Hey --
Another Sunday. When will we learn it's never going to be a brief evening?
Not this weekend.
This edition we highlight the following:
Cinco localidades de Vermont apoyaron juicio politico a Bush (Democracy Now!)
Public Radio Spotlight: Ruth's latest report
Spotlight on the warrentless spying
Blog Spotlight: "When the FBI Spied on Laugh-In" (Rebecca)
Humor Spotlight: Wally on the Oscar snub that led to Cheney's Oscar Night Rampage
Humor Spotlight: The Chicken (Thomas Friedman) Lays An Egg
Blog Spotlight: Mike on the importance of supporting left voices
Blog Spotlight: Mike on the importance of crediting
Blog Spotlight: Kat gives a magazine report
Blog Spotlight: Cedric on cultural heroes
Food spotlight: Seven Layer Dip in the Kitchen
New content? Is that what you're asking?
How about "Editorial: Hey Bully Boy, what's that smell?"? We think our regular readers will enjoy this and we hope that it will spur them to get and be active in speaking out against the invasion/occupation and against the Bully Boy.
Not all Bully Boys are in the oval office, of course. That's our lead up to Ava and C.I.'s latest
"TV Review: Dick Wolf's Conviction." If there's one thing our readers enjoy it's the TV reviews. And if there are favorite topics, among them would be the franchise merchants Jerry Bruckheimer and Dick Wolf. This week it's Dick Wolf's turn again. (Last month, Jerry Bruckheimer got another turn.) Ava and C.I. had planned another review until they learned late in the week (Thursday -- "We really don't watch TV except for the reviews," says Ava) that Conviction would debut Friday. Did they have it in them for another prolonged exposure to the radioactive waste of Wolf? Yes, they did. And they note that this review practically wrote itself. We'll note that the delays weren't because of them. They finished their review before midnight. (They did spend ten minutes reading over it right before it posted after they decided that a Demi Moore line needed to be added somewhere in it.)
"Book review: The Center for Constitutional Rights' Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush" may surprise a few people. It surprised us. We intended this to be a book discussion. That effort failed as everyone talked over one another (we're very excited about this book). Though Ava and C.I. maintained that they were getting most of the comments down (they took notes), Dona rightly pointed out that despite this, most people participating had no idea what anyone else was saying because everyone kept talking over each other. So we attempted to start over and the same thing happened. At which point Elaine suggested that instead of a book discussion, we just do a review. (This piece consumed more time than any other. Even if you don't count the two aborted attempts at a book discussion.)
"A woman was sexually abused by a priest when she was underage -- must have been one of those 'gay' priests, right?" is an effort to discuss a recent "trend" story/narrative that left out key points and degraded the nation as a result.
"Dear Eileen, we're concerned about your husband" is an attempt at another quick item like last week which a number of you e-mailed to say you enjoyed.
We had big hopes for "Garbo Speaks? Nah, it's just the Bully Boy." We interrupted it three times to pick highlights. At one point in the writing of it, Jess made the comment, "You know we're covering ground that C.I. already covered?" We weren't aware of that. Nor was C.I. until Jess said "Ga Ga Goo Goo, Bully Boy Speaks." Due to the fact that the hour was very late, we quickly swiped from that post to tack on an ending and move on.
"Laura Flanders takes the America is Purple tour to Montana" is part of our continued attempt to spotlight RadioNation with Laura Flanders.
All new content for this edition was written by the following:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim;
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man;
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review;
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills);
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix;
Mike of Mikey Likes It!;
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz;
and Wally of The Daily Jot
The TV commentaries are written by Ava and C.I. only.
We thank everyone for their hard work. And we thank Dallas for his hard work in hunting down the links from the easiest (C.I.'s which C.I. can identify by author, date and title, time after time) to the hardest (which includes an unnamed person's needed link this edition: "It's about impeachment . . . It's got signatures . . ."). We keep telling Dallas thank you and we mean it. Next time we're in the template, we'll add him to the list of The Third Estaters because week after week he's contributed in that role. (He's also contributed to the news reviews by offering commentary. He says only C.I. could have forced him into that participation.)
And that's it for this week. These entries are typed by Jim, to note a question in the e-mails. (I reversed "to" as "ot" in the title of the note last week causing some readers to wonder if dyslexic C.I. had done the typing.) To note a beef from the e-mails, what does it take for "no" to resonate? We've got three people I've again replied to with "Ava and C.I. are not interested in speaking to you for an interview" and despite that response going out early last week, all three have e-mailed two more times. (And people wonder why I don't see the point in replying to most e-mails?) It'll be noted one more time: they aren't interested in doing interviews. This has been covered repeatedly at this site. To our readers (we don't assume those people are our readers -- our readers have heard this topic repeatedly), we hope we've given you something that made you laugh, made you think, or made you angry. See you next week.
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.
The Third Estate Sunday Review focuses on politics and culture. We're an online magazine. We don't play nice and we don't kiss butt. In the words of Tuesday Weld: "I do not ever want to be a huge star. Do you think I want a success? I refused "Bonnie and Clyde" because I was nursing at the time but also because deep down I knew that it was going to be a huge success. The same was true of "Bob and Carol and Fred and Sue" or whatever it was called. It reeked of success."
Sunday, March 12, 2006
Editorial: Hey Bully Boy, what's that smell?
What's that smell?
There's an odor about the Bully Boy these days, a really foul odor.
From Democracy Now!:
Bush Approval Rating on Iraq, Presidency At All-Time Low
In other news, a new CBS News poll has found the number of Americans who approve of President Bush's overall job performance and his handling of the Iraq war has fallen to an all-time low. 34 percent of Americans give the President a favorable job approval rating, while even less -- 30 percent -- approve of the President's handling of the Iraq war. Meanwhile, less than a third of Americans believe President Bush has adequately responded to the needs of victims of Hurricane Katrina.
Ah yes, the smell of failure. The curtain's been pulled back on the once great and mighty Oz.
But it's more than that. The odor's much more than that.
From Ken Werner's "Resolution to Impeach Bush-Cheney Passes 7-3" (BeyondChron.org):
On Tuesday, February 28, 2006, the City and County of San Francisco became the first large municipality to call for the impeachment of George Bush and Dick Cheney, by a 7-3 vote. Supervisors Sean Elsbernd, Michela Alioto-Pier, and Sophie Maxwell cast the dissenting votes (Sup. Jake McGoldrick was absent for the vote). Sup. Chris Daly commenced his introduction of Agenda Item 27 with "I initially thought this ... would be a noncontroversial piece of legislation. Perhaps it still is, maybe not-a-unanimous-vote piece of legislation. But if you remember when we took our oath of office we swore to uphold the Constitution."
Sup. Daly again called attention to the strongest argument for impeachment, Bush lying to the American people about the reason for preemptively attacking Iraq based on forged documents regarding Saddam Hussein's "alleged" intent to purchase yellowcake from Niger: "Bush knowingly included false and misleading evidence in his January 2003 State of the Union Address stating Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Niger to build nuclear weapons." Sup. Daly also pointed to the Bush administration's failure to respond to the imminent disaster posed by Hurricane Katrina and asked the other supervisors to imagine if something like that happened in San Francisco where "primarily African-American people, some of whom were sick, elderly, disabled [were] left there basically for five days to die."
As he stated last week, Sup. Daly also returned to the argument regarding the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo: "If you look at the scandals of the sanctioned torture at the Abu Ghraib prison facility and at Guantanamo Bay, [it is a] clear violation of the Geneva Convention in terms of treatment of prisoners."
"Oh," you say, "that's just San Francisco." (Tracy Schmitt, who knew you were one of our readers.) But it's not just San Francisco. (California's Arcata and Santa Cruz had already passed similar measures.) And it's not just California. Last Tuesday, it took strong root elsewhere. From Democracy Now!:
Five Vermont Towns Back Impeachment of Bush
In Vermont, five towns have approved measures calling for the impeachment of President Bush. The votes come at a time when the talk of impeachment is increasing. On Monday the Wall Street Journal ran a lengthy article pointing out how polls show there is greater support among the public for the impeachment of President Bush than there ever was for President Clinton. In 1998, polls showed 27 percent of the country backed the impeachment of Clinton if he lied about having a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Meanwhile a recent Zogby poll showed 51 percent of the country said Congress should consider impeaching Bush if he didn't tell truth about the reasons for the Iraq war.
If he tries an illegal overreach, you must impeach?
Sounds good to us.
The Center for Constitutional Rights has just released Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush (which we note here this edition). In January, Elizabeth Holtzman penned The Nation cover story "The Impeachment of George W. Bush." February saw the publication of Lewis Lapham's Harper's Magazine cover story "The Case For Impeachment" and last week Matthew Rothschild offer The Progressive's Matthew Rothschild's "Grounds for Impeachment." Rothschild has written and spoken about impeachment of the Bully Boy prior to this article. We're not attempting to portray him as just discovering the issue. We are noting the gathering effect this is having.
It's just the coproate press that doesn't seem to notice (or care?). One of the exceptions, as Democracy Now! noted last week, has been The Wall Street Journal which addressed it in terms of there being more public support for impeaching the Bully Boy then there ever was for impeaching Bill Clinton. Nancy Pelosi (and others) can counsel that we should just focus on the 2006 elections. Dianne Feinstein can offer little quips about what, in San Francisco, supervisors should be focused on. (Do you really want to go there Dianne? Do you really want people, for instance, to examine your own public actions and statements as supervisor following the murder of Harvey Milk? We didn't think so.)
But if you believe that the warrantless spying on Americans was illegal (as most Constitutional scholars believe it was), then you do have to take the issue seriously. You can't just decide, "I'll focus on the 2006 elections." That's not how you respond in a democracy. That's not the way the Constitution reads.
And unless you're John McCain, acting the fool (well . . . maybe not acting), and spouting off lines like "Anybody who says the president of the United States is lying about weapons of mass destruction is lying" you're probably among the numbers that wonder if Bully Boy lied or that don't wonder because you know he did.
On top of the disclosures of "fixed" intel in the Downing Street Memos comes this:
Bush Was Given Intelligence Discrediting Stated Reasons for Invasion
In other news, investigative journalist Murray Waas is reporting President Bush was personally delivered intelligence reports before the Iraq war that cast doubt on his administration's stated reasons for launching an invasion. One report, delivered in January 2003, said Saddam Hussein was highly unlikely to attack the United States unless "ongoing military operations risked the imminent demise of his regime." Another intelligence report dated October 2002 said both the Energy Department and the State Department's intelligence bureau had concluded Saddam Hussein's attempts to purchase aluminum tubes were "intended for conventional weapons." Waas writes that the disclosure is "the first evidence that the president himself knew of the sharp debate within the government over the aluminum tubes during the time that he, [Vice President Dick] Cheney, and other members of the Cabinet were citing the tubes as clear evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program. Neither the president nor the vice president told the public about the disagreement among the agencies."
Is lying a nation into war something you can stay silent on? If you stay silent, you're tolerating it and okaying it. Or, as Matthew Rothschild stated last Tuesday on KPFA's The Morning Show:
I think it's important for us to keep pressing the case for impeachment . . . because if we don't, what essentially that we're saying is that it's okay for Bush to be doing what he's been doing, for him to be violating these laws. And it sets the precedent for the next person to come in and say, "I can decide what laws I want to obey and which ones I don't. The last guy did it."
Which may be why John Conyers bill calling for an exploration into the issue of impeachment has now been signed by thirty House members:
The current 30 total co-sponsors are Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA), Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA), Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA), Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA), Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), Rep. John Olver (D-MA), Rep. Major Owens (D-NY), Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Martin Sabo (D-MN), Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Fortney Pete Stark (D-CA), Rep. John Tierney (D-MA), Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), and Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).
There's a very foul odor wafting off the Bully Boy. We hope it's the smell of impeachment.
[This editorial was written by:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim;
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man;
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review;
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills);
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix;
Mike of Mikey Likes It!;
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz;
and Wally of The Daily Jot.]
There's an odor about the Bully Boy these days, a really foul odor.
From Democracy Now!:
Bush Approval Rating on Iraq, Presidency At All-Time Low
In other news, a new CBS News poll has found the number of Americans who approve of President Bush's overall job performance and his handling of the Iraq war has fallen to an all-time low. 34 percent of Americans give the President a favorable job approval rating, while even less -- 30 percent -- approve of the President's handling of the Iraq war. Meanwhile, less than a third of Americans believe President Bush has adequately responded to the needs of victims of Hurricane Katrina.
Ah yes, the smell of failure. The curtain's been pulled back on the once great and mighty Oz.
But it's more than that. The odor's much more than that.
From Ken Werner's "Resolution to Impeach Bush-Cheney Passes 7-3" (BeyondChron.org):
On Tuesday, February 28, 2006, the City and County of San Francisco became the first large municipality to call for the impeachment of George Bush and Dick Cheney, by a 7-3 vote. Supervisors Sean Elsbernd, Michela Alioto-Pier, and Sophie Maxwell cast the dissenting votes (Sup. Jake McGoldrick was absent for the vote). Sup. Chris Daly commenced his introduction of Agenda Item 27 with "I initially thought this ... would be a noncontroversial piece of legislation. Perhaps it still is, maybe not-a-unanimous-vote piece of legislation. But if you remember when we took our oath of office we swore to uphold the Constitution."
Sup. Daly again called attention to the strongest argument for impeachment, Bush lying to the American people about the reason for preemptively attacking Iraq based on forged documents regarding Saddam Hussein's "alleged" intent to purchase yellowcake from Niger: "Bush knowingly included false and misleading evidence in his January 2003 State of the Union Address stating Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Niger to build nuclear weapons." Sup. Daly also pointed to the Bush administration's failure to respond to the imminent disaster posed by Hurricane Katrina and asked the other supervisors to imagine if something like that happened in San Francisco where "primarily African-American people, some of whom were sick, elderly, disabled [were] left there basically for five days to die."
As he stated last week, Sup. Daly also returned to the argument regarding the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo: "If you look at the scandals of the sanctioned torture at the Abu Ghraib prison facility and at Guantanamo Bay, [it is a] clear violation of the Geneva Convention in terms of treatment of prisoners."
"Oh," you say, "that's just San Francisco." (Tracy Schmitt, who knew you were one of our readers.) But it's not just San Francisco. (California's Arcata and Santa Cruz had already passed similar measures.) And it's not just California. Last Tuesday, it took strong root elsewhere. From Democracy Now!:
Five Vermont Towns Back Impeachment of Bush
In Vermont, five towns have approved measures calling for the impeachment of President Bush. The votes come at a time when the talk of impeachment is increasing. On Monday the Wall Street Journal ran a lengthy article pointing out how polls show there is greater support among the public for the impeachment of President Bush than there ever was for President Clinton. In 1998, polls showed 27 percent of the country backed the impeachment of Clinton if he lied about having a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Meanwhile a recent Zogby poll showed 51 percent of the country said Congress should consider impeaching Bush if he didn't tell truth about the reasons for the Iraq war.
If he tries an illegal overreach, you must impeach?
Sounds good to us.
The Center for Constitutional Rights has just released Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush (which we note here this edition). In January, Elizabeth Holtzman penned The Nation cover story "The Impeachment of George W. Bush." February saw the publication of Lewis Lapham's Harper's Magazine cover story "The Case For Impeachment" and last week Matthew Rothschild offer The Progressive's Matthew Rothschild's "Grounds for Impeachment." Rothschild has written and spoken about impeachment of the Bully Boy prior to this article. We're not attempting to portray him as just discovering the issue. We are noting the gathering effect this is having.
It's just the coproate press that doesn't seem to notice (or care?). One of the exceptions, as Democracy Now! noted last week, has been The Wall Street Journal which addressed it in terms of there being more public support for impeaching the Bully Boy then there ever was for impeaching Bill Clinton. Nancy Pelosi (and others) can counsel that we should just focus on the 2006 elections. Dianne Feinstein can offer little quips about what, in San Francisco, supervisors should be focused on. (Do you really want to go there Dianne? Do you really want people, for instance, to examine your own public actions and statements as supervisor following the murder of Harvey Milk? We didn't think so.)
But if you believe that the warrantless spying on Americans was illegal (as most Constitutional scholars believe it was), then you do have to take the issue seriously. You can't just decide, "I'll focus on the 2006 elections." That's not how you respond in a democracy. That's not the way the Constitution reads.
And unless you're John McCain, acting the fool (well . . . maybe not acting), and spouting off lines like "Anybody who says the president of the United States is lying about weapons of mass destruction is lying" you're probably among the numbers that wonder if Bully Boy lied or that don't wonder because you know he did.
On top of the disclosures of "fixed" intel in the Downing Street Memos comes this:
Bush Was Given Intelligence Discrediting Stated Reasons for Invasion
In other news, investigative journalist Murray Waas is reporting President Bush was personally delivered intelligence reports before the Iraq war that cast doubt on his administration's stated reasons for launching an invasion. One report, delivered in January 2003, said Saddam Hussein was highly unlikely to attack the United States unless "ongoing military operations risked the imminent demise of his regime." Another intelligence report dated October 2002 said both the Energy Department and the State Department's intelligence bureau had concluded Saddam Hussein's attempts to purchase aluminum tubes were "intended for conventional weapons." Waas writes that the disclosure is "the first evidence that the president himself knew of the sharp debate within the government over the aluminum tubes during the time that he, [Vice President Dick] Cheney, and other members of the Cabinet were citing the tubes as clear evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program. Neither the president nor the vice president told the public about the disagreement among the agencies."
Is lying a nation into war something you can stay silent on? If you stay silent, you're tolerating it and okaying it. Or, as Matthew Rothschild stated last Tuesday on KPFA's The Morning Show:
I think it's important for us to keep pressing the case for impeachment . . . because if we don't, what essentially that we're saying is that it's okay for Bush to be doing what he's been doing, for him to be violating these laws. And it sets the precedent for the next person to come in and say, "I can decide what laws I want to obey and which ones I don't. The last guy did it."
Which may be why John Conyers bill calling for an exploration into the issue of impeachment has now been signed by thirty House members:
The current 30 total co-sponsors are Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA), Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA), Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA), Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA), Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), Rep. John Olver (D-MA), Rep. Major Owens (D-NY), Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Martin Sabo (D-MN), Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Fortney Pete Stark (D-CA), Rep. John Tierney (D-MA), Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), and Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).
There's a very foul odor wafting off the Bully Boy. We hope it's the smell of impeachment.
[This editorial was written by:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim;
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man;
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review;
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills);
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix;
Mike of Mikey Likes It!;
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz;
and Wally of The Daily Jot.]
TV Review: Dick Wolf's Conviction
Conviction. Is that what we watched on NBC? It's the latest nonsense from Dick Wolf and it's gone through a number of titles before premiering Friday night. We liked the Young Prosecutors best of all the aliases, er, titles. Young Prosecutors gave it a sort of The Bold Ones/The New Doctors/The Lawyers/The Protectors type feel and told you immediately that this tired show would be dead on arrival.
Which it was. Who killed it? A title card says the episode was written by Rick Eid but we'd argue many a Dick Wolf series plays as if it had been still born in the mind of the creator who refuses to give either himself or the public a day of rest. This one is so bad, it may make you long Law & Order: Trial by Jury. (Then again, that nostalgia may result from the fact that this show uses the same sets as that cancelled show.)
Over the opening credits, you hear "Destiny" by Syntax. This song from 2004, which has become popular in trailers, sounds like a really bad version of "How Soon Is Now" (aka the Smiths song -- also know, as recorded by Love Split Love, as the theme to Charmed):
This is my intention hear me now
Don't need correction please me how
Breaking out the institution crazy law
Ain't no complication live for more
What that has to do with the show, only Dick Wolf knows. It mainly seems to exist to keep you from noticing the seven billed performers too closely -- as though the criminals were attempting to blend in to their surroundings and avoid being easily picked out of a line up.
If you didn't catch their real names, you're out of luck figuring out what to call them during the broadcast because the first time you'll hear one of the characters' names said (Peluso) will be ten minutes in and it's a long wait until the second name gets mentioned.
Why is that a problem? Well, it's not for Stephanie March or J. August Richards -- she's the only blond in the cast of seven and he's the only person of color. You can pick them out rather easily. That still leaves five. Three men and two women. Prepare to be confused.
Before you get to the opening credits, you've already been drug through various "moments":
1) A woman's been raped, and two lawyers discuss her. Dark haired man tells dark haired woman, "She's a hooker. Getting attacked is an occupational hazard."
2) Dark haired man in a hat, looking like a young Michael York from some angles, is treated to tale of a kid who killed his brother with a baseball bat. We also see him, without the hat, putting a shirt on over his undershit in a scene that seems to exist for no reason other than to fill time. (No skin is shown in that set up. But wait on that for later.)
3) Dark haired man is told that there's been "an assault with a hate crime twist." As opposed to a lime twist? "High school kid kicked the hell out of some gay boy." Broken cheek bone. 15 stitches.
4) Dark haired man is told that they need a "tranny" for a line up and if he put on a wig and a dress, he'd do. Man does put on a dress. Comes out of the office after changing only to have the entire office laugh at him. Including a dark haired woman who yells "Woo-woo-wooh!" It was all a prank.
And this is all before the opening credits, in different locales, with characters we've never met and aren't introduced to. If Dick Wolf thought he had an ER opening on his hands, he was mistaken. Corpses don't end up in the emergency room, they go to the morgue.
Now the four "moments" (there were more than four scenes, we've simplified), two of them contain one of the same dark haired men but viewers will be forgiven if they can't keep track yet.
Eventually, you grasp that one of the dark haired men is a thin, young (the whole cast is young), slim version of Jimmy from The Practice: There for some easy laughs. This would be the character Nick Potter. He's played by Jordan Bridges. In time (not this episode) you'll learn his back story (rich kid wanting to make it 'real'). What you learn in the first episode, besides the fact that he doesn't look good in a dress and desperately needs to get out in the sun, is that he reminds you of a young Dick York (not Michael York, we warned you this was confusing) and he's the most inept lawyer in the world.
Not only is he inept (not just inexperienced, inept), but the others enjoy setting him up to fail. Because after all, this is only about innocence or guilt so why not make the prosecution look like a total idiot in front of the judge?
The first time, dark haired woman tells him, before he makes his first appearance in arraignment court, that all he has to do is "Just look for the handwritten note in the file. That's all you do, just read the notes." So he does that, in the court room. He asks for a "280 reverse Z." The judge asks, "What in God's name are you talking about?" He doesn't know.
She remarks, "I assume you know the people in the gallery are laughing their asses off at you."
That would be his co-workers. People pledged to uphold the law but not afraid to toss out oaths to pleasure their inner Jackass.
Now we've got cross cuts and characters all over the place, there's no attempt at focus. The show's confusing enough so we're simplifying in this review. Though the show takes off in countless directions, we'll stay with Bridges. His character's next failure is when he's asked what he's suggesting for bail? Fortunately, someone holds up fingers for him to count. These kind of "funnies" lead up to him later thinking another judge is 'putting him on' and part of a prank. She doesn't take kindly to his assumption. Why should she? And why should a districts attorney's office be filled with a bunch of cut-ups who think pranks in court constitute serving the public?
Bridges is dismissed. We'll call our next witness. Remember "Peluso" -- the first character given a name (at ten minutes in)? His character, like his acting, is all over the place. Not necessarily a bad thing because that and the fact that you slowly start to grasp that he looks as if someone elongnated Dermot Mulroney's face allow him to actually stand out -- somewhere after the fifteen minute mark.
Here's Peluso's story. He's got a bookie wanting a break for a relative that got "pinched." Peluso has to try to help because he owes the bookie $7,000 dollars. His addicition of choice is gambling. Why he didn't just face the camera and say, "I'm Brian Peluso and I'm a gambling addict" we don't know. There's no drama or tension or anything resembling a story arc in the scenes the character's in.
Peluso might be considered a "bad" guy on other shows but here we think he pretty much sums up, not only the show, but also Dick Wolf's outlook. How so? After failing to fix things for the bookie, he pays him off and then beats him up in the men's room. He flashes his i.d. and says, "You see this? It says DA. That's what I am, bitch. I can bury you, your brother, your mother. Whenever I want, whenever I get bored. Don't you ever, ever forget that." Though we're sure it's just a nasty rumor that Dick Wolf treats mater'ds in the same manner, we have it on good authority that this sort of bellowing is how he responds to TV critics.
So what else do we find out about Peluso. He's not real smart. He's handling the hate crime case. And let's face it, Dick Wolf shows always play out like they were thought up by some prep school boy who had a Confederate flag pinned up in his dorm room. Translation, the gay victim is not the victim. Of course not.
Wolf is like a one man army churning out the sort of establishment-male-as-victim roles that Michael Douglas made into a movie franchise once he decided to be the male Joan Crawford.
Just as Douglas was the poor put upon soul in Disclosure, Fatal Attraction, et al, the attacker on this episode of Conviction is really the victim. He's going to be a big basketball player. He's worried about his career. So he can't be gay, he just can't. (We're reminded of a line Demi Moore delivers in Disclosure: "You stick your dick in my mouth then get an attack of morality?") And the guy he beat up, the one he called "f**got" and "bitch"? They were involved. And that out and proud gay guy? Oh, you know Dick Wolf was screaming "I am a creative genius!" at this -- he's just a little hustler shaking down the poor-future-sports-star.
Threatening to tell all, so, see, it wasn't a hate crime.
So sorry to disagree with the World o' Wolf, but we say, "Objection."
The closeted guy can't commit a hate crime because he's gay -- even though he can't admit that he's gay? Is that the story? He's in the closet. He's willng to be convicted of a hate crime (and is convicted) because he doesn't want to be known as gay. (Or as he puts it, several times, he ain't no f**got.) In one of the more Dick-Wolf-must-think-it's-manly scenes, he asks Peluso, "You gonna' lay down like a girl? Like I said, man, I ain't no f**got."
"Bitch." "Lay down like a girl." "F**got." And so much more. We think he's got some hate issues. The fact that it includes self-hate doesn't change the fact that it was a hate crime. Just like it doesn't change the fact that the "gay boy" had his cheek bone broken and fifteen stitches.
Peluso probably can't see that because someone's thought, "This is going to be so layered!" Future sports star is being black mailed, Peluso's being black mailed! They both beat up their black mailers!" The only "layer"comes from this show being billed as a drama.
Before we call our next witness, er, move on to the next character, let's also note that Peluso is there when a dark haired woman asks him and two other men, in a bar, whether she should get a boob job? Because of course, women always turn to a group of their male co-workers to ask that question, right? We're done with Peluso, but we'll note he's played by Eric Banfour.
Let's do the dark haired woman engaged in the philosophical issue of to-boob-job-or-not-to-boob-job? What does she do? Other than scream "Woo-woo-wooh!" when the Dick York like guy stands in front of the office wearing a dress? She, played by Julianne Nicholson, gets set up on a blind date. She's actually interested. He, unseen, isn't. The stimga of small breasts appears to be her subplot.
We're not really sure that the other dark haired woman has larger breasts. We just know that she has them. We're clued in on that when, in the credits, we see her in her bra. Everyone else is fully clothed in the credits. The scene where the dark haired man pulls a shirt over his undershirt doesn't show anything, nor does the scene where young Dick York changes into a dress. But Dick Wolf no doubt feared losing the audience so he wanted to be sure she was shown in her bra early on. Outside of the credits, she shows up in her bra at the end of the episode. Milena Govich plays the part and, we're sure, if you asked her about her character's motivation, she'd reply: "Cleavage."
Govich is representing the sex worker who was raped. She feels that everyone deserves a defense and that no woman, regardless of occupation, is asking to be raped. Just when you're about to say "Good for her" -- stop yourself. This is World o' Wolf.
When she finally does speak to the woman, Govich will find out that she's being hustled for taxi fare. Later on, she'll visit the woman and find her strung out. She needs 'breakfast.' A fifty-dollar breakfast, if she's going to appear in court in two hours. Govich gives her fifty bucks. Govich wins her case. Off screen. The closest we get to the court room is Govich and the woman about to walk in when Govich suggests that the woman might want to roll down her sleeves (to hide the track marks). The three dark haired men? We see all of them in court.
At least the audience will know Govich is a lawyer. Nicholson? They may think she's the receptionist. (The small breasted receptionist.)
We're not done with Govich so we'd like to permission to recall her and would prefer to move on to the young Michael York (only at certain angles). Anson Mount plays the role (and no, we're not making up the actor's name). From someone who acted opposite Britney Spears (Crossroads), we're not surprised by his performance here. Or impressed. He's a little higher up in the office food chain than the other Young Prosecutors. You grasp that because he's the only one who gets scenes with Stephanie March -- whose character has the same name as one March played in Law & Order: Special Victims Unit although here she's clearing playing Bosley from Charlie's Angels. Not only does he have scenes with March, he gets to bark at her so you know he's top dog of the office or close to it.
Mount successfully wins a jury conviction of the young boy who killed his apparently abusive brother with a baseball bat. He's supposed to look torn as the father confronts him after the verdict, the father having now "lost" two sons, but the most Mount appears able to manage is a look that says "Oops I Did It Again ..."
It, but not "that." Mount's frustrated throughout the episode because the woman he's sleeping with is too busy to get together with him. The woman? Remember we asked permission to recall Govich. Govich and Mount have a curious sort of relationship. At one point, when Mount suggests dinner, Govich responds, "Why do men always think they have to feed you before they screw you?"
That's the World o' Wolf for you. The dream woman, who shows her breasts, also doesn't want to be treated to a meal. (We're wondering how many women watching were thinking, "What meal? I was lucky to get a drink.") But although Mount then offers a "screw," Govich is too busy. She's busy repeatedly throughout the episode. That's why he wonders at one point if "not returning my calls [is] part of our adult relationship?" She doesn't want to talk about their private life in the office. You may be thinking, "Smart woman." But that's partly due to the fact that she's seeing a non-lawyer. At first, you may think she's making it up when she, for no real reason, launches into a monologue about the man in her life. But later on, after she's won her case, she'll stand outside, looking through a glass window at a man she speaks to on her cell phone. She explains to him that she's not up to seeing him tonight. That man, "Michael," isn't Mount.
Will Mount mount? Is this the World o' Wolf? Of course he will. In the final scene, they'll remove their clothes, in one of the worst filmed scenes of this or any other series, while she whines about winning her case and confesses to giving her witness fifty dollars. (What the fifty dollars was for is left unstated.) Mount will tell her, as he gets on the bed and presses up next to her, "You won the case. You won the case." To which she'll reply, "Thank you" and then they'll kiss.
A few words on that scene. It's flat like everything else about the show. Wolf's cast young and attractive. Or tried to. For the Law & Order franchise (yes, we know he prefers "brand" -- that's why we'll use "franchise"), that's practially revolutionary.
We've got Govich in her bra (again). The camera can't decide where it wants to go. It seems like a prude with quick frames here and there. If you're going to do a sex scene, do a sex scene.
Wolf can't. He can't even make it sexy. (Well, World o' Wolf . . .) What we do get is a glimpse of one of the most bizarre male chests to be featured on TV in sometime. Mount could use a bra.
In fact, he should probably not go shirtless around Nicholson or she'll never stop harping about the boob job. The nipples? He could poke a person's eyes out with them and they weren't erect.
Watching Wolf's idea of "jiggle TV," you wondered why someone didn't show off another feature of Mount? His butt, for instance? You also notice how the boxer clad Mount is framed in such a way that in profile the shot stops before the "unit" begins. Now maybe that's because of the butt. Maybe the rear's more frightening than the chest. But how it plays out is Wolf once again wants to rip something. Usually it's the headlines. For a sex scene, he's trying to rip off the body wash operettas. But as with his storylines, he just can't pull it off.
Believe it or not, we've spared you a great many details. Did we go into Peluso's homophobia? No, we didn't. But it's there, rather obviously, in two scenes with the "gay boy." Since the victim, the real victim, isn't gay, Peluso's more comfortable with him.
So we'll sum up by noting the life lessons that World o' Wolf is so fond of. Small breasted women are obsessed with their breasts (and other women's as well) and will talk about breasts with anyone, male or female. Women who sport their breasts just want sex, no romance. In World o' Wolf, this may be the "occupational hazard" to sporting breasts. Real men beat up other men and make sure to tell them that they are bitches -- as both the future sports star and Peluso did in the first episode. Those out of the closet "gay boys"? Little hustlers. It's a variation on the "You can be gay, just don't tell me about it" theme that World o' Wolf explored in the nineties.
Sex workers get what they deserve. If you try to treat them like people, they, like the out of the closet "gay boys," will only end up hustling you.
Watching Conviction is like serving time. If Friday's episode was any indication, America can take comfort in the fact that it already feels like it's going to be a very short sentence.
Which it was. Who killed it? A title card says the episode was written by Rick Eid but we'd argue many a Dick Wolf series plays as if it had been still born in the mind of the creator who refuses to give either himself or the public a day of rest. This one is so bad, it may make you long Law & Order: Trial by Jury. (Then again, that nostalgia may result from the fact that this show uses the same sets as that cancelled show.)
Over the opening credits, you hear "Destiny" by Syntax. This song from 2004, which has become popular in trailers, sounds like a really bad version of "How Soon Is Now" (aka the Smiths song -- also know, as recorded by Love Split Love, as the theme to Charmed):
This is my intention hear me now
Don't need correction please me how
Breaking out the institution crazy law
Ain't no complication live for more
What that has to do with the show, only Dick Wolf knows. It mainly seems to exist to keep you from noticing the seven billed performers too closely -- as though the criminals were attempting to blend in to their surroundings and avoid being easily picked out of a line up.
If you didn't catch their real names, you're out of luck figuring out what to call them during the broadcast because the first time you'll hear one of the characters' names said (Peluso) will be ten minutes in and it's a long wait until the second name gets mentioned.
Why is that a problem? Well, it's not for Stephanie March or J. August Richards -- she's the only blond in the cast of seven and he's the only person of color. You can pick them out rather easily. That still leaves five. Three men and two women. Prepare to be confused.
Before you get to the opening credits, you've already been drug through various "moments":
1) A woman's been raped, and two lawyers discuss her. Dark haired man tells dark haired woman, "She's a hooker. Getting attacked is an occupational hazard."
2) Dark haired man in a hat, looking like a young Michael York from some angles, is treated to tale of a kid who killed his brother with a baseball bat. We also see him, without the hat, putting a shirt on over his undershit in a scene that seems to exist for no reason other than to fill time. (No skin is shown in that set up. But wait on that for later.)
3) Dark haired man is told that there's been "an assault with a hate crime twist." As opposed to a lime twist? "High school kid kicked the hell out of some gay boy." Broken cheek bone. 15 stitches.
4) Dark haired man is told that they need a "tranny" for a line up and if he put on a wig and a dress, he'd do. Man does put on a dress. Comes out of the office after changing only to have the entire office laugh at him. Including a dark haired woman who yells "Woo-woo-wooh!" It was all a prank.
And this is all before the opening credits, in different locales, with characters we've never met and aren't introduced to. If Dick Wolf thought he had an ER opening on his hands, he was mistaken. Corpses don't end up in the emergency room, they go to the morgue.
Now the four "moments" (there were more than four scenes, we've simplified), two of them contain one of the same dark haired men but viewers will be forgiven if they can't keep track yet.
Eventually, you grasp that one of the dark haired men is a thin, young (the whole cast is young), slim version of Jimmy from The Practice: There for some easy laughs. This would be the character Nick Potter. He's played by Jordan Bridges. In time (not this episode) you'll learn his back story (rich kid wanting to make it 'real'). What you learn in the first episode, besides the fact that he doesn't look good in a dress and desperately needs to get out in the sun, is that he reminds you of a young Dick York (not Michael York, we warned you this was confusing) and he's the most inept lawyer in the world.
Not only is he inept (not just inexperienced, inept), but the others enjoy setting him up to fail. Because after all, this is only about innocence or guilt so why not make the prosecution look like a total idiot in front of the judge?
The first time, dark haired woman tells him, before he makes his first appearance in arraignment court, that all he has to do is "Just look for the handwritten note in the file. That's all you do, just read the notes." So he does that, in the court room. He asks for a "280 reverse Z." The judge asks, "What in God's name are you talking about?" He doesn't know.
She remarks, "I assume you know the people in the gallery are laughing their asses off at you."
That would be his co-workers. People pledged to uphold the law but not afraid to toss out oaths to pleasure their inner Jackass.
Now we've got cross cuts and characters all over the place, there's no attempt at focus. The show's confusing enough so we're simplifying in this review. Though the show takes off in countless directions, we'll stay with Bridges. His character's next failure is when he's asked what he's suggesting for bail? Fortunately, someone holds up fingers for him to count. These kind of "funnies" lead up to him later thinking another judge is 'putting him on' and part of a prank. She doesn't take kindly to his assumption. Why should she? And why should a districts attorney's office be filled with a bunch of cut-ups who think pranks in court constitute serving the public?
Bridges is dismissed. We'll call our next witness. Remember "Peluso" -- the first character given a name (at ten minutes in)? His character, like his acting, is all over the place. Not necessarily a bad thing because that and the fact that you slowly start to grasp that he looks as if someone elongnated Dermot Mulroney's face allow him to actually stand out -- somewhere after the fifteen minute mark.
Here's Peluso's story. He's got a bookie wanting a break for a relative that got "pinched." Peluso has to try to help because he owes the bookie $7,000 dollars. His addicition of choice is gambling. Why he didn't just face the camera and say, "I'm Brian Peluso and I'm a gambling addict" we don't know. There's no drama or tension or anything resembling a story arc in the scenes the character's in.
Peluso might be considered a "bad" guy on other shows but here we think he pretty much sums up, not only the show, but also Dick Wolf's outlook. How so? After failing to fix things for the bookie, he pays him off and then beats him up in the men's room. He flashes his i.d. and says, "You see this? It says DA. That's what I am, bitch. I can bury you, your brother, your mother. Whenever I want, whenever I get bored. Don't you ever, ever forget that." Though we're sure it's just a nasty rumor that Dick Wolf treats mater'ds in the same manner, we have it on good authority that this sort of bellowing is how he responds to TV critics.
So what else do we find out about Peluso. He's not real smart. He's handling the hate crime case. And let's face it, Dick Wolf shows always play out like they were thought up by some prep school boy who had a Confederate flag pinned up in his dorm room. Translation, the gay victim is not the victim. Of course not.
Wolf is like a one man army churning out the sort of establishment-male-as-victim roles that Michael Douglas made into a movie franchise once he decided to be the male Joan Crawford.
Just as Douglas was the poor put upon soul in Disclosure, Fatal Attraction, et al, the attacker on this episode of Conviction is really the victim. He's going to be a big basketball player. He's worried about his career. So he can't be gay, he just can't. (We're reminded of a line Demi Moore delivers in Disclosure: "You stick your dick in my mouth then get an attack of morality?") And the guy he beat up, the one he called "f**got" and "bitch"? They were involved. And that out and proud gay guy? Oh, you know Dick Wolf was screaming "I am a creative genius!" at this -- he's just a little hustler shaking down the poor-future-sports-star.
Threatening to tell all, so, see, it wasn't a hate crime.
So sorry to disagree with the World o' Wolf, but we say, "Objection."
The closeted guy can't commit a hate crime because he's gay -- even though he can't admit that he's gay? Is that the story? He's in the closet. He's willng to be convicted of a hate crime (and is convicted) because he doesn't want to be known as gay. (Or as he puts it, several times, he ain't no f**got.) In one of the more Dick-Wolf-must-think-it's-manly scenes, he asks Peluso, "You gonna' lay down like a girl? Like I said, man, I ain't no f**got."
"Bitch." "Lay down like a girl." "F**got." And so much more. We think he's got some hate issues. The fact that it includes self-hate doesn't change the fact that it was a hate crime. Just like it doesn't change the fact that the "gay boy" had his cheek bone broken and fifteen stitches.
Peluso probably can't see that because someone's thought, "This is going to be so layered!" Future sports star is being black mailed, Peluso's being black mailed! They both beat up their black mailers!" The only "layer"comes from this show being billed as a drama.
Before we call our next witness, er, move on to the next character, let's also note that Peluso is there when a dark haired woman asks him and two other men, in a bar, whether she should get a boob job? Because of course, women always turn to a group of their male co-workers to ask that question, right? We're done with Peluso, but we'll note he's played by Eric Banfour.
Let's do the dark haired woman engaged in the philosophical issue of to-boob-job-or-not-to-boob-job? What does she do? Other than scream "Woo-woo-wooh!" when the Dick York like guy stands in front of the office wearing a dress? She, played by Julianne Nicholson, gets set up on a blind date. She's actually interested. He, unseen, isn't. The stimga of small breasts appears to be her subplot.
We're not really sure that the other dark haired woman has larger breasts. We just know that she has them. We're clued in on that when, in the credits, we see her in her bra. Everyone else is fully clothed in the credits. The scene where the dark haired man pulls a shirt over his undershirt doesn't show anything, nor does the scene where young Dick York changes into a dress. But Dick Wolf no doubt feared losing the audience so he wanted to be sure she was shown in her bra early on. Outside of the credits, she shows up in her bra at the end of the episode. Milena Govich plays the part and, we're sure, if you asked her about her character's motivation, she'd reply: "Cleavage."
Govich is representing the sex worker who was raped. She feels that everyone deserves a defense and that no woman, regardless of occupation, is asking to be raped. Just when you're about to say "Good for her" -- stop yourself. This is World o' Wolf.
When she finally does speak to the woman, Govich will find out that she's being hustled for taxi fare. Later on, she'll visit the woman and find her strung out. She needs 'breakfast.' A fifty-dollar breakfast, if she's going to appear in court in two hours. Govich gives her fifty bucks. Govich wins her case. Off screen. The closest we get to the court room is Govich and the woman about to walk in when Govich suggests that the woman might want to roll down her sleeves (to hide the track marks). The three dark haired men? We see all of them in court.
At least the audience will know Govich is a lawyer. Nicholson? They may think she's the receptionist. (The small breasted receptionist.)
We're not done with Govich so we'd like to permission to recall her and would prefer to move on to the young Michael York (only at certain angles). Anson Mount plays the role (and no, we're not making up the actor's name). From someone who acted opposite Britney Spears (Crossroads), we're not surprised by his performance here. Or impressed. He's a little higher up in the office food chain than the other Young Prosecutors. You grasp that because he's the only one who gets scenes with Stephanie March -- whose character has the same name as one March played in Law & Order: Special Victims Unit although here she's clearing playing Bosley from Charlie's Angels. Not only does he have scenes with March, he gets to bark at her so you know he's top dog of the office or close to it.
Mount successfully wins a jury conviction of the young boy who killed his apparently abusive brother with a baseball bat. He's supposed to look torn as the father confronts him after the verdict, the father having now "lost" two sons, but the most Mount appears able to manage is a look that says "Oops I Did It Again ..."
It, but not "that." Mount's frustrated throughout the episode because the woman he's sleeping with is too busy to get together with him. The woman? Remember we asked permission to recall Govich. Govich and Mount have a curious sort of relationship. At one point, when Mount suggests dinner, Govich responds, "Why do men always think they have to feed you before they screw you?"
That's the World o' Wolf for you. The dream woman, who shows her breasts, also doesn't want to be treated to a meal. (We're wondering how many women watching were thinking, "What meal? I was lucky to get a drink.") But although Mount then offers a "screw," Govich is too busy. She's busy repeatedly throughout the episode. That's why he wonders at one point if "not returning my calls [is] part of our adult relationship?" She doesn't want to talk about their private life in the office. You may be thinking, "Smart woman." But that's partly due to the fact that she's seeing a non-lawyer. At first, you may think she's making it up when she, for no real reason, launches into a monologue about the man in her life. But later on, after she's won her case, she'll stand outside, looking through a glass window at a man she speaks to on her cell phone. She explains to him that she's not up to seeing him tonight. That man, "Michael," isn't Mount.
Will Mount mount? Is this the World o' Wolf? Of course he will. In the final scene, they'll remove their clothes, in one of the worst filmed scenes of this or any other series, while she whines about winning her case and confesses to giving her witness fifty dollars. (What the fifty dollars was for is left unstated.) Mount will tell her, as he gets on the bed and presses up next to her, "You won the case. You won the case." To which she'll reply, "Thank you" and then they'll kiss.
A few words on that scene. It's flat like everything else about the show. Wolf's cast young and attractive. Or tried to. For the Law & Order franchise (yes, we know he prefers "brand" -- that's why we'll use "franchise"), that's practially revolutionary.
We've got Govich in her bra (again). The camera can't decide where it wants to go. It seems like a prude with quick frames here and there. If you're going to do a sex scene, do a sex scene.
Wolf can't. He can't even make it sexy. (Well, World o' Wolf . . .) What we do get is a glimpse of one of the most bizarre male chests to be featured on TV in sometime. Mount could use a bra.
In fact, he should probably not go shirtless around Nicholson or she'll never stop harping about the boob job. The nipples? He could poke a person's eyes out with them and they weren't erect.
Watching Wolf's idea of "jiggle TV," you wondered why someone didn't show off another feature of Mount? His butt, for instance? You also notice how the boxer clad Mount is framed in such a way that in profile the shot stops before the "unit" begins. Now maybe that's because of the butt. Maybe the rear's more frightening than the chest. But how it plays out is Wolf once again wants to rip something. Usually it's the headlines. For a sex scene, he's trying to rip off the body wash operettas. But as with his storylines, he just can't pull it off.
Believe it or not, we've spared you a great many details. Did we go into Peluso's homophobia? No, we didn't. But it's there, rather obviously, in two scenes with the "gay boy." Since the victim, the real victim, isn't gay, Peluso's more comfortable with him.
So we'll sum up by noting the life lessons that World o' Wolf is so fond of. Small breasted women are obsessed with their breasts (and other women's as well) and will talk about breasts with anyone, male or female. Women who sport their breasts just want sex, no romance. In World o' Wolf, this may be the "occupational hazard" to sporting breasts. Real men beat up other men and make sure to tell them that they are bitches -- as both the future sports star and Peluso did in the first episode. Those out of the closet "gay boys"? Little hustlers. It's a variation on the "You can be gay, just don't tell me about it" theme that World o' Wolf explored in the nineties.
Sex workers get what they deserve. If you try to treat them like people, they, like the out of the closet "gay boys," will only end up hustling you.
Watching Conviction is like serving time. If Friday's episode was any indication, America can take comfort in the fact that it already feels like it's going to be a very short sentence.
Book review: The Center for Constitutional Rights' Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush
Speaking about impeachment, one of the framers of the Constitution, James Iredell, stated, "The President must certainly be punishable for giving false information to the Senate." And that is precisely what President Bush has done, and more. He has lied to the American people and the Congress as to the basis of the war with Iraq. He has involved the United States and its people in a devastating war that has killed thousands and cost billions. By doing so he has subverted the will of Congress, which alone has the right to declare war, and coerced them into doing so by falsities. He has undermined democracy by painting a false picture of the reasons for war to the American people. He has broken the law, both by committing a fraud on the American people, and by violating the fundamental legal precept prohibiting aggressive wars. He has attempted to end the system upon which our country was founded: that the president is a creature of the Constitution and law and has limited powers that are checked and balanced by the other branches. By issuing false statements and lying to Congress and the American people, he has induced Congress and the American people to enter into a war to which the people may not have consented had the true facts been known to them. By doing so, he has subverted the powers of the Congress that are meant to check presidential powers. He has undermined our republican form of government. He has violated the public trust and overstepped the bounds of his office. For these reasons, George W. Bush must be impeached.
The above is from Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush which was just put out by the Center for Constitutional Rights (pp. 55-56). The book is 93 pages (plus appendices). Brief and to the point, the book makes a powerful case for impeachment structured so that four articles of impeachment are presented against the Bully Boy.
As the appendix entitled "A Note On Procedure" reminds, impeachment is not removal from office or conviction. Impeachment is brought by the House. If articles of impeachment pass the House, a trial is then held in the Senate (with the House arguing their case) . Should the Senate find that the Houses charges are correct, they could then remove the Bully Boy from office. (Also note that the vice-president is an office that can be impeached and tried as well.) Removal from office carries with it only the punishment of not being able to hold an office in the future.
However, criminal charges can be brought in a criminal court. This is equally true after a president completes a term and returns to private life. The articles of impeachment for Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton are included in the appenices -- Nixon had three articles of impeachment and Clinton had two. Andrew Johnson had eleven articles of impeachment.
There is a feeling by some that the Bully Boy could not be impeached because we are at "war."
(Some mean what's going on with the occupation of Iraq; others mean the never ending so-called war on terror.) This issue was raised before Matthew Rothschild on KPFA's The Morning Show last Tuesday and is also addressed in the book. From page 103:
"Guilt wherever found ought to be punished," said Edmund Randolph, governor of Virginia and delegate to the Constitutional Convention. His remarks, made on July 20, 1787, were in support of including provisions for impeachment in the U.S. Constitution. "The Executive will have great opportunity for abusing his power; particularly in time of war when the military force, and in some respects the public money will be in his hands. Should no regular punishment be provided, it will be irregularly inflicted by tulmults and insurrection."
Most in attendance at the Convention had a similar passion for including provisions for impeachment in the Constitution. Having broken free from the monarchy, the framers wanted a way to ensure that the people would never again fall prey to the whims of absolute power. If the United States was to be governed by the people, they argued, impeachment must be included in the Constitution as a way to keep those in power true to their word to uphold the people's will.
Having dispensed with a get-out-of-impeachment-by-war-mongering card, what about the case itself? The Center for Constitutional Rights makes a powerful case. Reading the book, you'll wonder not if articles of impeachment could be brought against the Bully Boy but, instead, why Congress refuses to live up to its obligations?
It is not just that Bully Boy has lied us into war, has authorized warrantless (illegal) spying on Americans, attempted to bypass Congress (as he already has the judiciary by ignoring the FISA court) via "signing statements" which allow him to sign a a Congressional act into law while also (he hopes) giving him wiggle room to not follow it (the signing statement for the Torture Ban is a perfect example), but it can include this general pattern to subvert the Constitution and the other two co-equal branches of the government.
The much touted "unitary executive" myth is an example of that pattern of subversion. This argues that the Bully Boy can decide, via signing statements, which parts of an enacted law he will follow and which he won't; it also argues that the Bully Boy is bound by no laws or treaties in a time of "war." (For more on the "unitary executive" belief, click here.) This goes to pattern, a pattern of disdain with which the Constitution, the Congress and the judiciary are ignored and treated as though they possess far less powers than the Constitution grants them.
When the Bully Boy attempts to maintain that he didn't break the FISA laws, he may be again resorting to the belief of unitary executive: "The only way the administration could claim FISA does not apply is to challenge the power of Congress to create any such restriction on the president's information gathering powers -- essentially to argue that the president has inherent powers in this area that Congress lack authority to limit" (page 31).
Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush is a conversation starter. It will lead to discussions about the current health of the country, among other topics. We've also found that just reading it in public leads to discussions with those who haven't read it. It can be ordered online via the link provided with the title, also via BuzzFlash which is offering it as a premium. You can also pick it up in bookstores (if you're bookstore doesn't carry it, you can special order it through them). Hopefully, you'll also be able to find it in your local library. (We intend to donate our copies to our libraries as soon as they work their way back to us from friends who are currently reading them.) It's a book you should know of and, ideally, one you should read as well.
The above is from Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush which was just put out by the Center for Constitutional Rights (pp. 55-56). The book is 93 pages (plus appendices). Brief and to the point, the book makes a powerful case for impeachment structured so that four articles of impeachment are presented against the Bully Boy.
As the appendix entitled "A Note On Procedure" reminds, impeachment is not removal from office or conviction. Impeachment is brought by the House. If articles of impeachment pass the House, a trial is then held in the Senate (with the House arguing their case) . Should the Senate find that the Houses charges are correct, they could then remove the Bully Boy from office. (Also note that the vice-president is an office that can be impeached and tried as well.) Removal from office carries with it only the punishment of not being able to hold an office in the future.
However, criminal charges can be brought in a criminal court. This is equally true after a president completes a term and returns to private life. The articles of impeachment for Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton are included in the appenices -- Nixon had three articles of impeachment and Clinton had two. Andrew Johnson had eleven articles of impeachment.
There is a feeling by some that the Bully Boy could not be impeached because we are at "war."
(Some mean what's going on with the occupation of Iraq; others mean the never ending so-called war on terror.) This issue was raised before Matthew Rothschild on KPFA's The Morning Show last Tuesday and is also addressed in the book. From page 103:
"Guilt wherever found ought to be punished," said Edmund Randolph, governor of Virginia and delegate to the Constitutional Convention. His remarks, made on July 20, 1787, were in support of including provisions for impeachment in the U.S. Constitution. "The Executive will have great opportunity for abusing his power; particularly in time of war when the military force, and in some respects the public money will be in his hands. Should no regular punishment be provided, it will be irregularly inflicted by tulmults and insurrection."
Most in attendance at the Convention had a similar passion for including provisions for impeachment in the Constitution. Having broken free from the monarchy, the framers wanted a way to ensure that the people would never again fall prey to the whims of absolute power. If the United States was to be governed by the people, they argued, impeachment must be included in the Constitution as a way to keep those in power true to their word to uphold the people's will.
Having dispensed with a get-out-of-impeachment-by-war-mongering card, what about the case itself? The Center for Constitutional Rights makes a powerful case. Reading the book, you'll wonder not if articles of impeachment could be brought against the Bully Boy but, instead, why Congress refuses to live up to its obligations?
It is not just that Bully Boy has lied us into war, has authorized warrantless (illegal) spying on Americans, attempted to bypass Congress (as he already has the judiciary by ignoring the FISA court) via "signing statements" which allow him to sign a a Congressional act into law while also (he hopes) giving him wiggle room to not follow it (the signing statement for the Torture Ban is a perfect example), but it can include this general pattern to subvert the Constitution and the other two co-equal branches of the government.
The much touted "unitary executive" myth is an example of that pattern of subversion. This argues that the Bully Boy can decide, via signing statements, which parts of an enacted law he will follow and which he won't; it also argues that the Bully Boy is bound by no laws or treaties in a time of "war." (For more on the "unitary executive" belief, click here.) This goes to pattern, a pattern of disdain with which the Constitution, the Congress and the judiciary are ignored and treated as though they possess far less powers than the Constitution grants them.
When the Bully Boy attempts to maintain that he didn't break the FISA laws, he may be again resorting to the belief of unitary executive: "The only way the administration could claim FISA does not apply is to challenge the power of Congress to create any such restriction on the president's information gathering powers -- essentially to argue that the president has inherent powers in this area that Congress lack authority to limit" (page 31).
Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush is a conversation starter. It will lead to discussions about the current health of the country, among other topics. We've also found that just reading it in public leads to discussions with those who haven't read it. It can be ordered online via the link provided with the title, also via BuzzFlash which is offering it as a premium. You can also pick it up in bookstores (if you're bookstore doesn't carry it, you can special order it through them). Hopefully, you'll also be able to find it in your local library. (We intend to donate our copies to our libraries as soon as they work their way back to us from friends who are currently reading them.) It's a book you should know of and, ideally, one you should read as well.
A woman was sexually abused by a priest when she was underage -- must have been one of those "gay" priests, right?
Meanwhile, a woman in the United States has filed a claim against a leading American bishop. She alleges that she was abused by William Skylstad for a period of four years in the early 1960s while she was underage. Skylstad is the current president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and leader of the Spokane, Washington diocese. This claim is one of 135 that have been filed in the Spokane diocese, one of only three American dioceses to have filed for bankruptcy protection in settling its abuse claims. It is not yet clear whether Skylstad, who denies the allegations, will step down from his leadership roles during the investigation.
LEARN MORE Read Angela Bonavoglia's "New Battleground for Survivors of Priest Child Sex Abuse" at MsMagazine.com
The above is from The Feminist Wire's "More Abuse Allegations Against Catholic Priests." Read the paragraph above again and remind us of how the problems for the Catholic Church had to do with "gay" priests.
Can't do it? Well there's a reason for that. For instance, the above item does not indicate that there's a problem within the Church of "straight" priests. That's because heterosexuality and homosexuality have nothing to do with pedophilia.
But that's something the Church didn't appear aware of and something that the mainstream media rarely felt the need to note. Sex or sexual behaviors by an adult with a child constitute pedophilia. A pedophile's sexual desire is fixated/focused on a child.
But it was as though we had time traveled back to the 1950s as every stereotype at gay males was hurled and bandied while the witch hunt progressed. A priest being gay or straight was never the issue of sex with children.
You may remember the news of the nun who got pregnant. It got a little media pay before the demonization of gays got into full swing. We doubt the nun was impregnated by a "gay" priest. We also doubt the forced abortion had anything to do with a "gay" priest either. But it didn't fit the Church narrative and the media stepped lightly around such issues once it was time to build a funeral pyre for the "gay" priests. Nuns raped by priests also isn't an issue that the mainstream media is comfortable giving the same wide attention that they gave to the issue of "gay" priests.
In the "drama" of covering the "gay" priest issue, you might have expected the media to expand upon what appeared to be a limiting of the discussion by the Vatican. You would be disappointed. The Church blamed "gay" priests, the press ran with it. Occassionally an article might inform you that pedophiles and homosexuals were not the same category. Occassionally.
More often than not, they presented you with a Church spokesperson slamming the "gay" priests for sex with underage children (boys) and then they presented a quote from a gay man (sometimes a priest) and acted as though they had explored the issue and presented 'both' sides.
They did no such thing. They allowed a smear to stand.
In the process, the abuse of girls by pedophiles in the Church was allowed to fly under the radar as was the rape of nuns. The issue of boys being sexually molested/abused by priests never had a thing to do with homosexuality; however, if you asked the average media consumer to this day, we doubt they could tell you that fact -- and it is a fact.
Was it homophobia, ignorance or just the desire to jump on a "trend" story that prevented many reporters from doing their basic job? We have no idea. We'd suggest you ask them why they failed to question the paradigm created by the Church? Why, instead of questioning it, they made it the framework of their reporting?
LEARN MORE Read Angela Bonavoglia's "New Battleground for Survivors of Priest Child Sex Abuse" at MsMagazine.com
The above is from The Feminist Wire's "More Abuse Allegations Against Catholic Priests." Read the paragraph above again and remind us of how the problems for the Catholic Church had to do with "gay" priests.
Can't do it? Well there's a reason for that. For instance, the above item does not indicate that there's a problem within the Church of "straight" priests. That's because heterosexuality and homosexuality have nothing to do with pedophilia.
But that's something the Church didn't appear aware of and something that the mainstream media rarely felt the need to note. Sex or sexual behaviors by an adult with a child constitute pedophilia. A pedophile's sexual desire is fixated/focused on a child.
But it was as though we had time traveled back to the 1950s as every stereotype at gay males was hurled and bandied while the witch hunt progressed. A priest being gay or straight was never the issue of sex with children.
You may remember the news of the nun who got pregnant. It got a little media pay before the demonization of gays got into full swing. We doubt the nun was impregnated by a "gay" priest. We also doubt the forced abortion had anything to do with a "gay" priest either. But it didn't fit the Church narrative and the media stepped lightly around such issues once it was time to build a funeral pyre for the "gay" priests. Nuns raped by priests also isn't an issue that the mainstream media is comfortable giving the same wide attention that they gave to the issue of "gay" priests.
In the "drama" of covering the "gay" priest issue, you might have expected the media to expand upon what appeared to be a limiting of the discussion by the Vatican. You would be disappointed. The Church blamed "gay" priests, the press ran with it. Occassionally an article might inform you that pedophiles and homosexuals were not the same category. Occassionally.
More often than not, they presented you with a Church spokesperson slamming the "gay" priests for sex with underage children (boys) and then they presented a quote from a gay man (sometimes a priest) and acted as though they had explored the issue and presented 'both' sides.
They did no such thing. They allowed a smear to stand.
In the process, the abuse of girls by pedophiles in the Church was allowed to fly under the radar as was the rape of nuns. The issue of boys being sexually molested/abused by priests never had a thing to do with homosexuality; however, if you asked the average media consumer to this day, we doubt they could tell you that fact -- and it is a fact.
Was it homophobia, ignorance or just the desire to jump on a "trend" story that prevented many reporters from doing their basic job? We have no idea. We'd suggest you ask them why they failed to question the paradigm created by the Church? Why, instead of questioning it, they made it the framework of their reporting?
Dear Eileen, we're concerned about your husband
Dear Eileen,
We're concerned about your husband. During a recent conversation he seemed fixated on the topic of abortion.
In a rapid fire manner, he pretty much shot off the following questions to us:
Do you agree or disagree that a woman's right to choose to have an abortion is guaranteed by the US Constitution?
Do you agree or disagree that the confirmation of a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court should be filibustered on the Senate floor because of the nominee's opinion on abortion?
Do you agree or disagree that nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court should be confirmed only if their position on abortion is pro-choice?
Do you agree or disagree that states should pass laws to require parental notification in order for a girl under the age of 18 to have an abortion?
Do you agree or disagree that states should pass laws to require parental notification in order for a girl under the age of 16 to have an abortion?
The United States prohibits foreign aid money being used for abortions in countries where the abortion is done because of the sex of the fetus. Do you agree or disagree with this prohibition?
Do you agree or disagree that abortion ends a human life?
In some states, if a pregnant woman is murdered, the person committing the murder is guilty of two murders, the woman and her child. Do you agree or disagree with this law?
Do you agree or disagree that federal or state governments should finance abortions for poor women?
Do you agree or disagree that private insurance plans should be required to finance abortions in cases where the woman's life is not endangered?
Which of the following two statements comes closer to your own view - A or B?
Statement A. Parents are responsible for the welfare and health of their children. A parent should be notified if their minor daughter is seeking to have an abortion.
Statement B. There are lots of reasons why a minor might not want to tell her parents that she is seeking an abortion. There should be no mandatory parental notification for a minor seeking an abortion.
Two federal judges struck down a law prohibiting partial-birth abortion, which was passed overwhelmingly in Congress and was signed into law by President Bush, because the health of the mother was not included as an exception. Do you agree or disagree that Congress should pass another Partial-Birth Abortion law to make the procedure illegal?
Do you agree or disagree that a federal law or state laws be passed similar to the one already in place in four states, that would restrict the coverage of abortion in private insurance plans only to cases in which the woman's life is in danger if the pregnancy is carried to term?
Do you agree or disagree that a federal law or state laws should be enacted mandating that women be given counseling prior to an abortion that includes information on at least one of the following: the purported link between abortion and breast cancer, the ability of a fetus to feel pain, long-term mental health consequences for the woman and/or the availability of services and funding should the woman decide to carry the pregnancy to term?
Do you agree or disagree that a federal law or state laws should be enacted to require a woman seeking an abortion to wait 24 hours from when she goes for the abortion to when the procedure is performed so that she receives counseling?
Do you agree or disagree that more state laws should be passed, similar to the recent law passed in Missouri, which allows civil lawsuits to be filed against anyone who helps a teen obtain an abortion without parental consent?
Abortion rights groups are backing lawsuits against pharmacies who refuse to sell the "morning-after pill." Do you agree or disagree that pharmacies and pharmacists be protected against such lawsuits?
Do you think that the "morning-after" abortion pill, commercially known as Plan B, should be available over the counter or should it be available only by prescription?
Eileen, is there something we need to know?
Sincerely,
The Third Estate Sunday Review
Note that "Eileen" is Eileen Patricia McMahon, the wife of James Zogby. No, we're not worried or concerned about either Zogby. Just our way of noting that the most recent Zogby Poll, begun on March 10th, focuses on abortion and reproductive issues. Look for the results when they come out to see if there's been a major shift in public support for abortion or whether recent steps by state governments (South Dakota, Tennessee, et al) are out of line with the people of the United States. (We would argue the "out of line" angel.)
If you've spaced out this week, here's one example, from Democracy Now!, of recent state efforts to limit reproductive freedom:
South Dakota Gov. Signs Near-Total Abortion Ban
In South Dakota, Governor Mike Rounds has signed legislation to ban all abortions in the state, unless they're performed to save the life of the woman. Rounds said he expects a lengthy court battle over the new law. The measure comes as a similar effort is moving ahead in the state of Mississippi.
We're concerned about your husband. During a recent conversation he seemed fixated on the topic of abortion.
In a rapid fire manner, he pretty much shot off the following questions to us:
Do you agree or disagree that a woman's right to choose to have an abortion is guaranteed by the US Constitution?
Do you agree or disagree that the confirmation of a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court should be filibustered on the Senate floor because of the nominee's opinion on abortion?
Do you agree or disagree that nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court should be confirmed only if their position on abortion is pro-choice?
Do you agree or disagree that states should pass laws to require parental notification in order for a girl under the age of 18 to have an abortion?
Do you agree or disagree that states should pass laws to require parental notification in order for a girl under the age of 16 to have an abortion?
The United States prohibits foreign aid money being used for abortions in countries where the abortion is done because of the sex of the fetus. Do you agree or disagree with this prohibition?
Do you agree or disagree that abortion ends a human life?
In some states, if a pregnant woman is murdered, the person committing the murder is guilty of two murders, the woman and her child. Do you agree or disagree with this law?
Do you agree or disagree that federal or state governments should finance abortions for poor women?
Do you agree or disagree that private insurance plans should be required to finance abortions in cases where the woman's life is not endangered?
Which of the following two statements comes closer to your own view - A or B?
Statement A. Parents are responsible for the welfare and health of their children. A parent should be notified if their minor daughter is seeking to have an abortion.
Statement B. There are lots of reasons why a minor might not want to tell her parents that she is seeking an abortion. There should be no mandatory parental notification for a minor seeking an abortion.
Two federal judges struck down a law prohibiting partial-birth abortion, which was passed overwhelmingly in Congress and was signed into law by President Bush, because the health of the mother was not included as an exception. Do you agree or disagree that Congress should pass another Partial-Birth Abortion law to make the procedure illegal?
Do you agree or disagree that a federal law or state laws be passed similar to the one already in place in four states, that would restrict the coverage of abortion in private insurance plans only to cases in which the woman's life is in danger if the pregnancy is carried to term?
Do you agree or disagree that a federal law or state laws should be enacted mandating that women be given counseling prior to an abortion that includes information on at least one of the following: the purported link between abortion and breast cancer, the ability of a fetus to feel pain, long-term mental health consequences for the woman and/or the availability of services and funding should the woman decide to carry the pregnancy to term?
Do you agree or disagree that a federal law or state laws should be enacted to require a woman seeking an abortion to wait 24 hours from when she goes for the abortion to when the procedure is performed so that she receives counseling?
Do you agree or disagree that more state laws should be passed, similar to the recent law passed in Missouri, which allows civil lawsuits to be filed against anyone who helps a teen obtain an abortion without parental consent?
Abortion rights groups are backing lawsuits against pharmacies who refuse to sell the "morning-after pill." Do you agree or disagree that pharmacies and pharmacists be protected against such lawsuits?
Do you think that the "morning-after" abortion pill, commercially known as Plan B, should be available over the counter or should it be available only by prescription?
Eileen, is there something we need to know?
Sincerely,
The Third Estate Sunday Review
Note that "Eileen" is Eileen Patricia McMahon, the wife of James Zogby. No, we're not worried or concerned about either Zogby. Just our way of noting that the most recent Zogby Poll, begun on March 10th, focuses on abortion and reproductive issues. Look for the results when they come out to see if there's been a major shift in public support for abortion or whether recent steps by state governments (South Dakota, Tennessee, et al) are out of line with the people of the United States. (We would argue the "out of line" angel.)
If you've spaced out this week, here's one example, from Democracy Now!, of recent state efforts to limit reproductive freedom:
South Dakota Gov. Signs Near-Total Abortion Ban
In South Dakota, Governor Mike Rounds has signed legislation to ban all abortions in the state, unless they're performed to save the life of the woman. Rounds said he expects a lengthy court battle over the new law. The measure comes as a similar effort is moving ahead in the state of Mississippi.
Garbo Speaks? Nah, it's just the Bully Boy
Garbo Speaks? That's what the big advertising slogan was for her first talking picture. (Anna Christie.) Is that what today's press has descended to as they cover Bully Boy? Publicity departments for the White House? Check out these headlines.
"Bush Shocked by Arrest of Former Adviser" (Associated Press)
"Bush Confident Iraq Will Avoid Civil War" (Associated Press)
"Bush: Ports Deal Collapse May Hurt U.S." (Associated Press)
We understand that the Associated Press covers many things but the headlines (and articles) aren't all that different than from what most news organizations run. (And many run the AP articles themselves.)
What we're not getting is why an article headlined, for instance, "Bush Confident Iraq Will Avoid Civil War" that never goes beyond providing free advertising to an administration talking point qualifies as news?
Bully Boy is confident, is he? Well was he publicly confident regarding Iraq before? (Yes.) And how did that turn out? Wouldn't that be a part of a real news article? "Today Bully Boy said he was confident that Iraq would avoid a civil war. Earlier, he had stated that he was confident that the mission had been accomplished as evidenced by the White House created banner displayed behind him. As we now know, the violence did not end then . . ."
How about the first headline? "Bush Shocked by Arrest of Former Advisor." Now is that reporting? Bully Boy is "shocked"? How do they know that? They know that he stated he was shocked. They can verify that. The article, in fact, makes that point. If "Said He Was" made up too many words for the headline, how about this "Bush 'Was Shocked' by Arrest of Former Advisor." Or even "Bush 'Shocked' by Arrest of Former Advisor"?
The third headline comes the closest to reporting, "Bush: Ports Deal Collapse May Hurt the U.S." Alas, then you read the article. "Both" sides reporting, at it's worst. Bully Boy makes a claim -- the scuttling of the deal could hurt the US. The article then, far into the article, presents some Democrats who are quoted (as our Republicans) on the need for safety. Then you're greeted at the end by unnamed (and unnumbered) "analysts" who agree with Bully Boy's claim. Who are these "analysists"? How many of them? Who provided them to the AP? Were there not any analysists who could refute the claim?
"Both" sides is not someone makes a claim and the claim's allowed to go undisputed. It's also not providing unnamed sources at the very end ("analysts") who back up the claim. The reader has no clue as to whom these analysts are or what their credentials are.
These points were raised in "NYT: Ga-Ga-Goo-Goo, Bully Boy speaks" and we still think they're valid. From that entry:
How embarrassing must it be for grown adults who think they're reporters, who put that on their passports, on the tax forms, to be stuck writing ad copy for the Bully Boy? Don't kid yourself that this is anything but ad copy.
Ava and I do TV reviews for The Third Estate Sunday Review (including one on a Bully Boy speech). That means something more than: "Today, our fearless leader was on NBC Nightly News. Brave leader said . . ."
But that's really all you get in the Times today. Adults embarrassing themselves with their lack of critical skills, as they rush to jot down what 'Brave Leader' said.
Richard W. Stevenson turns in "Race Not Factor In Aid, Bush Says" which mistakes news value in Bully Boy's statement that he's not a racist. It does *not* explore the statement. It doesn't try to provide perspective as to why his programs and responses might lead anyone to conclude that he is or is not a racist. It just tells you "Brave Leader" went on NBC Nightly News and said he wasn't one.
Then you have David E. Sanger and Erich Schmitt, working the same green room, telling you that on NBC Nightly News, "Bush Says He's Confident That He and McCain Will Reach Agreement on Interrogation Policy." They probably assume what they've written counts as a "critique." It's the same superficial nonsense that appeared in Monday's paper, on the same topic, with the only bit of news buried within. If there's any news value in the article, it's that the "Doomsday Scenario" -- why does everythign coming out of this administration sound like a torn and tattered airport novel? -- is being pushed by the administration.
"Doomsday Scenario"? The ticking time bomb nonsense once again. The sort of crap Nicky K and our latter day online Dylan wet themselves over with their dirty bomb nonsense. (It's not surprising that science doesn't enter Nicky K's head, it is suprising that with all our latter day Dylan's focus on education, he's yet to look at the issue scientifically or note the science community caveats on this topic and how they rank in terms of threats. Apparently someone's seen too many TV and film portrayals of backpacked dirty bombs to grasp that there's "reality" in film and TV and then reality in life.) So combining bits from Dershowitz's nightmare with bits of panic from just about everywhere, Stephen J. Hadley (who truly should have been asked who he informed about the e-mail Rove sent him long ago) and others argue that torture must be an option if we know that in mere hours a nuke may go off.
This isn't worst case scenario, note that. This administration can't address a nation honestly, they must always go for the highest drama. They must always attempt to goad the public into responding based upon a fear response. Helps keep the "bully" in Bully Boy.
And bad writing, jotting down what Bully Boy says and treating it as news, helps keep the public uninformed.
Wait, we're not done. Bully Boy Speaks! is being pimped like he's Garbo in her first talkie. Elisabeth Bumiller is left with "Iraqi Election Will Not End Security Threats, Bush Says." Of the three, believe it or not, it's the best written. (Yes, believe it or not.) That may be due to the fact that she's not covering the softballs she saw tossed to Bully Boy on TV. Bully Boy gave a speech in Philadelphia. And he actually was asked questions! And he answered some!
That's how low we've fallen as a nation. When a Bully Boy takes a few moments to respond to questions, it is actually news. Bully Boy, in response to a question, estimates that about 30,000 Iraqis have died since the beginning of the invasion/occupation. What does that mean? That means the mainstream media can now safely use a number because Bully Boy has spoken.
"Bush Shocked by Arrest of Former Adviser" (Associated Press)
"Bush Confident Iraq Will Avoid Civil War" (Associated Press)
"Bush: Ports Deal Collapse May Hurt U.S." (Associated Press)
We understand that the Associated Press covers many things but the headlines (and articles) aren't all that different than from what most news organizations run. (And many run the AP articles themselves.)
What we're not getting is why an article headlined, for instance, "Bush Confident Iraq Will Avoid Civil War" that never goes beyond providing free advertising to an administration talking point qualifies as news?
Bully Boy is confident, is he? Well was he publicly confident regarding Iraq before? (Yes.) And how did that turn out? Wouldn't that be a part of a real news article? "Today Bully Boy said he was confident that Iraq would avoid a civil war. Earlier, he had stated that he was confident that the mission had been accomplished as evidenced by the White House created banner displayed behind him. As we now know, the violence did not end then . . ."
How about the first headline? "Bush Shocked by Arrest of Former Advisor." Now is that reporting? Bully Boy is "shocked"? How do they know that? They know that he stated he was shocked. They can verify that. The article, in fact, makes that point. If "Said He Was" made up too many words for the headline, how about this "Bush 'Was Shocked' by Arrest of Former Advisor." Or even "Bush 'Shocked' by Arrest of Former Advisor"?
The third headline comes the closest to reporting, "Bush: Ports Deal Collapse May Hurt the U.S." Alas, then you read the article. "Both" sides reporting, at it's worst. Bully Boy makes a claim -- the scuttling of the deal could hurt the US. The article then, far into the article, presents some Democrats who are quoted (as our Republicans) on the need for safety. Then you're greeted at the end by unnamed (and unnumbered) "analysts" who agree with Bully Boy's claim. Who are these "analysists"? How many of them? Who provided them to the AP? Were there not any analysists who could refute the claim?
"Both" sides is not someone makes a claim and the claim's allowed to go undisputed. It's also not providing unnamed sources at the very end ("analysts") who back up the claim. The reader has no clue as to whom these analysts are or what their credentials are.
These points were raised in "NYT: Ga-Ga-Goo-Goo, Bully Boy speaks" and we still think they're valid. From that entry:
How embarrassing must it be for grown adults who think they're reporters, who put that on their passports, on the tax forms, to be stuck writing ad copy for the Bully Boy? Don't kid yourself that this is anything but ad copy.
Ava and I do TV reviews for The Third Estate Sunday Review (including one on a Bully Boy speech). That means something more than: "Today, our fearless leader was on NBC Nightly News. Brave leader said . . ."
But that's really all you get in the Times today. Adults embarrassing themselves with their lack of critical skills, as they rush to jot down what 'Brave Leader' said.
Richard W. Stevenson turns in "Race Not Factor In Aid, Bush Says" which mistakes news value in Bully Boy's statement that he's not a racist. It does *not* explore the statement. It doesn't try to provide perspective as to why his programs and responses might lead anyone to conclude that he is or is not a racist. It just tells you "Brave Leader" went on NBC Nightly News and said he wasn't one.
Then you have David E. Sanger and Erich Schmitt, working the same green room, telling you that on NBC Nightly News, "Bush Says He's Confident That He and McCain Will Reach Agreement on Interrogation Policy." They probably assume what they've written counts as a "critique." It's the same superficial nonsense that appeared in Monday's paper, on the same topic, with the only bit of news buried within. If there's any news value in the article, it's that the "Doomsday Scenario" -- why does everythign coming out of this administration sound like a torn and tattered airport novel? -- is being pushed by the administration.
"Doomsday Scenario"? The ticking time bomb nonsense once again. The sort of crap Nicky K and our latter day online Dylan wet themselves over with their dirty bomb nonsense. (It's not surprising that science doesn't enter Nicky K's head, it is suprising that with all our latter day Dylan's focus on education, he's yet to look at the issue scientifically or note the science community caveats on this topic and how they rank in terms of threats. Apparently someone's seen too many TV and film portrayals of backpacked dirty bombs to grasp that there's "reality" in film and TV and then reality in life.) So combining bits from Dershowitz's nightmare with bits of panic from just about everywhere, Stephen J. Hadley (who truly should have been asked who he informed about the e-mail Rove sent him long ago) and others argue that torture must be an option if we know that in mere hours a nuke may go off.
This isn't worst case scenario, note that. This administration can't address a nation honestly, they must always go for the highest drama. They must always attempt to goad the public into responding based upon a fear response. Helps keep the "bully" in Bully Boy.
And bad writing, jotting down what Bully Boy says and treating it as news, helps keep the public uninformed.
Wait, we're not done. Bully Boy Speaks! is being pimped like he's Garbo in her first talkie. Elisabeth Bumiller is left with "Iraqi Election Will Not End Security Threats, Bush Says." Of the three, believe it or not, it's the best written. (Yes, believe it or not.) That may be due to the fact that she's not covering the softballs she saw tossed to Bully Boy on TV. Bully Boy gave a speech in Philadelphia. And he actually was asked questions! And he answered some!
That's how low we've fallen as a nation. When a Bully Boy takes a few moments to respond to questions, it is actually news. Bully Boy, in response to a question, estimates that about 30,000 Iraqis have died since the beginning of the invasion/occupation. What does that mean? That means the mainstream media can now safely use a number because Bully Boy has spoken.
Laura Flanders takes the America is Purple tour to Montana
The New Orleans Public Library is asking for any and all hardcover and paperback books for people of all ages in an effort to restock the shelves after Katrina. The staff will assess which titles will be designated for its collections. The rest will be distributed to destitute familes or sold for library fundraising. Please send your books to:
Rica A. Trigs, Public Relations
New Orleans Public Library
219 Loyola Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70112
If you tell the post office that they are for the library in New Orleans, they will give you the library rate which is less than the book rate.
Steve Rosenfeld wrote the above on The Laura Flanders Show blog last Sunday. Rosenfeld is the executive producer of RadioNation with Laura Flanders. Reader Tarita asked a) why we hadn't noted it and b) if we could note it?
Why? We didn't know it was up. Can we note it? No. Oh, okay, but only because you wrote that you had listened each Saturday and Sunday for the last three weeks and thanked us for giving you the heads up to "an amazing woman I didn't even know about."
Truly, if a reader catches some information on RadioNation with Laura Flanders they want noted, send an e-mail. We're spotlighting each Sunday. We can always work in a heads up to something, so let us know (thirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com). This weekend, Laura Flanders has taken the show to Montana as part of her America is Purple tour. We called friends in Montana to give them a heads up and then called again to see what they thought. Their comment is the focus for this discussion.
Their comment can be phrased thusly: Why does it take a national radio show to focus in depth on our (Democratic) candidates?
They were impressed (as we were we) with RadioNation with Laura Flanders but they wondered why a national show was able to focus in such depth on state politics?
"They got to speak, really talk," was one comment that was said with more energy than it reads.
And the statement's correct. Flanders is a great journalist, she listens, she asks questions that are part of a conversation and not "Okay, now let me move to the next question on my list."
It's obvious, or sounds that way, that Flanders is enjoying every step on the America is Purple tour. But why does it take a national show to provide citizens of a state with a look at their officials and their candidates?
During her conversation with Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, we were cringing when he started talking about Hugo Chavez. Flanders listened and then encouraged him to explore the issue further (we sincerely hope he does). Does anything throw an interview for her? There must be something, even Superman has a weakness to kryptonite. But she's able to talk with anyone. "Talk with." Not "talk to." It's a conversation with Flanders (the whole point of her America is Purple tour). And with Schweitzer, Monica Lindeed, Kevin Furey and others, we felt like we were hearing a conversation and getting to know someone. The Sunday chat & chew hosts could learn a lot from Flanders.
Hopefully the Democratic Party big wigs were listening as well when the discussion turned to the 2004 election and it was noted that John Kerry, as Al Gore before him, didn't take out any TV advertisements in Montana. With three electoral votes, it may seem easy to dismiss Montana to bean counters. We're not bean counters. We think you have to be willing to get the message out everywhere.
Over three hours time (including commercials), Flanders provided you with an indepth look at Democratic politics (and politics period in many cases) in Montana. Is the answer to send Flanders to every state in the nation? We're for it. We learn a great deal with every stop on her tour. But we're wondering why residents of Montana feel they got better, more in depth coverage, from a national show than they get from their local media?
Their complaints about the local TV news were typical of complaints from any state: too much "a robbery today . . ." crime reports, too much chatter between anchors, too much hype, too little news they can use. The radio? Everyone we spoke to (15 people) was listening via XM satellite radio or online. Why? They didn't have a station they could pick up that carried Air America Radio. (Flanders addressed this on the show and said that management was hopeful that a new station would be found shortly.) Public radio? We heard a lot of snide remarks about Montana's NPR station KUHM (Helena) and how they get a whopping 41 minutes of Montana news each weekday. That's not 21 minutes straight. That's two four minutes breaks plus one eight minute break from 4:00 a.m. until 8:10 a.m. -- during four hours of NPR's Morning Edition (16 minutes -- "most of which is repeated in each break") -- and twenty-five minutes in the evening ("which is often repeated information from that morning or information that will be played again during the next day's breaks").
Forty-one minutes of news? Classical music gets one hour and fifty minutes each weekday and "at better hours" as one person noted. In fact on Sunday, you can get four hours and fifty-five minutes of classical music (along with an hour and a half of jazz music). You just can't get any local/state news. Saturdays offers one half-hour public affairs show that must fill some requirement for a "locally produced program" but it's not really news. Day by Day, All Things Considered, Weekend Edition, Weekend Fresh Air, Morning Edition, NPR Hourly Newscast . . . You hear the schedule and you start to understand why it took Laura Flanders coming to the state to inform listeners about their Democratic officials, candidates and activists. A lot of canned, national programming. We're not sure how that qualifies for "public radio," but we'll leave that for another feature.
What we are sure of is that Flanders shined a light on Montana and, if you listened, you learned a great deal. The America is Purple tour continues, hopefully it will visit many more states. Not being "media enablers," we won't suggest that Flanders' actions lets state and local broadcasters off the hook. But let's all be glad she showed up.
Later today, she continues broadcasting from Montana:
Sunday
Going deeper into who and what made the difference in returning Democrats to power, we go to the Montana Human Rights Network (MHRN) and talk to: MHRN co-director and state Senator KEN TOOLE; MHRN co-director CHRISTINE KAUFFMAN; Montana Women Vote's TERRY KENDRICK; actress and activist, MARGOT KIDDER of MontanaWomenFor.org, state Rep. MARY CAFARRO and WEEL state welfare specialist; THERESA KEAVENY of Montana's League of Conservation Voters, and HELEN WALLER of the Northern Plains Resource Council. If you want to be part of our audience on Sunday, call the Montana Human Rights Network on 406 442 5506 for address details.
RadioNation with Laura Flanders. If you miss the broadcasts: "As always, a one-hour version of last weekend's program is available at http://www.thenation.com/."
Rica A. Trigs, Public Relations
New Orleans Public Library
219 Loyola Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70112
If you tell the post office that they are for the library in New Orleans, they will give you the library rate which is less than the book rate.
Steve Rosenfeld wrote the above on The Laura Flanders Show blog last Sunday. Rosenfeld is the executive producer of RadioNation with Laura Flanders. Reader Tarita asked a) why we hadn't noted it and b) if we could note it?
Why? We didn't know it was up. Can we note it? No. Oh, okay, but only because you wrote that you had listened each Saturday and Sunday for the last three weeks and thanked us for giving you the heads up to "an amazing woman I didn't even know about."
Truly, if a reader catches some information on RadioNation with Laura Flanders they want noted, send an e-mail. We're spotlighting each Sunday. We can always work in a heads up to something, so let us know (thirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com). This weekend, Laura Flanders has taken the show to Montana as part of her America is Purple tour. We called friends in Montana to give them a heads up and then called again to see what they thought. Their comment is the focus for this discussion.
Their comment can be phrased thusly: Why does it take a national radio show to focus in depth on our (Democratic) candidates?
They were impressed (as we were we) with RadioNation with Laura Flanders but they wondered why a national show was able to focus in such depth on state politics?
"They got to speak, really talk," was one comment that was said with more energy than it reads.
And the statement's correct. Flanders is a great journalist, she listens, she asks questions that are part of a conversation and not "Okay, now let me move to the next question on my list."
It's obvious, or sounds that way, that Flanders is enjoying every step on the America is Purple tour. But why does it take a national show to provide citizens of a state with a look at their officials and their candidates?
During her conversation with Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, we were cringing when he started talking about Hugo Chavez. Flanders listened and then encouraged him to explore the issue further (we sincerely hope he does). Does anything throw an interview for her? There must be something, even Superman has a weakness to kryptonite. But she's able to talk with anyone. "Talk with." Not "talk to." It's a conversation with Flanders (the whole point of her America is Purple tour). And with Schweitzer, Monica Lindeed, Kevin Furey and others, we felt like we were hearing a conversation and getting to know someone. The Sunday chat & chew hosts could learn a lot from Flanders.
Hopefully the Democratic Party big wigs were listening as well when the discussion turned to the 2004 election and it was noted that John Kerry, as Al Gore before him, didn't take out any TV advertisements in Montana. With three electoral votes, it may seem easy to dismiss Montana to bean counters. We're not bean counters. We think you have to be willing to get the message out everywhere.
Over three hours time (including commercials), Flanders provided you with an indepth look at Democratic politics (and politics period in many cases) in Montana. Is the answer to send Flanders to every state in the nation? We're for it. We learn a great deal with every stop on her tour. But we're wondering why residents of Montana feel they got better, more in depth coverage, from a national show than they get from their local media?
Their complaints about the local TV news were typical of complaints from any state: too much "a robbery today . . ." crime reports, too much chatter between anchors, too much hype, too little news they can use. The radio? Everyone we spoke to (15 people) was listening via XM satellite radio or online. Why? They didn't have a station they could pick up that carried Air America Radio. (Flanders addressed this on the show and said that management was hopeful that a new station would be found shortly.) Public radio? We heard a lot of snide remarks about Montana's NPR station KUHM (Helena) and how they get a whopping 41 minutes of Montana news each weekday. That's not 21 minutes straight. That's two four minutes breaks plus one eight minute break from 4:00 a.m. until 8:10 a.m. -- during four hours of NPR's Morning Edition (16 minutes -- "most of which is repeated in each break") -- and twenty-five minutes in the evening ("which is often repeated information from that morning or information that will be played again during the next day's breaks").
Forty-one minutes of news? Classical music gets one hour and fifty minutes each weekday and "at better hours" as one person noted. In fact on Sunday, you can get four hours and fifty-five minutes of classical music (along with an hour and a half of jazz music). You just can't get any local/state news. Saturdays offers one half-hour public affairs show that must fill some requirement for a "locally produced program" but it's not really news. Day by Day, All Things Considered, Weekend Edition, Weekend Fresh Air, Morning Edition, NPR Hourly Newscast . . . You hear the schedule and you start to understand why it took Laura Flanders coming to the state to inform listeners about their Democratic officials, candidates and activists. A lot of canned, national programming. We're not sure how that qualifies for "public radio," but we'll leave that for another feature.
What we are sure of is that Flanders shined a light on Montana and, if you listened, you learned a great deal. The America is Purple tour continues, hopefully it will visit many more states. Not being "media enablers," we won't suggest that Flanders' actions lets state and local broadcasters off the hook. But let's all be glad she showed up.
Later today, she continues broadcasting from Montana:
Sunday
Going deeper into who and what made the difference in returning Democrats to power, we go to the Montana Human Rights Network (MHRN) and talk to: MHRN co-director and state Senator KEN TOOLE; MHRN co-director CHRISTINE KAUFFMAN; Montana Women Vote's TERRY KENDRICK; actress and activist, MARGOT KIDDER of MontanaWomenFor.org, state Rep. MARY CAFARRO and WEEL state welfare specialist; THERESA KEAVENY of Montana's League of Conservation Voters, and HELEN WALLER of the Northern Plains Resource Council. If you want to be part of our audience on Sunday, call the Montana Human Rights Network on 406 442 5506 for address details.
RadioNation with Laura Flanders. If you miss the broadcasts: "As always, a one-hour version of last weekend's program is available at http://www.thenation.com/."
Cinco localidades de Vermont apoyaron juicio politico a Bush (Democracy Now!)
Cinco localidades de Vermont apoyaron juicio político a Bush (Democracy Now!)
Maria: Buenos dias. De parte de "Democracy Now!" diez cosas que vale hacer notar este fin de semana. Paz.
Cinco localidades de Vermont apoyaron juicio político a Bush
En Vermont, cinco localidades aprobaron medidas para solicitar el juicio político al Presidente Bush. Los votos surgieron en un momento en que las conversaciones sobre el juicio político aumentan. El lunes, el "Wall Street Journal" publicó un extenso artículo que señalaba que las encuestas indican que hay un mayor apoyo por parte de la población para que se someta al presidente Bush a juicio político, que el que hubo para realizar un juicio político al Presidente Clinton durante todo su mandato. En 1998, las encuestas mostraron que el 27 por ciento de los estadounidenses apoyaban el juicio político a Clinton si había mentido acerca de si había mantenido relaciones sexuales con Monica Lewinsky. Mientras tanto, una encuesta realizada recientemente por Zogby, indicó que el 51 por ciento de los estadounidenses encuestados dijo que el Congreso debería considerar realizar un juicio político al presidente Bush si no decía la verdad sobre las razones para iniciar la guerra en Irak.
Ex fiscal del Departamento de Justicia: "Justificación débil" para el programa de espionaje sin órdenes judiciales
Mientras tanto, un ex abogado de alto rango de seguridad nacional del Departamento de Justicia criticó algunas de las principales justificaciones legales del gobierno de Bush para llevar a cabo el programa de espionaje sin órdenes judiciales. El ex vicefiscal general asociado, David Kris, dice que el argumento del gobierno de Bush de que el Congreso había autorizado el programa de la Agencia de Seguridad Nacional al aprobar la utilización de la fuerza contra al-Qaeda, era una "justificación débil" y que probablemente no sería respaldada por la justicia. Kris supervisó los asuntos de seguridad nacional en el Departamento de Justicia desde 2000 hasta 2003.
Grupos por las libertades civiles piden a tribunal que cancele programa de espionaje de la NSA
Dos grupos por las libertades civiles pidieron el jueves a tribunales federales que obliguen al gobierno de Bush a que ponga fin a su programa de espionaje nacional sin ordenes judiciales porque viola el derecho a la privacidad y a la libertad de expresión de los ciudadanos estadounidenses. El pedido del Centro para los Derechos Constitucionales y la Unión Estadounidense para las Libertades Civiles (ACLU, por sus siglas en inglés), surgió sólo días después que los Republicanos obstruyeran una investigación del Senado sobre el programa de espionaje de la Agencia de Seguridad Nacional. El Director Ejecutivo de ACLU, Anthony Romero, dijo: "En Estados Unidos, nadie está por encima de la ley, ni siquiera el Presidente. Los aliados del Presidente en el Congreso se están preparando para ocultar su programa ilegal, mientras que otros miembros del Congreso se mantienen al margen. Cuando el Presidente viola la ley, el Congreso no debería dejarlo en libertad".
Bush y Senadores Republicanos llegan a acuerdo sobre espionaje del gobierno
En Capitol Hill, el Comité de Inteligencia del Senado decidió mediante una votación rechazar una propuesta para investigar el programa de espionaje interno del gobierno de Bush. Esta votación surgió luego de que la Casa Blanca y Senadores Republicanos acordaran nuevos lineamientos para la escucha de conversaciones telefónicas llevada a cabo por el gobierno sin órdenes judiciales. Según el "New York Times", el acuerdo establece que el gobierno de Bush debe solicitar órdenes judiciales sólo "cuando sea posible". Al gobierno de Bush se le otorgará un período de gracia de 45 días para llevar a cabo espionaje sin órdenes judiciales si consideraran que solicitarlas comprometería la seguridad nacional. Luego de transcurrido ese periodo de 45 días, el espionaje sin órdenes judiciales puede ser extendido si el fiscal general certifica la postura del gobierno. Asimismo, varios miembros del Congreso estarán informados sobre las actividades del programa. Los Demócratas atacaron el acuerdo. El Senador de Virginia Occidental John Rockefeller, quien se desempeña como vicepresidente del Comité de Inteligencia del Senado, dijo: "Para decirlo sin rodeos, el Comité está básicamente controlado por la Casa Blanca".
Gran Bretaña anuncia intención de retirar soldados de Irak
En otras noticias de Irak, el principal comandante militar británico en Irak anunció planes de retirar a casi todos sus soldados para la primavera de 2008. En una entrevista con el diario "Daily Telegraph", el Teniente General Nick Houghton dijo que el retiro por etapas comenzarían en semanas. Sin embargo, Houghton dijo que el retiro depende fundamentalmente de que los legisladores iraquíes formen un gobierno de coalición nacional y de que los gobiernos estadounidense y británico consideren que las fuerzas armadas iraquíes están preparadas para manejar la seguridad. En la actualidad hay 8.000 soldados británicos en Irak.
Comandante militar iraquí de alto rango muere en Bagdad
Mientras tanto, el jefe de la división del ejército iraquí en Bagdad murió el lunes cuando su vehículo fue atacado. El Mayor General Mubdar Hatim Hazya al-Dulaimi es uno de los oficiales militares iraquíes de más alto rango que perdió su vida en manos de la violencia de los insurgentes. Un comandante estadounidense de las fuerzas armadas que supervisó el contigente militar de Estados Unidos en Bagdad el año pasado dijo acerca de la muerte del General: "Podría ser un golpe del que llevará tiempo recuperarse". El incidente fue uno de varios ataques que se produjeron el lunes y que dejaron un saldo de más de 20 muertos y 50 heridos en todo Irak. En el peor ataque del día, siete personas murieron, entre ellas cinco niños, en un atentado con bomba en un mercado repleto de gente en la localidad de Baquba. Otras 17 personas resultaron heridas.
250 especialistas médicos condenan trato de Estados Unidos a prisioneros de Guantánamo
Más de 250 especialistas médicos firmaron una carta que condena a Estados Unidos por alimentar a la fuerza a prisioneros en huelga de hambre en la prisión de Bahía de Guantánamo, Cuba. La carta fue publicada en la revista médica británica "The Lancet". Los médicos escribieron: "Exhortamos al gobierno estadounidense a asegurar que los detenidos sean evaluados por médicos independientes y que las técnicas como la alimentación forzada o las sillas de sujeción sean descartadas". Los médicos también dijeron que la Asociación Médica Estadounidense debería iniciar procesos disciplinarios contra cualquier miembro que se sepa que violó los códigos de ética mientras trabajaba en Guantánamo.
Amnistía dice que sistema de cárceles iraquí administrado por Estados Unidos es una "receta para el maltrato"
En otras noticias, Amnistía Internacional condenó lo que denomina detención "arbitraria" de decenas de miles de personas en Irak. En un nuevo informe, el grupo defensor de los derechos humanos dice que el sistema de cárceles administrado por Estados Unidos se ha transformado en una "receta para el maltrato". Kate Allen, la directora de Amnistía Internacional en el Reino Unido dijo: "Mientras que las fuerzas estadounidenses y británicas tengan prisioneros en condiciones de reclusión secretas, es más probable que haya tortura, y que ésta no sean detectada ni castigada".
Manifestante dijo a Condoleeza Rice: "Tiene las manos sucias de sangre"
Un manifestante fue expulsado de la audiencia del Senado luego de interrumpir la declaración de la Secretaria de Estado Condoleeza Rice. El manifestante dijo: "Es una guerra ilegal e inmoral, cuántos de ustedes tienen hijos en esa guerra ilegal e inmoral. Tienen las manos sucias de sangre y no se las pueden lavar. Tienen las manos sucias de sangre y no se las pueden lavar".
Se le diagnosticó cáncer de mama a Lynne Stewart
Y la defensora de los derechos civiles condenada a prisión, Lynne Stewart, reveló que está luchando contra el cáncer de mama. A Stewart le diagnosticaron la enfermedad en noviembre, y le extirparon un tumor a principios de este año. Stewart fue condenada el año pasado por conspiración y por apoyar al terrorismo mediante la publicación de una declaración de su cliente encarcelado, jeque Omar Abdel-Rahman. Siempre ha sostenido su inocencia. Afronta una pena máxima de treinta años en prisión. La condena de Stewart está programada para la semana próxima. Sus abogados solicitaron que se postergara la condena hasta fines de julio para que pueda someterse a tratamiento.
Maria: Good morning. Now in English, here are ten news stories from Democracy Now! Peace.
Five Vermont Towns Back Impeachment of Bush
In Vermont, five towns have approved measures calling for the impeachment of President Bush. The votes come at a time when the talk of impeachment is increasing. On Monday the Wall Street Journal ran a lengthy article pointing out how polls show there is greater support among the public for the impeachment of President Bush than there ever was for President Clinton. In 1998, polls showed 27 percent of the country backed the impeachment of Clinton if he lied about having a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Meanwhile a recent Zogby poll showed 51 percent of the country said Congress should consider impeaching Bush if he didn't tell truth about the reasons for the Iraq war.
Ex-Justice Attorney: "Weak Justification" for Warrantless Spying
A former high-ranking national security lawyer at the Justice Department has come forward to criticize some of the Bush administration's key legal justifications for the warrantless spying program. Former associate deputy attorney general David Kris says the Bush administration's contention that Congress had authorized the NSA program by approving the use of force against al-Qaeda was a "weak justification" unlikely to be supported by the courts. Kris oversaw national security issues at the Justice Department from 2000 until 2003.
Civil Liberties Groups Seek Court to Shutdown NSA Spy Program
Two civil liberties groups asked the federal courts on Thursday to force the Bush administration to end its warrantless domestic spying program because it violates the privacy and free speech rights of US citizens. The requests from the Center for Constitutional Rights and American Civil Liberties Union came just days after Republicans blocked a Senate investigation into the National Security Agency spy program. ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said "In America, no one is above the law, not even the president. The president's allies in Congress are preparing to cover up his illegal program, while others in Congress are standing on the sidelines. When the President breaks the law, Congress should not be giving him a get-out-of-jail free card."
Bush, GOP Sens. Reach Eavesdropping Agreement
On Capitol Hill, the Senate Intelligence Committee has voted down a proposal to investigate the Bush administration’s domestic spy program. The vote came after the White House and Republican Senators agreed to new guidelines for the practice of government eavesdropping without court-approved warrants. According to the New York Times, the deal asks the Bush administration to request court warrants only "whenever possible." The Bush administration would be given a 45 day grace period to spy without court warrants if they felt requesting them would compromise national security. After the 45-day period, the warrantless eavesdropping could then be extended if the attorney general certifies the administration’s stance. In addition, a handful of extra members of Congress would also be briefed on the program’s activities. Democrats lashed out at the deal. West Virginia Senator John Rockefeller, who serves as vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee said: "The committee is, to put it bluntly, basically under the control of the White House."
Britain Announces Intent To Withdraw Troops from Iraq
In other Iraq news, Britain's top military commander in Iraq has announced plans to withdraw nearly all of its soldiers by the summer of 2008. In an interview with the Daily Telegraph newspaper, Lieutenant General Nick Houghton said phased withdrawals would begin within weeks. However, Houghton said the pullout is ultimately contingent on Iraqi lawmakers forming a national coalition government and the US and British governments judging the Iraqi military ready to handle security. There are currently 8,000 British troops in Iraq.
Senior Iraqi Military Commander Killed in Baghdad
Meanwhile, the head of the Iraqi army’s Baghdad division was killed Monday when his vehicle came under attack. Major General Mubdar Hatim Hazya al-Dulaimi is one of the highest-ranking Iraqi military officials to lose their lives in insurgent violence. A US military commander who oversaw the US military contingent in Baghdad last year said of the General's death: "It could be a blow that takes a long time to overcome." The incident was one of several Monday that left more than 20 people dead and 50 injured around Iraq. In the day's worst attack, five children were among seven people killed in a bombing in a crowded market in the town of Baqubah. Another 17 people were injured.
250 Doctors Condemn U.S. Treatment of Prisoners at Guantanamo
More than 250 medical experts have co-signed a letter condemning the United States for force-feeding prisoners on hunger strike at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The letter appears in the British medical journal The Lancet. The doctors wrote "We urge the US government to ensure that detainees are assessed by independent physicians and that techniques such as force-feeding and restraint chairs are abandoned." The doctors also said the American Medical Association should instigate disciplinary proceedings against any members known to have violated ethical codes while working at Guantanamo.
Amnesty Says US-Run Iraqi Prison System "Recipe for Abuse"
In other news, Amnesty International has condemned what it calls the "arbitrary" detention of tens of thousands of people in Iraq. In a new report, the human rights group says the US-run prison system has become "a recipe for abuse." Amnesty International UK Director Kate Allen said: "As long as U.S. and U.K. forces hold prisoners in secret detention conditions, torture is much more likely to occur, to go undetected and to go unpunished."
Protester to Condoleeza Rice: "Blood Is On Your Hands"
A protester was thrown out of the Senate hearing after disrupting testimony by Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. The protester said " 'It's an Illegal and immoral war -- how many of you have children in the illegal and immoral war. Their blood is on your hands and cannot wash it away. Their blood is on your hands and you cannot wash it away."
Lynne Stewart Diagnosed With Breast Cancer
And convicted civil rights lawyer Lynne Stewart has disclosed she is battling breast cancer. Stewart was diagnosed in November, and had a tumor removed earlier this year. Stewart was convicted last year of conspiracy and providing material support to terrorism by releasing a statement by her imprisoned client, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman. She has always maintained her innocence. She is facing a maximum of thirty years in prison. Stewart is scheduled to be sentenced next week. Her lawyers have requested sentencing be postponed until the end of July so she can pursue treatment.
democracy now
news
iraq
irak
noticias
the common ills
Cinco localidades de Vermont apoyaron juicio político a Bush
En Vermont, cinco localidades aprobaron medidas para solicitar el juicio político al Presidente Bush. Los votos surgieron en un momento en que las conversaciones sobre el juicio político aumentan. El lunes, el "Wall Street Journal" publicó un extenso artículo que señalaba que las encuestas indican que hay un mayor apoyo por parte de la población para que se someta al presidente Bush a juicio político, que el que hubo para realizar un juicio político al Presidente Clinton durante todo su mandato. En 1998, las encuestas mostraron que el 27 por ciento de los estadounidenses apoyaban el juicio político a Clinton si había mentido acerca de si había mantenido relaciones sexuales con Monica Lewinsky. Mientras tanto, una encuesta realizada recientemente por Zogby, indicó que el 51 por ciento de los estadounidenses encuestados dijo que el Congreso debería considerar realizar un juicio político al presidente Bush si no decía la verdad sobre las razones para iniciar la guerra en Irak.
Ex fiscal del Departamento de Justicia: "Justificación débil" para el programa de espionaje sin órdenes judiciales
Mientras tanto, un ex abogado de alto rango de seguridad nacional del Departamento de Justicia criticó algunas de las principales justificaciones legales del gobierno de Bush para llevar a cabo el programa de espionaje sin órdenes judiciales. El ex vicefiscal general asociado, David Kris, dice que el argumento del gobierno de Bush de que el Congreso había autorizado el programa de la Agencia de Seguridad Nacional al aprobar la utilización de la fuerza contra al-Qaeda, era una "justificación débil" y que probablemente no sería respaldada por la justicia. Kris supervisó los asuntos de seguridad nacional en el Departamento de Justicia desde 2000 hasta 2003.
Grupos por las libertades civiles piden a tribunal que cancele programa de espionaje de la NSA
Dos grupos por las libertades civiles pidieron el jueves a tribunales federales que obliguen al gobierno de Bush a que ponga fin a su programa de espionaje nacional sin ordenes judiciales porque viola el derecho a la privacidad y a la libertad de expresión de los ciudadanos estadounidenses. El pedido del Centro para los Derechos Constitucionales y la Unión Estadounidense para las Libertades Civiles (ACLU, por sus siglas en inglés), surgió sólo días después que los Republicanos obstruyeran una investigación del Senado sobre el programa de espionaje de la Agencia de Seguridad Nacional. El Director Ejecutivo de ACLU, Anthony Romero, dijo: "En Estados Unidos, nadie está por encima de la ley, ni siquiera el Presidente. Los aliados del Presidente en el Congreso se están preparando para ocultar su programa ilegal, mientras que otros miembros del Congreso se mantienen al margen. Cuando el Presidente viola la ley, el Congreso no debería dejarlo en libertad".
Bush y Senadores Republicanos llegan a acuerdo sobre espionaje del gobierno
En Capitol Hill, el Comité de Inteligencia del Senado decidió mediante una votación rechazar una propuesta para investigar el programa de espionaje interno del gobierno de Bush. Esta votación surgió luego de que la Casa Blanca y Senadores Republicanos acordaran nuevos lineamientos para la escucha de conversaciones telefónicas llevada a cabo por el gobierno sin órdenes judiciales. Según el "New York Times", el acuerdo establece que el gobierno de Bush debe solicitar órdenes judiciales sólo "cuando sea posible". Al gobierno de Bush se le otorgará un período de gracia de 45 días para llevar a cabo espionaje sin órdenes judiciales si consideraran que solicitarlas comprometería la seguridad nacional. Luego de transcurrido ese periodo de 45 días, el espionaje sin órdenes judiciales puede ser extendido si el fiscal general certifica la postura del gobierno. Asimismo, varios miembros del Congreso estarán informados sobre las actividades del programa. Los Demócratas atacaron el acuerdo. El Senador de Virginia Occidental John Rockefeller, quien se desempeña como vicepresidente del Comité de Inteligencia del Senado, dijo: "Para decirlo sin rodeos, el Comité está básicamente controlado por la Casa Blanca".
Gran Bretaña anuncia intención de retirar soldados de Irak
En otras noticias de Irak, el principal comandante militar británico en Irak anunció planes de retirar a casi todos sus soldados para la primavera de 2008. En una entrevista con el diario "Daily Telegraph", el Teniente General Nick Houghton dijo que el retiro por etapas comenzarían en semanas. Sin embargo, Houghton dijo que el retiro depende fundamentalmente de que los legisladores iraquíes formen un gobierno de coalición nacional y de que los gobiernos estadounidense y británico consideren que las fuerzas armadas iraquíes están preparadas para manejar la seguridad. En la actualidad hay 8.000 soldados británicos en Irak.
Comandante militar iraquí de alto rango muere en Bagdad
Mientras tanto, el jefe de la división del ejército iraquí en Bagdad murió el lunes cuando su vehículo fue atacado. El Mayor General Mubdar Hatim Hazya al-Dulaimi es uno de los oficiales militares iraquíes de más alto rango que perdió su vida en manos de la violencia de los insurgentes. Un comandante estadounidense de las fuerzas armadas que supervisó el contigente militar de Estados Unidos en Bagdad el año pasado dijo acerca de la muerte del General: "Podría ser un golpe del que llevará tiempo recuperarse". El incidente fue uno de varios ataques que se produjeron el lunes y que dejaron un saldo de más de 20 muertos y 50 heridos en todo Irak. En el peor ataque del día, siete personas murieron, entre ellas cinco niños, en un atentado con bomba en un mercado repleto de gente en la localidad de Baquba. Otras 17 personas resultaron heridas.
250 especialistas médicos condenan trato de Estados Unidos a prisioneros de Guantánamo
Más de 250 especialistas médicos firmaron una carta que condena a Estados Unidos por alimentar a la fuerza a prisioneros en huelga de hambre en la prisión de Bahía de Guantánamo, Cuba. La carta fue publicada en la revista médica británica "The Lancet". Los médicos escribieron: "Exhortamos al gobierno estadounidense a asegurar que los detenidos sean evaluados por médicos independientes y que las técnicas como la alimentación forzada o las sillas de sujeción sean descartadas". Los médicos también dijeron que la Asociación Médica Estadounidense debería iniciar procesos disciplinarios contra cualquier miembro que se sepa que violó los códigos de ética mientras trabajaba en Guantánamo.
Amnistía dice que sistema de cárceles iraquí administrado por Estados Unidos es una "receta para el maltrato"
En otras noticias, Amnistía Internacional condenó lo que denomina detención "arbitraria" de decenas de miles de personas en Irak. En un nuevo informe, el grupo defensor de los derechos humanos dice que el sistema de cárceles administrado por Estados Unidos se ha transformado en una "receta para el maltrato". Kate Allen, la directora de Amnistía Internacional en el Reino Unido dijo: "Mientras que las fuerzas estadounidenses y británicas tengan prisioneros en condiciones de reclusión secretas, es más probable que haya tortura, y que ésta no sean detectada ni castigada".
Manifestante dijo a Condoleeza Rice: "Tiene las manos sucias de sangre"
Un manifestante fue expulsado de la audiencia del Senado luego de interrumpir la declaración de la Secretaria de Estado Condoleeza Rice. El manifestante dijo: "Es una guerra ilegal e inmoral, cuántos de ustedes tienen hijos en esa guerra ilegal e inmoral. Tienen las manos sucias de sangre y no se las pueden lavar. Tienen las manos sucias de sangre y no se las pueden lavar".
Se le diagnosticó cáncer de mama a Lynne Stewart
Y la defensora de los derechos civiles condenada a prisión, Lynne Stewart, reveló que está luchando contra el cáncer de mama. A Stewart le diagnosticaron la enfermedad en noviembre, y le extirparon un tumor a principios de este año. Stewart fue condenada el año pasado por conspiración y por apoyar al terrorismo mediante la publicación de una declaración de su cliente encarcelado, jeque Omar Abdel-Rahman. Siempre ha sostenido su inocencia. Afronta una pena máxima de treinta años en prisión. La condena de Stewart está programada para la semana próxima. Sus abogados solicitaron que se postergara la condena hasta fines de julio para que pueda someterse a tratamiento.
Maria: Good morning. Now in English, here are ten news stories from Democracy Now! Peace.
Five Vermont Towns Back Impeachment of Bush
In Vermont, five towns have approved measures calling for the impeachment of President Bush. The votes come at a time when the talk of impeachment is increasing. On Monday the Wall Street Journal ran a lengthy article pointing out how polls show there is greater support among the public for the impeachment of President Bush than there ever was for President Clinton. In 1998, polls showed 27 percent of the country backed the impeachment of Clinton if he lied about having a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Meanwhile a recent Zogby poll showed 51 percent of the country said Congress should consider impeaching Bush if he didn't tell truth about the reasons for the Iraq war.
Ex-Justice Attorney: "Weak Justification" for Warrantless Spying
A former high-ranking national security lawyer at the Justice Department has come forward to criticize some of the Bush administration's key legal justifications for the warrantless spying program. Former associate deputy attorney general David Kris says the Bush administration's contention that Congress had authorized the NSA program by approving the use of force against al-Qaeda was a "weak justification" unlikely to be supported by the courts. Kris oversaw national security issues at the Justice Department from 2000 until 2003.
Civil Liberties Groups Seek Court to Shutdown NSA Spy Program
Two civil liberties groups asked the federal courts on Thursday to force the Bush administration to end its warrantless domestic spying program because it violates the privacy and free speech rights of US citizens. The requests from the Center for Constitutional Rights and American Civil Liberties Union came just days after Republicans blocked a Senate investigation into the National Security Agency spy program. ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said "In America, no one is above the law, not even the president. The president's allies in Congress are preparing to cover up his illegal program, while others in Congress are standing on the sidelines. When the President breaks the law, Congress should not be giving him a get-out-of-jail free card."
Bush, GOP Sens. Reach Eavesdropping Agreement
On Capitol Hill, the Senate Intelligence Committee has voted down a proposal to investigate the Bush administration’s domestic spy program. The vote came after the White House and Republican Senators agreed to new guidelines for the practice of government eavesdropping without court-approved warrants. According to the New York Times, the deal asks the Bush administration to request court warrants only "whenever possible." The Bush administration would be given a 45 day grace period to spy without court warrants if they felt requesting them would compromise national security. After the 45-day period, the warrantless eavesdropping could then be extended if the attorney general certifies the administration’s stance. In addition, a handful of extra members of Congress would also be briefed on the program’s activities. Democrats lashed out at the deal. West Virginia Senator John Rockefeller, who serves as vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee said: "The committee is, to put it bluntly, basically under the control of the White House."
Britain Announces Intent To Withdraw Troops from Iraq
In other Iraq news, Britain's top military commander in Iraq has announced plans to withdraw nearly all of its soldiers by the summer of 2008. In an interview with the Daily Telegraph newspaper, Lieutenant General Nick Houghton said phased withdrawals would begin within weeks. However, Houghton said the pullout is ultimately contingent on Iraqi lawmakers forming a national coalition government and the US and British governments judging the Iraqi military ready to handle security. There are currently 8,000 British troops in Iraq.
Senior Iraqi Military Commander Killed in Baghdad
Meanwhile, the head of the Iraqi army’s Baghdad division was killed Monday when his vehicle came under attack. Major General Mubdar Hatim Hazya al-Dulaimi is one of the highest-ranking Iraqi military officials to lose their lives in insurgent violence. A US military commander who oversaw the US military contingent in Baghdad last year said of the General's death: "It could be a blow that takes a long time to overcome." The incident was one of several Monday that left more than 20 people dead and 50 injured around Iraq. In the day's worst attack, five children were among seven people killed in a bombing in a crowded market in the town of Baqubah. Another 17 people were injured.
250 Doctors Condemn U.S. Treatment of Prisoners at Guantanamo
More than 250 medical experts have co-signed a letter condemning the United States for force-feeding prisoners on hunger strike at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The letter appears in the British medical journal The Lancet. The doctors wrote "We urge the US government to ensure that detainees are assessed by independent physicians and that techniques such as force-feeding and restraint chairs are abandoned." The doctors also said the American Medical Association should instigate disciplinary proceedings against any members known to have violated ethical codes while working at Guantanamo.
Amnesty Says US-Run Iraqi Prison System "Recipe for Abuse"
In other news, Amnesty International has condemned what it calls the "arbitrary" detention of tens of thousands of people in Iraq. In a new report, the human rights group says the US-run prison system has become "a recipe for abuse." Amnesty International UK Director Kate Allen said: "As long as U.S. and U.K. forces hold prisoners in secret detention conditions, torture is much more likely to occur, to go undetected and to go unpunished."
Protester to Condoleeza Rice: "Blood Is On Your Hands"
A protester was thrown out of the Senate hearing after disrupting testimony by Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. The protester said " 'It's an Illegal and immoral war -- how many of you have children in the illegal and immoral war. Their blood is on your hands and cannot wash it away. Their blood is on your hands and you cannot wash it away."
Lynne Stewart Diagnosed With Breast Cancer
And convicted civil rights lawyer Lynne Stewart has disclosed she is battling breast cancer. Stewart was diagnosed in November, and had a tumor removed earlier this year. Stewart was convicted last year of conspiracy and providing material support to terrorism by releasing a statement by her imprisoned client, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman. She has always maintained her innocence. She is facing a maximum of thirty years in prison. Stewart is scheduled to be sentenced next week. Her lawyers have requested sentencing be postponed until the end of July so she can pursue treatment.
democracy now
news
iraq
irak
noticias
the common ills
Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.
Public Radio Spotlight: Ruth's latest report
Ruth, as Mike noted, continues to be one of the few people noting Pacifica on a regular basis. Each weekend we look foward to the latest Ruth's Public Radio Report (formerly Ruth's Morning Edition Report). Read this one and you'll see why.
Ruth's Public Radio Report
Well COINTELPRO was an illegal effort on the part of the FBI, under J. Edgar Hoover, to destroy opponents of the Nixon administration. They planted what they called 'black propaganda.' They would fake letters and sent them in to columnists in Hollywood that would slander the person they wanted to destroy with made up stuff. I mean they destroyed Jean Seberg. She ended up killing herself because of what the FBI did. I write about that in my book. In some instances people were assassinated. They just . . . It was a vigilante group under the auspices of the FBI and Hoover that would, you know, result to almost anything to destroy people who opposed the policies of the government and I was one of those targeted by COINTELPRO. And eventually what I found out was not only the FBI, but the CIA and other government agencies had followed me, had tapped my phones. I mean, when I was here in Berkeley, making Steelyard Blues, my daughter was going to the Blue Fairyland pre-school that was run by the Red family and right there in my FBI files are descriptions of the Blue Fairyland and, you know, her going to school. They even followed my daughter. They broke into my house, they rifled through my stuff, they turned over my bank accounts. And the CIA, later, because I sued them, admitted it was the first time that they had opened the mail of a US citizen. They were trying to get me on sedition because you need to be able to prove criminal activity. Well they never, there was no basis for it and people kept telling them there's no basis for this . . . But they kept it up. They kept it up.
Ruth: The quote is Jane Fonda answering how the government spied on her in an interview with Sasha Lilly on Against the Grain. The interview took place in April of 2005 and it and other memorable moments were included in Tuesday's Against the Grain as C.S. Soong and Sasha Lilly celebrated the third year anniversary of the program. If you have not had time to sample the program, this broadcast provided you with a good overview of the various topics this KPFA show addresses regularly.
It was a strong week for Pacifia Radio with all the stations noting International Women's Working Day Wednesday. WBAI devoted 48 hours to IWWD, broadcasting special programs Wednesday and Thursday. On Thursday, a caller expressed the opinion that while he had enjoyed the programming, he would prefer that they had done it in longer segments instead of half-hour ones so that topics could have been addressed at length. That is a difficult call because while all the segments were worthy of further discussion, there was such a large scope covered, it truly was an international celebration and I kept the radio tuned to WBAI exclusively throughout the 48 hours.
While rocking my grandson Elijah to sleep, I dozed off at one point Thursday morning and woke to hear Janet Coleman, of The Christmas Coup Players and Cat Radio Cafe, discussing menapause with two other hosts and callers for a segment on that. The callers were just as interesting as the three hosts and Ms. Coleman suggested that possibly WBAI needed to create a hotline for this topic, with one of the other hosts adding that it should be a "Hot Flash Line." We heard speeches from Shirley Chisholm with commentary by Shola Lynch who directed and produced Chisholm '72: Unbought and Unbossed; Wakeup Call presented a conference where Betty Friedan heard from women of the Third World who were less than pleased with what they heard in her comments on feminism; a wonderful discussion involving three Congress women, two of which were Cynthia McKinney and Maxine Waters; voices of African women; a conversation on the contributions of women to the Zapatista movement with a specific look at the accomplishments of the late Comandanta Ramona; on First Voices, co-host Tiokasin Ghosthorse stepped aside to let Mattie Harper solo as part of IWWD and she addressed topics that included the possible impact of South Dakota's recent anti-reproductive rights legislation on Native Americans in South Dakota; there was amazing music throughout, both recorded and live; and so much more. Short of making it a three day celebration, or longer, which I would support, I do not know how WBAI could have provided so many voices, so many topics and so many issues without providing half-hour segments.
All of the Pacifica stations and many affiliates participated in this but WBAI devoted two full days to the celebration.
Other standouts this week included Law & Disorder which took a hard hitting look at the Guantanamo prisoners. Throughtout the discussion, they provided many of the songs played to torture prisoners and advised you to picture yourself blindfolded and to turn the volume up considerably. Nina, Mike's girlfriend, e-mailed me that this week's show was the first one she'd listened to but "I'm hooked now." This is a personal favorite program of mine and if you listen, Monday on WBAI, at other times on another radio station, or online, I think it will become one of your favorite programs as well.
Friday's CounterSpin was anchored by Peter Hart and Janine Jackson. In their opening segment on current headlines, Ms. Jackson addressed two print pundits:
You'd be hard pressed to find many media folk who think the war in Iraq is going smoothly. But the recent spike in violence and the threat of civil war certainly does not mean that the war's critics were right about anything. Amid rising Sunni-Shia violence, Ronald Brownstein of the Los Angels Times had this to say in a March fifth column QUOTE: "the war's changing nature undermines the argument from many on the left that the U.S. presence is primarily fueling the violence. That seems increasingly untenable at a point when U.S. troops look like the only thing preventing Iraqis from tearing each other apart."
So the left is still wrong? But is it really a stretch to suggest that the current violence has something to do with the US invasion? And on Brownstein's second point, US commanders in Iraq were fairly clear in announcing that the upsurge in violence was going to be handled primarily by Iraqi security forces ... at least that's how his paper was reporting it.
Over at the New York Times, foreign affairs columnist Tom Friedman counseled on March 3rd that the American public was going to remain patient, they support the White House's goal of democracy building in Iraq, wrote Friedman. Quote: "That is why there has been no big anti-war movement." Never mind the millions of activists who marched even before the invasion. Friedman does note that if the American public loses faith in that mission, QUOTE:
"you will the see the bottom fall out of US support for this war."
It's hard to know what would qualify to Friedman as low public support. The CBS/New York Times poll at the end of February already showed only 29% of Americans think the Iraq invasion was worth it. Proving once again that the talking heads are often a few steps behind the people they're speaking for.
Peter Hart spoke with Amitabh Pal about press coverage of India and Bully Boy's proposed nuclear deal. Mr. Pal, managing editor and writer for The Progressive, was also a guest on Tuesday's KPFA The Morning Show. Ms. Jackson spoke with Eric Deggans regarding the now forgotten cries for a national discussion on race and class following the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Mr. Deggans had praise for NPR and The Chicago Tribune while advising that the ball was apparently being dropped by "progressives" and "Democrats" who are not pressing hard enough for this discussion. I am not sure how many news sources Mr. Deggans follows; however, Democracy Now!, The Morning Show, Law and Disorder and many other programs have had no difficulty in continuing to cover the evacuees and the factor race and class played in both the immediate after effects as well as the factor of race currently with both the rebuilding of New Orleans and their upcoming elections -- two topics that Mr. Deggans failed to address. Possibly NPR and The Chicago Tribune have not been covering these issues?
Mr. Deggans struck me not as a "media critic" but a "media enabler." He offered plenty of excuses for the mainstream media doing a lousy job. These included that it has "been hard for TV News outlets to find the time" and, on NPR, "It is public radio and they really only have so many reporters, so many producers." What, Ms. Jackson wondered, is needed for the issues of race and class to covered? Mr. Deggans continues to excuse the mainstream media and offers a very weak suggestion that if Democrats and "progressive" politicians would speak out more, the press would cover it. Considering that this excuse is often offered as to why they refused to cover the lead up to the Iraq war from anything other than the administration's point of view, I do not see this as a "solution" or as "media criticism." It sounded to me like lazy thinking, excuses and enabling a media system to continue to not do their job. It did not sound like media criticism.
NPR has a huge amount of money to spend covering stories they care about. If you read Mr. Deggans article on this topic, you will find NPR's Michele Norris confessing to being confounded about media (and her own?) coverage of Katrina, you will find NPR's Susan Feeney admitting that "It's not a good excuse. . . . We have a responsibility to raise issues no one else is raising. (But) we have not done the big step back on poverty, and boy, we really want to." Ms. Feeney, the only thing stopping you is you. I read her statement over the phone to my friend Treva who replied, "Want in one hand, ___ in the other and see which one fills up first." Mr. Deegans noted those lame excuses in his article and added to them in his comments on CounterSpin. That did not strike me as media criticism. It is not the politicians' job to do the media's. It is up to the media to find the stories and to provide coverage. Amy Goodman and the staff of Democracy Now! have not needed elected Democrats and elected progressives regularly speaking out in order to cover the topics of race and class. The mainstream media needs to be accountable for their own actions and Mr. Deegans would do well to attempt to hold them accountable in the future.
The Morning Show addressed issues all week without needing politicians in order to do so. Mia e-mailed asking that I note Friday's conversation on Iraq where Andrea Lewis spoke to Phyllis Bennis and Elaine Hagopian about some of the distortions and some of the realities we are seeing unfold. Ms. Bennis noted that in the conversations of a civil war in Iraq or a potential one, there seems to be an assumption by some commenting that Iraq will then become a war zone when, in fact, under U.S. occupation, it has been just that. Both women agreed that the press has covered the conflict in generalities reducing it to a Shia-Sunni duality when it is much more complex. Ms. Hagopian stated, "This is not simply a Sunni-Shia strife" and that if the troops left there would be far less to stir up in what Ms. Bennis characterized as "a kind of low intensity political civil war. . . that pits supporters of the occupation, some of whom actually support it and some of whom support it defacto because it's the only way they can get a job, and those who oppose the occupation enough to get rid of it." Both women had comments on Donald Rumsfeld's statements to Congress this week. Ms. Hagopian noted that, "Rumsfeld's always pie-in-the-sky or trying to blame it on someone else. . . . I think he and Condolezza Rice just basically lied. . . . They have really not understood the forces that are against the occupation. . . . Rumsfeld, this is his trademark: Everything is okay . . . and it's not our fault, it's their fault." Ms. Bennis pondered what lay ahead and when low-level troop withdrawal might take place under the Bully Boy's current plan, "We will see a great fanfare with the return of some U.S. troops . . . It's hoped that we will forget about the 60,000 to 70,000" that would still remain in Iraq on the permanent basis. Ms. Bennis made the comment that unlike the fatalities, the returning would not be hidden away as the Bully Boy staged elaborate parades to sell yet another wave of Operation Happy Talk.
Also on Friday's show was a wonderful discussion, in the last half hour, of Dinah Washington's career, life and accomplishments. (Ms. Hagopin and Ms. Bennis are interviewed by Andrea Lewis in the first half-hour.) Zach e-mailed asking if it was true that he missed Matthew Rothschild on The Morning Show this week? Yes, Zach, if you weren't listening Tuesday, you did miss it. Philip Maldari and Andrea Lewis discussed the topic of impeachment with Mr. Rothschild, editor of The Progressive. This was also the same broadcast that Amitabh Pal appeared on. Mr. Rothschild was on in the first half-hour and Mr. Pal was on in the second half-hour of the program.
On impeachment, Mr. Rothschild stated, "I think the legal grounds are incredibly strong and that's why I think it's important for us to keep pressing the case for impeachment . . . because if we don't, what essentially that we're saying is that it's okay for Bush to be doing what he's been doing, for him to be violating these laws. And it sets the precedent for the next person to come in and say, 'I can decide what laws I want to obey and which ones I don't. The last guy did it."
Andrea Lewis noted that Matthew Rothschild would be in California in May and that they would like to have him on then so there is a heads up for Zach to a possible next appearance.
Here is another heads up, Sunday at 9:00 a.m. Pacific time, 11:00 a.m. Central, and noon Eastern time on KPFA:
Sunday Salon
In our first hour... A look at how the world's religious leaders teach us about war, and how we apply the lesson. We'll talk with Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and author Chris Hedges ("Losing Moses on the Freeway: The Ten Commandments in America"); Muslim thinker and theologian Hamza Yusuf, founder of the Hayward, CA-based Zaytuna Institute, and independent photographer Kael Alford, whose work documenting the American bombing of Baghdad and the impact of the war on Iraq, is featured in the new book "Unembedded." All three of our guests will participate in the Saturday March 11th event in Berkeley: "Does God Love War?" The free event is at 7:00 p.m. at the martin Luther King Jr Middle School Auditorium, 1781 Rose Street.
In our second hour... First, two veterans events, marking the 3rd anniversary next week of the US invasion of Iraq, then... Iran, India, and Pakistan: The Bush Administration's foes and favorites in nuclear policy. Joining us: Pakistani journalist and author ("Taliban") Ahmed Rashid; and Angana Chatterji, professor of Social and Cultural Anthropology (California Center for Integral Studies) and author of the forthcoming "Violent Gods: Hindu Nationalism in India's Present"
Listen to past shows, get contact and reference info for guests, see announcements of upcoming programs, and more at: SundaySalon.org
Also Sunday, Houston's KPFT has this special broadcast:
Ladies Day 2006
Sunday, March 12
8 am to 2 pm
Our annual gathering and on-air tribute to the history and music of the women of blues, soul, jazz, R&B and more. KPFT's tradition was started by the late Kathleen Kern, "the Blues Broad," and is now carried forward by the "Blues on the Move" crew. It is in conjunction with International Women's Day.
The six hour special begins at 8:00 a.m. central time, 9:00 a.m. eastern time and six a.m. Pacific time.
pacifca
pacifica radio
radio
wbai
kpfa
kpft
blues
counterspin
janine jackson
peter hart
eric deegans
janet coleman
c.s. soong
against the grain
sasha lilly
jane fonda
cat radio cafe
christmas coup players
law and disorder
first voices
mattie harper
tiokasin ghosthorse
first voices indigenous radio
andrea lewis
the morning show
philip maldari
elaine hagopian
phyllis bennis
amitabh pal
matthew rothschild
the progressive
sunday salon
sunday salon with larry bensky
chris hedges
hamza yusuf
kael alford
ahmed rashid
angana chatterji
mikey likes it
ruths public radio report
the common ills
Ruth: The quote is Jane Fonda answering how the government spied on her in an interview with Sasha Lilly on Against the Grain. The interview took place in April of 2005 and it and other memorable moments were included in Tuesday's Against the Grain as C.S. Soong and Sasha Lilly celebrated the third year anniversary of the program. If you have not had time to sample the program, this broadcast provided you with a good overview of the various topics this KPFA show addresses regularly.
It was a strong week for Pacifia Radio with all the stations noting International Women's Working Day Wednesday. WBAI devoted 48 hours to IWWD, broadcasting special programs Wednesday and Thursday. On Thursday, a caller expressed the opinion that while he had enjoyed the programming, he would prefer that they had done it in longer segments instead of half-hour ones so that topics could have been addressed at length. That is a difficult call because while all the segments were worthy of further discussion, there was such a large scope covered, it truly was an international celebration and I kept the radio tuned to WBAI exclusively throughout the 48 hours.
While rocking my grandson Elijah to sleep, I dozed off at one point Thursday morning and woke to hear Janet Coleman, of The Christmas Coup Players and Cat Radio Cafe, discussing menapause with two other hosts and callers for a segment on that. The callers were just as interesting as the three hosts and Ms. Coleman suggested that possibly WBAI needed to create a hotline for this topic, with one of the other hosts adding that it should be a "Hot Flash Line." We heard speeches from Shirley Chisholm with commentary by Shola Lynch who directed and produced Chisholm '72: Unbought and Unbossed; Wakeup Call presented a conference where Betty Friedan heard from women of the Third World who were less than pleased with what they heard in her comments on feminism; a wonderful discussion involving three Congress women, two of which were Cynthia McKinney and Maxine Waters; voices of African women; a conversation on the contributions of women to the Zapatista movement with a specific look at the accomplishments of the late Comandanta Ramona; on First Voices, co-host Tiokasin Ghosthorse stepped aside to let Mattie Harper solo as part of IWWD and she addressed topics that included the possible impact of South Dakota's recent anti-reproductive rights legislation on Native Americans in South Dakota; there was amazing music throughout, both recorded and live; and so much more. Short of making it a three day celebration, or longer, which I would support, I do not know how WBAI could have provided so many voices, so many topics and so many issues without providing half-hour segments.
All of the Pacifica stations and many affiliates participated in this but WBAI devoted two full days to the celebration.
Other standouts this week included Law & Disorder which took a hard hitting look at the Guantanamo prisoners. Throughtout the discussion, they provided many of the songs played to torture prisoners and advised you to picture yourself blindfolded and to turn the volume up considerably. Nina, Mike's girlfriend, e-mailed me that this week's show was the first one she'd listened to but "I'm hooked now." This is a personal favorite program of mine and if you listen, Monday on WBAI, at other times on another radio station, or online, I think it will become one of your favorite programs as well.
Friday's CounterSpin was anchored by Peter Hart and Janine Jackson. In their opening segment on current headlines, Ms. Jackson addressed two print pundits:
You'd be hard pressed to find many media folk who think the war in Iraq is going smoothly. But the recent spike in violence and the threat of civil war certainly does not mean that the war's critics were right about anything. Amid rising Sunni-Shia violence, Ronald Brownstein of the Los Angels Times had this to say in a March fifth column QUOTE: "the war's changing nature undermines the argument from many on the left that the U.S. presence is primarily fueling the violence. That seems increasingly untenable at a point when U.S. troops look like the only thing preventing Iraqis from tearing each other apart."
So the left is still wrong? But is it really a stretch to suggest that the current violence has something to do with the US invasion? And on Brownstein's second point, US commanders in Iraq were fairly clear in announcing that the upsurge in violence was going to be handled primarily by Iraqi security forces ... at least that's how his paper was reporting it.
Over at the New York Times, foreign affairs columnist Tom Friedman counseled on March 3rd that the American public was going to remain patient, they support the White House's goal of democracy building in Iraq, wrote Friedman. Quote: "That is why there has been no big anti-war movement." Never mind the millions of activists who marched even before the invasion. Friedman does note that if the American public loses faith in that mission, QUOTE:
"you will the see the bottom fall out of US support for this war."
It's hard to know what would qualify to Friedman as low public support. The CBS/New York Times poll at the end of February already showed only 29% of Americans think the Iraq invasion was worth it. Proving once again that the talking heads are often a few steps behind the people they're speaking for.
Peter Hart spoke with Amitabh Pal about press coverage of India and Bully Boy's proposed nuclear deal. Mr. Pal, managing editor and writer for The Progressive, was also a guest on Tuesday's KPFA The Morning Show. Ms. Jackson spoke with Eric Deggans regarding the now forgotten cries for a national discussion on race and class following the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Mr. Deggans had praise for NPR and The Chicago Tribune while advising that the ball was apparently being dropped by "progressives" and "Democrats" who are not pressing hard enough for this discussion. I am not sure how many news sources Mr. Deggans follows; however, Democracy Now!, The Morning Show, Law and Disorder and many other programs have had no difficulty in continuing to cover the evacuees and the factor race and class played in both the immediate after effects as well as the factor of race currently with both the rebuilding of New Orleans and their upcoming elections -- two topics that Mr. Deggans failed to address. Possibly NPR and The Chicago Tribune have not been covering these issues?
Mr. Deggans struck me not as a "media critic" but a "media enabler." He offered plenty of excuses for the mainstream media doing a lousy job. These included that it has "been hard for TV News outlets to find the time" and, on NPR, "It is public radio and they really only have so many reporters, so many producers." What, Ms. Jackson wondered, is needed for the issues of race and class to covered? Mr. Deggans continues to excuse the mainstream media and offers a very weak suggestion that if Democrats and "progressive" politicians would speak out more, the press would cover it. Considering that this excuse is often offered as to why they refused to cover the lead up to the Iraq war from anything other than the administration's point of view, I do not see this as a "solution" or as "media criticism." It sounded to me like lazy thinking, excuses and enabling a media system to continue to not do their job. It did not sound like media criticism.
NPR has a huge amount of money to spend covering stories they care about. If you read Mr. Deggans article on this topic, you will find NPR's Michele Norris confessing to being confounded about media (and her own?) coverage of Katrina, you will find NPR's Susan Feeney admitting that "It's not a good excuse. . . . We have a responsibility to raise issues no one else is raising. (But) we have not done the big step back on poverty, and boy, we really want to." Ms. Feeney, the only thing stopping you is you. I read her statement over the phone to my friend Treva who replied, "Want in one hand, ___ in the other and see which one fills up first." Mr. Deegans noted those lame excuses in his article and added to them in his comments on CounterSpin. That did not strike me as media criticism. It is not the politicians' job to do the media's. It is up to the media to find the stories and to provide coverage. Amy Goodman and the staff of Democracy Now! have not needed elected Democrats and elected progressives regularly speaking out in order to cover the topics of race and class. The mainstream media needs to be accountable for their own actions and Mr. Deegans would do well to attempt to hold them accountable in the future.
The Morning Show addressed issues all week without needing politicians in order to do so. Mia e-mailed asking that I note Friday's conversation on Iraq where Andrea Lewis spoke to Phyllis Bennis and Elaine Hagopian about some of the distortions and some of the realities we are seeing unfold. Ms. Bennis noted that in the conversations of a civil war in Iraq or a potential one, there seems to be an assumption by some commenting that Iraq will then become a war zone when, in fact, under U.S. occupation, it has been just that. Both women agreed that the press has covered the conflict in generalities reducing it to a Shia-Sunni duality when it is much more complex. Ms. Hagopian stated, "This is not simply a Sunni-Shia strife" and that if the troops left there would be far less to stir up in what Ms. Bennis characterized as "a kind of low intensity political civil war. . . that pits supporters of the occupation, some of whom actually support it and some of whom support it defacto because it's the only way they can get a job, and those who oppose the occupation enough to get rid of it." Both women had comments on Donald Rumsfeld's statements to Congress this week. Ms. Hagopian noted that, "Rumsfeld's always pie-in-the-sky or trying to blame it on someone else. . . . I think he and Condolezza Rice just basically lied. . . . They have really not understood the forces that are against the occupation. . . . Rumsfeld, this is his trademark: Everything is okay . . . and it's not our fault, it's their fault." Ms. Bennis pondered what lay ahead and when low-level troop withdrawal might take place under the Bully Boy's current plan, "We will see a great fanfare with the return of some U.S. troops . . . It's hoped that we will forget about the 60,000 to 70,000" that would still remain in Iraq on the permanent basis. Ms. Bennis made the comment that unlike the fatalities, the returning would not be hidden away as the Bully Boy staged elaborate parades to sell yet another wave of Operation Happy Talk.
Also on Friday's show was a wonderful discussion, in the last half hour, of Dinah Washington's career, life and accomplishments. (Ms. Hagopin and Ms. Bennis are interviewed by Andrea Lewis in the first half-hour.) Zach e-mailed asking if it was true that he missed Matthew Rothschild on The Morning Show this week? Yes, Zach, if you weren't listening Tuesday, you did miss it. Philip Maldari and Andrea Lewis discussed the topic of impeachment with Mr. Rothschild, editor of The Progressive. This was also the same broadcast that Amitabh Pal appeared on. Mr. Rothschild was on in the first half-hour and Mr. Pal was on in the second half-hour of the program.
On impeachment, Mr. Rothschild stated, "I think the legal grounds are incredibly strong and that's why I think it's important for us to keep pressing the case for impeachment . . . because if we don't, what essentially that we're saying is that it's okay for Bush to be doing what he's been doing, for him to be violating these laws. And it sets the precedent for the next person to come in and say, 'I can decide what laws I want to obey and which ones I don't. The last guy did it."
Andrea Lewis noted that Matthew Rothschild would be in California in May and that they would like to have him on then so there is a heads up for Zach to a possible next appearance.
Here is another heads up, Sunday at 9:00 a.m. Pacific time, 11:00 a.m. Central, and noon Eastern time on KPFA:
Sunday Salon
In our first hour... A look at how the world's religious leaders teach us about war, and how we apply the lesson. We'll talk with Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and author Chris Hedges ("Losing Moses on the Freeway: The Ten Commandments in America"); Muslim thinker and theologian Hamza Yusuf, founder of the Hayward, CA-based Zaytuna Institute, and independent photographer Kael Alford, whose work documenting the American bombing of Baghdad and the impact of the war on Iraq, is featured in the new book "Unembedded." All three of our guests will participate in the Saturday March 11th event in Berkeley: "Does God Love War?" The free event is at 7:00 p.m. at the martin Luther King Jr Middle School Auditorium, 1781 Rose Street.
In our second hour... First, two veterans events, marking the 3rd anniversary next week of the US invasion of Iraq, then... Iran, India, and Pakistan: The Bush Administration's foes and favorites in nuclear policy. Joining us: Pakistani journalist and author ("Taliban") Ahmed Rashid; and Angana Chatterji, professor of Social and Cultural Anthropology (California Center for Integral Studies) and author of the forthcoming "Violent Gods: Hindu Nationalism in India's Present"
Listen to past shows, get contact and reference info for guests, see announcements of upcoming programs, and more at: SundaySalon.org
Also Sunday, Houston's KPFT has this special broadcast:
Ladies Day 2006
Sunday, March 12
8 am to 2 pm
Our annual gathering and on-air tribute to the history and music of the women of blues, soul, jazz, R&B and more. KPFT's tradition was started by the late Kathleen Kern, "the Blues Broad," and is now carried forward by the "Blues on the Move" crew. It is in conjunction with International Women's Day.
The six hour special begins at 8:00 a.m. central time, 9:00 a.m. eastern time and six a.m. Pacific time.
pacifca
pacifica radio
radio
wbai
kpfa
kpft
blues
counterspin
janine jackson
peter hart
eric deegans
janet coleman
c.s. soong
against the grain
sasha lilly
jane fonda
cat radio cafe
christmas coup players
law and disorder
first voices
mattie harper
tiokasin ghosthorse
first voices indigenous radio
andrea lewis
the morning show
philip maldari
elaine hagopian
phyllis bennis
amitabh pal
matthew rothschild
the progressive
sunday salon
sunday salon with larry bensky
chris hedges
hamza yusuf
kael alford
ahmed rashid
angana chatterji
mikey likes it
ruths public radio report
the common ills
Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.