The World Today Just Nuts. Isaiah says he may pulled a Dallas and just listen along. Dallas hunts down links and is a sounding board each week. He's here as well and he and Isaiah are welcome to jump in at any point. We all are in one place for a change. We're in DC and participated in the March on the Pentagon on Saturday. On that, I'm tossing to Ty. And illustration for this worked on by Betty's kid with Kat primarily.
Ty: This is from Donna St. George's (Washington Post), "Thousands of demonstrators marked the sixth anniversary of the war in Iraq with an impassioned protest of the nation's military policies yesterday, demanding that President Obama bring U.S. troops home. The demonstration was the first in Washington of the Obama presidency, replete with many of the same messages of protests during the Bush era. Placards read 'War Is Not the Answer,' 'Troops Out Now' and 'We Need Jobs and Schools, Not War'." And I'm going to yield to Dona for some housekeeping notes before we get into the protests and Iraq further.
Dona: In the past we have covered these protests here and at the gina & krista round-robin. Gina and Krista are here in DC with us, they are doing their special editions and Monday's will contain a long article by us with quotes from various participants in the demonstration. We're not in the mood to do it here. Blogger/Blogspot does not allow it to be very long without freezing up and going lengthy pauses -- in terms of being able to read what's been written. The spell check function doesn't work and the fact of the matter is we end up debating too long on which quotes get included and why. It's become too much for what we do here. We will continue to cover it in the gina & krista round-robin. We've split it up into two stories, one that runs today with 100 quotes and one that runs tomorrow. To write the one that is in today's round-robin, we had to each agree to toss out enough quotes and not raise any objections or have any discussions. We'll be doing that for the second piece. So the second piece will be more representative and it will run Monday morning. Stan and Marcia are among those joining us in DC for the first time. We wanted to be sure that they and everyone else had a good visit. Ava and C.I. kindly agreed to assist with this edition -- to pull more than their fare share -- by writing three articles. They made an appearance at a party, came back here Saturday night and began working on three articles. Two of which they've finished and the third of which they're almost done with. This is the house keeping Ty was talking about. We do have an edition, we'll cover a multitude of topics and no one wants to leave DC later today feeling so exhausted they can't get out of bed Monday morning. Those interested in a background look at this edition can read Brady's article that will run in Monday's gina & krista round-robin. He's planning to stay up as long as it takes to observe the full writing process. As soon as possible, we will dismiss everyone to get sleep except for the core six of Third which is Jim, Ty, Jess, Ava, C.I. and myself. I believe that's all the housekeeping.
Jim: Thank you, Dona, thank you, Ty. One comment we heard repeatedly was that the number of people participating in Saturday's demonstration was "smaller" and "not as big." In our interviews with participants, that came up over and over. Jess and Elaine, what do you say?
Jess: Well this wasn't publicized. Amy Goodman couldn't bother to mention this event all last week, when she briefly noted that protests would take place on Saturday, she refused to note where or to list any organization that was participating, in other words, if you heard her mention it, you had no idea where to go to get information. Most were as pathetic as Amy Goodman and avoided getting the word out on the march. Leslie Cagan and the other closeted Communists of United For Piss and Moaning did their usual slurs against A.N.S.W.E.R., whispering, "It's Communits!" in an attempt to scare people from participating. There are Communists in A.N.S.W.E.R., there are Democrats, there are anarchists, there are libeterians, there are Greens, there are people belonging to no party, there are Socialists, there might even be a Republican or two. It is a diverse group. However, the key difference if you're a member of A.N.S.W.E.R. is, unlike with United For Piss and Moaning, you don't have to pretend you're something you're not. If you're a Communist, you can say that. You don't have to say, "I'm an independent" -- or "I'm a Democrat." United For Piss and Moaning told two print publications last week that A.N.S.W.E.R. was a Communist organization. Leslie Cagan, you're a Communist, you just hide in a political closet. We don't think there's anything wrong with anyone being a Communist. We do think there is something grossly wrong with adults who hide in political closets. We will do our best to publicize your political party membership and that of Judith LeBlanc and so many others in leadership of United For Piss and Moaning as your non-event comes up in a few weeks. Since UFPJ has again decided to launch a whisper campaign to the press against A.N.S.W.E.R., we think the record needs to be correct. But for those reasons and many more, the turnout was huge.
Elaine: I would agree with Jess completely. I would also note that January 2007 was the last national DC action that most turned out for. It was the last one that UPFJ decided to get on board with other groups for. They've insisted on undercutting every action since. We were all worried going into Saturday and, for example, Ava, C.I., Kat and Wally spent the week here, going around to surrounding areas and speaking to high schoolers, college students, various groups, about the protest. We really were thinking 200 to 500 people. We're not Hopium Addicts. We'll expect the worst and be happily surprised if something better takes place. And we were happily surprised on Saturday. It was a huge crowd. Over 50,000 easily but how much over, I don't know. Is there an estimate anywhere?
Mike: I'm looking at press reports now and not seeing any official crowd estimate. I'll keep looking.
Trina: While Mike does that, A.N.S.W.E.R. was just mentioned by Jess and to make it easy in terms of links, I'll just note right here that participating organizations included The National Assembly to End the Wars, the A.N.S.W.E.R., World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War. I'll agree with Jess and Elaine, especially Elain's point about how we were not expecting a huge crowd. In fact, Ty, Dona, Jess or Jim may want to grab the location aspect.
Ty: Jim and Dona are pointing to me. We live in C.I.'s home in the Bay Area. We is Jim, Dona, Jess, Ava, Betty, Wally and myself. Kat has her own place there as well. And we were considering, as late as February 10th, participating locally. But we really were worried about the size in DC. Turning out a crowd against the war in the Bay Area is not hard work. So we made the decision that we would come to DC. At which point, Rebecca made the same decision.
Rebecca: Right. And what Trina, Mike, Elaine, Ruth, Stan, Marcia and I did was fly to DC in my husband's plane. I was surprised that the West Coast contingent of the Avengers -- that's a joke for one of my own readers -- weren't staying in the Bay Area for this. I knew, for example, that Ava, C.I. and Kat really wanted the weekend home and by being in the Bay Area, they could justify staying there that week to get the word out. So it would mean a week off the road. Now Dona does the bookings for their speaking events and she told them she had to have a decision quickly and that's when the decision was finally made. When that decision was made, it was obvious to me -- who hadn't been paying that much attention -- that there was concern about the DC turnout. At which point, we decided we'd participate here. Isaiah and Dallas may want to speak now. They may not.
Isaiah: Dallas is shaking his head. I'll just note that if everyone's participating in a DC based protest, I'll come out. Dallas is shaking his head in agreement now so he agrees. Like Rebecca said, we were all surprised that the Third gang wasn't doing the Bay Area protest because we did know that Kat and Ava and C.I. were really wanting that week at home. They're on the road every week talking about Iraq. If they'd participated in yesterday's demonstration in the Bay Area, they could have had a week in their own beds, a week of no hotels and a lot easier schedule. I always said, "If we're doing DC, I'll do it." Otherwise I was planning to take part in a demonstration in my own area. And like Rebecca, it was obvious that there was concern about the turnout if the gang was doing DC.
Jim: Thank you. Ruth, what do you think about the turnout? You've participated with us in other DC actions.
Ruth: Well, I brought more grandchildren than on previous visits and did so because I wanted to be sure we did have a strong turnout. Two of my children and their wives and children drove in -- they couldn't leave until Friday night -- and they did so because I had spent the entire week fretting over the turnout. I was impressed with the turnout. I did not believe it would be a crowd of any considerable size so to see the thousands and thousands was really wonderful. My own estimate would be 72,000. That is non scientific. It is larger than Elaine's but Elaine was in the crowd throughout and I was frequently on the edges and had to step out at one point for my youngest grandson Ely. Just eye balling, I would say 70,000. Am I wrong? Maybe so. Mike, have you found an estimate?
Mike: No. And Dallas and I are both looking right now.
Jim: Stan, first time in DC, what did you think?
Stan: If I can drop back a bit, I want to take a minute to note something. I am a member of the community and was before I had my own site. If I didn't have my own site, there's a compliment I'd be making in the gina & krista round-robin or another community newsletter. I want to instead make it here. We were worried about the size of the turnout. We were very worried. And I am really blown away by the fact that we didn't hide that. Go back and you'll find articles here -- including one two or three weeks ago -- in which we're very direct about being worried about the turnout. There is an impulse never to talk about that and I'm really glad we did.
Cedric: I am too. I don't mean to jump in over Stan but I was thinking about that as well. It would have been really easy not to have addressed that. Instead we talked about it and we noted how a small turnout would declare the peace movement was over. We didn't try to cover that fact and we were all prepared to do our RIP on the peace movement article tonight if that had been the case. Like Stan, I really do appreciate that we didn't try to hide our concerns or fears and that we were upfront about them. Sorry, Stan, didn't mean to talk over you.
Stan: No problem. So Cedric and I are in agreement on that and it needs to be noted and, like he said, we would be writing the Rest In Peace Peace Movement piece if that was what was required. I'm sure, between Jim and C.I. alone, we could get a passionate editorial from that topic. But, fortunately, we don't need to write that piece because it was a healthy and dynamic crowd.
Jim: I want to stay with Stan a second. Dynamic? Explain.
Stan: Well the stereotype is an all White crowd. The stereotype further is a bunch of Yuppies mixed in with a few living Hippies. That wasn't the crowd at all. I'm sure they were present and should be, but you had a real cross-section, a real group of people who represented the diversity in the country -- in terms of age, ethnicity, race, class, you name it. It was a dynamic crowd.
Jim: Okay, Marcia, Stan is your cousin. So I know you'll want to disagree! I'm joking. Do you want to expand on Stan's topic or bring up another one?
Marcia: Yeah, I do agree with Stan. It was a dynamic crowd. It was an important crowd as well. By that I mean, it really felt like something. I didn't feel like just one person in a march, for example. And that was echoed in the comments of two people I spoke with who were attending a protest against the Iraq War for the first time.
Jim: Was this your first protest against the war?
Marcia: No, but I've only done local actions until now. And not to insult my area but we all know each other, we are the same group each protest.
Jim: Okay --
Marcia: Can I add one more thing? A difference locally is the police in my area know us. We've been out each time for years. And they're local cops and generally fine. The riot gear the DC cops were in and even their posture was something I found threatening.
Trina: Talk about that.
Marcia: Well it's just like something out of a Bruce Willis film or something. I can understand precautions but the gear they were in? Peaceful protestors who have announced a demonstration in DC gather and the police response is to prepare for terrorists or something? I was very insulted by that. This is my country's capitol and I'm a visitor here expressing and using my freedom of speech guaranteed to me in the Constitution. Futhermore, though the Constitution does not require a permit for me to use my free speech, local laws require one for a march and the permit was obtained. Everything was perfectly legal. So it was just really offensive to me to see these cops decked out like Robocop or something.
Trina: I think that's a really good observation and I think it's one that the rest of us wouldn't have made because we have gotten so used to seeing this police state every time we are in DC. I agree with Marcia, the police anticipation of violence? They're lucky it didn't cause violence. It is insulting. There is being prepared and there is going overboard.
Jim: And you think they went overboard?
Trina: Absolutely.
Jim: Others are nodding as well. Dona's handed me a note stating that Betty, Wally, Kat, Ava and C.I. have not yet spoken. I will read that note as, "Good job bringing in Stan and Ruth, Jim." Stan Ruth, and Kat probably say the least every roundtable. We are trying to make sure everyone speaks and, as usual, Ava and C.I. are the ones taking the notes. I'm also trying to set a calmer pace than usual, emulating the style I've observed Rebecca utilizing for her highly effective roundtables in recent weeks. Okay, Kat, thoughts?
Kat: I don't know if people will get this reference or not but at the end of Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, when Sophia Loren's character is praying, the camera goes out on the roofs and then over to the street and there's a number of people mingling. I expected that to be the size of the turnout Saturday -- I almost said today, we haven't been to sleep yet and I've very tired. But that's what I epxected, maybe 490 or so people. Maybe less. So I really see the turnout as a victory and think it bodes well for the future. For the immediate future.
Wally: I agree with Kat. We both -- this is true of all of us actually, but Kat and I spoke about this before the roundtable -- encountered Barack supporters at the demonstration. And some were so intense they were deluding themselves. But there were a lot of people who had been Barack supporters and now grasped he was lying -- and that was a large number in terms of the people I encountered, I think I had the most encounters with people stating they had voted for Barack and they now did not support him because of his refusal to remove one brigade a month as promised -- and there were a lot of people who refused to ever drink the Kool-Aid to begin with. And from that, Kat and I believe, a movement is built. A real one, not a faux movement that Leslie Cagan thinks she can use to get in good with the Democratic Party.
Betty: I think one of the reasons Wally got so many was because I didn't get any. I got instead, if while getting someone's impresssions and I made a comment, I got, "You don't support Barack?" Because I'm Black, I have to support Barack?
Cedric: I got that attitude from two people as well.
Jim: Marcia? Ty? Stan?
Stan: I didn't get that. But I was doing my interviews with Ruth and Mike. I'm not sure if that made a difference or not?
Ruth: Thank you to Mike and Stan. Ely is in a wandering off stage and I did not want to mingle without some assistance as a result and I did not want my teenage grandchildren to feel like that had to stay with Grandma the whole time.
Stan: Well I was glad to hang out with you because I wasn't sure how to do it and might have, honestly, been a little shy about approaching people on my own. It was easier with the three of us. Marcia was on her own.
Marcia: Yeah. I love to mix it up. It reminds me of when Wally and I were speaking out for Hillary last year. I was probably very forceful in my opening remarks, in terms of being opposed to the illegal war. I also probably would have responded to any surprise with a joke and not really grasped, unless they said, "I'm surprised," that anyone was surprised.
Ty: My button was Barack and Bush with the heading "Separated At Birth." It got some looks and some comments similar to what Betty's talking about.
Jim: Back to you, Betty.
Betty: I agree with Wally that what we saw Saturday -- and probably true of all the protests nationwide yesterday -- was the skelton of the real peace movement. The ones participating yesterday were the ones who are building and will continue building the real peace movement. I know in April, what did Jess call it, United For Piss and Moaning?, plans their faux action where they hide behind Black people -- thanks UFPJ, glad to know my people's bodies are your shields even if you never let us into leadership -- and I have no interest in promoting that event. These are the apologists and the appeasers. They don't stand for anything. They're corwards and liars.
Rebecca: Amen.
Jim: Rebecca, you started up the Friday Iraq roundtable. Over a period of six weeks, you moderted five roundtables on Iraq with various people participating here also participating with you. I was wondering what the reaction was from your readers to that? And, for those who don't know, of the readers who e-mail, Rebecca's audience is largely high school students.
Rebecca: Right. That's where I had some really strong readers and they've passed it on to their friends and siblings over the last few years. So I do have a younger audience than some and there's just been a lot of surprises. For them, there have been a lot of surprises. One thing I try to do in those roundtables, if no one does it before me, is ask someone, usually C.I., to go into more detail. That's because a lot of the topics are new for my readers even with the snapshot. With reposting C.I.'s snapshot every day. That can be because we grab a topic that either emerged after the Friday snapshot or was minor in the Friday snapshot. Or it can be because we're going back further and it's further than some of my readers have been paying attention -- due to their age -- to the Iraq War. Trina's really had a chance to shine in these, by the way. Yeah, everyone loves C.I., we all do. But Trina's really made an impression on my readers.
Trina: Thank you and thank you to your readers who had a kind word for me but that may be in part due to the fact that a normal weekend post at my site is a recipe and some political talk. So that may run off some young people because I generally start with a recipe. If it runs off anyone, I'm okay with that, by the way.
Elaine: It's also true that Trina does well in exchange pieces. She will jump in with a question or comment. She will ask for a clarification or provide one of her own. Because we're usually doing a Friday night post side-by-side, I know that like me, she's mainly just trying to get it written and posted.
Trina: That is very true. And in terms of the topic, the Iraq War is now six-years-old and it's a topic that there are so many issues to discuss, so many issues that never get discussed, so many that were discussed at one point but then got dropped, that it's just a wonderful topic for a roundtable.
Jim: One story, one example, of something that receives very little attention.
Trina: Me? Oh, well the plight of Iraqi women. We've had some studies come out recently and some reporters reported on those studies; however, why does it take a study for Iraqi women to become a topic for the press? Why aren't they a topic all the time. Why are we surprised by what was done to Abeer? We should be appalled by it, but the gang-rape and murder of Abeer is surprising because? This happens in every war. How does this story go uncovered and where does the press get off acting like this is some new development?
C.I.: Kat mentioned Sophia Loren a second ago. I'm thinking of another Sophia move, Two Women. She won the Academy Award, for Best Actress, for that. Stephen D. Green, accused of participating in the gang-rape of Abeer, of murdering Abeer, her parents and her sister and of plotting the entire thing, once stopped Abeer, at the US military checkpoint he manned in her area, and ran his fingers down her face. Does anyone not remember the scene in Two Women, which is set during WWII, where the soldiers stop Sophia and her 13-year-old daughter and one of them runs his hands on the daughter's face? Sophia snaps at the soldier something like, "Keep that for your sister!" And she grabs a rock and tells him to stay away from her daughter. Like Trina's pointing out, these are stories of every war and why aren't they covered?
Trina: I'm grabbing notes so Ava can speak.
Ava: Thank you, Trina. Yeah, why isn't this covered. Do we really want to pretend, in the face of overwhelming evidence --historical evidence -- to the contrary that what's happened to Iraqi women is somehow an exception to war and that this has not been repeated over and over in war after war? There are certain developments particular to this war, no question. But the rape and targeting of women -- though more intense and out in the open in Iraq which has become a very sexist society thanks to the illegal war -- is not something that just developed in 2003. And, on Two Women, I had actually forgotten that scene C.I.'s speaking of. I saw that when I was probably 12 and it was a dubbed version, dubbed into English. I remember being scared and frightened for the daughter and -- honestly -- for myself when that man grabbed her face. There are something like two or three other soldiers with him and they're all grinning and all in approval of their actions, of the abuse. For those who haven't seen the film, Sophia and her daughter will be both be raped in war torn Italy. But, as Trina was saying, Iraqi women remain out of the coverage. An organization puts out a study and it may or may not get a write up. For a brief moment, because of the work an organization has done, Iraqi women may get a tiny glimmer of attention. Then it's back to one Iraqi man after another and a press that works overtime to ignore the plight of Iraqi women.
Jim: Okay, Mike's spoken several times but usually a sentence each so I want to give him a chance to speak more and anyone who wants to can also jump in. We're going to be winding down in a moment. And we will have just made this an Iraq roundtable, which is fine. We had planned to tackle other topics but that's fine.
Mike: I liked the yellow A.N.S.W.E.R. signs that read "WE NEED JOBS AND SCHOOLS NOT WAR." I don't think we've talked about signs too much. There were some signs that didn't speak to me but I was cool with and I was flat out offended with one sign I saw that reduced the Iraq War to "and Iraq," after Palestine and Afghanistan -- in that order. It also looked like "and Iraq" was smaller than the other two. I found that disrespectful on the anniversary of the illegal war. I'm not opposed to the issues of all three being raised but I am opposed to those who seem to have their own agendas and hop on the Iraq War to work out issues they might be better off seeking therapy for.
Rebecca: I'm laughing and in agreement. The Palestinian issue is one I got involved with in college and carved out as my own. It's also one I'm no longer planning to blog on. I'll read up on it offline and continue my offline work on the issue but it's in part because of the signs like Mike's talking about and in part because of the media response every time. We get round the clock Pacifica radio coverage, non-stop whenever Israel invades or attacks Gaza openly -- they're always attacking Gaza, but the open attacks get non-stop coverage. This year it's become even more noticeable that the beggars of Panhandle Media drop everything for Gaza. I'm sick of it. I'm sick of them. And I don't want to be associated or seen as like them. The US needs to stop supplying and funding Israel. But let's not confuse that with the direct involvement of the US in Iraq. In terms of Gaza, the US backs thugs who do the dirty work. In terms of Iraq, the US is doing the dirty work. I've yet to see any of the beggar media who grasp the difference. And as the coverage of Iraq has become non-existant, I'm not interested in being confused with an Amy Goodman or any of the freaks at Pacifica.
Betty: I agree with Rebecca and what's going on in Israel is what went on in South Africa. And the US is doing the same thing, backing -- for their own self-interests -- an apartheid regime that attacks the people. That's wrong. And the US isn't the only Western nation providing cover or arms to the Israeli government. But South African was backed during the war on Vietnam and, of the two examples, the US was more culpable and more guilty of the crimes in Vietnam because they were the ones committing them. They were culpable in South Africa, don't get me wrong, but more so in Vietnam. I would further add that the Palestinian people have their 'celebrities' and no one speaks for the Iraqis, no one advocates for them. There are no celebrity trips to Iraq to help the Iraqi people. And, like Mike, I have no problem with the plight of the Palestinians being a part of or a focus of the march. I do have a problem with it outweighing other issues. And I agree with him about the signs. It was insulting and demonstrated a real hatred -- knowingly or not -- of Iraqis to reduce their suffering to third place on the sixth anniversary of the US assault on and occupation of Iraq.
Cedric: Mike wrote about some issues some of the Iraq War veterans in Elaine's Thursday night group therapy wanted him to discuss. I know Elaine can't comment on that and I'm not asking her to. There have been some e-mails to Mike so I want to be clear on that. They were speaking to Mike and they wanted to be noted at Mike's site. But he was talking about how one veteran was really bothered by Amy Goodman -- and should have been -- because she had no segment focusing on Iraq last week but did do a sixth anniversary of the death of Rachel Corrie -- by an Israeli bulldozer. I'm not sure what to make of that and wanted us to comment.
Elaine: I will actually comment on one part. Mike started getting a steady stream of nasty e-mails about two weeks ago accusing him of violating some ethic. When he wrote Thursday night, he made it clear he was not in the group, he was not sitting in on sessions and these were comments being made to him by participants who knew he had a blog and wanted him to write about it. That has always been clear to me from Mike's post but two weeks ago it suddenly became an issue.
Mike: For some wack jobs e-mailing me. But, yes, the Rachel Corrie segment was offensive. And that was Thursday night when I heard about it. Friday? Still no segment on Iraq.
Ruth: I think it is important to grasp that Amy Goodman did -- and does -- no segment on Palestinians. Rachel Corrie was an American citizen. It is another case -- as was the activist from the Bay Area that she also covered last week -- of 'these people matter because they are Americans.' No offense to Rachel Corrie who was a brave woman but what happened to her happens to countless Palestinians and no one does a segment honoring their deaths.
Marcia: That's a really good point, Ruth. What happened to Rachel was tragic but it has happened and continues to happen to many other Palestinians. Deaths only have a face when they have an American face, apparently. Amy Goodman's never done a story on 14-year-old Abeer, not when the gang-rape and murder were reported and never on the anniversary. But she did cover the American citizen, from the Bay Area, who died in Iraq. For a supposed internationalist, she really is obsessed with American deaths only.
Wally: These are all good points but to the issue of the Iraq War, there is no excuse for any so-called news or public affairs program refusing to address the Iraq War; however, we saw Amy Goodman and others do just that. Whatever happened to 'going where the silences are'? Wasn't that trashy Amy Goodman's so-called slogan, supposed slogan? The silence is on Iraq and she's part of that silence. She's just a fraud. And to be honest, I don't need to hear from any other parent about their loss when other losses aren't covered. That's Rachel's parents or anyone else. Boo-hoo. I'm tired of it. Six years later and you're devoting another segment to Rachel Corrie? Over a million and a half Iraqis have died in the illegal war and they get no segment but we're going to all boo-hoo over the American Blonde one more time? I'm not denying the tragedy of her death but I'm saying "I don't give a damn" becomes my response when it's always about Rachel or some other American and the real victims, the ongoing victims are never covered and never named. I'm tired of it. It was the sixth anniversary of the Iraq War and the sixth anniversary of one woman's death. Amy Goodman made time to do an entire segment on what? The sixth anniversary of one woman's death.
Ty: I agree with Wally and I want to be really clear that when this kind of silence surrounds Iraq it makes those of us who pay attention to news and coverage not give a damn about your other pet issues. What is the take away from these on-the-anniversary-of-Rachel's-death pieces? That we can click our heels and wish her back to life? There's an ongoing illegal war. It needs to be ended. I'm talking about Iraq but you could make the some point about the occupied territories. Regardless, obsessing over one person's death isn't going to end a war. And making a people's suffering into "American killed!" isn't telling their stories. It's like the White activists who get on Pacifica and talk about Katrina and how they went down and helped the African-Americans. And you listen to them and you think, "It's not your story. Shut the hell up. The people who need to be interviewed are the victims but instead we've got to hear how great and wonderful you are for all your selfless help." It's not selfless when you keep bowing, when you keep expecting applause. And it's not the story of Katrina when the people that keep doing the talking aren't the victims.
Ava: Well, I mean, the suffering in Oaxaca became, "Brad Will murdered!" I find that offensive anytime it happens. Katrina vanden Heuvel, to use another example, turns suffering of people into, "My Russian journalist friend was murdered!" Journalist shouldn't be murdered or attacked. It happens all the time. However, they are not the stories they cover. And any abuse -- or murder -- that happens is part of a larger story. But that's too much for the beggars to realize so they make it all about one person. The problems in Oaxaca did not end with Brad Will's murder -- though the interested peaked and then faded with his murder, Panhandle Media's interest. Was that all it was? Is the plight of the Palestinians really supposed to take back seat to Rachel Corrie's death? I'm a Latina, I find it very offensive when we constantly need a gringo or gringa face paraded through the media to deal with a foreign topic. And let me be clear that the need for that comes from the ones doing the coverage. The people, the news consumers, don't need it to care about a story. But let's be honest, to care about a story requires work on the part of a journalist and it's so much easier not to do the work required and, for example, instead just show Rachel in all her blondness and cluck-cluck over the tragedy. It tells you know about the Palestinians, it puts them in the back of the bus, but it's easy and it's cheap coverage and that's why Amy Goodman does it. Heaven forbid she had to do any actual work. And, yes, veterans of the Iraq War -- left, right, what have you -- have a right to complain about all of the media silence last week on Iraq. Their country sent them there. Their country said this was important. And last week the media telegraphed no, it wasn't. The media didn't say that the war was wrong. They just said it wasn't important.
C.I.: To back up Ava real quick -- Trina, thanks for grabbing the notes -- the media could have said the illegal war was wrong. They didn't, as Ava pointed out, but they could have used that or anything else to drive the coverage. And, whether you agreed or not, if you were a veteran, you knew it was being dealt with, being covered. Instead you have men and women in the US who have returned from Iraq and have seen their fellow service members die in Iraq or return wounded and/or they themselves returned wounded. And last week the press made very clear that they didn't matter, that the mission didn't matter. Not that the mission was wrong -- that's a dialogue we could have as nation. But that it didn't matter and it was so meaningless that despite it being an ongoing and illegal war with more US service members than any other current war, it didn't require recognition of any sort -- good or bad, positive or negative. And that sent a message. It was offensive.
Betty: It really was offensive and the news is a competition for focus. That's why Project Censored regularly notes junk news stories eating up the time. Rachel Corrie's death was a tragedy. And it was six years ago. At some point, when it becomes wall to wall Rachel every year at this time, we're looking at Octomom for Panhandle Media. I've really gotten sick of Amy Goodman's set pieces each year where she devotes this day to this death and that day to another. Life has gone on and we need to as well. Meaning, Rachel's death can be noted in a headline on her anniversary. It can be discussed at anytime. But this idea that her death means other stories are not going to be discussed because it's the sixth anniversary or the seventh or the twelth, I'm not buying that. Take it to a history class. I need to know what's going on now. Look, we've already got Amy blocking off MLK's assasination and birth and we've got her blocking off Malcom X's assassination and now, apparently, each year she'll have to do a segment on the anniversary of Rachel Corrie's death. And at some point you wonder how we're ever supposed to know what is happening today when Amy's so obsessed and caught up with her Remberances of the Past. Mexico, as Ava pointed out, is not even a story anymore. They don't even bother with the coverage. And Rachel Corrie's parents are becoming like the Goldmans to me, I am so sorry for their loss but I am so tired of seeing them because it always plays like exploitation.
Jim: The Goldmans?
Betty: Ron Goldman's parents. He and Nicole Brown Simpson were murdered -- I believe by OJ -- and his parents seem like wonderful people and have my sympathy, as do the Corries. Ava's right that it's a cheap little segement done cheaply. Amy plays like Sally Jesse and it's "Oh, the tragedy of these parents" and it's all heart strings and Queen for a Day. It's embarrassing and it is not informative. Want to honor Rachel Corrie's death, report on what's happening in Palestine right now. Don't take us back down memory lane with sobs and sniffles. I find Amy's interviewing of the parents to be manipulative and offensive. She really is a trash TV host who couldn't get a syndication deal if you ask me.
Jim: And on that note, we'll wrap up the roundtable.