'op-ed' when she wrote a column -- one more indication of how lacking your pathetic education has been. As for your laughable column you reference, it should have resulted in dumb threats. I am the one who led the argument at this site for the closing of the comments and the comments were closed off when I was insulted by 'Blue Dog Democrats' who haunted the site. I was insulted and degraded both for my gender and my race. It wasn't one or the other, it was both. You seem highly ignorant of that. If you want sympathy for death threats, you've come to the wrong community. Ava and C.I. have received threats of being gutted with knives for TV reviews -- for TV reviews -- and Betty had to step away from her e-mails due to the fact that her humor site was resulting in so many e-mails. You don't know anything and you're nothing but a woman making herself pathetic to prop up a man who is not Black, he is bi-racial. He has played the race card and you lie about that. He is a War Hawk and you lie about that. You are either the most uneducated woman put on a television as a professor or you are a liar. Regardless you are a disgrace and you need to learn a little history before you speak in public again. Whites should also be offended by your remarks and, were I a White who sent my child to Princeton, I would be on the phone complaining to the president of your university about your characterization of students where you teach. You are pathetic, and you've been working on your latest bad book -- I read your first, cut & paste journalism at its best passed off as an exploration -- throughout 2007. Focus on finishing that bad book and spare us all the embarrassment of flaunting your ignorance in public over the airwaves. My comment to Amy Goodman: I want a discussion on gender. I want women in the studio. I want to see as many races as possible and I want women there to discuss women, not to act as help-mates and cheerleaders for men."
Note the name Keesha mentioned is not mentioned here at any other time. She is referred to as The Ego Of Us All here. Because of her racism and homophobia we do not note her by name even when she passed away. (The Ego Of Us All is a jab at her giant ego and noting that, no, she is not the mother of us all.) Because Keesha included the woman's name in her comments, her name appears today. It will not ever appear here again.
On Sunday, the Green Party of the US held their first presidential debate for the 2008 election. Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted today, "The Green Party held a presidential debate on Sunday before 800 people in San Francisco featuring former Democratic Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney and four other candidates. Ralph Nader, who ran on the Green ticket in 2000, spoke at the event but did not take part in the debate. Nader has not yet announced whether he will run for president again."
Ralph Nader: You want healthcare for all? Who says no? It's the health insurance industry, the drug companies and the HMOs. You want living wage? Who says no and makes it stick? It's McDonald's. It's Burger King. It's Wal-Mart. You want peace in the world, and you want a country to wage peace and become a humanitarian superpower? Who's opposed to that? The Lockheed Martins. What Eisenhower condemned is a military-industrial complex. Just ask: Who keeps saying no? And you know what the focus of a Green Party and an alternative party political movement has to be.
Amy Goodman: Cynthia McKinney cited Ralph Nader as part of why she was running on the Green ticket.
Cynthia McKinney: Mr. Nader, in a recent piece, asked us to take the next step if we don't like what's happening in our country. I've heeded his advice: I've joined your party. I'm helping Green candidates, and I'm here with you today. I ask you to take the next step with me.
Amy Goodman: Also participating in the Green Party debate were Jared Ball, Jesse Johnson, Kent Mesplay and Kat Swift.
Below you'll see tags. I put in the tags and usually the links. Then I call and dictate the snapshot. Look at what's noted below and grasp all we missed because we had to address the embarrassment that was Democracy Now! today. That's not a complaint that we have addressed it, that is noting very clearly that it was an embarrassment, it was appalling and, let's note again, it was one more time the show avoided covering Iraq. And, let's note again, this happened on a day when there is a search for a killer of a woman -- another woman assaulted while serving in the US military and her charges not addressed. Find a mention of that on today's Democracy Now! -- you won't.
iraq
camilo mejia
iraq veterans against the war
richard a. oppel jr.the new york timessteven lee myers
deborah sontaglizette alvarez
solomon moorestephen farrell
mcclatchy newspaperswarren p. strobel
jerry allegoodthe new york daily newsjuan gonzalezleo standoradan frosch
andrew cockburncesar chelalajonathan sher
thomas friedman is a great man
gloria steinem
juan gonzalez
amy goodmandemocracy now
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)