Sunday, April 09, 2006

Ruth's Public Radio Report Pt. III

 
As always KPFA's The Morning Show had much to offer including an interview with Matthew Rothschild, the Wednesday discussion on labor and Andrea Lewis' interview of Gary Hart that Elaine wrote about. Monday's broadcast is scheduled to include a discussion of KPFA which will be celebrating its 57th anniversary all this month. KPFA went on the air April 15, 1949. I will also note that Howard Zinn was a guest on Friday. He and Ms. Lewis discussed the importance of independent media and issues of empire. They also discussed Iraq and Anthony Arnove's new book Iraq: The Logic of Withdrawal which Mr. Zinn has written the introduction to and whose title echoes Mr. Zinn's book Vietnam: The Logic of Withdrawal.

In e-mails this week, members noted that they were happy C.I. had added individual links to the stations and the archives for KPFA, WBAI and KPFT which are the three stations I tend to focus on the most in these reports. That is largely because of their archives, the suggestions from members and the accessibility of the streams for those who listen online. As C.I. noted, I do not listen to WBAI online, though with the leaves sprouting on the trees, I may soon have to. My granddaughter Tracey was the one who informed last summer that I could listen to WBAI over the radio and that does depend on which radio I'm using and which room I am in. I will also note that Seth is considering covering a Pacifica program at his site Seth in the City. I hope he is able to do so and that everyone in the community works to get the word out on Pacifica.

Lastly, I hope this report flows. On Saturday, most of it was lost when there was the computer incident. With C.I. and others present, I was eager to try posting on my own, with helps on links and tags, and the personal lesson for me may be to stick to e-mailing my posts. I have recreated most of what I was not able to recover. I will add that Law and Disorder did a segment on the protests against proposed punitive immigration laws and encouraged everyone to get involved. My granddaughter Tracey, my grandson Jayson and I were able to come out to California and to meet some of the students making sure that democracy remains alive in this country. Their activism and spirit deserves loud rounds of applause and makes me hopeful, despite the Bully Boy in the Oval Office, for our future.

Today on KPFA at nine a.m. Pacific time, eleven a.m. Central and noon Eastern, Larry Bensky's Sunday Salon will be exploring these topics:

In our first hour...
The Three "Rs"... No, not THOSE three... Revenge. Retribution. Rectification. The story we've passed down from generation to generation about these values fools us into believing our nation's penal system, including capital punishment, is legitimate. That's according to our guest, Judith Kay, author of "Murdering Myths: The Story Behind the Death Penalty."
In our second hour...
Who or Whom? That or Which? She or Her? Which is right? When? And how much does it really matter? Brush up on your grammar, or challenge your beliefs about it with Los Angeles Times columnist, June Casagrande, author of the new book "Grammar Snobs are Great Big Meanies: A Guide to Language for Fun & Spite," and Geoffrey Nunberg, professor at the UC Berkeley School of Information and the author of a the upcoming book "Talking Right: How Conservatives Turned Liberalism into a Tax-Raising, Latte-Drinking, Sushi-Eating, Volvo-Driving, New York Times-reading, Body-Piercing, Hollywood-Loving, Left-Wing Freak Show."

And Rachel e-mailed to note this Monday night program (air time is Eastern Standard Time) on WBAI:

SAMUEL BECKETT 100: A Special Presentation
Monday, April 10, from 9:00-11:00 pm: Commemorate Beckett's centenary and the 50th anniversary of the American premiere of his masterpiece, Waiting for Godot, by listening to a special broadcast of the play featuring the original Broadway cast: Burt Lahr, E.G. Marshall, Alvin Epstein and Kurt Kasner. Hosted and with an introduction by Simon Loekle.










































Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
Posted by at

Bush acusado de autorizar filtracion de informacion clasificada

Bush acusado de autorizar filtración de informacion clasificada

Maria: Buenos dias. De parte de "Democracy Now!" diaz cosas que vale hacer notar este fin de semana. Paz.

Bush acusado de autorizar filtración de información clasificada
El ex jefe de personal del vicepresidente Dick Cheney, declaró que el Presidente Bush lo autorizó a filtrar a la prensa un documento de inteligencia altamente confidencial sobre Irak, en un intento de defender la decisión del gobierno de comenzar la guerra. Este hecho vincula a Bush por primera vez con la filtración de información clasificada y hace surgir nuevas interrogantes con respecto a si Bush estuvo directamente vinculado con la revelación de que Valerie Plame era agente encubierta de la CIA. El testimonio de Lewis "Scooter" Libby ante un gran jurado fue citado en documentos de la corte, presentados por fiscales el miércoles. Libby fue acusado en octubre, por cargos de mentir a los investigadores sobre su participación en la revelación de que Valerie Plame era una agente encubierta de la CIA. Plame es la esposa del ex embajador Joseph Wilson, quien criticó públicamente la guerra. El 30 de septiembre de 2003, el Presidente Bush formuló advertencias contra cualquier persona de su gobierno que filtrara información clasificada. Bush dijo: "Permítanme decir algo sobre las filtraciones en Washington. Hay demasiadas filtraciones de información clasificada en Washington". Y agregó: "Hay filtraciones en el Poder Ejecutivo; hay filtraciones en el Poder Legislativo. Hay demasiadas filtraciones. Y si se produce una filtración en mi gobierno, quiero saber quién es el responsable". En Capitol Hill, Bush fue muy criticado por los demócratas el jueves. El Senador Charles Schumer de Nueva York dijo: "Cada vez queda más claro que este caso va más allá de "Scooter" Libby. Al menos, el Presidente Bush y el Vicepresidente Dick Cheney deberían informar a la población estadounidense de cualquier participación que hayan tenido en permitir la filtración de información clasificada". Y agregó: "¿Creyeron que tenían derecho a hacerlo? Y si es así ¿en qué circunstancias? ¿O simplemente es algo que hicieron para satisfacer las necesidades políticas del Presidente en ese momento? Según los documentos judiciales de hoy, "Scooter" Libby dijo que el Presidente autorizó al Vicepresidente a que le ordenara revelar a los periodistas información clasificada, para incrementar el apoyo a la guerra en Irak".

Comunidades de Wisconsin aprueban medida de retirar soldados
En Wisconsin, dieciocho comunidades aprobaron una medida votada el martes, que solicita a Estados Unidos retirar inmediatamente a todos los soldados de Irak. Seis comunidades rechazaron la medida. El tema fue sometido a votación tras la campaña de base organizada por grupos contrarios a la guerra.

Mujeres británicas afrontan condena de un año en prisión por protestar frente a base militar
En Gran Bretaña, dos abuelas de más de 60 años de edad podrían ser condenadas a hasta un año en prisión, por haber realizado protestas frente a una base militar. Estas mujeres, Helen John y Sylvia Boyes, serán procesadas en virtud de las leyes contra el terrorismo que prohíben todas las protestas frente a bases militares e instalaciones de investigación nuclear.

Camarógrafo iraquí es absuelto pero permanece en prisión
En Irak, un camarógrafo iraquí que trabaja para "CBS News" fue absuelto el miércoles de los cargos que lo mantuvieron un año en prisión. Sin embargo, a pesar de la absolución, el juez ordenó que lo llevaran de vuelta a su celda en Abu Ghraib. El camarógrafo, Abdul Ameer, estaba filmando enfrentamientos en Mosul cuando soldados estadounidenses le dispararon y lo arrestaron. Ameer fue acusado de incitación y de reclutamiento para la insurgencia contra Estados Unidos. El abogado de Ameer, Scott Horton, dijo luego de la audiencia: "Primero me gustaría decir que este ha sido un gran día para la justicia en Irak, creo que ninguna de las personas que haya presenciado los procedimientos de esta mañana pensará que ha sido justo, pero pensemos en otra cosa; en una sala de tribunal de prácticamente cualquier otra parte del mundo, cuando un acusado es absuelto y se determina que es completamente inocente de los cargos presentados en su contra, queda libre a partir de ese momento. Hoy no sucedió eso. Las autoridades estadounidenses aún tienen detenido a Abdul Ameer. Todos debemos enfocarnos en el hecho de que aunque fue totalmente absuelto permanece en prisión, y debemos dirigir nuestras preguntas sobre su liberación a las fuerzas estadounidenses".

Senador Harkin exhorta a demócratas a respaldar censura de Bush
Mientras tanto, el Senador demócrata de Iowa Tom Harkin, admitió en una entrevista radial que se avergüenza de que más demócratas no apoyaran la moción de Russell Feingold para censurar al Presidente Bush, por ordenar ilegalmente a la Agencia de Seguridad Nacional (NSA) que lleve a cabo espionaje interno.

Asesor legal de Nixon, John Dean, pide censura de Bush
En Washington, el ex asesor legal del Presidente Nixon, John Dean, declaró el viernes a favor de censurar al Presidente Bush por ordenarle a la Agencia de Seguridad Nacional que lleve a cabo vigilancia interna sin las órdenes judiciales que exige la ley. Dean habló en la audiencia del Comité Judicial del Senado para discutir los pedidos del Senador Russell Feingold de censurar al presidente. Bruce Fein, un jurista conservador y ex funcionario del gobierno de Reagan, también declaró a favor de la censura. Fein dijo que la afirmación de Bush de que tiene facultad constitucional inherente "no tiene fin". Hasta ahora, Feingold ha recibido poco apoyo de su propio partido, ya que sólo dos demócratas asistieron a la audiencia del viernes: Patrick Leahy de Vermont y Herb Kohl de Wisconsin.

Cardenal de Los Ángeles oficia misa para apoyar a los inmigrantes indocumentados
Mientras tanto en Los Ángeles, el Cardenal Roger Mahoney ofició una misa especial en señal de solidaridad con los inmigrantes indocumentados. Mahoney prometió ordenarle a los curas que ignoren una ley propuesta, debido a que dicha ley convertiría en delito que tanto curas, como trabajadores sociales y trabajadores de la salud, ayudaran a los trabajadores indocumentados. Mahoney dijo: "Bien, estamos en un momento realmente crítico en la historia de inmigración de nuestro país, y tenemos la oportunidad que no hemos tenido en muchos años de aprobar una ley que es humana y justa y que trata todos los asuntos referidos a la inmigración". Dolores Huerta, co-fundadora de sindicato United Farm Workers (Agricultores Unidos), también habló en Los Ángeles: "Es muy bueno que esto ocurra ahora. Estamos viendo el inicio de un nuevo movimiento por los derechos civiles constituido por latinos. Que el Cardenal oficie la misa es un gran apoyo, porque ésta es una organización nacional. Al decir que el Cardenal cometerá desobediencia civil en nombre de los inmigrantes, el Cardenal estará inspirando a otros a hacer lo mismo. Esto repercutirá en Washington". Grupos de inmigrantes de todo el país planean protestas masivas a nivel nacional el lunes.

Subsecretario de Prensa del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional arrestado por seducir a una menor en Internet
Volvemos a Estados Unidos. El Subsecretario de Prensa del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional fue arrestado en Maryland el martes, por intentar solicitar relaciones sexuales con una niña a través de Internet. Brian Doyle fue arrestado luego de haber contactado a través de Internet a un oficial de policía encubierto que se hizo pasar por una adolescente de 14 años de edad. Doyle fue acusado de 23 cargos por utilizar su computadora para seducir a una adolescente y trasmitir materiales perjudiciales a una menor. Según la policía, Doyle se había identificado en sus comunicaciones a través de Internet, y había proporcionado el número de teléfono de su oficina.

Sunitas de las milicias protegerán los barrios
En otras noticias sobre Irak, nuevas estadísticas indican que el número de iraquíes que murieron en marzo en asesinatos de tipo ejecución superó en casi ocho veces al número de iraquíes que murieron en atentados suicidas con bombas, o en atentados con bombas al costado de las carreteras. Esto provocó que muchos iraquíes que anteriormente no estaban involucrados en luchas, ahora porten armas para protegerse. El Financial Times informa que los barrios sunitas de clase media ahora están formando sus propias milicias para contraatacar a las milicias chiítas y a los escuadrones de la muerte.

Estados Unidos no alcanza meta de construir 142 clínicas de salud en Irak
Esta noticia es sobre la reconstrucción de Irak. El "Washington Post" informa que Estados Unidos está lejos de alcanzar su meta de construir 142 clínicas de salud con servicios básicos. El gobierno estadounidense le entregó a la empresa Parsons 200 millones de dólares para terminar el proyecto, pero hasta el momento sólo se han construido 20 clínicas. El sistema de salud de Irak fue devastado por la guerra, y por una década de sanciones impuestas por Estados Unidos.

Maria: Good morning. Now in English, here are ten stories from Democracy Now! Peace.

Bush Accused Of OKing Leak of Classified Info
Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff has testified that President Bush authorized him to leak a highly classified intelligence document on Iraq to the press in an effort to defend the administration's decision to go to war. This marks the first time Bush has been linked to the leaking of classified information and raises new questions if Bush was directly tied to the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's grand jury testimony was cited in court papers filed by prosecutors late Wednesday. Libby was indicted in October on charges that he lied to investigators about his role in the outing of Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson who was a vocal critic of the war. On Sept. 30, 2003, President Bush warned against anyone in his administration leaking classified information. "Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington," Bush said. "There's leaks at the executive branch; there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is." On Capitol Hill, Bush was widely criticized by Democrats on Thursday. This is Senator Charles Schumer of New York. "It is increasingly clear that this case goes far beyond Scooter Libby. At the very least, President Bush and Vice President Cheney should fully inform the American people of any role they played in allowing classified information to be leaked," said Schumer. "Did they believe they have the right to do this and if so, in what circumstances? Or is this just something that may have been done to accommodate the president's momentary political needs? According to court documents today, Scooter Libby said that the president authorized the vice president to direct him to disclose classified information to reporters in order to bolster support for the war in Iraq."

Wisconsin Communities Approve Troop Withdrawal Measure
And in Wisconsin, eighteen communities approved a ballot measure Tuesday that calls on the US to immediately withdraw all troops from Iraq. Six communities voted down the measure. The issue was put on the ballot following a grassroots campaign organized by anti-war groups.

British Women Face One-Year Prison Term For Military Base Protest
In Britain, two grandmothers above the age of 60 years old are facing up to a year in prison for protesting outside a military base. The women, Helen John and Sylvia Boyes, will be prosecuted under anti-terrorism legislation that outlaws all protests at military bases and nuclear research facilities.

Iraqi Cameraman Acquitted, Yet Remains Imprisoned
In Iraq, an Iraqi cameraman working for CBS News was acquitted of charges Wednesday that have kept him in prison for one year. But despite the acquittal, the judge ordered him returned to his cell at Abu Ghraib. The cameraman, Abdul Ameer, was filming clashes in Mosul when US troops shot him and arrested him a year ago Wednesday. He was accused of incitement and of recruiting for the anti-U.S. insurgency. Ameer's lawyer, Scott Horton, commented after the hearing: "I would like to observe first that this is has been a great day for justice in Iraq I think no one who witness the proceedings this morning would think that justice was served there, but let us think about something else - in a court room almost anywhere else in the world when an accused is acquitted, is to determined to be completely innocent of charges brought against him, he walks free from that court room. That didn't happen today. Abdul Ameer is still in detention by the American authorities. We should all focus on the fact even though he was completely acquitted he remains in prison and we should all direct our question to the Americans forces about his release."

Sen. Harkin Urges Democrats To Back Censure of Bush
Meanwhile Democratic Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa has admitted in a radio interview that he is embarrassed that more Democrats have not supported Russell Feingold's motion to censure the President for illegally ordering the NSA to conduct domestic spying.

Nixon's Legal Counsel John Dean Calls For Censure of Bush
In Washington, President Nixon’s former legal counsel John Dean testified on Friday in favor of censuring President Bush for ordering the National Security Agency to conduct domestic surveillance without legally required court warrants. Dean spoke at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing to discuss Sen. Russell Feingold's calls to censure the president. Also testifying in favor of censure was Bruce Fein, a conservative legal scholar and former Reagan administration official. He said that Bush's claim of inherent constitutional authority "has no stopping point." So far Feingold has received little support from his own party -- only two other Democrats attended Friday’s hearing: Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Herb Kohl of Wisconsin.

Los Angeles Cardinal Offers Mass In Support of Undocumented Immigrants
Meanwhile in Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahoney held a special mass as sign of solidarity with undocumented immigrants. Mahoney has vowed to order priests to ignore a proposed law that would make it a crime for priests, social workers and health care workers to help undocumented workers. "Well, we are at a very critical moment in the history of our country with immigration and we have the opportunity that we haven't had in many years to actually pass a law that is humane and just and deals with all the issues around immigration," Mahoney said. Dolores Huerta, co-founder of the United Farm Workers also spoke in Los Angeles: "This is really great right now. We're seeing a new civil rights movement being formed by Latinos. The Cardinal having the mass is such good support because this is such a national organization. When the Cardinal says he's going to commit civil disobedience on behalf of the immigrants, then this is going to inspire others to do the same. This will have an effect on Washington." Across the country immigrant groups are planning for massive nationwide protests on Monday.

DHS Press Secretary Arrested for Online Seduction
Back in the United States, the deputy press secretary for the Department of Homeland Security was arrested in Maryland Tuesday for trying to solicit sexual relations with a child over the internet. Brian Doyle was arrested after he made contact online with an undercover police officer posing as a 14-year old girl. Doyle has been charged with 23 counts for using his computer to seduce a child and transmitting harmful materials to a minor. According to police, he had identified himself in his communications online and given his office phone number.

Sunnis Form Militias To Protect Neighborhoods
In other news from Iraq, new statistics show that nearly eight times as many Iraqis died in March in execution-style killings than in suicide and roadside bombings. This has prompted many Iraqis not previously involved in fighting to begin carrying weapons for protection. The Financial Times is reporting middle class Sunni neighborhoods are now forming their own militias to counter the Shiite militias and death squads.

U.S. Falls Far Short of Goal to Build 142 Health Clinics in Iraq
In news on the reconstruction of Iraq the Washington Post reports the U.S. is far from reaching its goal of building 142 primary health clinics. The U.S. government gave the private company Parsons $200 million to complete the project but so far only 20 clinics have been built. Iraq's medical system has been devastated from the war and a decade of U.S.-imposed sanctions.






sylvia boyes
helen john

Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.
Posted by at

Blog Spotlight: Rebecca on the nineties

We're sure DLC-ers, New Democrats and Clinton groupies will hate Rebecca's post but we loved it.  At a time when "misty watered colored memories" replace reality, it's good to have Rebecca saying,  "Now, just a minute . . ."
 

mini essay

great response to yesterday's post. a few of you wanted me to stay on the same topic a bit more so i will.

i don't think the pragmatic realist in the democratic party, armed with polling, accomplishes much. i think they dumb down the public and they avoid dealing with real issues because that might take political capitol. they're always saving it. they're never using it.

that's why i have no desire to vote for hillary clinton. bill clinton, as a president, was largely npr. npr wants us to fight for it. npr wants us to do their battles. but after we've saved their ass, pulled it from the fire yet again, they turn around and veer right. bill clinton did the same thing.

save me from the mean republicans. and we would. we'd defend him and we'd be rewarded with attacks on the poor (welfare reform) and other goodies - many of which the right wing couldn't get when reagan was president but under a democratic president, they did get it. under a democratic president, they did get it. i repeated that because it bears repeating.

i'm not interested in 4 more years of dem-lite and that's all hillary has to offer. she has nothing to say on the war other than to play more-hawk-than-thou. she's retreated from abortion so quickly that she probably performed a few evacutations in the rush to create a vaccum.

if all we're going to see from a hillary presidency is that she does what it's easy, the country doesn't need it. i love how the 'tough talkers' have no spine. they fall into the law & order trap and start talking tough but they're not tough enough to seriously discuss the issue of execution. the most we can hope for from them on that is 'well i think research needs to be done'. research?

or polling?

they won't fight but they will compromise with the right wing. it's as though robbers break in and bill clinton is saying, 'you can take whatever you want, just leave me my tv!' i'm sorry but there are a number of things in my home that i would like to keep. in fact, things handed down to me are far more important than some flashy tv.

but that's what it was for 8 years. 'take abortion, take poverty, take gays,' bill clinton cried, 'but leave me my nafta.'

nafta was 1 of the worst economic programs. it shouldn't have passed and it did nothing to help people. it did help corporations. helping corporations bill clinton could do. helping the people?

he gave some wonderful speeches. i was at the 1992 inauguration. (i got to see barbra streisand rehearsing which was more amazing than anything that followed him for 8 years.) he was likeable.

he just didn't do anything.

having destroyed the chance of universal health care (and hillary did that with her secrecy - the sort of secrecy we object with dick cheney now), hillary now makes health care noises as she gets ready for her 2008 run.

are we supposed to trust her?

what we were given the impression of getting during the 1992 campaign was not what she offered. (though the insurance companies were very pleased with her proposal.)

i don't want to make a hero out of russ feingold (who i like) but i'd rather have some 1 like him who fights. who fights for something other than himself.

i think it was 1993, early 1993, when c.i. said 'bill clinton was raised in chaos and he can't do anything without chaos.' by the end of the 90s, c.i. was comparing bill clinton to jalen rose of the indiana pacers and saying that bill clinton, like rose, had to go out on the court and bury himself because the only role he was comfortable in was 'the comeback kid.'

so we got 8 years of bill clinton's personal struggels, 8 years of bill clinton's america when, in fact, it was the people's country.

there were attacks from the right and from the press. i'm not ignoring that. but unlike the online dylan, i don't feel the need to whore myself out and play like bill clinton was god, jesus christ and buddah rolled into 1.

the press (and the right wing) tried to take him out. he helped them along the way. that's part of the story even if someone still sending his yearly dues into the bill clinton fan club can't grasp that.

i'm also sick of the myth that we were so much better off ecnomically under bill clinton. every 1 wasn't. was it better than under the bully boy? yes.

but that's it choice wise? we can either have nation completely screwed over or nation treading water?

i'm not willing to accept that.

i want some 1 who will fight for the people. some 1 who wants to represent them. that may be a pipe dream. but don't tell me bill clinton is the best we could get. i'll take jimmy carter over bill clinton and i had huge problems with carter's foreign policies.

to hear the right scream their fantasies of how liberal bill clinton was could have only induced gails of laughter from actual liberals. he wasn't liberal.

and if we're going to act as though he was, if we're going to make him the baseline, then get ready for evan blah.

dukakis wasn't a liberal. we get dukakis and others thrown in our faces and are told 'see, a liberal can't win.' how long has it been since a liberal got the democractic nomination?

but these centrists/realists want to move the party to the center. they want to do that because it's easy. i don't think some 1 who's battle plan is 'do what's easy' belongs in the white house.

after bully boy leaves (impeach, impeach, impeach), our country's going to be in a huge mess and some 1 who's just going to do a little light dusting and maybe move the couch around isn't going to fix the problems.

hillary can't even address the problems so the idea that she's the candidate we should all drool over is hard to stomach.

we're seeing the problems with this choose evil or just bad right now as our elected officials talk immigration. undocumented workers aren't being helped by what's going on. corporations are being helped. i'd like to see an issue approached from the perspective of how it will help people - not from how it will help corporations while doing the least damage to people.

we're given these false choices and encouraged to believe that it's this or it's that. life is generally quite a bit more complex as are the issues.

joan baez has a great version of steve earle's 'christmas in washington' on her live album (kat reviewed it here) where she sings about how democrats means '4 more years of things not getting worse.' that's a perfect description by steve earle. i don't think we have to settle for hideous or not worse. i think there are other options.

and the press desire to sell us on candidates is insane. we're not getting any news. we're getting handicapping of the horse race. mark warner 'dark horse' screams the new york times. if 2 years before the primaries the times is going to jerk off over handicapping, exactly when will we get to know what issues people stand for? i am so sick of the corporate press treating it all as a horse race. i want to see more substance in the reporting and in the candidates.

and it would be really great if the new york times, ted koppel and others could avoid trying to shame people over endorsements or encouraging them to drop out of a race and instead start tackling some real issues. i don't expect that to happen.

kat wrote a really wonderful post last night, so please check that out. sherry noted the columns c.i. wrote for the gina & krista round-robin and for polly's brew last weekend and wondered why c.i. wasn't writing about the issue at the common ills?

because c.i.'s sick of crap. and the big question this morning when c.i. called was, 'rebecca, i didn't have a swear word in there, did i?' no. but there are some issues that c.i. knows won't be calm discussions or funny 1s. that's why there's been nothing other than news on jose padilla's case at the common ills. c.i. hasn't made a comment on that due to the level of anger at the supreme court's decision to turn down the case.

c.i. did tackle the new york times continual ignoring of realities in ireland. i know dominick wrote c.i. to ask for that because i got an e-mail from dominick praising the post. i'm not sure people get that (i know sherry does). i've discussed here before but i'll repeat, if c.i.'s writing about something, it's because the members want it covered.
so c.i. does a post that speaks for the community. this morning's was wonderful.

c.i. tackled the times on that and on the realities of uganda. if you missed it, go read it.
it's why jim always knows that if every 1 else is falling asleep, he and c.i. can go on. you just sit there and say 'give a speech on this' and, no matter how tired, c.i. will. that's really what the common ills is, c.i. speaking for members. i was really glad that c.i. announced that next year on water rights day, the common ills was going to be covering that topic. that's a huge topic to c.i. and if it was about 'i'll write what i want to,' that topic would have been covered over and over. instead, the community is like jim saying 'come on talk about this.'

and when it's a time like right now, where c.i.'s pouring hours into activism, i really do worry because there's little to no sleep, there's no down time and the only down time there might be is spent getting things written for the site.

i wouldn't want that responsibility. i'm perfectly fine with writing about what i want.

but in terms of something like the immigration issue or abortion or jose padilla, c.i.'s not going to put it up at the common ills. there's no time. it's a huge headache to write about something like that. and with calls of 'write about this' or 'write about that' or 'please address this' there's no time for it. that's why it goes into columns.

the columns are c.i. speaking about what c.i. wants to. and on issues that are too close to the bone, too important, it's too difficult to try to dash off a paragraph or 2 in the midst of covering what the community wants covered.

by the way, ava and jess are being active on the immigration issue as well.

elaine just called. she's upset because she can't log in to fix her post. those who tried to post early tonight found out they couldn't or had to do so quickly because blogger was going down. it's back up, obviously, but elaine can't log in. she keeps getting an error message of 'down for maintenance' even though that's over. i told her betty wasn't able to log in before going to church. i told her the same thing i told betty, when this happens, it's not your fault and it's not your problem. don't worry about it. and i mean that. betty and elaine need to not guilt over the fact that blogger had problems. i told elaine i would go in tomorrow night and add in the links for her. it's the least i can do after she filled in for weeks and weeks for me. (she doesn't blog thursday nights because she's got group.)

Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
Posted by at

Blog Spotlight: Elaine critiques the advocates of semi-stoppage of war

It was a week of nonstop problems with bloggers (and a Saturday of computer problems) so some people didn't get to post as planned.  One of them is Betty who keeps saying people must think she's lazy.  (She's not.  Blogger had problems on Tuesday and Wednesday and Thursday she flew to California.  With all of us here and problems on Saturday, computer problems, blogging was the least of our things to focus on.  Trina will post next Saturday but wanted to use the time here to learn about the protests and to enjoy the trip.  We think those are worthy aims.)  Among the strong writing last week was Elaine's commentary written against a ticking time bomb -- Blogger was about to go offline for maintenance.  Elaine feels it could have been "so much more" if she'd just had ten more minutes.  We think it makes its case perfectly.
 
 

This isn't finished but Blogger's about to go down

The way things are being done tonight by the "blog twins" (Mike and myself) is that we're both noting the same two items but we're each writing about only one. That's due to the fact that Mike has really strong feelings and thoughts on one and I have that on the other. We agreed on the two items to select but we both felt that one was in our area of strength so we'd blog on that one. If that's confusing, so is life.

22 Killed in Iraq Violence (Democracy Now!):
At least 22 people were killed in violence around Iraq on Tuesday. The deadliest incident came in Baghdad, when ten people were killed in a car bombing.

John Kerry had an op-ed in the New York Times today and Gary Hart was interviewed by Andrea Lewis on KPFA's The Morning Show. Both men expressed a basic premise that I do support which is we have to leave Iraq. Other than that, I had to wonder, "Are they out of touch or 'framing'?" Both have a "get tough" strategy. It works, as these things usually do, in one direction. For Kerry, we need to 'get tough' with the Iraqi government. Why haven't they formed a successful government after all this time? That's his question.

US involvement isn't noted despite the fact that the US government was very involved in every government set up since the invasion. To ignore that fact is to miss the picture. Is John Kerry not aware of that? Is he not aware that in the most recent elections, we would have been even more involved had Nancy Pelosi not objected? There is much in the column he wrote that I can support but I can't get behind the premise of the Iraqis' have 'failed' when, in fact, the Iraqis have never been in charge.

So is he 'framing'? Is this his concept of a way to sell withdrawal to the people?

I have no idea. But I can't believe he's unaware of the US government's involvement in the elections and the selection process. Is he unaware that we're pressuring the current prime minister to step down? If so, he must have missed the news coverage for the last week and a half because it's been reported and reported and reported -- even by the mainstream press.
(By the way, I enjoyed how Wally inverted the story today.)

If he is aware and this is framing, that's one reason so many of us don't care for framing. It's used as a way to sneak something over. The Nation did a cover story on young 'activists.' They weren't activists. They were liars. Not very smart liars, but liars does describe them. They bragged about how they'd sold a wage increase by not focusing on real issues but instead cloaking it in the Bible. Now, if I remember right, the vote on that comes up this month. They bragged about putting one over on their fellow students (at a religious college) two or so months ago.

That article bothered me for several reasons. First of all, there are activists on campus, real ones. They don't get a cover story. But the White, junior DLC division does. That story was so insulting to me as a regular reader of the magazine because I don't buy that publication for marketing. I buy it for ideas. I buy it for discussions of large issues. That story could have come out of a newsletter for the DLC and all they would have done was clip out the ending where Tom Hayden was briefly quoted (and noted that these 'activists' weren't activists).

So is that where we are now? We'll say anything to get the troops home?

I understand the desperation, I realize that people are dying (on all sides) every day. But Hart and Kerry struck me the wrong way today.

Hart spoke of security and how Dems needed to up their profile. He made clear that he was making observations and not endorsements in those comments. But when you're dealing with critiques, you're usually dealing with your own opinion. Anyone, for instance, expecting Ava and C.I. to sit through a T&A show and then write in praise of it at The Third Estate Sunday Review is going to be disappointed because they're writing from a feminist perspective.

He spoke of a new kind of warfare that we'd be facing in the future. I believe he noted the need to combine special ops. If he did do that, then that is advocating. I say if because it was a crazy morning. I thought I was going to miss the interview live but I had a cancellation so Sunny and I both listened to it. While we were listening, I was catching up on two journals. If I'm remembering wrong and he didn't advocate combing Delta Force, et al, my apologies and my bad.

But since he did speak of door-to-door warfare and went on to note Falluja, I don't think I'm remembering incorrectly. A caller pointed out that door-to-door involved civilians. Hart stated he wasn't endorsing it, he was just making observations. If that's true then what is the suggestion that we combine special forces? To me that's not just an observation.

The caller was very upset and I didn't blame her. I think he tossed around Falluja a little too casually. What went on there in November of 2004 and earlier in April of 2004 qualifies for war crimes. I'd grabbed coffee from the break room and when I was walking back, a caller, male, was on the phone and he didn't get to finish his comment because Gary Hart exploded at him. The caller was making the point, from what little I heard (and Sunny said I heard basically all of it) that America's motives have been imperialistic.

Gary Hart said of the caller that he was the reason for the problems Democrats had in winning races. I don't think a critique of US history and it's imperialistic aims are the reason anyone loses an election.

I also was highly offended when another caller, again male, spoke in defense of the previous caller. This caller spoke with a Latino accent and Hart asked him, "If you feel that way, why did you come to this country?" (That's a paraphrase. "Really" may have been the question as well.)
I found it offensive at the time and I still find it offensive. A female caller spoke on similar topics as the other two I've noted and she also brought up the fact that the US government has historically propped up tyrannical governments that abuse their citizens. She brought up Saudia Arabia and possibly that was the reason Hart could get behind that question.

Was Hart 'framing' in the interview? With his observations (I say opinions) of how the Democratic Party needs to be a tough party in order to win, was he framing?

To be fair to him, he included children (American) in national security and the environment. His security talk was not just war, war, war.

I'm actually interested in reading his book. (But I have a long reading list currently so I probably won't buy it until May.) He had many interesting ideas. But both he and Kerry seem to be 'framing' to me.

I don't think we get away from aggressive wars (which he is opposed to) by not addressing the roots of those wars and other wars that came before. He appeared, to me, to want to take it on a case-by-case basis. I don't see how that helps. It allows us to condemn one war of aggression; however, it allows them to continue.

It was an hour interview on a wide range of subjects and I don't want to give the impression that I disagreed with everything he said. I will be reading his book at some point. He was on the show to promote the book and he did peak my interest in it. (In the new book. Not the one on religion.)

But with both him and Kerry, two people opposed to the illegal war and speaking out against it, I felt less common ground than I would've expected. Amy Goodman interviewed him on Democracy Now! and he had stated that he learned by listening. I don't think he listened to the caller he snapped at. With Andrea Lewis, he made the point (which I agree with) that Democrats who voted for the invasion need to admit that they are wrong. He said admitting that you are wrong is one of the hardest things to do for a politician. I think he needs to admit that he handled that call poorly.

I spoke to C.I. and opened with, "I know you are busy, I'm sorry to call, but I spoke to Ruth and I think I'm writing about Hart's interview." C.I. knows Hart, C.I. likes Hart personally (and has campaigned for him). C.I. said, "Elaine, when Cedric calls worried it's one thing. But you've known me forever. If you have a problem, write about it. I'm not going to be upset." I wish I could've spoken longer on the phone but I know C.I. (and Ava and Jess) were working on immigration activism.

I will note that Andrea Lewis is all that Ruth's said and more. I understood why she enjoys Lewis' interviews so much. Many of Hart's point I could either agree with or was interested in hearing more information about them (which is why I'll be reading the book) but the above were the moments I disagreed with. C.I. asked if I'd note Ralph Nader because a number of e-mails came in on "whatever was said about Nader."

Hart believes that Nader cost Al Gore the election in 2000 and that Nader voters are responsible for Bully Boy being in the White House.

I don't agree with that and C.I. doesn't agree with that. So consider this a joint statment from us both. (We've spoken of this many times and if I offer something that's different from C.I.'s opinion by mistake, I'll note it tomorrow. I know C.I. probably won't have time to write tonight and I know the issue probably does need addressing within the community.)

rebecca note: i'm adding links for elaine and a comment near the bottom, but i did speak to c.i. and was told there was no disagreement with the 2000 comments and 'in fact, no disagreement with anything elaine's written. it's a great entry.'

During the 2000 campaign, Al Gore could've stolen voters from Nader. To do that, he would have had to have spoken to issues. (I voted for Al Gore. As did C.I. Up until a Rolling Stone interview we were willing to listen to Nader's campaign and weigh the issues addressed. In the interview, Nader dismissed the concerns of pro-choice voters and that's when he lost any interest we might have had in his campaign.)

I can go more into my/our thoughts on the campaign if someone needs me to but Mike just called to say he didn't think he was going to be finished in time. "In time? Are we in a race tonight?" Yes, we are. A race against Blogger which goes offline for fine tuning in less than ten minutes. I wasn't aware of that. So let me just say the above about the campaign for tonight.

Now in terms of winning or losing, Al Gore won the vote. He beat the Bully Boy. In the recount phase (and there was never a full recount despite James Baker's talking points of the votes being counted and recounted), Al Gore's campaign made huge mistakes. Joe Lieberman agreeing to count all military votes regardless of whether they were filled out properly or came in on time (or had a postmark) was a huge mistake. Joe Lieberman being on the ticket was a huge mistake.

Asking Jesse Jackson to leave was a mistake. They needed demonstrations, real ones, as opposed to the phoney ones staged by people flown into Florida to stop the recount. The disenfranchisment of African-American voters was not addressed by the campaign.

Al Gore won the vote. He lost the race. The Surpreme Court bears responsibility for that but so does his campaign. Six years later and the Democratic Party still fails to grasp that Republican want to win. They're not going to play nicely. They're going to pull out all stops. They smeared John Kerry with the Not So Swift Floaties (as C.I.'s dubbed them) and Kerry could have fought back. He could have made a real issue of Osama, not just in the debates but with commercials as well. He could have made an issue (or his campaign, I should say) of any number of topics but he played it like it was a race between gentleman. Obviously, his campaign never grasped how Karl Rove operates.

Ralph Nader didn't cost Al Gore the election. Even with Nader in the campaign, he won the vote. (Nader also wasn't the big beneficiary of the butterfly ballot in Palm Beach -- that was Pat Buchanan.) He lost the election because his campaign played nice and worried about how they'd look to the press. He should have fought for the race he won. He didn't. That goes to his team and to him. That has little to do with Ralph Nader and everyone needs to get over the idea that in a democracy you can ask someone (or bully them) into stepping out of a race.

I'm posting this now because I have less than 2 minutes left before Blogger goes down.

Sinn Fein Member Who Spied for British Found Dead (Democracy Now!):
In Ireland, a former Sinn Fein member who spied for the British government has been murdered. The man, Denis Donaldson, admitted last year he spied on fellow Irish nationalists. Donaldson’s murder comes as the Irish and British governments are attempting to relaunch stalled peace negotiations. Both the Sinn Fein and the Irish Republican Army denied involvement in the killing.


okay, me again (rebecca). i'm adding this to elaine's post, adding on thursday. elaine's talk about the 'options' being tossed around are tied into the body count item because people will always die from wars and pretending that a war is bad but that another war might be okay, isn't a critique. it's fine tuning. it's accepting that the war with iraq would be okay if we had gotten a u.n. resolution. there needs to be a serious look at the war and at how it fits into other wars. that won't come from fine tuning or from pretending like bully boy just bungled the war. the was was illegal. illegal wars will continue until we can move beyond the fine tuning nonsense.

on the 2nd item from democracy now, elaine was going to explain that she and mike had chosen the 2 items, the way they usually do, but had decided each would write about 1. for comments on the second item, see mike's 'Ireland.'

How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.
Posted by at

NYT Critique: C.I. on NYT's Linda Lavin

From the title to the tone, we loved everything about this entry.  (We actually loved the full entry, C.I. pulled two parts that we'd read in the original draft before posting.)  When The New York Times and Scott Shane get self-important and gas-baggy, it's good to see someone puncture a hole in them.
 

NYT: Mel's Diner is back in business

So here's how it starts. Alice is seen in evening dress and fur. People to turn to look. Then she steps forward in the non-graceful manner that was a hallmark of Alice. Then she speaks in the decidedly non-smooth voice. People giggle. You hear a bell ring and Mel yell, "Pick up!"

What does the above mean? Only that the New York Times' own Linda Lavin is back in print and elicting howls. The difference between Scott Shane and Linda Lavin appears to be that Lavin was trying to make you laugh as she played a character while Shane's own misteps aren't intended for laughs. But as Janis once sang, "Get It While You Can."

And what you get in "For President, First a Leak; Now, a Jam" are the type of howlers that haven't been seen in the paper the 2004 version of Jodi Wilgoren. Would even she (then) have opened with the following:

That President Bush authorized an aide to disclose classified intelligence on Iraqi weapons, as asserted in court papers, comes as no shock to official Washington.

Shane does. It's as laughable as Lavin's Alice in an evening dress. Apparently all those Saturdays of working the big mop increased Shane's forearms but decreased his brain size. "Official Washington" (which has no use for Shane) is where we open the story? It appears so and it's already been noted (by PJ) that this "official Washington" is twice as laughable when one remembers how many times Scotty's gone snotty and cried 'conspiracy theory' while trashing "Hollywood" in print. ("Official Washington"? "Hollywood"? Are we reading Shane or Louella?) (As members know PJ works for a competing paper. I don't believe that influences his judgement on this matter.)

So while attempting to suck up to "official Washington" (but failing to get in their good graces), he runs to Rick Shenkman who offers a bland judgement which may result from the fact that it's hard for Shenkman (who's gotten props from John Tierney) to provide soundbytes endlessly. This may be the closest to "official Washington" that Shane will ever get; however, someone should clue him in that people eager to publicly interject themselves into every story of the day aren't usually "official Washington."

In his stock boys days, handling the big mop and cleaning up for the Elite Fluff Patrol, he apparently harbored a secret desire to enlist. He's now almost fully on board with the Elite Fluff Patrol and Elisabeth Bumiller should watch her back (that's David D. Kirkpatrick and now Shane challenging her on her own turf for leadership of the Elite Fluff Patrol).

Shane confuses leaks (intentionally?) and offers examples of JKF and LBJ. That's to prove it's "bipartisan" -- this non-surprising leaking. Of course, the leaking of classified information and outing of a CIA agent is something quite different than a president deciding to share some anecdotes about a conversation he recently had. Somehow Scotty misses that basic, that very basic, difference. No one's ever maintained that Bully Boy didn't speak to the press on background for his own benefit (in fact that Times is currently refusing to participate in meet & greets that Bully Boy's holding). There's a world of difference between flattering anecdotes and leaking a classified report or the name of a CIA agent. Another Scotty -- McClellan -- is dancing around when the information was declassified which Shane doesn't note or the disbelief which the DC press corps greeted his remarks yesterday.

There's no news in Shane's "reporting." There's a great deal of padding. Possibly, with Todd S. Purdum sliding over to Vanity Fair, Shane inherited Purudm's old cup and found that he couldn't fill it? Maybe that's why he pads? Whatever the reason, his story, shaped by Shenkman (who couldn't get more press ink without hiring a press agent), offers no news. Here's the only bit of news (and it's not noted directly in Shane's report): Judith Miller continues to refuse to speak to the paper of record. A smart move (and one that was even applauded when a Bully Boy appointee refused to go on the record for Bumiller). The "nicer" reason for that is that Miller will be a witness in Scooter's case. The less "nice" reason is that Miller was screwed over by the paper.

That is what happened. Miller's reporting was bad. (People can debate whether that was out of zeal for scoops or a desire to misinform the public.) Dexter Filkins' "reporting" was even more ficition based. He remains. As do the people above Miller who were more than happy to run with those stories. Miller was cut loose when the paper wanted to act as though they had a rogue reporter on their hands -- ' a bad apple.' But just as Abu Ghraib was blamed on indivuals and not higher ups or policy, so Miller got blamed for all the problems with the paper of record.

Set it in the forties and the official version makes a hilarious comedy. Picture Miller setting her own type, pulling front page stories by others while she cackles and brushes her bangs thereby smearing ink on her face. The Times wants to talk consiparcy theories? How about the conspiracy theory that Miller wrote, edited and published the paper? That's one for the 'tin-foil hat' crowd.


Originally, this entry (which was done much earlier) noted three issues with regards to the Times. Two have been pulled. One will go up at The Third Estate Sunday Review. The other will go up here at a later date. We'll keep the following in it, however, in a "wrap up" kind of way. E-mails trickle in on Todd S. Purdum (one of the other topics is a stream of e-mails, not a trickle, we'll address it at a later date).

Visitors wonder in their e-mails about Purdum, chiefly: Does Todd S. Purdum really smell? No. That was a joke. And that's been noted here before. But there's not been a week that's gone by in the last three months that this hasn't come up. Those visitors who continue to ask about it, if they receive any reply, will receive this entry e-mailed to them.

Elisabeth Bumiller earned the ridicule she's been the target of. She's brought it on herself. Her free floating op-ed really shouldn't be written by a reporter. (So actually, the paper's aided in the ridicule that's been heaped upon her.) I have no problem with the ridicule and think people should speak/critique in any manner that's consistent with their own way of speaking.

The problem Ava and I had was when we did a joint entry on a Sunday morning and she noted another floating op-ed. I don't read the op-eds (floating or otherwise) or the editorials in the morning. I may (though not often) go back and read them later in the day. But I explained that the "memo" was like Bumiller's "letter." Reading it, Ava remarked on how it was opinion based and written by a reporter or reporters -- male (whether it was one or two). Why was it that they weren't derided all over the place?

If people are comfortable tossing out "knee pads" next to Bumiller's name, they should. Everyone needs to speak in their own voices. But were males who fluffed getting the same treatment? No, they weren't. Even Adam Nagourney didn't get held to the same standards Wilgoren was held to in 2004.

So it was decided that Sunday that the next male who pulled a Bumiller would get the full Bumiller treatment. Todd S. Purdum was the next male at bat and, as has been noted, he's a big boy and he could take it. I don't know that a smelly jock strap is on par with knee pads, but the Times does strive for a very masculine, very locker room type office feel. (Do they kid themselves? I think they do, which is why the joke worked for me.) The smelly jock (which may now be attached here to Scott Shane based on his recent "reporting" -- though the Linda Lavin comparison is popular with members -- no disrespect to Lavin, members get that she was playing a character) was an attempt to level the criticism field which, as noted many times here, should be people speaking in their own voices, with whatever terms they desire but should be applied equally. Too often, it's seemed that there was a standard (and this has been noted here many times as well) where a male makes a glaring howler and it's ignored, treated as a one time thing or something for which "redemption" can be found. When some males are still carrying on, at this late date, about a statement Jane Mayer made in an interview six years ago (about how sexism could come into play with criticism -- which it can), but turning their eyes on very real howlers or rushing to redeem the males they criticized while there's no "out" for women once ridiculed, this was something we were going to address here.

Purdum's a nice person whom I don't know but have met (and no, he doesn't stink) (I do know his wife from her Clinton days). His contributions for the paper of record are now of the opinion nature so we won't be noting those and his journalism will be at Vanity Fair which offers several levels of conflict of interest for me so we won't be noting that either. Michael Wolff is someone I do not know. He's been noted here in commentary by me -- about the attacks on him for making some very pertinent statements about Matt Cooper that enraged many of Cooper's friends who, while attacking Wolff or covering up for Cooper didn't reveal themselves as friends of Cooper. In that entry, I noted that I do not know Wolff. I also made a comment on the article about Judith Miller, et al and said that talk appears to suggest . . . That was a huge mistake on my part. Factually, the talk wasn't accurate. I corrected that as soon as a friend from Vanity Fair (who was waiting for that entry to go up -- the one about how the Times was trying to justify their misidentification with the false claim that Vanity Fair had done so as well -- Van Fair did not falsely identify the "man in the photo" -- they noted repeatedly in their article, one the Times didn't note when they were acting like they had an exclusive -- that the man's claims couldn't be proven and that he may not be the man in the hood from the photos of Abu Ghraib) phoned me about it. (I think that was four to five hours after it went up.) Talk did "appear to suggest." The mistake was in commenting on that article even in an aside. I was wrong to have done so. (Miller's story did not change and the article and the public record should be read more closely. She's added to it, she hasn't changed it.)


Will Shane be the new whipping boy? His work of late certainly indicates that he has "the goods" for it. We'll note his theme song of late:

Early to rise, early to bed.
And in between I mopped and cleaned and went out of my head.
Going through life my truth on, was tough, you see
I had to get up, get out from under and look for me.
There's a new fluffer in town and he's looking good.
There's a fresh freckled fluffer, in the neighborhoood.
There's a new fluffer in town, with a brand new style.
He was just passing through, but if things fluff out he's gonna stay awhile ....
Ba ba bum bum bummmm

(Based upon "There's a New Girl in Town," by Alan and Marilyn Bergman & David Shire which was the theme song to Alice.)

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. (And except for a break from The Third Estate Sunday Edition later tonight, I probably won't check that account so members should use the private e-mail account and I'll also try to check the backup e-mail account.)










How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.
Posted by at

Blog Spotlight: Rebecca notes Flashpoints

As noted previously, the community is attempting to note Pacifica Radio programming.  Here's Rebecca discussing Flashpoints and make a point to listen to the Jeremy Scahill and Dahr Jamal broadcast.
 

flashpoints, jeremy scahill on john f. burns, and more

did i note ava and c.i's review of las vegas? i think i did but it's worth noting twice.

i was reminded of that when i was reading seth's latest. if you haven't checked it out yet, please make a point to read "Some Highlights."

on kpfa this week, there was a lot coming out of flashpoints.

sherry e-mailed me a heads up to thursday's episode. i wasn't on when it was broadcast so i'm listening to it now. jeremy scahill gives an incredible speech about the way journalists are targeted in iraq and especially arab journalists. of course, the 1s targeted are the unembed journalists. not the dexy filkins who reportedly cancel interviews if the military gives him a cross look. but the 1s who are trying to get the story and report it.

'that's what's most threatening' to bully boy and the democrats who go along, witnesses.

what wasn't threatening were the people like john f. burns. 'he was a terrible propagandist for the war,' jeremy scahill said.

he spoke of how in october of 2002, he was at a museum in iraq and seeing gold spurs that ronald reagan had given saddam, seeing photos of saddam hussein and chirac drinking milk. and all the sudden they were told that saddam would be making a big announcement. since this was october 2002, and war was on the horizon, they were curious what the announcement was?

it was that all prisoners would be released except those thought to be spying for israel. jeremy was at a prison, i believe abu ghraib, and it was a big moment as families lined up to greet the people who had been imprisoned.

there was a lot of happiness and a lot of tears. but when john f. burns writes it up in the new york time, 'he wrote for the new york times that many of the prisoners thanked george w. bush' for releasing them from prison. many? approximately 30-40,000 people were released. jeremy didn't hear any of them thanking bully boy.

so he goes up to john f. burns and pulls out his pad and pen and asks '"many"? are we talking like 1,000s that said that.'

burns made it up. but instead of answering jeremy, he has a snit fit and starts screaming 'are you saying that pulitzer committee twice erred' when they gave him prizes.

yes, john f. burns, they did make a mistake. jeremy doesn't say that but i will. they made a mistake because they thought you were a journalist. you aren't. a journalist doesn't go bad overnight. you didn't just get it wrong, you penned propaganda. so yes, john, the pulitizer board made a mistake. as shameful as roxanne's later escpades?

no, more shameful because this had to do with integrity.

i loved hearing that speech, so let's thank sherry because due to volunteer work, i usually am not able to hear thursday's flashpoints.

i'll also say 'way to go c.i.' because c.i.'s been all over the new york times' nonsense from iraq and didn't let up. even when people would write and say 'how can you say that!' when people were averting their eyes online and acting like dexy filkins was a real journalist, c.i. was noting reality.
last week, i quoted c.i. writing about dexy's 'award winning reporting' and i want to note that this was in real time. c.i. wrote about the problems with that 'reporting' the morning it ran in the paper. the site wasn't even a week old, the common ills, but c.i. didn't shirk responsibility or look the other way. if other people had done the same, we'd be out of iraq now.

c.i. got some really rude e-mails, especially when dexy won his award (a polk i think) for his propaganda on the slaughter of falluja in november of 2004. terry gross kissed dexy's ass on fresh air. so she's just as bad as dexy. she brought him on and let him issue his propaganda.
when npr's willing to put an end to terry gross' stale gas and provide listeners with something of actual value, we'll know npr has changed. but the thing is that they will never change.

online, a lot of people wanted to dog pile judy miller but they kept their mouths shut about dexy. and they really kept their mouth shut about judy's coverage of the u.n. c.i. didn't. in the infamous rudith miller post (which i.d.ed scoots libby as the source months before the investigation, in case you missed that) c.i. dubbed it her 'grudge f--k against the u.n.'

c.i. got ripped off weeks later when a print writer basically cribbed those parts of the entry. i bet he feels bad now that he didn't pick up on the clue as to who leaked to judy. if he had, he could have stolen that from c.i. as well. he might look really informed today - to those who didn't realize that he was a thief stealing from c.i. c.i.'s attitude then was 'oh who cares' and c.i. even highlighted the rip-off without saying 'hey doesn't this look familiar?' that's why a number of us were so furious when c.i. got ripped off on the miller story last summer because it's become a pattern. yesterday, today and tomorrow, if you want to know about the times, you're better off reading c.i. the common ills could be all about the new york times. c.i. has friends there and knows all the gossip. (i'm always saying 'write about that!' when c.i. passes on a tidbit. but c.i. tries to avoid the office gossip.)

but that's why c.i. never suffered from the mistaken belief that judith miller was the problem at the paper. she wasn't. she was 1 problem. she wasn't the only 1 and she wasn't the only 1 who was 'reporting' with regards to iraq. judith miller wrote bad reporting. did she do it intentionally? i don't know.

she may have just been a poor journalist who wrote what she was fed without having the brains to question. i doubt it, but that's possible.

it's not possible that john f. burns was just fed information. or dexy filkins. they wrote up fantasies in the paper, fantasies that bore no reality to what they saw.

it really amazes me that, to this day, the strongest critique of filkins comes from c.i. and that most other sites continue to refuse to cover what filkins did. c.i.'s said repeatedly 'if judith miller was one who got us over there, dexter filkins is one who keeps us over there.'

maybe it's just easier or more fun to beat up on a woman?

or maybe some suffer clinton-on-the-brain (like our latter day dylan) and they think it's more productive to turn their sites over to 'they distorted bill!' or 'they distorted hillary!' on a daily basis. maybe some can't look at the calendars and see that the years is 2006, not 1996?

it's past time that the net jumped in on dexy. but it will probably take 6 more months before any 1 will question the 'award winning' dexy. anyone but c.i. that is. (i'm talking online. dahr jamail, christian parenti and jeremy scahill have questioned dexy's 'reporting.')

too bad because if they'd jumped on it while judy was under the gun, we might be more informed. at least we're informed in this community. outside? well the daily bulletins from the clinton fan club must serve some value. i can't imagine what, but some 1 must be pleased.

i searched my links and i see that rudith's been ripped off even more than i knew. it must be 'brave' 10 months later to rip off a well known entry without giving credit - even using the name c.i. dubbed her 'rudith.' i also found it cute how 'reading press releases live from the green zone' was ripped off by some 1 elaine and c.i. loathe. i'll call elaine later tonight to tell her i added the links to her post and that the creep, as elaine calls him, ripped off 'reading press releases live from the green zone.' and it only took the creep a month or so to rip it off.

robert parry will be on a kpfa show called the living room tomorrow night. i don't know that show but c.i. just phoned to tell me (i love robert parry). if you want to listen live, it airs at 3:00 pm my time - eastern, so that's 2 in central time zone and noon in pacific. if you can't listen live, remember that kpfa has archives of their broadcasts. i'm so excited. seriously, robert parry is like my idea of a rock star.

back to flashpoints so i can finish this up. wednesday there was a great interview with father gerad jean jerad juste. monday there was a great interview with ray mcgovern about the bully boy's war crimes and tuesday a report from the occupied territories.

if you're not checking out flashpoints, you're missing a lot. and the hour long program moves really quick. i never knew of this program until i called ruth and asked her to give me a show that she always wants to write about but never gets the time to. ruth has so much to cover and it's asking a lot to expect her to cover all the radio programs so, if you missed it last week, i'm covering flashpoints and i'll probably continue to do that on tuesdays.

begging forgiveness to ruth. elaine had her to be linked to and when i added links to elaine's post earlier, i don't think i did that.

How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.
Posted by at

NYT critique: C.I. on NYT's "balance"

We could highlight several things from The Common Ills in the past week.  Like everyone else, C.I. wants to be done shortly so we've got permission for two.  This is one that focuses on The New York Times' concept of "balance" and on the frivolity with which a Times reporter treats the hearings at Guantanamo.
 

NYT: A funny kind of "balance"

The Department of Homeland Security's deputy press secretary appeared in a Maryland state court on Wednesday and refused extradition to Florida, where he faces charges of using the Internet to seduce someone he thought was a 14-year-old girl.
The press official, Brian J. Doyle, was arrested Tuesday night in his home in Silver Spring, Md., after nearly a month of computer contact with a Polk County detective who was posing as a teenager. Mr. Doyle now faces 23 counts of using a computer to seduce a child and transmission of harmful material to a minor. Under Florida law, each count is a third-degree felony that carries a five-year prison term.

The above is from Michael Janofsky's "Official Resists Extradition on Charge Involving Internet and Sex" in this morning's New York Times. Innocent until guilty is at the root of our court system. But a refusal to probe is at the root of the Times. Now not always. Not when it came to Wen Ho Lee certainly. But for Larry Franklin, even after he pleaded guilty, the Times sure did maintain a hands off policy. Today they really aren't interested in the details of the arrest or very much else. Now Michael Jackson they can splash on the front page repeatedly. But there's a different principle at play for Republicans. Possibly Jackson should have just joined the GOP? It certainly would have allowed him to get less intense coverage from the Times. Just like when a Virginia Republican, married, didn't seek re-election to Congress -- a family values type who made homophobic statements and supported homophobic policies -- after it was revealed that he had utilized a gay dating service. That didn't register at the Times. Today, someone working for Homeland Security, arrested on the allegation that they solicited sex from someone they thought was an under-age female (fourteen-years-old) also doesn't result in much coverage.

You have to go elsewhere for details on this case. Martha steers us to Ernesto Londoño and Spencer S. Hsu's "Arrest of Official Prompts Probe By House Panel Into DHS Hiring" (Washington Post):

It was a key night in their relationship because the "girl" had agreed to pose nude for him on a Web camera, Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd said yesterday in an interview.
Judd said Doyle disclosed his credentials to the girl. "We thought it was some kind of ruse," Judd said. "But we quickly discovered it was correct."
[. . .]
Doyle's security clearance, badge and facility access passes were suspended, and he is not being paid, the federal agency said in a statement yesterday.
Spokesman Russ Knocke declined to say what security clearance Doyle had.
Doyle is a former news and assignment editor of Time magazine's Washington bureau who accepted a buyout in 2001 and later joined the Transportation Security Administration as a spokesman. He has been in 15-year relationship with a woman who attended his brief court hearing yesterday, Helfand said.

It's a funny kind of "balance" the Times plays. Be accused of spying for China and using sex with assorted FBI agents and it's swept under the rug by the paper of record (to note another Republican scandal). Be accused of soliciting sex and transmitting pornograpy to and from someone you think is fourteen-years-old, and it's not such a big deal. It's a one day story.

Tim Golden's not bound by any constraints in "Boycott Threat Roils Guantánamo Hearing." He's not even bound by the constraint that would suggest to most people that what's going on is rather serious. So he can crack jokes and make ha-has like this:

The courtroom drama occasionally recalled the much-parodied 1992 Guantánamo film "A Few Good Men," with Jack Nicholson and Tom Cruise.

Oh, Timmy, you crack us up with your pop-cult refs. (The laughter you hear is from people wondering if Timmy's not playing to the yokels but flashing his own yokel-hood.) We all eagerly await the next report to see if he'll will offer a comparison of the proceedings to The Naked Gun?
It's interesting the difference between the two stories. On one, the Times tries so hard to walk the straight and narrow and avert the eyes, on the other, it's ha-has and innuendo. For instance, a nineteen-year-old's siblings are trotted out by Golden, with whispers. But we get no whispers about the Homeland Security employee. In fact, they do such a poor job covering that story that the headline really tells you everything the article can. It's an interesting sort of treatment.

With regards to Michael Jackson, the Times was more than willing to front page that story, day after day. They felt the need to assign two reporters to the story because surely it was the most important story of the day and no rumor was not worth including. Now we see someone in Homeland Security who's accused of using government time and government equipment to pursue sex with what he thought he was an under age female and the paper of record wants to play it 'tasteful.' Of course, it should be noted that Jackson's African-American. How much that played into the paper's decision to cover the story so excessively who knows?

But they did daily updates and no rock was too small for them to turn over or crawl under.

On the topic of the Guantanamo prisoners, Jenny notes Katrina vanden Heuvel's "Facing Facts on Torture" (Editor's Cut, The Nation):

In the February 27 issue of The New Yorker, Jane Mayer reported on the efforts of Alberto Mora, outgoing general counsel for the US Navy, to stop the Pentagon from authorizing the use of cruel and unusual punishment beginning three years ago.
In the article, Mora describes with chilling detail a meeting with top administration and military officials to discuss whether to "[make] it official Pentagon policy to treat detainees in accordance with Common Article Three of the Geneva conventions, which bars cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment, as well as outrages against human dignity."
Mora noted the giant pink elephant in the room, saying, "… it's a statute. It exists--we're not free to disregard it. We're bound by it. It's been adopted by the Congress. And we're not the only interpreters of it. Other nations could have US officials arrested."
Nevertheless, this proposal to officially adhere to the Geneva Convention was rejected.
On March 2, Ray McGovern, 27-year veteran of the CIA, joined 15 other activists to walk the halls of Congress. They wore orange jumpsuits similar to those of detainees at Guantanamo, with gags over their mouths that displayed the single word "torture."

Rod passes on today's scheduled topic for Democracy Now!:

* Fake TV News: Widespread and Undisclosed -- A new report by PR Watch exposes video news releases disguised as real news on local TV.

Also, event today:

* Amy Goodman in New York, NY:
Thu, Apr 6
*TIME: 7 PM
Amy Goodman Speaking at Center School
The Center School
270 West 70th St.
New York, 10023
$10
For more information: kenfeiner@aol.com

Tomorrow the Unembed the Media tour takes Goodman to Baton Rogue. For that and other appearances use the link. (And we'll note them tomorrow as well.)



The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.










Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.
Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
 
Poll1 { display:none; }