Sunday, May 30, 2010

Roundtable

Ava: This is a news roundtable and I'm moderating -- Ava of The Third Estate Sunday Review along with Jess; 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); Ruth of Ruth's Report; Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends; and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub. Did I forget anyone? Speak up if I did. There are a number of people who are off this week, which is more than fine. At this site, it's Jess, C.I. and myself this week while Dona, Jim and Ty take off. This is a rush transcript and I remind everyone to please speak slowly. With me moderating, C.I.'s taking the notes all by herself. Generally we take notes together and when one's hand is cramped, we nod to the other and take a break. We had planned for Jess to moderate but he pointed out he'd done it before but I never had. So expect plenty of mistakes and be sure to point them out to us at our e-mail address thirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com. Betty's kid did the illustration.



Roundtable


Ava (Con't): I'm going to kick things off with one topic. Arizona's law. The e-mails are coming in constantly more or less saying "Why won't you call those racists in Arizona out?" First of all, C.I. and I have marched in every immigration rights rally we've known of. Those are the big ones and the not so big ones. Our views on this issue are very clear. My feelings are open borders are the best. But I'm also aware if the borders were completely open, the US would be overrun -- any country would be. The people of Arizona are a border state. If you're not a southern border state, maybe it's really not your business to mount a high horse? When Iowa and Wisonsin have the Latino population of Arizona, Texas, California, etc., maybe then they should be allowed to offer 'expertise.' There are adjustments taking place in those states that other states have no idea -- can have no idea -- what it's like. In most cases, Anglos will have no say because it will just be the majority population deciding. It is an adjustment period and all the Anglos at Socialist Worker and all the crap farms need to shut the f**k up. People are not racist just because you say they are. They may have legitimate concerns, they may have laughable concerns but they are their concerns and they will work them out with the Latino populations in their states and neither side needs some uppity Anglos from Chicago tarring one side as racist. It doesn't help, it only feeds hostility, to scream "racist" oever and over. Sharon Smith, for example, we don't need you, we didn't ask for you. My people will get along just fine without you. The Anglos will also get along just fine without you.

Betty: The thing that irritates you the most, Ava, about the coverage from US Socialist Worker or any other outlet?

Ava: The mind reading that everyone must be a racist. I'm sick of it. There are a number of Latinos in Arizona who support that law. They're racist too? No. And I find it insulting and cheap that we're talking about race when Latino is ethnicity. Latino is not a race. I'm sick of this constant need to scream racism instead of ever addressing a problem. I'm sick of it. If we just scream racism then we never have to learn to form arguments and make the case for our side. I'm sick of the lazy minded on the left, they are destroying us as much as Barack is. If we're ever going to be able to take on the right we're going to need to offer something more than, "Nah, nah, you're wrong because you're a racist!" Thanks for asking, Betty. We've mainly kept this dialogue in El Spirito because it's the community newsletter which focuses on Latino issues. Due to the e-mails to this site, I've addressed it here. Ruth and Mike, you two wanted to talk about the Joe Sestak issue.

Ruth: Yes, Joe Sestak ran against incumbent Senator Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania's Democratic Party primary. Mr. Sestak won the race and he will now be the Democratic Party nominee for the US Senate this November. Neither Mike nor I are calling into question Mr. Sestak's ability to govern. We think he has been forthright with the public throughout. But the same can not be said for the White House. Mr. Sestak was offered a job by the White House early on if he would drop out of the primary. He refused the offer. We, Mike and I, do not agree with, for example, Bob Somerby that this is a minor issue. It is a big issue. I will pass to Mike.

Mike: It is a big issue, as Ruth was saying and if you doubt that, look at the lengths to which Barack went to cover it up. And also notice that he had to do it in secret to begin with. This is supposed to be Mr. Open. Mr. Glasnost himself. And he's doing the usual behind the scenes bribes. I'm sick of it. It's not a minor issue, he attempted to interfere in an election and -- yet again -- he did so to keep a centrist to right-wing Democrat in power. That would be Arlen Specter. Barack has repeatedly done that, he has repeatedly sided with the right-wing and the centrists. It is a pattern with him. He needs to stop interfering in elections and, with the Sestak issue, the White House may have broken the law. It is not a minor issue.

Ava: No one participating will be voting in that race so let's move over to Connecticut for a second. Ruth, you're endorsing Richard Blumenthal for the Senate, correct?

Ruth: Right. And I was going to stay out of it or maybe vote Green but then The New York Times decided to do a hatchet job on Mr. Blumenthal. Here Bob Somerby's done a solid job demonstrating that Mr. Blumenthal does not have a pattern of mistating his service. In something like 15 years, the paper only found one concrete example with two others that were questionable. That is ridiculous. They have tarred and feathered him and I am so sick of The New York Times sticking their nose into everyone else's business to begin with. It truly amazes me that this is the paper that praised a crooked administration, their previous mayor, and praised his cronies when most of them have been revealed -- by other outlets -- to be crooks. It would appear that The New York Times needs to stop sniffing around my state and focus on the issues in their own city.

Ava: Okay, thank you, Ruth. We're moving on to the topic of Iraq and this will most likely be our "Iraq piece" for the edition. Monday is Memorial Day. Another one while the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to drag on with no end in sight. What are some thoughts on -- Kat, I know you'll have some -- on Congress at this point?

Kat: Let me start, they're inept and they're never going to end a war. Give me on Mike Gravel in Congress and the wars would be ended. This group? Really? They're inept and they don't care about anything except their own re-elections and which committees they'll sit on. The wars are not ending. We've been promised that they would over and over. They didn't end under a Democratically controlled Congress and they're not ending under a Democratically controlled White House and Congress. The Democrats rode the anger over and revulsion towards the Iraq War into office in 2006 and they've not done a damn thing to end them.

Ava: Before we move on to someone else, you were present Thursday for the floor debate -- C.I., Kat, Wally and I were all present -- on the war supplemental in the Senate. What did you think of Russ Feingold?

Kat: Words. I applaud them. But where's the action behind them? I'm not going to grade on a curve. Congress has failed, every single one of them.

Ava: Okay, anyone else?

Rebecca: What bothers me is this attitude that we can hit the snooze button. Russ Feingold, whom I like a lot more than Kat does, is almost as bad as that idiot Barbara Lee. Both believed, as evidenced by public remarks, that the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War needed to end. Both believed that before Barack came to office. But once he was sworn in they both took the attitude of 'let's give him some time.' For what? The wars are wrong, you know that, you've said that, there's no reason to give anyone time. Afghanis don't have the time, Iraqis don't have the time. I really don't care if Candy Ass Obama gets the time to be tutored or not.

Stan: I agree with Rebecca and with Kat. And this idea that because Bush was out and Barack was in we should hit that snooze button and reset the clock, that's nonsense. It was all the more reason to put the pressure on Barack to end these illegal wars. C.I., what's the number?

C.I.: 171?

Stan: Thank you. 171 US service members have died in Iraq since Barack was sworn in. Barbara Lee, you gave Barack time, you gave those 171 service members a death sentence. Shame on you. I loathe Barbara Lee these days.

Mike: 171 have died since Barack was sworn in. I hope everyone's grasping that. 171. That's appalling.

Ava: Jess just started to speak. I'm asking him to stop and I'm grabbing a note pad. Jess is going to ask C.I. a few question about Iraq and I'm taking notes. Give me one second. Okay.

Jess: As Mike and Stan are noting, 171 deaths. What do we have to show for it?

C.I.: Not a damn thing. In 2006, it took four months after the elections before a prime minister could be selected. We're basically one week away from three months. That's it? Either it's going to take at least four months or they'll shave one month off. That's the progress 171 American lives bought? Iraq's government or 'government' has still not gotten it together. Forget the elections for a moment, Nouri can't even keep a functioning and fully staffed cabinet. For Baghdad, to protect it, they're going to be putting up more walls around the city and, in some spots, a moat. That was Nouri's great 'plan' in 2006. Four years later, it'll be implemented. There is no progress. There's no basic services, there's nothing. The only thing that has taken place since Barack was sworn in is that US troops have been on the ground to keep Nouri's government or 'government' in place. It still can't stand its own.

Jess: How much of that is Chris Hill's fault? The US Ambassador to Iraq?

C.I.: Chris Hill was supposed to be using the carrot and hinting of the stick. He did nothing. He still doesn't fully grasp how Iraq works -- after all this time, he still doesn't grasp it. He largely kept to himself and attempted to delegate work. The Kurds were the first not to trust him but they weren't the last. Sunnis don't trust him and one Shi'ite response is Nouri's which is Hill doesn't matter and you can blow him off. But, to be clear, Chris Hill couldn't have saved Iraq. That was beyond the abilities of anyone in his position. That said, it is very difficult for me to think of anyone who could have made things as bad as Hill did.


Elaine: I am speaking very slowly while I assume that C.I. is taking over the note taking. Last week, Amnesty International issued their "The State of the World's Human Rights" report and I want to read in this on Iraq: "Government forces and armed political groups continued to commit gross human rights abuses, although the overall level of violence was lower than in previous years. Thousands of civilians were killed or seriously injured in suicide and other bomb attacks by armed political groups. The government and the US-led Multinational Force (MNF) continued to hold thousands of uncharged detainees on security grounds, some after several years, but released thousands of others. Torture and other ill-treatment of detainees by Iraqi forces, including prison guards, remained rife and were carried out with impunity. At least
1,100 prisoners were reported to be under sentence of death, many following unfair trials. The government disclosed no information about executions, but at least 120 were reported and it appeared that some were carried out in secret. At least 1.5 million people were still internally displaced within Iraq and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were refugees abroad. New human rights violations were reported in the semi-autonomous Kurdistan region where conditions generally were much better than in the rest of Iraq." I don't see the progress, where's the progress. 171 people died that were in Iraq on Barack Obama's orders. They're dead now. And there's nothing to show for it. And for all the space he's been given by the Congress, he has no plan. He has no new plan. He is doing what Bush did and, excuse me, I thought part of the counting the days until Bush was out of office was about the universal rejection of Bush ways.

Jess: But to have had or maintained that -- and, Elaine, I agree with you completely, you know that -- but to have had or maintained that would have required that those against the wars demonstrated vigilance and what we saw instead was fat assed Naomi Klein trashing people she described as "radicals" who didn't want to celebrate the 'victory' she did when Barack was sworn in.

Cedric: Can I jump in too? Fat assed Naomi's starting to look like Orca the Killer Whale and good, may she choke to death on all the food she's slamming down. Big Butt was always insisting that the peace movement was not supposed to be led around by the Democratic Party but there she was doing just that and going around inventing her 'Black fantasies.' Someone needs to tell that White bitch, we can speak for our own damn selves, we don't need her spying on a few of us and then explaining the 'meaning.' The presumpitous attitude of that White bitch. She could have spoken for herself but that wasn't enough she wanted to say what was on the mind of Black men -- and I find that very telling as well, her focus on Black men and silence on Black women -- and she 'knew' what we were thinking by observing us from across the street? That White bitch needs to shut the f**k up. She does not speak for the Black male, we had no special election in which we decided, "Naomi Klein -- this Canadian -- is the voice of the Black man in the United States." She's exactly what Marcia would call a White Mama.

Betty: Marcia would actually call her a Honky Bitch and since she's not here, I'll call her that. I don't know what's worse? The sexualization of the Black male by women like Naomi Klein or the silence on the Black women? I'm going with the sexualization because I actually think we -- Black women -- are better off not having Naomi's 'help' and 'focus.' And where does that Canadian woman get off butting into our elections in the first place? She wanted to 'enjoy' the victory? Well I damn well guess she did having sat on her fat ass and done nothing in her own country of choice to remove the ruling conservative party from power.

Ann: Naomi Klein wanted to have a victory party while Iraqis were still suffering and Afghans were still suffering and Barack had begun his predator drone program of killing Pakistani civilians. None of that mattered as much as one Honky Bitch's desire to prove she was down with the Black bruthers. Naomi, you're nothing but a White bitch reeking of entitlement including the fact that you think you can peer into the Black man's mind and tell the whole world what he was thinking. How simple minded does she think the Black man is that she doesn't even need to speak to him to 'just know' what he was thinking? And how simple minded is she -- this supposed author of books -- that she reduces every power conflict to White-bad and Black-good. You get the feeling her head must spin like Linda Blair's when confronted with any of the ongoing violence in, for example, the Congo.

Betty: Amen. And her little need for a 'party'? It's no different than Poppy Bush golfing during Gulf One. Come on, you fat ass fool, no one said it would be easy, if they did they lied to you. Fighting empire is a full time job and little Mall Rats like Naomi Klein are simply not up to the task. And for those who are late to the party -- and many may be because, outside of C.I., I can't think anyone that called Naomi out in real time -- what she did was so destructive. Long after the inauguration, she tells that racist tale and is using it still as her excuse for doing nothing, this fat ass who wanted to be elevated to leadership. This fat ass is, by statements and by attitude, encouraging the left to wallow. There was never a reason or excuse to drop the ball or go on vacation but there's Naomi urging further inactivity.

Elaine: It was appalling and so was her racist view that no one called her outside of this community. But, in terms of Iraq, I think it needs to be remembered that No Logo did not bring her acclaim. No Logo's was a child's book to the publishing world. It was not considered a serious work, it wasn't even considered a good first effort. She followed that up with those lazy columns. That collection did not rock the world. It was her Harper's essay on Iraq that finally elevated Naomi to a level of prominence and respect. She expanded on that in her clip-job book -- credit free, of course -- and for someone who went from being seen as an airhead to an intellectual on the back of the Iraq War to dismiss it as she has? I am so damn sick of the walk aways. They knew who they are. And as one after the other goes under -- some on their own, some with the help of more than karma -- I can't help but laugh at them. To profit from the illegal war, to enrich your coffers and name, and then walk away from it? That's disgusting, as disgusting as KBR. And I hear their pleas for money today and just laugh at them. Whores, that's all they are, begging for money so they can devote time to anything but Iraq. This is an exact replay of the post-Vietnam period in the seventies; however, please note, 'independent' media waited until after US troops were out of Vietnam to drop it like a hot potato then.

Mike: Well -- before I go further, Rebecca, Ava and C.I. are you giving any money to so-called independent media?

Ava: I'm not, they're not worth it. I give to charities my mother and aunts give to and to charities that C.I., Elaine or Rebecca recommend.

Rebecca: I'll jump in so Ava can take down C.I.'s comments in a minute. No. No. And no. There was a time when I would be tempted by Robert Parry. His pleas for 'funding' seem to come in near weekly these days. But he doesn't do a damn thing worth saving. He went bat s**t nuts in 2008 as he attacked Hillary and the man now sounds like a raving lunatic. We're paying for what? His musings? Please, he's not a reporter. He's a bad columnist. We've mainly focused -- this year -- on feminist causes and children's issues. And that's where the focus should be, if you ask me. But Ava, C.I. or Elaine call me, or I'll call them, and we'll get a money bomb going to some worthy cause. Ensuring that millionaire Amy Goodman get a few more bucks? Not a worthy cause. C.I.?

C.I.: I've always focused a large amount of charity work on children's issues -- especially on special-needs children. I've also always focused on feminist causes. So that's what I do now. I have no money to give to the whores of Panhandle Media. Elaine would scream at me if I did. And everything she said in the seventies and that she repeated this decade on how they use you and use your money and do nothing with it but try to set themselves up as the new George Will, for example, is accurate. They don't want to change the world, they just want to get seated at the main table. I give to UNICEF and the International Red Cross and organizations that really make a difference. At one point, Pacifica stood to get a huge chunk of change when I died but I've changed my will. If the Democratic Party can't fund and feed their own whores, that's really not my problem.

Mike: Okay. I just wanted to be sure before I went into this. Where the hell is Iraq? I've been talking to C.I. about this and if you read any of the so-called left print publications, where the hell is it? C.I. pointed out you can often find it in the photo section in the monthly issue of The Progressive. Otherwise, where is it? In These Times? No time for the wars. The Nation? Bad writing wanted, serious topics need not apply. ISR? Oh my God. We cover that crap-fest this issue in another article and I can't believe how embarrassing that magazine has become. "Going to where the silences are," chants Amy Goodman as she rushes to cover the same thing the MSM is.

Ava: Mike, you and I are basically the same age. And for people our age who are against the illegal war, the Iraq War is really all we've known. I don't think that can be stressed enough.

Mike: Right. For me, and I'm just a little younger than Ava and Jess, the war broke out when I was in high school. It's seven years of my life and counting. And so -- and so -- and I think this is Ava's point -- and so for people my age, we do notice the coverage, the lack of coverage. We do get it, that the interest of the media has moved on while the war continues. That's why we have so little faith in All Things Media Big and Small.

Jess: Right. Right. Exactly. Because we still had some idealism, we still had some hopes. And we heard all these whores claim that the Iraq War mattered and that it had to be ended and we believed them. And we've seen them walk away from it. They wrote their book or they did their documentary and they walked away. They used Iraq to make money and we saw it. And the disillusionment we feel? Elaine talks about the seventies and how so-called 'independent' media sold the country out and got on board with the corporatist Jimmy Carter -- who was not a man of peace or a man of the people -- and when she talks about that and how that media betrayed everything it stood for, there's real anger in her voice. And it's something that people who grew up with this illegal war can understand because we've seen the exact same hypocrisy on the part of Panhandle Media.

Kat: I talked about the breakdown in Congress and let me just tie this in, when no one in the media's demanding action on ending the Iraq War, you better believe Congress isn't going to make their big issue. The media makes it an issue? Congress panics and thinks it must be on the minds of millions.

Ava: Okay, I think everyone's spoken but I want to toss to Ruth who hasn't spoken on Iraq and see if she has any thoughts before we conclude. Ruth?

Ruth: I am going to go generational, talking 'bout my generation, as the Who once sang. The French were getting out or were out of Vietnam when I started college and the US was just beginning to flirt with it. I was in college, I got a degree, I got a husband, I got children and, all through that, the war dragged on. And we swore never again but it did happen again. And I hear these liars like Medea Benjamin proclaim "No War On Iran" or whatever. They can't stop the next war now, they can't even stop the current war. They can't even focus on it. I'm disgusted with them and I am glad that in my limited speaking -- Fridays I join Ava, C.I., Kat and Wally to speak to college and high school groups -- the students are aware that the likes of Medea Benjamin and Tom Hayden and others sold out the peace movement. That is really all that gives me hope. I am so sad that so young they had to learn how much hypocrisy exists on our side but I am so glad that they have absorbed the lesson and have no desire to listen to those liars ever again.

Ava: I'm reminded of Joni Mitchell's "The Circle Game," the last verse: "So the years spin by and now the boy is twenty/ Though his dreams have lost some grandeur coming true/ There'll be new dreams, maybe better dreams, and plenty/ Before the last revolving year is through." This is a rush transcript, Dallas has hunted down all of links and we thank him for that. Our e-mail address is thirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com.