Movies and TV

Music lovers -- and especially fans of Neil Young -- should make a point to check out Kat's "Kat's Korner: Neil Young's Le Noise" from last night. You should also check out Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Barack Desmond."




I am trying to place that look. I believe it's at the end of the movie but it's been years since I saw Sunset Blvd. There's actually a reason for that. A writer insulting Judy Holliday. He insulted her, trashed her and her talent. He insisted it should have been -- Best Actress Oscar that year -- Gloria Swanson's win, not Judy Holliday's.

Now, reality, Gloria Swanson was never a star. She was Joe Kennedy's mistress and then that petered out and so did her silent film career. She had a tiny comeback which included the classic Sunset Blvd, but she wasn't a great talent. A better argument can be made that Swanson's nomination cost Bette Davis the Oscar for All About Eve.

But Judy Holliday actually was funny in the film she won her Academy Award for -- Born Yesterday. That film still has a lot to say and, if you doubt that, you should make a point to see it. There's nothing wrong with being funny. Holliday was a very gifted actress -- and she was creating the Broadway role she'd already been applauded for. Gloria, by contrast, wasn't a star, was in a film that did not make the entertainment world look 'sparkling' and 'wonderful.' She was never going to win. But she may have knocked Bette Davis out of the running and kept Davis from winning for what has to be her strongest role.

"TV: Can we get a reboot on the reboot?" (Ava and C.I., The Third Estate Sunday Review):
But it's all about the T&A for Kona. And that's a new element that wasn't in the original. For the bulk of the original show's run, women were guest stars or secretaries -- like the always groovy Susan Dey whose H5-0 guest spot we were noting in 2005. By making a woman part of the core team, an ugly dynamic becomes more apparent -- even if no one seems to want to acknowledge it.

As in the original, Steve and his sidekick are played by Anglo Whites. And they're running things -- even the governor of the state is played by an Anglo White. They're running the missions, they're running everything -- even the native people of Hawaii. And if it were just Chin Ho, you might not catch on to that. But when you have Chin Ho sidelined time and again and you've also got Kona so far removed she's not even sidelined, she's stuck in the stadium, you start to wonder why the remake wasn't called Hawaii Five-O: White Man's Burden?

And that's part of the Big Ugly the reboot brings to the small screen each *Monday* as it closes out CBS' prime time line up. The state hoped the show would boost tourism and maybe it will? Despite the fact that it makes everything look flat and uninteresting, despite the fact that the season's main plot is that gangs have infiltrated the islands, despite the fact that Hawaii is portrayed as a lawless -- including the lawless police as Greg Felton (Dissident Voice) has pointed out. But we keep coming back to the fact that Anglo Whites make up only 24.3 percent of Hawaii's population and yet they dominate this show.


It's like a bad dream. And those two words really do describe the reboot as you watch the new Steve McGarrett push suspects off roofs, hold their legs and threaten to let go, as you watch one washed out backdrop after another and realize that even postcard 'art' is beyond this show. Thus far, only David Lynch's Twin Peaks has ever really utilized imagery, space and time in any way resembling dreams or the work of Jean Cocteau. And while no one expected that from Hawaii Five-O, they had every right to expect something visually attractive.

Many, many moons ago, we used to watch Hawaii Five-O. Rebecca, C.I. and I. Especially C.I. and me because we'd be on the road speaking out against the war. We'd be at some motel or hotel and there would be the TV. The Susan Dey episode, by the way, is a classic.

But I was curious about the new show, the reboot, after reading their piece and the link to Greg Felton's they provide took me to his piece. So tonight I made the point of actually watching TV and it was so much worse than either Ava and C.I. or Felton conveyed. This is just an ugly little show. I do agree that Scott Caan owns the show. If it were up to me, I'd kill off Steve McGarrett in a big to do to push up ratings and then make the show about Kona, Chin Ho and Danny.

I'm sorry to just talk movies and TV tonight but it was a long day. Not to mention that any strength I had was then sapped by that bad, bad H50 remake.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Monday, October 11, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, a lot of Sunnis are targeted today, fears of a military coup continue to float in Iraq, Iraqi Christians receive attention from the Vatican, Nouri tries to trick Sunni exiles, Gloria Feldt starts a movement conversation, and more. Phil Sands (National Newspapers) reports on the 5,000 Iraqi Palestinians who are refugees in Syria who have to live in temporary camps, "Syrian policy is that displaced Palestinians are the responsibility of all Arab states and that each must contribute to their cause and support their right to return to ancestral homes. Damascus already hosts more than 450,000 Palestinians and believes that the Baghdad government should have safeguarded the 35,000 Palestinians who were living in Iraq. That did not happen and many fled, leaving 12,000 Palestinians in Iraq, according to UN estimates." The United Nation's Walter Kalin speaks with WRS (World Radio Switzerland) today discussing Iraq's internal refugees. Walter Kalin: Many of them have found a kind of acceptable way of life but as many are living in very, very difficult conditions particularly in Baghdad there because there was no alternative they had to squat on the public land where they are illegally occupying public buildings. They are threatened by eviction. They are really living in poverty, totally inadequate housing, no access to water, in some parts of the city even no access to education and health. Up in the north, it's a bit better. But people up there spend the meager income they have mainly on rent meaning that they can't send their kids to school. There's a huge amount of child labor. And we're also told that for instance involving trafficking which is a general problem, displaced women are prone to be a target. Last week, Walter was wrongly billed by me as Walter Kearns. I do not regret the error. Especially when I hear him babble on about 'safety' when you consider 2006 . . . 2006 is four years ago. 2006 was the height of ethnic cleansing. While, in 2010, it might make some sense to point to 2009 if a yearly trend can be established, it makes no sense to hide behind 2006. After bringing it up, he quickly adds, "But still if you're looking just at the UN security reports, there are security incidents everyday particularly in and around Baghdad, in and around Mosul." So, no, the answer it isn't safe in Iraq. That is one of the main reasons there is no Great Return to Iraq. The political stalemate is not the reason that there's no Great Return. This has been addressed by many and addressed many times. One of the true experts on Iraqi refugees is Deborah Amos who spoke with Steve Inskeep (NPR's Morning Edition -- link has text and audio) August 10th: Steve Inskeep: And let's just emphasize here, is this turning into almost a permanent refugee population, a permanent population of Iraqis who will be outside their country the same way that there are Palestinians who have been outside of the Palestinian territories for decades now? Deborah Amos: It begins to look that way. Not that there was ever a flood of returnees, there wasn't, but 2010 has been less than 2009. And people are making this calculation, that as long as there's a government crisis as the Americans drawdown, why would you go back now? It is not easy to be a refugee. It's likely that your kids are out of school. It is likely that your diet is a mess, that you're probably eating mostly, you know, sugared tea and bread, for at least two of those meals. The international community's largesse -- while never large, is less. People want this crisis to be over. The most recent broadcast of War News Radio (began airing Friday) also featured Deborah Amos. Emily Crawford: The US invasion of Iraq triggered an explosion of sectarian violence especially after Saddam Hussein's fall from power. Until then, the minority sect of Arab Sunnis had been the dominant political force but they lost influence along with Saddam and a dramatic power struggle ensued. Uprooted by sectarian militias and the general chaos of a nation suddenly without government or infrastructure, there was a mass exodus of Iraqis. As the closest and most accessible of the surrounding countries, Syria was an obvious choice of a destination for the refugees. Deborah Amos, NPR foreign correspondent and author of the book Eclipse of the Sunnis [: Power, Exile, and Upheaval in the Middle East]. has devoted extensive research to the flight of these Iraqis and their lives in exile. She says that the majority of the refugees were the newly persecuted Sunnis. Deborah Amos: It was overwhelmingly Sunnis who were leaving Baghdad. It was a demographic exodus to be sure. It was also an exodus that was a middle class exodus -- these were the professionals from Baghdad and that tended to be the Sunnis of Baghdad, the more educated of Baghdad. It was the doctors, it was the lawyers, it was the school teachers, it was the poets, it was the television producers. It was the very people that the government was going to need to rebuild the nation and they were leaving. Emily Crawford: Although most of the refugees in Syria are Sunni, there are also significant numbers of Iraqi Christians, secular Shias, Kurds and other marginalized minorities. Saddam's regime had been oppressive but it had least ensured a degree of stability in Iraq. With that gone, sectarian tensions became intensified. Ahmed Ibrahim al-Karkhi, an Iraqi artist who lived in Syria for three years before coming to the US, remembers the eruption of sectarian tension in Baghdad. Ahmed Ibrahim al-Karkhi: Honestly, I remember the day I left Baghdad because I felt like I was an outlaw. I did not have any other guilt except I was from one sect and living with another -- and this wasn't present before the war. Everybody used to live together -- the Christian, the Kurd, and the Shi'ite and the Sunni. But all of these concepts changed with the appearance of all the militias. The struggle for power started so all of these things happened. Meanwhile Mona Nagger, Nick Amies and Rob Mudge (Deutsche Welle) report that threats and fears mean even more Iraqi Christians could become exiles and they quote London School of Economics and Political Science's Dr. Kristian Ulrichsen stating, "Iraqi Christians became caught up in the overlapping violence and multiple conflicts unleashed after 2003. They became exposed to the similar patterns of kidnappings, extortion, beheadings, rape and forced taxation that affected all other communities at the erosion of central government control left a security vacuum that was exploited by organised and opportunistic criminality and anti-occupatin resistance groups. In addition to this, Christians specifically were targeted by Church bombings and assassination attempts owing to a perceived association witht he aims and intentions of the occupying forces." Vatican Radio (link has text and audio) reports that Pope Benedict XVI spoke of the Synod of Bishops for the Middle East at Sunday morning mass yesterday and, "In a reference to one of the principle concerns of many church leaders in the Middle East, the exodus of Christians from the cradle of faith, Pope Benedict reminded all those present that 'in Jerusalem the first Christians were few. Nobody could have imagined what was going to take placae. And the Church continues to live on that same strength which enabled it to begin and to grow,' the strength of the Pentecost." Last week, Michel Martin (Tell Me More, NPR -- link has text and audio) reported on the fact "that the wetlands in sourthern Iraq" -- believed by some Biblical scholars, to have been the Garden of Eden -- are being restored and she discussed the restoration with the Minstry of Water's Dr. Azzam Alwash. Michel Martin: So give us a status report. Dr. Azzam Alwash: At this point in time, the marshes are about 35 percent restored. Now, they were about 65 percent restored in 2008. The last two years were essentially drought years, and the amount of water that came in was a lot less, so we lost a lot of the areas that was flooded. But what we have to remember is that this is not the first time this marshes saw drought. And so it just - it's part of nature. It's part of the natural process that the areas around the perimeters of the marshes become wet and dry over the seasons. We just have to work with nature and facilitate the bringing of as much water as possible. And, you know, the problem right now in Iraq, between Iraq and Turkey, is the fact that Turkey is building a lot of dams upstream to generate hydroelectric power to irrigate fields. And so we have solutions. We're working with the Iraqi government. We're talking to Turkish organizations about creating solutions for the long-term future. Our models indicate that we can restore up to 75 percent of the marshes even using only Iraq's limited water resources. I'm glad to report to you that the Ministry of Water Resources of Iraq has bought into our plan, and, in fact, is building all the regulators that we have designed. And by March 2011, all the systems will be in place. What remains is the political world to dedicate enough water to restore as much of the marshes as we can. Dropping back to October 4th: "But the US government 'helps' in some ways. UPI reported on Friday that the Pentagon wants to sell $4.2 billion in weaponry to Iraq. Iraqis make due on a few hours of electricity a week, they lack potable water but Bobby Gates and other fools think what the country really needs is some 'air-to-air, heat-seeking missiles for dogfighting'. And if you're not getting how screwed up the priorities are (or how alarming that an easy to topple puppet regime would possess missiles), grasp that they'll be spending $42 billion on weapons but they're begging the IMF for -- and getting -- $741 million to do rebuilding to their infrastructure. That's right, they'll throw away $42 billion. But they'll insist no infrastructure rebuilding unless the IMF loans them a tiny fraction of that amount." James Denselow (Guardian) observes: There are numerous dangers in empowering an Iraqi military in the current national and regional environment. Petraeus adviser David Kilcullen warned last year that Iraq was witnessing the "classic conditions for a military coup" – where a venal political elite divorced from the population lives inside the Green Zone, while the Iraqi military outside the zone's walls grows both more capable and closer to the people, working with them and trying to address their concerns. A Rand report into the US redeployment from Iraq recognised that "there is a risk Iraq's political and military leaders could be emboldened by the departure of US forces and their own growing strength to seize control". The record-breaking hiatus in forming a government will only have furthered Iraqis' contempt for their politicians and empowered the hand of the military. Another danger is that while empowering the Iraqi military may allow for a smoother US exit from the country and provide it with a potential card to use against Iran, it creates a very real sword of Damocles that threatens the Kurds. Historically, Baghdad has always looked to make peace with the Kurds when it is weak and attack them when it is strong, a lesson very much in the minds of Kurdish politicians today. Coup? Saturday, Maad Fayad's "Fears of Military Coup Surface in Iraq" (Asharq Alawsat Newspaper) reported: Iraqi political and security sources in Baghdad have spoken of their fears of either a military coup taking place in Iraq or a militant Shiite militia overthrowing the government. An Iraqi official, speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat from Baghdad, revealed that "important Iraqi political leaders have strengthened the security of their headquarters, offices, and homes" adding that they have also "restricted their movements both inside and outside of Baghdad." The source claimed that this came "following advice or warnings from Iraqi security and US [military] commanders in Iraq." The Iraqi official, who spoke to Asharq Al-Awsat on the condition of anonymity, said that "we are not ruling out a military coup taking place especially as the political history of Iraq is full of military coups, and in light of the decision of the commander-in-chief of the Iraqi armed forces, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, to surround Baghdad with military forces…and to exclude other leaders from positions of direct responsibility of the movements of the army, as well as the arrest of senior officers in Baghdad, Mosul, Diyali, Tikrit. This gives rise to fears of a military coup in the event of al-Maliki not being able to remain as prime minister." India Daily added, "An Iraqi security source has revealed that U.S. forces have given orders for U.S. officers to join key military units in Baghdad as advisers due to fears of an attempt to overthrow the government." The talk followed Mark Schlachtenhaufen (Edmond Sun) reported, "Iraq is entering a crucial period, which could include a coup triggered by disenchantment and frustation with the political class, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist [Anthony Shadid] said Monday." Shadid heads the New York Times' Baghdad Bureau and he spoke earlier this week at the University of Central Oklahoma. AFP reports that Nouri made a little speech today in Baghdad insisting that, "We must . . . turn a new page with all those who have gone too far and made mistakes. [. . .] We forgive and turn the page because the country cannot be built on the basis of hatred and rancour." AFP rightly interprets the remarks to be aimed as Sunni exiles, Nouri's political opponents. The ones he always lashes out at, remember? A bomb goes off in Baghdad and Nouri's insisting it is former Ba'athists in Syria. And then he's demanding that Syria force out all the Sunnis in the country. ('Forgetting' that when he was an exile, he sought and was provided refuge in Syria.) As Rickie Lee Jones once asked, "What could make a boy behave this way?" Let's see, St. Bernadette visited him in a dream? No. There's been no Nouri transformation. This is the man who actively used star-crossed lovers Ali al Lami and Ahmed Chalabi and their so-called Justice and Accountability Commission to purge Sunnis before the March 7th elections, during the March 7th elections and after the March 7th elections. But the world's supposed to believe Nouri's had a sudden change of heart? Nouri was unable to force Syria to expell the exiles. Now he seems to be banking on the belief that he's smarter than the exiles and can trick them into returning which would allow him to seek the retribution his blood lust demands. As Nouri's opponents have been repeatedly targeted with assassination in the months since the elections, as Nouri has expelled Sahwa (largely Sunni fighters, also known as "Sons Of Iraq" and "Awakenings") from Iraq's security forces despite pledges to incorporate them into the security forces and the government, he now wants to show up claiming that Sunni exiles are welcomed in Iraq and he really expects to be believed? That's how dumb Nouri is and, let's face it, the US government has a long record of installing the weak minded and stupid as puppets throughout the world. Would-be puppet Ahmed Chalabi visited DC in an attempt to put a new spit shine on his questionable reputaion. As Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) observes, Iraqi politicians have become the Iraq Globetrotters: A leading Shiite cleric, Ammar al-Hakim, was in Damascus, Syria, on Wednesday, while the Sunni vice president, Tariq al-Hashimi, flew to Istanbul. And Ayad Allawi, the champion of secular politics across the Shiite-Sunni divide who is losing ground in his campaign to be recognized as the rightful prime minister, went to Damascus and Cairo seeking Arab backing for his quest. The Kurdish region's president, Massoud Barzani, who emerged from the election a political kingmaker, was in Vienna, while Moktada al-Sadr, the radical cleric whose followers now wield more political influence than ever, worked the phones from his exile in Qom, Iran. Everyone scrambles to shore up support and the political stalemate continues. Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) reports, "As the Obama Administration applies growing pressure to all sides to accept a unity government with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki (the favorite candidate for both the US and Iranian governments) retaining his position, it seems increasingly the other blocs are falling in line." March 7th, Iraq concluded Parliamentary elections. The Guardian's editorial board noted last month, "These elections were hailed prematurely by Mr Obama as a success, but everything that has happened since has surely doused that optimism in a cold shower of reality." 163 seats are needed to form the executive government (prime minister and council of ministers). When no single slate wins 163 seats (or possibly higher -- 163 is the number today but the Parliament added seats this election and, in four more years, they may add more which could increase the number of seats needed to form the executive government), power-sharing coalitions must be formed with other slates, parties and/or individual candidates. (Eight Parliament seats were awarded, for example, to minority candidates who represent various religious minorities in Iraq.) Ayad Allawi is the head of Iraqiya which won 91 seats in the Parliament making it the biggest seat holder. Second place went to State Of Law which Nouri al-Maliki, the current prime minister, heads. They won 89 seats. Nouri made a big show of lodging complaints and issuing allegations to distract and delay the certification of the initial results while he formed a power-sharing coalition with third place winner Iraqi National Alliance -- this coalition still does not give them 163 seats. They are claiming they have the right to form the government. In 2005, Iraq took four months and seven days to pick a prime minister. It's seven months and four days and counting. Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) observes, "For outsiders, it may be difficult to fathom the idea of a political stalemate crippling a government for most of the year, destabilizing a fragile state and raising fears of new strife. But Iraq's ruthless history helps explain the psychodrama behind the seemingly endless negotiations that could drag on until early next year." Thom Shanker and Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) report, "The delay has affected much of the American strategy in Iraq, including trade deals and talks over what, if any, military role the United States will have after a deadline to remove the remaining 50,000 American troops by the end of 2011. The Sadrists vehemently oppose any longtime American military relationship with Iraq." Meanwhile Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) reports that two Sunni groups not affiliated with the non-sectarian Iraqiya -- Tawafuq Party and United Iraq -- which control 10 seats have formed their own coalition and announced that yesterday. They're attempting to translate their 10 seats into some sort of influence at the bargaining table. One Shi'ite group not yet rushing into Nouri's embrace is the Islamic Supreme Council and their leader Ammar Al Hakim. Alsumaria TV reports, "Melkert conveyed the General Assembly and the Security Council interest in Iraq and their call to make progress in government formation talks. UN Chief representative stressed the necessity to engage all parties in the new government." Shootings? In today's violence, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports, "Gunmen wearing Iraqi army uniforms stormed at least four houses, pulled the residents outside and shot them -- killing four, police in Baghdad said." Reuters adds that the 4 were Sahwa and that two more were injured. Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that the assailants attempted to assassinate six; however, after they left, it turned out that two were still alive and are now "in critical condition." Reuters notes a Falluja home invasion in which 1 police officer (it was his house invaded) was killed. Bombings? Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing injured four people, another Baghdad sticky bombing targeted the photographer of Sunni and former Speaker of Parliament Mahmoud al-Mashhadani -- the former Speaker of Parliament and left the photographer injured, a Falluja sticky bombing claimed the life of 1 person and wounded the man's wife, a Falluja roadside bombing which claimed the life of 1 police officer and left two more wounded, a third Falluja roadside bombing wounded one police officer and a Kirkuk roadside bombing wounded a doctor and destroyed an ambulance. Reuters notes a Baghdad roadside bombing injured the Ministry of the Interior's head of evidence Maj Gen Abdul Munim Saeed and his driver, a Falluja home invasion in which 1 police officer (it was his house invaded) was killed, a Qaim roadside bombing which injured four police officers, a Kirkuk roadside bombing which injured one doctor and an Abu Ghraib roadside bombing which injured eight people (including one Iraqi soldier). In the US, Gloria Feldt has a new book and is engaging int: [. . .] an online discussion about women and power as presented in Gloria Feldt's new book, No Excuses: 9 Ways Women Can Change How We Think About Power. In No Excuses, Feldt asserts that today nobody is keeping women from parity -- except themselves. Combining extensive research, her personal experience as former CEO and president of the Planned Parenthood Federation, and interviews with dozens of women politicians, business owners, and activists, Feldt concludes that the doors of opportunity are open; however at the rate women are leading the way through the doors, it will take 70 years to reach parity with their male counterparts. Feldt gives women 9 Ways to overcome the external and internal barriers keeping them from their own power and leadership. No Excuses has nine chapters, each organized around a specific power tool that will help women change the way they think -- and the way they act -- so they can lead unlimited lives. Starting today, October 11, join Gloria Feldt for 9 Ways in 9 Weeks: a conversation about how you can apply the power tools in No Excuses to your own life. Feldt will share interviews with amazing and inspiring women as well as her thoughts and links to resources. Each week a different power tool will be posted, topics will be presented, and discussion will take place. Please visit at http://gloriafeldt.com/9ways to join the conversation. You can also visit Gloria Feldt's fan page on Facebook to stay up-to-date on No Excuses and the 9 Ways. Please contact me if you are interested in reviewing the book, interviewing Gloria Feldt, or have any additional questions. I have not read 9 Ways in 9 Weeks. I'm sure it's a thought provoking read because Gloria's always been someone to toss things around and come at it from many different angles. I look forward to reading the book -- and hope to this week -- but I need to note that there are systematic barriers to women's progress. We certainly saw that in 2008 with the near uniform attacks on Hillary Clinton -- a time when White men repeatedly urged African-American males to take pride in bi-racial Barack but attacked women of all races who took pride in Hillary's run. Gloria knows that and wrote strongly about that in real time. It's also true that we can be our own worst enemies. We are in the majority. Why haven't we seized control? Why do we continue begging for our rights? In all the attacks on Hillary, in all that sexism that spewed in 2008 -- sexism that also rendered Cynthia McKinney invisible and allowed for some of the most vile things in the world to be said about Sarah Palin -- in all the attempts to badger and batter women into what a bunch of White males thought should happen, no one bothered to note that we don't have equal rights. All the talk about voting and blah blah -- Emma Goldman appears more and more correct about how little suffrage would actually matter -- concealed the fact that women do not legally have equality in this country. The Equal Rights Amendment did not pass, there's never been a serious effort to restart the drive for it (immediately after the failure of it, the decision was made to go the route of the courts). I don't know that Gloria does or doesn't acknowledge the systematic oppression in her book -- my guess would be not in any great detail because that's not what it sounds like her focus is -- but I'm sure it's a book that will haunt and one worthy of a serious and pro-longed conversation. I look forward to reading it and hope to finish it by the end of the week. iraq the national newspaper phil sands npr morning edition steve inskeep deborah amos the guardian james denselow asharq alawsat newspaper maad fayad the edmond sun mark schlachtenhaufen anthony shadid the new york times mcclatchy newspapers sahar issa antiwar.com jason ditz the los angeles times ned parker the new york times thom shanker steven lee myers bloomberg news caroline alexander alsumaria tv

Confidential magazine lives!

Isabel Macdonald has a piece entitled "Lou Dobbs, American Hypocrite." My first reaction?

I wasn't aware Confidential magazine was still around.

Image via Crapapedia.

This is why the so-called left sucks and we have the wars we're in.

This dumb and dopey article is in The Nation magazine. Even worse, funds were given for the 'research.'

Lou Dobbs is a personality. If you confuse him with a journalist, you're in a lot of trouble. (The article won't help you there.)

He used to be a TV personality but he stepped away. He still does his radio talk show as far as I know.

The thrust of the piece is "Lou Dobbs used undocumented workers for his personal staff!"

Really?

That's where we're going?

Is Katrina vanden Heuvel (editor and publisher of the magazine) about to get honest about her history (and her families) with undocumented workers?

No, she's not.

But she wants to ridicule Lou Dobbs.

Now in the real world, Barack Obama has continued the torture policies that began under George W. Bush.

In the real world. But The Nation wants to dig around Lou Dobbs' trash can and tell us that's reporting.

If you don't get how awful it is, Jane Mayer used to write about torture. But that when Bush occupied the White House. Now she writes about what Republicans choose to fund or not fund.

That's what happens when a Democrat (in name only) is in the White House.

The so-called left forgets their ethics, whores their beliefs and spends four years with a magnifying glass on the right so that they can say, "They're worse!"

They have to study the right so closely to prove that they are worse because the Democratic president is doing such an awful job that you really need a long rap sheet for the Republicans for the Democrat to come out looking even just okay.

I am sick of it.

I am sick of these petty little wars.

In 2008, I made the decision not to vote for War Hawks under any circumstance. I will not do it. I will not do it ever again. That often means I won't be voting Democrat anymore. Oh well.

If members of Congress don't do the right thing and vote the right way, I can't slam them for that if every two years I'm rushing into the voting booth holding my nose to pull the lever for the Democrat. If I want members of Congress who stand up for what they believe in, I have to stand up for what I believe in.

The change starts with every one of us. As each of us stands up, it makes it that much easier for someone else to. That's a movement, that's a real movement. Not some faux left get-out-the-vote for the Democrats staged in DC.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Friday, October 8, 2010. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, Nouri announces who he says will be president of Iraq, the prime minister position is still up for grabs (though Nouri acts as if it's his), Baghdad learns to utilize phantom stockers in grocery stores, Cindy Sheehan explores the US government attack on peace activists, and more. Administrations love to and live to demonize those who don't agree. For the Bully Boy Bush administration, one of their biggest targets was former US Ambassador Joe Wilson who had been sent, in 2002, on a fact-finding mission to Niger to determine whether there was any evidence supporting rumors (from Iraq's thug community then in exile but soon to be ruling and ruining Iraq) that Saddam Hussein had attempted to acquire yellow cake uranium (as opposed to Betty Crocker's yellow cake mix) from Niger. Wilson investigated and found nothing to back up the baseless claim. He reported those facts back and was debriefed. It should have ben the end of it. But as much as administrations love to demonize, they also love to lie. So January 28, 2003, Bully Boy Bush gave his Constitutionally-mandated State of the Union speech and declared, "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Wilson thought at first that Bush was speaking of another African country but, when he found out it was Niger, he began speaking to reporters (including New York Times' columnist Nicholas Kristof) on background. And he wrote a column for the New York Times which they published July 6, 2003 entitled "What I Didn't Find in Africa." The White House reaction was swift. They began shopping around to reporters that Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, worked for the CIA. They weren't lying. She was a CIA agent and they blew her cover and all the overseas operations she'd worked on. Robert Novak was the first reporter to run with it. (Matt Cooper and Judith Miller were among those who also had the story shopped to them.) Plame's cover was blown, the cover of everyone she'd worked with was blown. And you might want to remember that Robert Gates never fretted over that. (A reference to his high drama over WikiLeaks.) What Novak did wasn't a crime. What the White House did was. (And Bully Boy Bush can thank his own father for that. Jake Tapper covered this in 2003, George H.W. Bush's Intelligence Identity Protection Act.) Naomi Watts plays Valerie Plame and Sean Penn plays Joe Wilson in the film Fair Game which was screened Wednesday at the MoMA in New York. The New York Daily News quotes Wilson stating at the screening, "I just came back from Baghdad. And it's a mess. And I would really like to see us talk about why the f--- we're in there. We have 50,000 kids there. What are they doing?" Joe Wilson is -- yet again -- correct. We do need to be asking that question. Instead, we're silent or else repeating the lie that the Iraq War ended. WRAL reports that yesterday came the news Fort Bragg would be deploying troops to Iraq. John Ramsey (Fayetteville Observer) reports over 750 members of the 18th Airborne Corps will deploy in January. News 14 Carolina (link has text and video) adds that this will be the third eployment for the XVIII Airbone Corps. WTVD (link has text and video) notes of the new phase christened "Operation Iraq Freedom," "The new name reflects a change in mission but the danger remains the same." Yesterday we quoted from a soldier's e-mail that Thomas E. Ricks posted. I hadn't read the post itself (and the quote was read to me over the phone) but we should note that Ricks writes in his post (before the quote) that the Army itself is saying that combat has not ended. There's an interesting comment by Jim Gourley on the post and we're going to excerpt a section of it: I don't think Obama's statement declaring the end of the war was any less transparent to the initiated than Bush's was. Though the similarity in their specific verbiage of "combat actions" is eerie, I didn't see any articles in the major news sources making remarks to that effect. The greater public should have picked up on the sound of those words coming from Obama's lips like a fire bell in the night, though. We paid a heavy strategic and operational toll for assuring ourselves things were all wrapped up in 2003. We risk paying a societal toll today. Others discuss the way media coverage has fallen off regarding Iraq since Obama's proclamation and the footage of units rolling out of the country. That's just the symptom on the surface. The real malady lies beneath, and it's deeply disturbing to me. By its own admissions, today's network news media chases the audience. Their news content and presentation format is specifically designed to ensure ratings. We can draw an unsettling conclusion from that nature-- the truth about combat activities in Iraq isn't getting covered in the media because the American public doesn't want to hear about it anymore. Perhaps, as Tom notes, the emperor doesn't have any clothes in this case, but the people are more than ready to see the resplendent attire he's put on, and so they do. It seems we only have the capacity to fight one "real" war at a time. If we're going to focus on Afghanistan, then Iraq must become the "forgotten one." A media critique/dialogue is taking place in the comment thread (absent Keller or "Keller") and one poster (Cow Cookie) is insisting that the media is calling out the White House spin of combat being over. No, it's really not. AP called it out. Some individual journalists for print publications have called it out . . . in interviews they've given (including interviews to NPR -- and also during the international roundtable on The Diane Rehm Show). But it's not called out by most outlets and not repeatedly called out. Like Bush's 9/11 and Iraq linkage, the spin and the lie is repeated. Barack repeats it himself. Just last week, we were calling out his claim that he has ended the Iraq War. I don't believe anyone's called him out for that lie in the MSM. The publication was Rolling Stone, where Barack insisted, "When I was campaigning, I was very specific. I said, 'We are going to end the war in Iraq, that was a mistake,' and I have done that." That interview was covered by every major news outlet but not one of them covered his lie on Iraq. The Iraq War didn't end. 7 US soldiers have died since he gave that stupid August 31st speech. More examples? Earlier this week ("It's all a joke to Jamie Elizabeth Stiehm"), we were calling out the idiot at US News & World Reports who 'shared' that the Iraq War was over. Now we could do those entries every day because every day some idiot is penning a column or report claiming the Iraq War is over. We did that entry because a woman e-mailed the public account very upset by Steihm's b.s. (The woman's brother died in the Iraq War and this war that's 'over'? The woman's cousin is serving in the Iraq War right now.) These false claims are repeated over and over. We usually note most stories on the wounded service members. We ignored the crap the Tennessean served up this week. A two-parter. Do you know how Brandon Gee and Chris Echergaray opened their little story? Here's what two idiots can serve up if they try really hard to whore: "The Iraq war is officially over, but it continues in the heart of Patricia Shaw, who lost her only son." This is exactly like the 9-11 and Iraq lie. The media would periodically express puzzlement that so many Americans believed this lie -- that the media spat back out over and over. The media was scared -- as a whole -- to correct Bush and they just quoted him. It's the same thing with Barack. And he's giving speeches as these fundraisers right now claiming he's ended the Iraq War. But find the outlets which are correcting him. You can't pick up a paper, turn on a cable chair, without getting a 'report' on Barack's latest fundraiser. But they never find the time to call out the claim. Though some of them are quoting him directly and repeating it. Though the illegal war has obviously not created a functioning government -- or the desire for one -- it has created the largest refugee crisis in the world. "UNHCR does not consider the security situation in Iraq adequate to facilitate or promote returns. We nonetheless continue to assist refugees who voluntarily express their wish to return, in close coordination with the Iraqi authorities," declared UNHCR spokesperson Melissa Fleming today in Geneva. Flemming noted that a survey of Iraqi refugees had been taken in Syria -- utilizing over 2,000 respondents -- and the majority are not talking return to Iraq. She noted, "A similar survey on the Iraq-Jordan border among some 364 families (representing approximately 1450 individuals) found that none were returning to Iraq permanently." SwissInfo interviews Happy Talker and Low Information Official Walter Kerns of the United Nations. swissinfo.ch: Before your visit, you called on the Iraqi authorities to end the displacement of people within the country. What specifically is the problem? W.K.: It was not so much the displacement. After people were forced to flee the violence between religious communities in 2006, the government failed to organise any sort of assembly points – no camps, no collective accommodation. That means that many poorer people squatted on land or in buildings that are publicly-owned. At least there they were slightly protected, but a moratorium on evicting them has been lifted. I appealed for these people not to be thrown out onto the street – that would only make the humanitarian and social problems worse. Instead, let them remain where they are until the government has come up with a solid plan for finding solutions – whether it's allowing them to return or to settle where they are. swissinfo.ch: Did your appeal work? W.K.: It didn't fall on totally deaf ears. I had a very long discussion with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who was very open to the idea that the relevant ministries should work out a strategy for dealing with these displaced people, including the allocation of land on which they could build houses. From that point of view, I think it was good. There was no assurance that another moratorium on evictions would be announced, but the suggestion wasn't rejected. We'll see. Walter -- and the outlet -- seem unaware that 50,000 US troops remain in Iraq and that Europe is forcibly evicting Iraqi refugees. Or maybe that's an example of something not falling "on totally deaf ears"? Yesterday's snapshot noted accusations about the US military coming out of Iraq: Press TV reports today that the central government or 'government' out of Baghdad is complaining about the American military "moving around the city without being escorted by Iraqi forces, while using Iraqi army uniforms and vehicles as a disguise." Nouri al-Maliki's spokesperson Ali al-Dabbagh is quoted stating, "We Iraqi people cannot accept the presence of foreign troops on our land soldiers, it is crushing the national feeling and that is why we have been happy that the troops are leaving and the balance of the troops is going to diminish next summer." Last night, Press TV interviewed US journalist Wayne Madsen about the charges and he stated, "The fact that Americans are found to be wearing Iraqi uniforms in Iraqi military vehicles looks like it's a complete, blatant switch tactic where it was announced with much fanfare that the US was ending its combat mission in Iraq, and now we find US troops still engaged in combat missions in Iraqi uniforms." And, as the US government and the Iranian government vie for most influential in Iraq, you better believe Press TV is going to run with this story. Meanwhile, today on Morning Edition (NPR), Peter Kenyon offers an analysis of several factors at play in Iraq including Kurdish MP Mahmoud Othman who states, "They tried very hard -- they had Jesh al-Mahdi, but Jesh al-Mahdi didn't behave well, they were not as clever as Hezbollah. But now still they have such a possibility -- that's exactly what they are aiming at. Iran is aiming at making the Sadrists a sort of Hezbollah in Iraq." As Kenyon's report notes, the political stalemate continues. March 7th, Iraq concluded Parliamentary elections. The Guardian's editorial board noted last month, "These elections were hailed prematurely by Mr Obama as a success, but everything that has happened since has surely doused that optimism in a cold shower of reality." 163 seats are needed to form the executive government (prime minister and council of ministers). When no single slate wins 163 seats (or possibly higher -- 163 is the number today but the Parliament added seats this election and, in four more years, they may add more which could increase the number of seats needed to form the executive government), power-sharing coalitions must be formed with other slates, parties and/or individual candidates. (Eight Parliament seats were awarded, for example, to minority candidates who represent various religious minorities in Iraq.) Ayad Allawi is the head of Iraqiya which won 91 seats in the Parliament making it the biggest seat holder. Second place went to State Of Law which Nouri al-Maliki, the current prime minister, heads. They won 89 seats. Nouri made a big show of lodging complaints and issuing allegations to distract and delay the certification of the initial results while he formed a power-sharing coalition with third place winner Iraqi National Alliance -- this coalition still does not give them 163 seats. They are claiming they have the right to form the government. In 2005, Iraq took four months and seven days to pick a prime minister. It's seven months and one day and counting. Last Friday, Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc was announcing their support for Nouri al-Maliki as prime minister and some wrongly thought it meant end of stalemate. It didn't even mean end of discussion. As the editorial board of the Japan Times observes, "That move could break the deadlock, but it does not mean that a deal is imminent. Considerable horse-trading is still required to form a government. Ultimately, however, there needs to be power-sharing with Mr. Maliki's chief rival, former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi. Failure to do so could result in another outbreak of sectarian violence." This morning, Sam Dagher (Wall St. Journal) reports, "In Mr. Allawi's first interview since the Maliki-Sadr tie-up, the former prime minister said he had agreed to restart power-sharing talks with Mr. Maliki that were broken off last month -- but only if all top posts, including who serves as prime minister, are on the table for discussion." Alsumaria TV reports that tribal Sheik Sabah Al Shumari is calling for all parties to speed up the process. Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) quotes Nouri al-Maliki stating today that Allawi will not be president, "Take it from me in full confidence -- the Kurds will not forgo the position of president and the president will be Jalal Talabani." Earlier, Namo Abdulla (Rudaw) quoted International Crisis Group's Joost Hiltermann stating, "This may be an issue that is non-negotiable, as long as we're talking about a government made up the State of Law, of Nuri Maliki, and the Kurds and the Sadrists and some other smaller groups." Arraf also notes that Nouri is stating -- oooh!!!! -- that he might -- finally? -- be able to form a coalition next week. At Foreign Policy, Kori Schake offers an analysis which includes: Which is where the Obama administration's inattention to Iraq, accelerated drawdown of U.S. troops, and appointment of Christopher Hill -- an ambassador without expertise on Iraq -- comes in. These factors combined to reduce U.S. influence at this crucial juncture of Iraq's democratization. U.S. military leaders backed up the administration for far too long, claiming the drawdown would have no effect on Iraq's political landscape. The spike in violence and the withering of political compromise in Iraq these seven months are the result of our declining engagement and the Iraqis' declining confidence in us. Into this void has now stepped Moqtada al-Sadr, dilettante son of a revered Shi'ia cleric and leader of sustained insurgent activity against U.S. forces. Since the surge pulled the rug out from under his legitimacy through violence approach, he has been in Iran burnishing his religious credentials, garnering support from the Iranian government, and mobilizing his political forces. Kori Schake is a reserach fellow with the right-wing Hoover Institution. Pay close attention to that critique because it is going to be the Republican critique on Iraq. We noted this in real time back before Hill was confirmed. (For example, see April 5, 2009's "And the war drags on . . .") We noted that the Republicans were lodging their objections on the record and doing so because they couldn't blame the military, that's not what they do. They needed a civilian to blame. And Barack Obama was too stupid to grasp that you don't hand your opponents Chris Hill. Hill was the utlimate stooge, completely unqualified. And the narrative will be that Bush 'won' the Iraq War (false) and Barack screwed it up by appointing Chris Hill (true on the second point). Back then, Republicans in Congress were bragging about how it was setting them up for 2010. Events in Iraq and their own perceived luck in the midterms mean they're now prepping it for the 2012 election. Appointing Chris Hill was a stupid, stupid thing to do. Barack never should have nominated and the Committee shouldn't have passed his nomination onto the full floor. He was completely unqualified, he broke his first promise (on how quickly he'd depart once confirmed) before he even made it to Baghdad, and his 'low energy levels' (people should have read those personnel files) ensured that Iraq -- not a success by any means when he arrived -- would only further unravel. Why is their stalemate? In part because Chris Hill was the US Ambassador to Iraq. Turning to safety. For this paragraph, dropping back to yesterday's snapshot: A con artist offers you what sounds like a really good deal but there's a qualifier to it, usually something along the lines of, "there's a limited window of time" as they attempt to hurry you into making a risky move. Remember that as you read Leila Fadel's report (Washington Post) about US officials such as the Commerce Dept's Francisco Sanchez leading an Iraq tour and telling business execs, "If you want to really play a role here, you have to be here now." As Fadel points out, "Iraq is ranked fifth from the bottom on Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index - tied with Sudan and ahead of only Burma, Afghanistan and Somalia. Iraq's ranking has dropped drastically since 2003." Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) quotes Sanchez insisting, "I'm not trying to sugar-coat this but what I am trying to say is, the Iraqi government is sorting through some of these challenges as the physical security increasingly improves. You can't wait for everything to be perfect." Serena Chaudhry (Reuters) notes, "Companies on the mission included Boeing, Bell Helicopter Textron, ICON Global Architectural Engineering and Wamar International." One wonders Sanchez will promise to attend any and all funerals? Probably not. He'll pitch to get American business into Iraq but he'll be busy if and when the funerals roll around. Like most con artists, he'll have moved on to his next mark. There's our context. There's the US government insisting that US companies need to get started in Iraq because it's good business and safe, and it's safe, and it's safe. (Nod to Bob Hope in My Favorite Brunette.) Today Yasmine Mousa (New York Times' At War) reports on a new Baghdad super market (multi-story supermarket) which is doing big business. There are a few . . . what Sanchez might call 'bugs' to be worked out: Food and loading trucks are nowhere to be seen, yet the aisles are stocked with kitchen utensils, brands of shower gels and clothing. "Because of the security situation we have to work like thieves; right before dusk or soon after dawn we hastily carry our merchandise into the store in batches, in saloon cars," said Fareed Sadoun Salih, an employee. Mr. Rifai added: "We cannot rely on remote suppliers. We purchase from nearby vendors." Business is good, but the staff members maintain a low profile because their biggest fear is "getting kidnapped." Such is life for anyone with money in Iraq. And that's the environment that the US Commerce Dept is attempting to send business into. Meanwhile Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses were discovered in Baghdad (one shot dead, the other "with signs of torture"). Reuters adds 1 police officer was shot dead in Baghdad "by a sniper" and there was an attack on a river in Basra in which seven security guards were left wounded. The boats were by a prison and, inside the prison, a riot reportedly broke out. Friday, September 24th FBI raids took place on at least seven homes of peace activists -- the FBI admits to raiding seven homes -- and the FBI raided the offices of Anti-War Committee. Just as that news was breaking, the National Lawyers Guild issued a new report, Heidi Boghosian's [PDF format warning] "The Policing of Political Speech: Constraints on Mass Dissent in the US." Heidi co-hosts WBAI's Law and Disorder Radio (9:00 a.m. EST Mondays -- also plays on other stations around the country throughout the week) with fellow attorneys Michael Ratner and Michael Smith and Monday the program explores the raids with guest Jim Fennerty. You can stream the broadcast at Law and Disorder Radio online and, for the next 85 or so days only, at the WBAI archives. Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan interviewed activist Jess Sundan for Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox last Sunday. Jess Sundan: On Friday, September 24th, I awoke to the sound of pounding at my door around seven in the morning. By the time I got downstairs, there were six or seven federal agents already in my house. Cindy Sheehan: How many? Jess Sundan: Six or seven. Cindy Sheehan: [Laughing] Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you said 57. Six or seven, that's bad enough. Jess Sundan: [Laughing] No, I don't think they would have fit if it was that many. But my daughter and my partner were already awake and they showed us the search warrant which allowed them to take - to search and seize my house -- seize things in my house -- including -- I don't know how many boxes they carried out filled with papers and books, CDs, checkbooks, computers, cell phones, my passport, photographs. They spent about four hours here going through everything in our house. And when they left, they not only left a bit of a mess but they left a subpoena for myself and my partner for a grand jury in Chicago. Cindy Sheehan: And what makes you so dangerous or subversive to national security that they would do that to you? Jess Sundan: Well I'm an anti-war activist and myself and all the other people who received subpoenas or had their homes raided that day are people that I've worked with for several years on different anti-war campaigns. We also have in common, all of us have a real perspective of international solidarity. Many of us have traveled to other countries and in our anti-war work tried to give voice to those most affected by US policies abroad. So in their search warrant they were specifically looking for evidence that we had given material support to foreign terrorist organizations -- including naming someone from Palestine and someone from Columbia. Most of our subpoenas and search warrants were roughly the same. And they named the Antiwar Committee and we also had our offices searched -- Cindy Sheehan: Of Minneapolis, right? Jess Sundan: Yeah, that's right. So I think, their real concern is that we've been very effective . And secondly, that we've -- in the anti-war movement -- done good work to break the information blockade, making sure that real stories and pictures come back home to the United States from places where the US is militarily involved. And we'll note this from the show when Cindy's asked about the legal issues in terms of the grand jury and appearing before it. Jess Sundan: Well the main things is the grand jury which all of us are very concerned about. A grand jury meets in secret. If you appear before a grand jury, you can't have an attorney with you. There's no one to object if you're mistreated. And if you don't testify, there's a risk of jail time and so we're very concerned. It's a very undemocratic court., you know. Except it's not really a court. None of us have been charged with any crime. A purpose of the grand jury is to investigate possible crimes and see if they can generate enough evidence to make a case against someone. We haven't been told who is the target of the grand jury -- like who they think may have committed a crime or what crimes may have been committed but obviously there whole search warrant was around this material support to foreign terrorist organizations. Any of us that were served on any of these subpoenas, and also some people were named on a search warrant at the Antiwar Committee office in addition to those of us that got subpoenas -- any of us realize that at any time there could be indictments brought against us. We don't know, we don't really know what our legal standing is. So we're working with our attorneys. I know that I myself intend to plead the Fifth [Amendment] which means that I will not testify. Stephanie Weiner and Joe Ioskaber's home was among the ones raided. Wednesday, Andy Grim (Chicago Tribune) reported that they say "they will refuse to answer questions before a grand jury". Democracy Now! featured the news in headlines and showed Stephanie Weiner stating: We believe we have been targeted because of what we believe, what we say, who we know. The grand jury process is an intent to violate the inalienable rights under the Constitution and international law to freedom of political speech, association and the right to advocate for change. Those with grand jury dates for October 5th and those whose subpoenas are pending have declared that we intend to exercise our right not to participate in this fishing expedition. The statement was from a press conference Tuesday. Fight Back! News reports Pastor Dan Dale spoke at the conference noting an interfaith statement people were signing on to: "We are people of faigh and conscience who condemn the recent FBI raids in Chicago as a violation of the constitional rights of the people organizations raided. They are a dangerous step to further criminalize dissent. The FBI raids chisel away and byprass fundamental constitutional rights by hauling activists before grand juries under the guise of national security." Grand juries were discussed on Law and Disorder Radio this week: Michael Ratner: Yeah. Jim Fennerty, what people in Chicago are you personally representing and what's their political story? Why do you think they're targets? Jim Fennerty: Well this is the thing. I was just at the US Attorneys office. I had another case in federal court this morning and the US attorney afterwards -- turns out it's the same attorney on these cases -- and he wanted to talk to me. Basically, so far he has not told me anybody who is actually a target, so we're concerned what that means. Now I've been lied to before when I went down to Florida in the Sami al-Arian case with somebody else who was involved with that. And they said, they couldn't tell me, they couldn't tell me. I get down there, we take the Fifth Amendment and they say, "We're not offering your guy immunity, go home." And then I, you know, a month or two later, he gets an indictment. Under their manual, tecnically, they're not supposed to send out a subpeona in a grand jury for a target unless they get higher authority to do that. Michael Ratner: Heidi and I were talking about that. Heidi Boghosian: So let's just explain for our listeners about grand juries a bit. When you talk about a target, you mean an individual who is under suspicion for violating the law. Jim Fennerty: That is correct. Heidi Boghosian: But what's happening now is that individuals are being given subpeonas in what we call a fishing expedition to try to get information about other people? Jim Fennerty: That's what it sounds like now but I -- like I said, that's what they told me but it's happened before where somebody told me something and it didn't actually work out true but that's what I've been told today. Basically, a grand jury in its inception historically, you know, hundreds of years ago, was supposed to be citiznes coming together and determining if charges should be filed criminally against somebody. But what it's become, it's become almost, to me, almost like a rubber stamp for the government because basically what happens is the government, US attorneys, can be inside the grand jury. There's usually around 23 people who are called, citizens, to be at the grand jury and what happens is that the US attorney can be inside, they can ask you questions, you can refuse to answer those questions, but your side never gets told to these 23 people. In other words, your lawyer can't come in there and argue for you and give your side of it. That's why it's, like I said, it's pretty much a rubber stamp for what the prosecutors want and people should be very, very concerned about going there because what you say could be twisted around and you've just got to be very vigilant about what you do. You know, most cases, people can say they don't want to testify at the grand jury, they're going to exercise their Fifth Amendment rights against incrimination. What they could do at a grand jury, they could offer you immunity which is use immunity, it's not total immunity, but what that means is they offer you immunity and then you refuse to testify, you can be taken to a judge, they'll read the question to the judge and then they'll ask you the answer to that question. If you continue to refuse to answer that question, then a judge can hold you in civil contempt and you could be incarcerated for the remaining time of the grand jury. Heidi Boghosian: And that can be a long time. Jim Fennerty: Well that can be depending how long the grand jury is sits. But your lawyer can go back periodically and say, "Look it, Judge, this person's been there for three months or whatever and they're not going to testify. They're still not going to testify. So it makes no sense to keep continuing to lock them up." And hopefully you'll get a sympathetic judge for that. Heidi Boghosian: Because it is -- it is lawful to hold someone in civil contempt, to incarcerate them as a method of coercion -- Jim Fennerty: Correct. Heidi Boghosian: -- but not as punishment -- Jim Fennerty: Correct. Heidi Boghosian: -- and that's why we try to argue that it's not doing any good. And we'll again note this section from the broadcast because activists are being targeted. Michael S. Smith: Heidi, when the FBI knocks, what do you do? Heidi Boghosian: It is crucial that if anyone listening to this show is contacted by the FBI or if your friends or family members are, that you do not talk to them. You just say, "I would like to consult with my lawyer. May I have your business card? My lawyer will get back to you." Never say anything because anything you say, no matter how seemingly mundane -- answering a question: Do you live here?, Is your name such and such? -- can be used against you in further grand jury proceedings. Michael S. Smith: Well they can go after you saying that you lied to them. Don't talk to them. Call your lawyer. Call our hotline. Get out a pencil. Heidi, give them the hotline. Heidi Boghosian: If you're visited by the FBI, you can call the NLG's Hotline. It's 888-NLG-ECOL. Or 888-654-3265. Michael S. Smith: Heidi, please repeat the hotline. Heidi Boghosian: The hotline is 888-NLG-ECOL. And how you can remember that is that originally we started this as a hotline for environmental and animal rights activists so it was for ecology. It was Eco Law but we shortened it. And on Heidi Boghosian's [PDF format warning] "The Policing of Political Speech: Constraints on Mass Dissent in the US," two people e-mailed about getting it in book form. It is available online for free. Some people don't want to read a screen. Some people have problems with PDF files. Some people use public computers -- such as at a library -- where they have limited time to be on them. For those reasons and more (including maybe you want a book to give as a gift), please note that the report is available in booklet form. For all NLG publications, click here. Click on the title you want and they will give you info -- usually it's an e-mail address. It's below five dollars a copy but I don't know the exact price, sorry -- and the cost is strictly for postage and handling. TV notes. On PBS' Washington Week, Peter Baker (New York Times), Joan Biskupic (USA Today), Michael Duffy (Time) and David Wessel (Wall St. Journal) join Gwen around the table. Gwen now has a weekly column at Washington Week and the current one is "The Risks and Rewards of Party Purity." This week, Bonnie Erbe will sit down with Karen Czarnecki, Avis Jones-DeWeever, Nicole Kurokawa and Irene Natividad on the latest broadcast of PBS' To The Contrary to discuss the week's events. And this week's To The Contrary online is extra is on cyber bullying. Need To Know is PBS' new program covering current events. This week's hour long broadcast airs Fridays on most PBS stations: "A report on the jobs situation profiles an unemployed baby-boomer couple and two Millenials; and details a federally funded, temporary jobs program. Included: ex-labor secretary Robert Reich and Sara Horowitz (Freelancers Union) provide perspective." Turning to broadcast TV, Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes offers: The Speed Traders Steve Kroft gets a rare look inside the secretive world "high-frequency trading," a controversial technique the SEC is scrutinizing in which computers can make thousands of stock trades in less than a second. Mandela A collection of his memoirs, mostly from the 27 years he spent in prison, reveal the innermost thoughts of the international civil rights giant Nelson Mandela, whose movement brought down the apartheid regime of South Africa. Bob Simon reports. Eminem CNN's Anderson Cooper profiles the chart-topping rapper from Detroit who overcame addiction to reclaim the winning style that made him the biggest selling artist of the past decade. 60 Minutes, Sunday, Oct. 10, at 7 p.m. ET/PT. And we'll close with a taste of chapter two of David DeGraw's new book The Road Through 2012: Revolution or World War III: To get a more complete understanding of our current crisis, we need to look at the history of events that led up to it. We need to peer deeply into the inner workings of the Global Banking Intelligence Complex. Without acknowledging and exposing the covert forces that are aligned against us, we will not be able to effectively overcome them. In the past I have shied away from going too deeply into the details of the intelligence world out of fear of being written off and dismissed as a conspiracy theorist. If I hadn't spent the majority of the past 20 years investigating global financial intelligence operations, I certainly wouldn't believe half of this myself. Given the severity of our current crisis and the imminent devastating implications, I now realize that I must go deeper into covert activities than I publicly ever have. The information I am about to report is very well-sourced and documented, and needs to be covered before we can proceed to exposing present operations. iraq wral the fayetteville observer john ramsey news 14 carolina wtvd npr morning edition peter kenyon the wall street journal sam dagher the japan times alsumaria tv press tv wayne madsen the new york times yasmine mousa cindy sheehan wbai law and disorder michael ratner heidi boghosian michael smith david degraw 60 minutes cbs news to the contrary bonnie erbe washington week