Sunday, August 07, 2005
1 Book, Ten Minutes
In addition to becoming a profitable form of mass entertainment, pro sports have become an effective means for the political and financial elite to package their values and ideas. This is why sports in this country reflect a distinctly US project, rooted in aspirations for greatness as well as conquest and oppression. The US is unique in playing the national anthem before every game (and, since 9/11, playing "God Bless America" during baseball's seventh inning stretch--even for all-American teams like the Toronto Blue Jays). We are unique in employing scantily clad women to tell us when to "cheer." We are unique in calling the winners of our domestic leagues "world champions."
In many cities, your average Sunday NFL game contains more patriotic overkill than a USO show in Kuwait. First there's a military drum line to midfield. Then a standing sing-along to "I'm Proud to Be an American (Where At Least I know I'm Free)" by Lee Greenwood. And then comes the "Star Spangled Banner." You are certainly "free" to not stand, as long as you know that the guy behind you will feel "free" to pour beer on your head.
Many throughout the US are repelled by pro sports today for a laundry list of reasons. People who otherwise enjoy competitive play performed at its highest levels don't want to be party to the cutthroat competition at its core. Many are also put off by the insane salaries of the games' top players, others by the back room dealings that produce publicly funded stadiums at taxpayer expense. Then there is the abuse of steroids and other performance enhancing drugs, which some feel have taken long-hallowed baseball records and reduced them to rubbish. When you pile on the way racism and sexism are frequently used to sell sports, it can all seem about as appealing as a Sunday in the park with George Steinbrenner.
The above is from What's My Name, Fool? Sports and Resistance in the United States, pages 19 - 20. (And due to a lack of time, we're cheating with excerpt and pulling from The Nation's excerpt of the book which can be found here. Translation, the above is an excerpt of an excerpt.) Participating in this book discussion are The Third Estate Sunday Review's Ty, Jim, Ava, Jess and C.I. who is also of The Common Ills along with Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix and Betty of Thomas Friedman is a Great Man.
Jim: Set us up, Mike.
Mike: Okay, I learned about this book from Democracy Now! and we've got an excerpt from that.
AMY GOODMAN: That, a clip from When We Were Kings, Muhammad Ali. You talk about Muhammad Ali being at that time extremely political, outspoken, yet today young people might not know that at all, though Muhammad Ali is the most famous name in the world.
DAVID ZIRIN: Yes, I mean, today, Muhammad Ali's image is used to sell everything from Sprite to Microsoft with the benefit of computer C.G.I. And there's no question that what's happened to Muhammad Ali, you know, is not dissimilar to what's happened to people like Malcolm X, who is now on a postage stamp, or Martin Luther King, whose image you can now get on a commemorative cup when you go into McDonald's on his birthday, in that Muhammad Ali's political teeth have largely been extracted.
And that's something that, with this book, I want to hope to return to the arena, is like the context of Ali's politics, because the tradition of Ali and that tradition of resistance is something that's, I think, very important for people to know. I mean, Ali was just named the number two most important athlete in history in ESPN's Top 100 Athletes of All Time. But when you saw their tribute to him, I mean, you would have left wondering, "Okay, well, what's so special about this guy?" And that’s why it's so important to return to the arena, as we understand sports, that dynamic relationship between struggles on the streets, how it affected athletes, but then also how athletes then, in turn, affected those struggles.
Mike: This books tells stories that need to be told about the intersection of politics and sports and it's not just like the brave stories that we should know to honor the people like Ali, but it's also the stories of people who actively worked and work to keep others down. I'm a sports fan but I think the book would be a good read for everyone, sports fans and non-sports fans.
Betty: Well I ran track and played basketball in high school, so maybe I'm a "jock," but I really enjoyed it. The most shocking thing to me was finding out that Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, a legend, can't get a job coaching in the NBA.
Dona: I think my favorite section was on Rush Limbaugh being dumped by ESPN. Now that alone makes for a good read for me, happy ending and all, but Zirin quotes Pat Robertson making similar comments about Morgan Freeman. I had no idea that occurred, I don't watch The 700 Club. I'd agree with Mike that you don't have to be a sports fan to enjoy the book because I'm not a sports fan. I don't pretend to know how a game is played, outside of scrabble and jacks, and I was able to follow and enjoy the book.
Cedric: I enjoyed the discussions that were historical. He really set up the responses to racism and how the color line was broken by Jackie Robinson. Later in the book, when he's speaking of a gay athlete in baseball, football or basketball, he notes that people will question a Esera Tuaolo about why he didn't come out and be a first but the reality is Robinson didn't just have a few people cheering him on, he was preceeded by other individuals as well as a mass movement that was there to offer support. The same argument that comes up with Ali. When the press goes after Ali for speaking out, this is in the sixties, Ali can count on the fact that people are aware of the racism and, like Zirin points out, Ali didn't back down. Bullies don't like it when you stand up to them and that was a point Mike was making this week at his site.
Mike: Right, how we let the right slam our own and then instead of defending Jane Fonda or Howard Zinn or who ever, we end up trying to draw a line between them and ourselves so that we'll look reasonable in the eyes of the right wing. And then we complain about how the right keeps shifting the line. Look, football, okay, when the other side advances, if you don't hold, they're grabbing ground. And if we're not playing defense, if we're just waving them through to look reasonable, they're not grabbing ground, we're giving it to them.
Ty: I enjoyed the various sections noting how black atheletes are portrayed. How cornrows and tats are a big deal and cause all this fuss. How the NBA is getting "too rap." And how these sort of attacks are historical ones. The way the Texas Western Miners were portrayed by the press and how their 1966 victory was downplayed.
Jim: To me, the best part of the book was noting how media plays into it. From the sports radio personalities to ESPN going to Kuwait to broadcast. I like sports so I found it compelling but I was interested in how it would play out to non sports readers. Dona said she didn't have a problem and she was up until two in the morning one night finishing the book.
Ava: Well, I'll watch basketball but I wouldn't call myself a sports nut and I would recommend the book. I want to note something from page 65:
An incredible groundswell of support built up for Ali. That is why, despite the harrassment and the media attacks and the taps on his phones, he stood firm. At one press conference later that year, he was expected to fully recant. Instead, Ali stood up and said, "Keep asking me, no matter how long, On the war in Vietnam, I sing this song, I ain't got no quarrel with the Vietcong." By now it was 1967 and, in another huge step for the antiwar movement, Martin Luther King, Jr. came out against the war. At the press conference where he first proclaimed his opposition, King said, "Like Muhammad Ali puts it, we are all -- Black and Brown and poor -- victims of the same system of oppression." Ali and King, to the anger of the NOI, struck up a private friendship that we know about now thanks to the good historians at the FBI.
Ava: I think that was my favorite part of the book, Ali's standing firm. But I was speaking to a guy in a class about this book, he hadn't read it, and talking about Ali's opposition to the war and the guy said, "No, you're wrong. It was just Jane Fonda that protested." In the excerpt at the top of this piece, Zirin notes that in the televised 'histories,' Ali's politics never get mentioned. It's amazing how many people today do not realize how great the opposition to Vietnam was.
C.I.: Revisionism. They've lived under it. When you and Jess did the thing on Cass Elliot's new CD collection there were two e-mailers, one a "concerned blogger," who felt the need to weigh in that it was frivilous to mention Cass. He knew her weight, he knew she sang. He has no idea that she was against the war. "Let's play nice" with the fright wing has allowed this psuedo-theory that we could have "won" if only our hands hadn't been tied -- e.g. if we'd dropped the atomic bomb or some other nonsense. The realites of the war faded, to the point that we're in the current invasion/occupation, and as so many try to be so damn "moderate" and so damn "reasoned" we're left largely with a dialogue that bickers over "fine tuning" and doesn't address the actual realities. With Vietnam, and other periods, Zirin paints a portrait of the individuals involved in larger struggles. Jess wanted to speak on that, so I'll shut up.
Jess: Well, I'll note that the book also includes interviews. And the interview that stood out to me, on that period, was probably David Meggyesy's. He played for the St. Louis Cardinales from 1963 to 1969. He talks about one of the events that "politicized" him was when, the weekend after JFK was assassinated, they were forced to play to "bring everyone together." Here he is, page 117, speaking about Vietnam:
Eventually, more than half the country was against the war. On the evening news, every night people were seeing battle scenes, scenes with American and Vietnamese people being killed and bombed, of kids burning with napalm. There were body counts and increasing American casualities. And the American people were just appalled. There was absolutely no reason to be in Vietnam. Why do you think we have seen nothing during this Iraq war about what is really happening on the ground? We are dropping one-ton bombs on people in Iraq, and we see the bombs launched but not the level of destruction or the bodies. We say we precision bomb this, or bomb that, yet we, the citizen who are paying for these bombs and vast military, don't see how many people were killed. We don't see and aren't allowed to see the destruction and bodies in the street. The political establishment and the military have santized every war since Vietnam. They learned their lesson, and the media is kept away from what is happening. We the people need to start connecting the dots and asking why are we occupying this country? And we need to connect the dots more than that. Why, in the most fabulously weathly country in the world, do we not have a national health care system and universal basic health care for everyone? Most folks don't connect those dots. In the 1960s, we were doing that.
Jim: There's also a great, must read section on stadiums built on tax payer monies. C.I. wanted to talk about a section.
C.I.: I know we're pressed for time so instead, I'll just read a section from the book because it will be more powerful than any attempt I could make to sum it up. From page 144:
"Coach, you know how you were always on me about working on my right hand dribble. Well, I'm going to start." With this line, delivered amid laughter and tears, former Notre Dame basketball standout, southpaw Danielle "D-Smooth" Green, told the horrifying news to her ex-Fighting Irish coach Muffet McGraw: a grenade had blown off her left hand when she was -- as Army MP Green -- patrolling a Baghdad police station.
Like late NFL safety turned Army Ranger Pat Tillman, Green could easily be used as a symbol of patriotic resolve and sacrifice. She would fit neatly into that potent place where athletics meets war and produce pro-military demagoguery. Yet unlike Tillman, who cannot speak for himself, D-Smooth has foiled attempts to exploit her experience for pro-war purposes by speaking out against what she sees, from firsthand experience, as an unjust war. "They just don't want us there. I personally don't think we should have gone into Iraq. Not the way things have turned out. A lot more people are going to get hurt, and for what?"
Mike: And the book is filled with incredible moments that just tear at you. So buy the book, check it out at your library, but read it.
Roundtable on racist and sexist reactions
Participating in this roundtable are The Third Estate Sunday Review's Ty, Jess, Jim, Dona and Ava, Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Betty of Thomas Friedman is a Great Man, Elaine who's filling in for Rebecca at Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Rebecca herself, the incredibly cool Kat of Kat's Korner and C.I. of The Common Ills. As always Dallas is hunting down links for us and we thank him for that.
Ava: The first thing we all wanted to do was to start by checking in with Cedric, Mike and Elaine since they've begun posting recently. We'll start with Cedric. What's been the biggest surprise?
Cedric: Well, hmm. I guess I'd say the racism. The open racism in e-mails. I wrote about it and noted that when it's all said and done, bottom line, I think we need to know it. Racism hasn't gone away and better you know the enemy.
Ty: When it's been my day to cover the e-mails here and I've opened a really sexist e-mail about Ava and C.I.'s TV reviews, I have done a response and called the person to the carpet. What I get back is usually "I was just joking. I'm not really sexist." I'm wondering if you've called anyone on it.
Cedric: In a reply? No, I just blow them off. I mean, they would probably do what they do when you've called them and be "It was a joke!" It's not a joke. If it is a joke, the fact that they'd go there, threaten lynching, for instance, tells you that joke or not, that's where they're coming from.
Betty: Agreed.
Elaine: Do you find that your distorted? When people e-mail? This week, I got an e-mail saying I had stated that Paul Hackett had no right to run office because he served in the military. That's not what I wrote.
Ava: Let's note what you did write: "Military service is not a requirement for public office. It shouldn't be a liability either."
Jess: That's pretty clear cut.
Elaine: Exactly. But Morey didn't grasp it and wrote this nasty e-mail about how I had stated that Hackett shouldn't have run for office because he'd served in the military and I never wrote that. So when you get the racist e-mails, Cedric, are they addressing what you said or distorting it?
Cedric: I don't know if it's I wasn't clear or if the person can't read but, yeah, I'm reading it and thinking, "That's not what I wrote." I don't go back and check because I've got a pretty good idea of what I would say and what I wouldn't. But this is something that everyone gets and one of the great things about us all coming together.
C.I.: I'll leap in here because people can call me on anything. But I don't like taking the blame for something I didn't write. And recently, I got an e-mail insisting on a correction, which was done, but the mistake wasn't mine. I was quoting another site. To correct the mistake, a typo, I took it out of quotes. But I doubt seriously the person e-mailing bothered to e-mail the site I was quoting, and the link was there, judging by the e-mail that staed I had mispelled ____. I have a ton of typos and always will. I'll take responsibility for my own. But in the future, if someone finds a typo at The Common Ills and it turns out that it comes from a quote from another site and the site is clearly credited for it, I won't correct it. I'm also not doing anymore corrections to e-mails that don't name the entry or provide a link to it or provide a date. E-mailing me that "You got ____ wrong" and not providing me with any sense of where the error occurs is nonsense. At a minimum, there are three posts every day. The Common Ills has been going on since November. I have no time to track down an error you're pointing out without giving any information as to where it occurred. That's especially bothersome when it comes from a New York Times reporter because, were I to e-mail them about an error and provide them with no date, no title of the article, I'm sure it would go right into the trash box.
Rebecca: The thing about C.I. is that when something is brought up, C.I. will immediately take the fall --
Elaine: I'd argue be open to the criticism and evaluate it.
Rebecca: Fine. But then, after reflection, if it turns out there's no error or it's nothing that was written, C.I. will get extremely pissed off.
C.I.: I don't like being distorted and you and Elaine know why and know how far that goes back. Trash me for what I did say and that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But make up things and I get really pissed. I don't deny that.
Cedric: And if you're pissed in an entry, it's usually obvious, to me anyway, when I'm reading it.
It's also obvious to me when something is a joke but, like at my site, I haven't done a lot of jokes or humor because one time I did and readers completely missed it.
Jim: Betty, is that something that happens with you?
Betty: See, I don't have to deal with racism really. I've gotten very few e-mails where anyone's been racist. I'm being humorous and that's clearly marked at the site because C.I. told me the disclaimer would make it obvious. When C.I. was talking me through how to set up the site on Blogger. And since I'm being funny, I think I'm not really shocking anyone. Whoopi Goldberg and others have made it safe for a black woman to be funny. It's an accepted role. Also, since it's a humor site, and clearly marked, I think the people coming to it grasp that and if they don't think it's funny, they move on to something else. But I can read something at Cedric's site and I know, I just know, someone's going to feel the need to make a racist remark.
Jim: Because?
Betty: He's not being humorous and he's talking, directly, about how he feels. There's a tendency, especially if you're expressing disappointment with a Democratic leader, for someone to tell you, "You can't do that!" That has nothing to do with a website or a blog, it happens in real life and I'm sure you can find many black people who can talk about that because it's very common. You express criticism and you'll get it thrown in your face, best case scenario, "Well Republicans are worse!" No one's saying they aren't. But there are times when Democrats, and I'm a Democrat, my entire family is, I was raised as one and will always be one, need to be held accountable.
Ty: There's a tendency to take the African-American voter for granted and when that's noted, speaking for me, I've seen exactly what Betty's talking about. If you point out that a candidate of any level isn't addressing the African-American community, either via issues or through speaking engagements, you will hear from some Democrats, "Well the Republicans are worse!"
And, like Betty said, no one's saying that they aren't. No one's saying, "Because this candidate is ignoring me, I'm going to go vote for the racist." But we are saying that candidates need to be more inclusive. I had a pretty cool coach and I can remember a candidate being discussed and him going off on us. He didn't use the n-word, but he did say, "You people" and other comments that were offensive. I'm sure he was frustrated but get frustrated with the fact that a candidate is writing off a loyal base, don't go to racism.
Cedric: And sometimes it's just a way to attack. The person may not be racist or sexist but they want to hurt you and they go to the easiest way they can think of. In which case it's cultural racism if not personal and people need to check themselves for it. But like Mike's gotten trashed for being Catholic. And I think that has to do with the fact that it's known he's Catholic and so when people want to insult him, they'll go there.
Mike: Yeah. When someone's upset with somethign I wrote they'll usually bring up something like, "Why don't you become a priest and go molest a little boy!" or "You're so mistaken because you were obviously sexually abused by a priest and you liked it." And I'll be like, "What in the world caused that?" But Cedric and I were talking about it and it's like he's saying, they'll go for what they know. I know Rebecca fights back at her site but I'm betting one of the best things about her vacation is avoiding all the e-mails calling her a slut and worse.
Rebecca: When I'm reading those, I will use them. I won't run from them, I'll note them in a post. But taking this break has really brought home to me how much those can get me down. I mean I'll come out swinging. Or if someone's not using those kinds of words but they're being sexist. I'm like Cedric, I'd rather know those type of people exist. But it has been a relief to avoid all of that while I'm on vacation.
Ava: On that note, I want to point out that you're not retiring, you're not quitting, you're just on vacation. That has been coming up a lot lately. Mike and I discussed it at his site.
Rebecca: I'm just taking a vacation. My frustration level was so high that I wasn't going to be any use to anyone. I've needed a break for personal reasons, I should have taken one last year and really gotten into touch with a number of issues that I'd shoved down and ignored. But it's a vacation. And hasn't Elaine done a great job?
Dona: An excellent job. And let's talk about that because this week especially, the posts have read like there's a greater level of comfort. Am I seeing something that's not there?
Elaine: No, you're correct. I obviously knew nothing about what I was doing. Rebecca calls me that morning and that night I'm blogging. I'm not really big on going into the personal in a forum like that anyway. And there's also the fact that it's Rebecca's site and she's built up her own following by being herself. Part of the comfort comes from the fact that I've been doing it but it also comes from the support I've gotten from her readers and from all of you.
Jess: Mike's stepped into Rebecca's role of highlighting what other community sites have been up to.
Mike: At Rebecca's request.
Jess: Right and there's also been a relief at not being the newbie.
Mike: Yeah but hold on.
Ava: We're listening to the live broadcast of Democracy Now! while we do this roundtable and Thurston Moore of Sonic Youth was performing for anyone wondering why Mike called for a pause. To pick back up, Jess was asking Mike about the relief involved in not being the newest blogger.
Mike: Well it's nice to have something under my belt, I guess you'd say. But like it's nice to be able to hear from Elaine or Cedric and they've got a question and I can actually answer it. I mean Jim, Rebecca and C.I. were answering questions from me all the time, everyone was. Rebecca even came over to the house one time to help me with something. So it's just nice to know I can help someone too.
Rebecca: The biggest mistake I made was in announcing that I'd gone to a play reading. When that went up, I got these e-mails of "You live near Boston!" People were excited that were in the area and that's great. But at the same time, I thought of some of the threatening e-mails that had come in and thought, "You know, you really shouldn't have mentioned the play."
C.I.: Camilo Mejia break.
Ava: Martin Espada read a poem he'd written about Mejia on the special Democracy Now! broadcast that we're all listening to as we do this roundtable for those who are wondering.
Dona: I hope this broadcast goes into the archives of Democracy Now! because we'd all really prefer to be listening to it and then starting work on this edition but time doesn't permit that. Knowing the demands on everyone's time as well as our need to meet on our deadline, I'd suggest that we allow those issues to be the focus of this and that we wrap up.
Ava: Well if there are no objections to that then I'm going to hand over to Kat since I don't believe she's had an opportunity to speak. Then we'll let Rebecca have the last words since she's using her vacation time to participate.
Kat: Well music is something people are passionate about so if I get a very passionate e-mail, even one that attacks me, I usually take it in stride. But I don't take the e-mail as seriously as other people do. I read it. It's rare that I reply. If someone's asking me to defend my view, it's already up in whatever they're complaining about. I do respond to Common Ills members who have questions about where to find something or who want to suggest something for a future review. For myself, it's just e-mail. I don't take it seriously, maybe my mistake, the way I would if I was speaking to someone face to face. I know C.I. takes it seriously and tries to reply to as many as possible. But I'm more along the lines of Jim. I'll shrug it off. Praise or bashing, I'll shrug it off. That's not a slam at C.I. C.I.'s getting e-mails about issues and that's quite a bit different than what I receive. And Mike and Cedric are just figuring out where they stand on e-mails. I'm sure others tell them different, but I've said, take it with a grain of salt. That's not to dismiss the racists or sexists. Or the anti-Catholics. But if you're lucky enough to be able to avoid the e-mail for a few days, you should. Again, C.I.'s not got that option. Ava, C.I. and Jess are going through those e-mails for a reason and it goes to the way that The Common Ills is set up. That's it, I'm done.
Rebecca: Well I think Kat's making some solid points here. I also think, and Jim agrees with me on this, that the important thing is getting something posted. If the e-mail is interfering with that, I'm not sure what the point is. More readers, or members for The Common Ills, are going to read what's up then read a personal e-mail. I realize that The Common Ills is a community, but the rest of us have the option of ignoring the e-mail when it's giving us a headache or we don't have time and I strongly recommend that if the choice is between the e-mail or the blog or between the e-mail and doing something away from the computer, you ignore the e-mail. When I get back from vacation, the e-mails will have piled up. I'm not looking at them now. I'm on vacation. When I get back, I'll begin working my way through. I won't have a deadline for that. And if someone's trying to bait me with sexism or if centrists and rightests are just heavy with the attacks, I reserve the right to blow off the e-mail for a few days. Like I said before, even when I'm responding to the e-mails in a post, to the sexism, it does do a number on you. So I will always take the attitude that if something bothers me, I don't have to continue reading. I don't just mean some idiot's e-mail. I'll stop reading when the attacks start. But I mean all the e-mail. If I'm bothered by something, ticked off, angry, whatever, this is my life and I reserve the right to do myself a favor and put the e-mail on hold.
Ava: And we'll go ahead and conclude on that note. If you missed Democracy Now!'s special Saturday broadcast, you missed two and a half hours of important radio.
Ava: The first thing we all wanted to do was to start by checking in with Cedric, Mike and Elaine since they've begun posting recently. We'll start with Cedric. What's been the biggest surprise?
Cedric: Well, hmm. I guess I'd say the racism. The open racism in e-mails. I wrote about it and noted that when it's all said and done, bottom line, I think we need to know it. Racism hasn't gone away and better you know the enemy.
Ty: When it's been my day to cover the e-mails here and I've opened a really sexist e-mail about Ava and C.I.'s TV reviews, I have done a response and called the person to the carpet. What I get back is usually "I was just joking. I'm not really sexist." I'm wondering if you've called anyone on it.
Cedric: In a reply? No, I just blow them off. I mean, they would probably do what they do when you've called them and be "It was a joke!" It's not a joke. If it is a joke, the fact that they'd go there, threaten lynching, for instance, tells you that joke or not, that's where they're coming from.
Betty: Agreed.
Elaine: Do you find that your distorted? When people e-mail? This week, I got an e-mail saying I had stated that Paul Hackett had no right to run office because he served in the military. That's not what I wrote.
Ava: Let's note what you did write: "Military service is not a requirement for public office. It shouldn't be a liability either."
Jess: That's pretty clear cut.
Elaine: Exactly. But Morey didn't grasp it and wrote this nasty e-mail about how I had stated that Hackett shouldn't have run for office because he'd served in the military and I never wrote that. So when you get the racist e-mails, Cedric, are they addressing what you said or distorting it?
Cedric: I don't know if it's I wasn't clear or if the person can't read but, yeah, I'm reading it and thinking, "That's not what I wrote." I don't go back and check because I've got a pretty good idea of what I would say and what I wouldn't. But this is something that everyone gets and one of the great things about us all coming together.
C.I.: I'll leap in here because people can call me on anything. But I don't like taking the blame for something I didn't write. And recently, I got an e-mail insisting on a correction, which was done, but the mistake wasn't mine. I was quoting another site. To correct the mistake, a typo, I took it out of quotes. But I doubt seriously the person e-mailing bothered to e-mail the site I was quoting, and the link was there, judging by the e-mail that staed I had mispelled ____. I have a ton of typos and always will. I'll take responsibility for my own. But in the future, if someone finds a typo at The Common Ills and it turns out that it comes from a quote from another site and the site is clearly credited for it, I won't correct it. I'm also not doing anymore corrections to e-mails that don't name the entry or provide a link to it or provide a date. E-mailing me that "You got ____ wrong" and not providing me with any sense of where the error occurs is nonsense. At a minimum, there are three posts every day. The Common Ills has been going on since November. I have no time to track down an error you're pointing out without giving any information as to where it occurred. That's especially bothersome when it comes from a New York Times reporter because, were I to e-mail them about an error and provide them with no date, no title of the article, I'm sure it would go right into the trash box.
Rebecca: The thing about C.I. is that when something is brought up, C.I. will immediately take the fall --
Elaine: I'd argue be open to the criticism and evaluate it.
Rebecca: Fine. But then, after reflection, if it turns out there's no error or it's nothing that was written, C.I. will get extremely pissed off.
C.I.: I don't like being distorted and you and Elaine know why and know how far that goes back. Trash me for what I did say and that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But make up things and I get really pissed. I don't deny that.
Cedric: And if you're pissed in an entry, it's usually obvious, to me anyway, when I'm reading it.
It's also obvious to me when something is a joke but, like at my site, I haven't done a lot of jokes or humor because one time I did and readers completely missed it.
Jim: Betty, is that something that happens with you?
Betty: See, I don't have to deal with racism really. I've gotten very few e-mails where anyone's been racist. I'm being humorous and that's clearly marked at the site because C.I. told me the disclaimer would make it obvious. When C.I. was talking me through how to set up the site on Blogger. And since I'm being funny, I think I'm not really shocking anyone. Whoopi Goldberg and others have made it safe for a black woman to be funny. It's an accepted role. Also, since it's a humor site, and clearly marked, I think the people coming to it grasp that and if they don't think it's funny, they move on to something else. But I can read something at Cedric's site and I know, I just know, someone's going to feel the need to make a racist remark.
Jim: Because?
Betty: He's not being humorous and he's talking, directly, about how he feels. There's a tendency, especially if you're expressing disappointment with a Democratic leader, for someone to tell you, "You can't do that!" That has nothing to do with a website or a blog, it happens in real life and I'm sure you can find many black people who can talk about that because it's very common. You express criticism and you'll get it thrown in your face, best case scenario, "Well Republicans are worse!" No one's saying they aren't. But there are times when Democrats, and I'm a Democrat, my entire family is, I was raised as one and will always be one, need to be held accountable.
Ty: There's a tendency to take the African-American voter for granted and when that's noted, speaking for me, I've seen exactly what Betty's talking about. If you point out that a candidate of any level isn't addressing the African-American community, either via issues or through speaking engagements, you will hear from some Democrats, "Well the Republicans are worse!"
And, like Betty said, no one's saying that they aren't. No one's saying, "Because this candidate is ignoring me, I'm going to go vote for the racist." But we are saying that candidates need to be more inclusive. I had a pretty cool coach and I can remember a candidate being discussed and him going off on us. He didn't use the n-word, but he did say, "You people" and other comments that were offensive. I'm sure he was frustrated but get frustrated with the fact that a candidate is writing off a loyal base, don't go to racism.
Cedric: And sometimes it's just a way to attack. The person may not be racist or sexist but they want to hurt you and they go to the easiest way they can think of. In which case it's cultural racism if not personal and people need to check themselves for it. But like Mike's gotten trashed for being Catholic. And I think that has to do with the fact that it's known he's Catholic and so when people want to insult him, they'll go there.
Mike: Yeah. When someone's upset with somethign I wrote they'll usually bring up something like, "Why don't you become a priest and go molest a little boy!" or "You're so mistaken because you were obviously sexually abused by a priest and you liked it." And I'll be like, "What in the world caused that?" But Cedric and I were talking about it and it's like he's saying, they'll go for what they know. I know Rebecca fights back at her site but I'm betting one of the best things about her vacation is avoiding all the e-mails calling her a slut and worse.
Rebecca: When I'm reading those, I will use them. I won't run from them, I'll note them in a post. But taking this break has really brought home to me how much those can get me down. I mean I'll come out swinging. Or if someone's not using those kinds of words but they're being sexist. I'm like Cedric, I'd rather know those type of people exist. But it has been a relief to avoid all of that while I'm on vacation.
Ava: On that note, I want to point out that you're not retiring, you're not quitting, you're just on vacation. That has been coming up a lot lately. Mike and I discussed it at his site.
Rebecca: I'm just taking a vacation. My frustration level was so high that I wasn't going to be any use to anyone. I've needed a break for personal reasons, I should have taken one last year and really gotten into touch with a number of issues that I'd shoved down and ignored. But it's a vacation. And hasn't Elaine done a great job?
Dona: An excellent job. And let's talk about that because this week especially, the posts have read like there's a greater level of comfort. Am I seeing something that's not there?
Elaine: No, you're correct. I obviously knew nothing about what I was doing. Rebecca calls me that morning and that night I'm blogging. I'm not really big on going into the personal in a forum like that anyway. And there's also the fact that it's Rebecca's site and she's built up her own following by being herself. Part of the comfort comes from the fact that I've been doing it but it also comes from the support I've gotten from her readers and from all of you.
Jess: Mike's stepped into Rebecca's role of highlighting what other community sites have been up to.
Mike: At Rebecca's request.
Jess: Right and there's also been a relief at not being the newbie.
Mike: Yeah but hold on.
Ava: We're listening to the live broadcast of Democracy Now! while we do this roundtable and Thurston Moore of Sonic Youth was performing for anyone wondering why Mike called for a pause. To pick back up, Jess was asking Mike about the relief involved in not being the newest blogger.
Mike: Well it's nice to have something under my belt, I guess you'd say. But like it's nice to be able to hear from Elaine or Cedric and they've got a question and I can actually answer it. I mean Jim, Rebecca and C.I. were answering questions from me all the time, everyone was. Rebecca even came over to the house one time to help me with something. So it's just nice to know I can help someone too.
Rebecca: The biggest mistake I made was in announcing that I'd gone to a play reading. When that went up, I got these e-mails of "You live near Boston!" People were excited that were in the area and that's great. But at the same time, I thought of some of the threatening e-mails that had come in and thought, "You know, you really shouldn't have mentioned the play."
C.I.: Camilo Mejia break.
Ava: Martin Espada read a poem he'd written about Mejia on the special Democracy Now! broadcast that we're all listening to as we do this roundtable for those who are wondering.
Dona: I hope this broadcast goes into the archives of Democracy Now! because we'd all really prefer to be listening to it and then starting work on this edition but time doesn't permit that. Knowing the demands on everyone's time as well as our need to meet on our deadline, I'd suggest that we allow those issues to be the focus of this and that we wrap up.
Ava: Well if there are no objections to that then I'm going to hand over to Kat since I don't believe she's had an opportunity to speak. Then we'll let Rebecca have the last words since she's using her vacation time to participate.
Kat: Well music is something people are passionate about so if I get a very passionate e-mail, even one that attacks me, I usually take it in stride. But I don't take the e-mail as seriously as other people do. I read it. It's rare that I reply. If someone's asking me to defend my view, it's already up in whatever they're complaining about. I do respond to Common Ills members who have questions about where to find something or who want to suggest something for a future review. For myself, it's just e-mail. I don't take it seriously, maybe my mistake, the way I would if I was speaking to someone face to face. I know C.I. takes it seriously and tries to reply to as many as possible. But I'm more along the lines of Jim. I'll shrug it off. Praise or bashing, I'll shrug it off. That's not a slam at C.I. C.I.'s getting e-mails about issues and that's quite a bit different than what I receive. And Mike and Cedric are just figuring out where they stand on e-mails. I'm sure others tell them different, but I've said, take it with a grain of salt. That's not to dismiss the racists or sexists. Or the anti-Catholics. But if you're lucky enough to be able to avoid the e-mail for a few days, you should. Again, C.I.'s not got that option. Ava, C.I. and Jess are going through those e-mails for a reason and it goes to the way that The Common Ills is set up. That's it, I'm done.
Rebecca: Well I think Kat's making some solid points here. I also think, and Jim agrees with me on this, that the important thing is getting something posted. If the e-mail is interfering with that, I'm not sure what the point is. More readers, or members for The Common Ills, are going to read what's up then read a personal e-mail. I realize that The Common Ills is a community, but the rest of us have the option of ignoring the e-mail when it's giving us a headache or we don't have time and I strongly recommend that if the choice is between the e-mail or the blog or between the e-mail and doing something away from the computer, you ignore the e-mail. When I get back from vacation, the e-mails will have piled up. I'm not looking at them now. I'm on vacation. When I get back, I'll begin working my way through. I won't have a deadline for that. And if someone's trying to bait me with sexism or if centrists and rightests are just heavy with the attacks, I reserve the right to blow off the e-mail for a few days. Like I said before, even when I'm responding to the e-mails in a post, to the sexism, it does do a number on you. So I will always take the attitude that if something bothers me, I don't have to continue reading. I don't just mean some idiot's e-mail. I'll stop reading when the attacks start. But I mean all the e-mail. If I'm bothered by something, ticked off, angry, whatever, this is my life and I reserve the right to do myself a favor and put the e-mail on hold.
Ava: And we'll go ahead and conclude on that note. If you missed Democracy Now!'s special Saturday broadcast, you missed two and a half hours of important radio.
TV Review: King of Queens, watch with aspirin
While the premise of the Seinfeld was doing a show about nothing, CBS' The King of Queens puts them to shame as it celebrates, week in and week out, the fact that not only is it about nothing, it has nothing to offer. It would be easy enough to dismiss The King of Queens as just another boring sitcom starring a fat man and a thin woman, but it's so, so much worse.
Possibly that's why the latest DVD set (season four), released almost three months ago, languishes at number 776 currently on Amazon's DVD sales list? We can easily think of a million things we'd rather do than watch this show; however, we'll take comfort in the fact that there are at least 775 other things to watch.
This is one of those sitcoms that never really knew what it wanted to be other than a rip-off of other sitcoms. At its roots, The King of Queens is a really bad (really, really bad) rip-off of The Honeymooners. In recent seasons, it's teamed Patton Oswalt (Spence) and Gary Valentine (Danny) up in apartment in an attempt to evoke The Odd Couple. That never happens. It doesn't even qualifiy as a good rip-off of Lenny and Squiggy of Laverne & Shirley fame.
From one season to the next, the show fails to match up. That's not merely because Kevin James (Doug) has gone from chubby to grossly obese or because Leah Remini (Carrie) has been made over repeatedly (glamor clown appears to be this year's "style"). It's also not just due to the fact that actors appear frequently in some seasons and then completely vanish. Ricki Lake had a run as Doug's sister Stephanie. At one point, Victor Williams' character (Deacon) had a wife and kids. Possibly the strangest moment for people attempting to watch the series from start to finish will be the emergence in season five of Anne Meara as Spence's mother. In the first season, Grace Zabriskie originated the character Veronica. In that same episode, Anne Meara guest-starred as a woman Arthur (supporting character played by Meara's real life husband Jerry Stiller) flirts with at a retirement home.
Either the regular King of Queens viewers are very accepting or else they're lazier than Kevin James' Doug (prone to playing with his male "boobies") and can't change the channel. (Possibly, they're hands are also playing with their own male "boobies?")
The show generally plays like a shouting match. Kevin James usually gets first dibs but most episodes, Remeni and Stiller will get in their own hollering before the opening credits roll and the theme music comes up. And if you're wondering, yes, the show's also changed themes -- from an instrumental to Billy Vera & the Beaters moaning about "My eyes are gettin' weary/ My back is gettin' tight . . ." The song plays like a country tune (many asked us if it was Tim McGraw) which is rather strange for a show set in Queens, New York.
But it's also strange that show set in Queens, New York apparently has only one African-American character (Deacon). From time to time, Carrie & Doug have neighbors who live in the house to the right of their own. Possibly the heavy turnover of that house is the result of people being unable to stand living next to Doug, Carrie and Arthur, or as we like to think of the trio: The Three Shouters.
And possibly the teaming of Spence and Danny is an attempt upon the part of the writers to provide the show with "quieter" moments? (If the Hefernan household screams, Spence and Danny whine. Usually softly.)
Wednesday night, CBS reaired this season's episode entitled "The Name Dropper." In this non-laugh riot, Doug attends an office party with Carrie and, since he can't remember the names of her co-workers, he fakes a heart attack to avoid acknowledging that he can't remember one of her co-workers' names. While that's going on, Spence's mother (Meara) is staying with Spence and Danny at their apartment and is attracted to Danny (creeping out Danny and the audience). To get back at Danny, Spence invites Danny's mother (who has a drinking problem) over for . . . a glass of wine -- a drinking problem, by the way, that Spence is aware of.
In other episodes, James' character frequently refers to sexual acts and sexual organs (when not playing with his man "boobies"). In a flashback episode, Doug and Danny hook up with Carrie and a friend (who vanishes, Carrie seems to have no friends, female or male) for what they plan to be a night of casual sex. Carrie's prone to disagreeing with priests (and just about everyone else, but stay with us, we do have a point).
"Are you two prudes or what?" Or what. We bring up the above for a reason. Despite the drinking, sex refs and assorted other misdeeds, the Parents Television Council rates this show as family friendly. For those unfamiliar with the "watchdog" that wants to have the last say in what you can see, let's just note that bad actress Connie Selleca serves on their "celebrity board" along with such "class acts" as Namoi Judd, former moralizer and gambler William Bennet and professional nuisance Pat Boone.) So what do those lovlies at the PTC think of King of Queens? Though some of the above is noted, the show never goes into the red on the PTC's green (safe for all), yellow (watch out young children!) and red ("Warning, John Ashcroft!") chart. Why do you suppose that is?
Apparently "'guy' humor" (as CBS brags of the show having) is perfectly fine. Sex jokes from the mouth of males don't rankle the PTC. In contrast, Living With Fran is a four-alarm fire for the PTC. While it's true that Fran cohabitates, it's equally true that when Deacon did have a wife, he not only cheated on her, when his wife returned, he had taken up with another woman. Living With Fran earns the PTC's "honor" of "worst TV show of the week" but "boys being boys" is apparently okay.
Personally, we'll take the 'wicked' Living With Fran over the show that boasts of such guest 'stars' as Orson Bean, Florence Henderson and Donny Osmond. CBS viewers are regularly lulled into world that doesn't exist and King of Queens does it's part to lie to them.
In Wednesday's episode, despite seven seasons of packing on the pounds, Doug learns that he's actually healthy and just "big boned." (That over hanging gut be must made up of a ton of bones.) We're sure that's "comfort food" to the viewers of the show. "Comfort food" also includes tired lines such as the following:
Spence: Instead of focusing on what's in my trunk, why don't you focus on not being such a slob?
Danny: Well why don't you work on getting your mom out of our apartment?
We're not sure what's more irritating: that this tired teenage dialogue is spouted by someone in their mid-thirties and someone in their early forites or that Kevin James' Doug expresses shock with the comment, "Your mother lives with you?"
In case James and the writers have forgotten, Doug's father-in-law lives with him. In case viewers ever wonder Gary Valentine is allowed to break character and laugh at his own jokes because in real life he's the older brother of Kevin James. We're unaware of any family members writing for the show so we'll just assume that no one pays attention and that's how an episode comes to a close with Spence and Danny reaching the agreement not to hit on one another's mothers (in order to creep each other out) only to then show them slow dancing with each other's mother as the end credits roll.
The series has never had consistency from one season to another, true, but who knew it was too much to ask that an individual episode have consistency? We're not really sure that we can blame the writers for falling asleep on the job. Churning out this junk on a weekly basis must be mind numbing. (It was mind numbing to watch.) But if you want puzzle something, puzzle this. Being on Monday nights when CBS was drawing large numbers never made the show a hit and on Wednesday nights it's still not a hit so exactly why has this show been allowed to go on for seven season? Watching the show, we saw promos for two different sitcoms debuting this fall. Both looked promising (we won't get our hopes up, this is CBS). But this fall, CBS allows King of Queens, one of the most erratic shows around (bad has been it's only consistent feature), to return. If your a series starring a fat guy married to a skinny woman, what does it take for CBS to cancel to you? Low ratings don't seem to do the trick. Not being funny doesn't appear to harm you.
With it's long history of prime time sexism (the battle among the suits to water down Cagney & Lacey are legendary to cite but one example), we're guessing that if you're willing to promote "guy humor" you can write your own ticket at CBS. From the promos, it looks like that might be changing this fall. But we're honestly amazed that CBS has been able to get away with so much (Designing Women, Murder She Wrote, Touched By An Angel, Kate & Allie . . . go down the list for shows the suits actively worked against, shows that were hits) for so long with so little comment. That needs to change.
Possibly that's why the latest DVD set (season four), released almost three months ago, languishes at number 776 currently on Amazon's DVD sales list? We can easily think of a million things we'd rather do than watch this show; however, we'll take comfort in the fact that there are at least 775 other things to watch.
This is one of those sitcoms that never really knew what it wanted to be other than a rip-off of other sitcoms. At its roots, The King of Queens is a really bad (really, really bad) rip-off of The Honeymooners. In recent seasons, it's teamed Patton Oswalt (Spence) and Gary Valentine (Danny) up in apartment in an attempt to evoke The Odd Couple. That never happens. It doesn't even qualifiy as a good rip-off of Lenny and Squiggy of Laverne & Shirley fame.
From one season to the next, the show fails to match up. That's not merely because Kevin James (Doug) has gone from chubby to grossly obese or because Leah Remini (Carrie) has been made over repeatedly (glamor clown appears to be this year's "style"). It's also not just due to the fact that actors appear frequently in some seasons and then completely vanish. Ricki Lake had a run as Doug's sister Stephanie. At one point, Victor Williams' character (Deacon) had a wife and kids. Possibly the strangest moment for people attempting to watch the series from start to finish will be the emergence in season five of Anne Meara as Spence's mother. In the first season, Grace Zabriskie originated the character Veronica. In that same episode, Anne Meara guest-starred as a woman Arthur (supporting character played by Meara's real life husband Jerry Stiller) flirts with at a retirement home.
Either the regular King of Queens viewers are very accepting or else they're lazier than Kevin James' Doug (prone to playing with his male "boobies") and can't change the channel. (Possibly, they're hands are also playing with their own male "boobies?")
The show generally plays like a shouting match. Kevin James usually gets first dibs but most episodes, Remeni and Stiller will get in their own hollering before the opening credits roll and the theme music comes up. And if you're wondering, yes, the show's also changed themes -- from an instrumental to Billy Vera & the Beaters moaning about "My eyes are gettin' weary/ My back is gettin' tight . . ." The song plays like a country tune (many asked us if it was Tim McGraw) which is rather strange for a show set in Queens, New York.
But it's also strange that show set in Queens, New York apparently has only one African-American character (Deacon). From time to time, Carrie & Doug have neighbors who live in the house to the right of their own. Possibly the heavy turnover of that house is the result of people being unable to stand living next to Doug, Carrie and Arthur, or as we like to think of the trio: The Three Shouters.
And possibly the teaming of Spence and Danny is an attempt upon the part of the writers to provide the show with "quieter" moments? (If the Hefernan household screams, Spence and Danny whine. Usually softly.)
Wednesday night, CBS reaired this season's episode entitled "The Name Dropper." In this non-laugh riot, Doug attends an office party with Carrie and, since he can't remember the names of her co-workers, he fakes a heart attack to avoid acknowledging that he can't remember one of her co-workers' names. While that's going on, Spence's mother (Meara) is staying with Spence and Danny at their apartment and is attracted to Danny (creeping out Danny and the audience). To get back at Danny, Spence invites Danny's mother (who has a drinking problem) over for . . . a glass of wine -- a drinking problem, by the way, that Spence is aware of.
In other episodes, James' character frequently refers to sexual acts and sexual organs (when not playing with his man "boobies"). In a flashback episode, Doug and Danny hook up with Carrie and a friend (who vanishes, Carrie seems to have no friends, female or male) for what they plan to be a night of casual sex. Carrie's prone to disagreeing with priests (and just about everyone else, but stay with us, we do have a point).
"Are you two prudes or what?" Or what. We bring up the above for a reason. Despite the drinking, sex refs and assorted other misdeeds, the Parents Television Council rates this show as family friendly. For those unfamiliar with the "watchdog" that wants to have the last say in what you can see, let's just note that bad actress Connie Selleca serves on their "celebrity board" along with such "class acts" as Namoi Judd, former moralizer and gambler William Bennet and professional nuisance Pat Boone.) So what do those lovlies at the PTC think of King of Queens? Though some of the above is noted, the show never goes into the red on the PTC's green (safe for all), yellow (watch out young children!) and red ("Warning, John Ashcroft!") chart. Why do you suppose that is?
Apparently "'guy' humor" (as CBS brags of the show having) is perfectly fine. Sex jokes from the mouth of males don't rankle the PTC. In contrast, Living With Fran is a four-alarm fire for the PTC. While it's true that Fran cohabitates, it's equally true that when Deacon did have a wife, he not only cheated on her, when his wife returned, he had taken up with another woman. Living With Fran earns the PTC's "honor" of "worst TV show of the week" but "boys being boys" is apparently okay.
Personally, we'll take the 'wicked' Living With Fran over the show that boasts of such guest 'stars' as Orson Bean, Florence Henderson and Donny Osmond. CBS viewers are regularly lulled into world that doesn't exist and King of Queens does it's part to lie to them.
In Wednesday's episode, despite seven seasons of packing on the pounds, Doug learns that he's actually healthy and just "big boned." (That over hanging gut be must made up of a ton of bones.) We're sure that's "comfort food" to the viewers of the show. "Comfort food" also includes tired lines such as the following:
Spence: Instead of focusing on what's in my trunk, why don't you focus on not being such a slob?
Danny: Well why don't you work on getting your mom out of our apartment?
We're not sure what's more irritating: that this tired teenage dialogue is spouted by someone in their mid-thirties and someone in their early forites or that Kevin James' Doug expresses shock with the comment, "Your mother lives with you?"
In case James and the writers have forgotten, Doug's father-in-law lives with him. In case viewers ever wonder Gary Valentine is allowed to break character and laugh at his own jokes because in real life he's the older brother of Kevin James. We're unaware of any family members writing for the show so we'll just assume that no one pays attention and that's how an episode comes to a close with Spence and Danny reaching the agreement not to hit on one another's mothers (in order to creep each other out) only to then show them slow dancing with each other's mother as the end credits roll.
The series has never had consistency from one season to another, true, but who knew it was too much to ask that an individual episode have consistency? We're not really sure that we can blame the writers for falling asleep on the job. Churning out this junk on a weekly basis must be mind numbing. (It was mind numbing to watch.) But if you want puzzle something, puzzle this. Being on Monday nights when CBS was drawing large numbers never made the show a hit and on Wednesday nights it's still not a hit so exactly why has this show been allowed to go on for seven season? Watching the show, we saw promos for two different sitcoms debuting this fall. Both looked promising (we won't get our hopes up, this is CBS). But this fall, CBS allows King of Queens, one of the most erratic shows around (bad has been it's only consistent feature), to return. If your a series starring a fat guy married to a skinny woman, what does it take for CBS to cancel to you? Low ratings don't seem to do the trick. Not being funny doesn't appear to harm you.
With it's long history of prime time sexism (the battle among the suits to water down Cagney & Lacey are legendary to cite but one example), we're guessing that if you're willing to promote "guy humor" you can write your own ticket at CBS. From the promos, it looks like that might be changing this fall. But we're honestly amazed that CBS has been able to get away with so much (Designing Women, Murder She Wrote, Touched By An Angel, Kate & Allie . . . go down the list for shows the suits actively worked against, shows that were hits) for so long with so little comment. That needs to change.
Bajas de la coalición que ocupa Irak ya son más de 2.000 (Democracy Now!)
Bajas de la coalición que ocupa Irak ya son más de 2.000 (Democracy Now!)
Francisco: Hola mi amigos. De parte de "Democracy Now!" catorce cosas que vale hacer notar este fin de semana.
Bajas de la coalición que ocupa Irak ya son más de 2.000
El número total de víctimas del ejército estadounidense en Irak llegó a 1.800 y la cifra total de bajas de las tropas de la coalición que ocupa ese país es más de 2.000.
Atentado en Irak mata a 14 infantes de marina
En Irak, funcionarios del Pentágono concluyeron que una bomba de alto poder fue la causa de que murieran 14 infantes de marina el miércoles, en la ciudad occidental de Hadita. Los soldados viajaban en un vehículo anfibio blindado de transporte de tropas, que no fue diseñado para soportar ese tipo de ataques. Fue el atentado más cruento en una carretera desde el comienzo de la guerra, y ataques similares han matado a por lo menos 31 militares estadounidenses en las últimas dos semanas. Según la agencia de noticias Knight Ridder, las bombas mataron más efectivos de las fuerzas de ocupación en julio que en cualquier mes anterior de la guerra. Funcionarios estadounidenses admitieron el miércoles que actualmente las tropas son atacadas con explosivos más poderosos y eficaces. Los 14 muertos en Hadita integraban el Tercer Batallón de la Vigésimoquinta División del cuerpo de infantes de marina de Brook Park, Ohio. Otros seis miembros de ese batallón murieron el lunes.
Estados Unidos sufrió 68 ataques diarios durante el mes de julio
En Irak, la agencia de noticias Associated Press informa que Estados Unidos y las fuerzas aliadas recibieron en promedio unos 68 ataques diarios durante el mes de julio. Esto representa un aumento de casi el 50 % en el número de ataques perpetrados durante ese mes. En tanto, asciende a 2100 el número de iraquíes muertos desde la asunción del nuevo gobierno en abril.
Funcionario británico reconoce que Estados Unidos y Reino Unido son "parte del problema" en Irak
El ministro británico de Asuntos Exteriores Jack Straw admitió que la presencia de tropas británicas y estadounidenses en Irak está provocando levantamientos en ese país. Straw señaló al diario Financial Times que, "a pesar de que contribuimos a la seguridad en ese país, también somos parte del problema". Atacante británico justifica su acción como "una protesta contra la guerra en Irak" Continúa la investigación sobre los atentados del mes pasado en Londres. La abogada de uno de los detenidos por participar en los atentados fallidos del 21 de julio afirmó que su cliente justificó los atentados fallidos como "una protesta pacífica contra la guerra de Irak". La abogada de Hussain Osman, Antonietta Sonnessa expresó que, "mi cliente justificó sus actos como una forma de protesta contra el hecho de que los civiles sufren en las guerras en la actualidad. No es una persona violenta y aseguró que no provocaría ningún daño, ni dejaría heridos o muertos". A diferencia de los atentados que el 7 de julio dejaron 50 muertos, los explosivos de los atentados del 21 de julio no detonaron y no dejaron heridos. La abogada negó que su cliente tuviera alguna vinculación con organizaciones terroristas. Ahora Gran Bretaña pretende extraditar a Osman para que enfrente acusaciones.
Ex funcionario de la CIA demanda a la agencia por despido tras acusaciones de ADM en Irak
Volvemos a Estados Unidos, donde un ex funcionario de la CIA demandó a la agencia por haberlo despedido por error por cuestionar la opinión de la agencia de que Irak tenía armas de destrucción masiva.
En 2001, un año antes de la invasión a Irak, el funcionario manifestó que se enteró a través de un informante que Irak había abandonado el programa de enriquecimiento de uranio. Sin embargo, el funcionario de la CIA sostiene que la agencia nunca compartió la información con otros órganos o con los funcionarios que llevan a cabo las políticas.
El funcionario, que había trabajado en la CIA durante 20 años, fue despedido el año pasado. Su abogado comparó el caso con el de Valerie Plame, la agente encubierta de la CIA, cuya identidad fue revelada luego de que su esposo Joseph Wilson cuestionara la afirmación del gobierno de Bush de que Irak pretendía comprar óxido de uranio llamado "yellowcake" a Níger.
El abogado del ex agente de la CIA, Roy Krieger dijo "En ambos casos, los funcionarios proporcionaron información no deseada acerca de las armas de destrucción masiva en el período anterior a la invasión de Irak, por lo que fueron castigados".
Jimmy Carter: La guerra de Irak fue "innecesaria e injusta"
El ex presidente Jimmy Carter dijo que la guerra de Irak fue "innecesaria e injusta" y criticó al gobierno de Bush por el maltrato a los detenidos en la Bahía de Guantánamo.En un discurso ofrecido en la convención Bautista internacional en Gran Bretaña Carter dijo "Yo no diría que es la causa del terrorismo, pero impulsó y le dio razones a potenciales terroristas para atacar a nuestro país y justificar sus actos despreciables".
Funcionarios del gobierno alegan manipulación en tribunales militares
En otras noticias de Guantánamo, The New York Times informa que dos fiscales del gobierno presentaron quejas el año pasado, de que los tribunales militares que se estaban conformando para juzgar a los detenidos, eran algo parecido a los procedimientos sumarísimos. Los fiscales afirmaron que el sistema de juicios se había arreglado en forma secreta para aumentar la probabilidad de procesamiento y para privar a los acusados de material que pudiera probar su inocencia. Según el Times, los fiscales alegaron que el fiscal general había dicho a sus subordinados que los primeros cuatro acusados que serían juzgados por los tribunales militares serían cuidadosamente seleccionados para asegurarse de que todos fueran procesados.
Agente del FBI cuestiona legalidad del programa de "rendición extraordinaria"
Mientras tanto, Newsweek obtuvo un documento filtrado del FBI que cuestiona la legalidad de la política de "rendición extraordinaria" del gobierno de Bush, por la cual el gobierno secuestra prisioneros y los envía a países que admiten prácticas de tortura. El informe fue redactado hace tres años por el asesor del FBI asignado en ese momento a Guantánamo. En dicho informe, el agente del FBI afirma que enviar detenidos a países que aplican prácticas de tortura violaría la ley de tortura de Estados Unidos. Newsweek informa que funcionarios de inteligencia estiman que desde el 11 de septiembre la CIA ha enviado más de 100 individuos al extranjero.
Primer Ministro polaco afirma que la construcción de Irak como nación ha sido un completo fracaso
Mientras tanto, el Primer Ministro polaco Marek Belka criticó públicamente la actuación de Estados Unidos en Irak, y afirmó que los esfuerzos realizados para la reconstrucción de ese país han sido un completo fracaso. Belka dijo que Estados Unidos y sus aliados cometieron un error al basar su plan de post-guerra en Irak en el mismo modelo utilizado en Alemania luego de la segunda guerra mundial. "Fracasó totalmente. Se cometieron muchos errores graves", aseveró.
Sargento acusada de homicidio por negligencia
Volvemos a Estados Unidos, donde una sargenta de la infantería de marina fue acusada de homicidio por negligencia y de otros cargos relacionados con la muerte de Jason Tharp, un recluta de 19 años. Tharp murió a principios de este año mientras realizaba un ejercicio de natación en la isla de Parris, en Carolina del Sur. El día antes de su muerte, un canal de televisión local filmó por casualidad al recluta mientras era golpeado por la sargenta Nadya López, instructora de ejercicios de la infantería de marina. Es posible que otros tres militares de la base afronten sanciones disciplinarias.
Estados Unidos avanza en la producción de nuevas minas terrestres
El Pentágono toma medidas tendientes a reanudar la producción de minas terrestres antipersonales por primera vez desde la firma del tratado internacional para prohibirlas, en 1997 , según un informe de Human Rights Watch. De acuerdo con ese informe, ya se decidió destinar 1.300 millones de dólares a dos nuevos sistemas de minas terrestres. La última vez que Estados Unidos utilizó minas terrestres antipersonales fue durante la guerra del Golfo de 1991, cuando esparció 100.000 de esos artefactos en Irak desde aviones. En 1997, 145 países suscribieron el tratado internacional de prohibición del empleo, la producción, la exportación y el almacenamiento de minas terrestres antipersonales. Estados Unidos nunca suscribió ese tratado, pero suspendió la producción de este tipo de minas en 1997. Según Human Rights Watch, las minas terrestres aún matan o dejan lisiadas a unas 500 personas por semana, en su mayoría civiles.
Dos yemeníes informan que fueron recluidos en cárceles clandestinas estadounidenses
Amnistía Internacional pide al gobierno de Bush que revele la ubicación de las cárceles secretas que estableció en todo el mundo tras los atentados del 11 de septiembre. El reclamo surge luego de que dos hombres yemeníes denunciaron públicamente que habían sido detenidos durante más de 18 meses en cárceles subterráneas secretas de Estados Unidos. Los dos fueron arrestados por separado, uno en Jordania y el otro en Indonesia, pero las historias de ambos son casi idénticas, con un período de cárcel en Jordania, torturas, traslado en avión a una cárcel subterránea no identificada, aislamiento durante por lo menos seis meses, y luego traslado a otra cárcel subterránea. Sharon Critoph, de Amnistía, manifestó: "Hacer 'desaparecer' a alguien de la faz de la tierra, sin que sepa por qué ni por cuánto tiempo, es un delito según el derecho internacional, y nadie debería ser víctima de esa práctica". "Tememos que los testimonios de estas dos personas muestren sólo una pequeña parte de de la política de detenciones clandestinas que aplica Estados Unidos en el mundo".
Portavoz republicano de la Cámara de Representantes acusado de recibir soborno
Un artículo publicado en la revista Vanity Fair sostiene que es posible que turco-estadounidenses hayan intentado sobornar a un grupo de legisladores de Estados Unidos, entre ellos al portavoz republicano de la Cámara de Representantes, Dennis Hastert. La acusación fue publicada en una extensa nota acerca de un informante del FBI llamada Sibel Edmonds. Según la revista, Edmonds ayudaba al FBI a traducir cintas en una investigación sobre ciudadanos turcos, pero fue separada de su cargo luego de expresar su rechazo ante la corrupción que veía en la agencia. La informante tiene orden federal de no hablar públicamente sobre el contenido de las cintas que escuchó, pero según fuentes de Vanity Fair, el testimonio de Edmonds indica que ella escuchó llamadas telefónicas de individuos que se jactaban de mantener relaciones encubiertas con el portavoz Hastert. De acuerdo con esas versiones, intereses turcos habrían entregado al legislador republicano decenas de miles de dólares en pequeñas donaciones, mientras la Cámara de Representantes discutía un proyecto de condena del genocidio de armenios cometido por el gobierno turco en 1915. Hastert apoyó al principio ese proyecto, pero más tarde le quitó su apoyo minutos antes de se votara. La oficina de Hastert negó que el legislador haya recibido sobornos, y Vanity Fair informó que no hay pruebas de que ese haya ocurrido. Edmonds demandó al gobierno por su despido, pero las autoridades alegan que el juicio no debe realizarse porque revelaría secretos de Estado.
Gobierno inicia investigación penal por interrogatorios en la frontera
Mientras tanto, Newsday informa que el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional inició una investigación penal a partir de acusaciones de que funcionarios de la frontera interrogaron en forma ilegal a un grupo de estadounidenses musulmanes que regresaban de una conferencia religiosa en Toronto. Los musulmanes presentaron una demanda ante un tribunal federal de Brooklyn a principios de este año para denunciar las prácticas del gobierno de detenerlos, interrogarlos, tomar sus huellas dactilares y fotografiarlos.
Francisco: Hello friends. Here are fourteen stories from Democracy Now! this week. Tell a friend, at least one, that Democracy Now! is providing their headlines in Spanish and English, in text and audio. Help get the word out.
Coalition Death Toll in Iraq Tops 2,000
The overall U.S. military death toll in Iraq has now topped eighteen hundred and the total number of coalition troops killed has passed 2,000.
14 Marines Killed in Deadliest Roadside Bombing Of War
In Iraq, Pentagon officials have concluded it was a massive bomb that killed 14 Marines on Wednesday in the western city of Haditha. The Marines were driving in a 25-ton lightly-armored amphibious troop carrier that was not designed for coming under such attacks. It was the deadliest roadside bombing since the war began. In the past two weeks, at least 31 U.S. soldiers and Marines have died in roadside bombings. According to the Knight Ridder news agency, bombs killed more coalition troops in July than in any previous month of the war. U.S. officials admitted on Wednesday that troops are now being targeted with more powerful and more effective bombs. The 14 Marines were all members of the 3rd Battalion, 25th Marines, based in Brook Park, Ohio. Six more Marines from that Batallion died on Monday.
U.S. Faced 68 Attacks Per Day in Iraq During July
In Iraq, the Associated Press is reporting that U.S. and coalition forces were attacked on average 68 times a day during the month of July. This marks a near 50 percent increase over the number of attacks that took place last July. Meanwhile the number of Iraqis killed since the new Iraqi government took power in April has now topped twenty one hundred.
UK Official Admits U.S. & UK "part of the problem" in Iraq
Meanwhile British foreign secretary Jack Straw has admitted that the presence of British and US troops in Iraq is fuelling the uprising there. Straw told the Financial Times QUOTE "although we are part of the security solution there, we are also part of the problem."
Ex-CIA Officer Agency For Firing Him Over Iraq WMD Claims
Meanwhile back in this country, a former CIA officer has sued the agency claiming that he was wrongly fired for questioning the agency's view that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. In 2001 - a year before the Iraq invasion -- the officer reported that an informant told him that Iraq had abandoned its uranium enrichment program. However, the CIA officer charges that the agency never shared the information with other agencies or with senior policy makers. The officer - who had worked for 20 years at the agency - was fired last year. His attorney compared his case to that of Valerie Plame - the CIA agent who was outed after her husband Joseph Wilson questioned the Bush administration's claim that Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake uranium from the African nation of Niger. The former CIA agent's lawyer, Roy Krieger, said, "In both cases, officials brought unwelcome information on W.M.D. in the period prior to the Iraq invasion, and retribution followed."
Jimmy Carter: Iraq War Was "Unnecessary and Unjust"
Former President Jimmy Carter has called the Iraq war "unnecessary and unjust" and criticized the Bush administration for its handling of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Speaking at an international Baptist convention in Britain, Carter said, "I think what's going on in Guantanamo Bay and other places is a disgrace to the U.S.A." He went on to say "I wouldn't say it's the cause of terrorism, but it has given impetus and excuses to potential terrorists to lash out at our country and justify their despicable acts."
Gov't Officials Claim Military Tribunals Were Rigged
In other news on Guantanamo, the New York Times is reporting that two government prosecutors complained last year that the military commissions being set up to try detainees were little more than kangaroo courts. The prosecutors complained that the trial system was being secretly arranged to improve the chance of conviction and to deprive defendants of material that could prove their innocence. According to the Times, the prosecutors alleged that the chief prosecutor had told his subordinates that the first four defendants members tried by the military commission would be "handpicked" to ensure that all would be convicted.
FBI Agent Questioned Legality of Extraordinary Rendition
Meanwhile Newsweek has obtained a leaked FBI memo that questions the legality of the Bush's administration policy of extraordinary rendition where the government transports seized individuals and sends them to foreign countries that practice torture. The memo was written three years ago by the FBI supervisor then assigned to Guantanamo. In the memo, the FBI agent wrote that sending detainees to such countries that practice torture would be in violation of the U.S. torture statute. Newsweek reports that intelligence officials are now estimating that more than 100 individuals have been rendered to foreign countries by the CIA since Sept. 11.
Polish PM: Nation Building in Iraq Has "Failed Totally"
Meanwhile Polish Prime Minister Marek Belka has publicly criticized the U.S.-led efforts in Iraq. Belka said post-war nation-building efforts in Iraq have failed totally. Belka said the US and its allies made a mistake by basing its post-war plan for Iraq on the same model used for Germany after World War II. Belka said "It failed totally. Many mistakes, major mistakes, have been committed."
Marine Sgt. Charged w/ Negligent Homicide
Here in this country... A Marine sergeant has been charged with negligent homicide and other charges following the death of a Marine recruit. The recruit, 19-year-old Jason Tharp, died while taking part in a swimming exercise at Parris Island in South Carolina earlier this year. The day before he died a local TV station happened to have videotaped the recruit being struck and grabbed by a Marine drill instructor, Staff Sergeant Nadya Lopez. Three other Marines at the base face possible disciplinary action as well.
U.S. Moves Toward Making New Landmines
The Pentagon is moving ahead towards resuming production of antipersonnel landmines for the first time since the signing of the international Mine Ban Treaty in 1997. This according to a report by Human Rights Watch. $1.3 billion dollars has already been earmarked for two new landmine systems. The U.S. last used antipersonnel landmines in the 1991 Gulf War, when it scattered over 100,000 landmines from planes in Iraq. In 1997 145 nations signed the international Mine Ban Treaty that banned the use, production, exporting, and stockpiling of antipersonnel landmines. The U.S. never signed the pact but it stopped production of antipersonnel landmines in 1997. According to Human Rights Watch, landmines continue to kill and maim an estimated 500 people -- mostly civilians -- each week.
Two Ex-Detainees Report Being Held in Secret U.S. Jails
Amnesty International is calling on the Bush administration to disclose the locations of the government’s secret jails that were set up around the world after the Sept. 11 attacks. This comes after two Yemini men publicly claimed that they were held in secret underground U.S. jails for more than 18 months. The two men were arrested separately but reported being held in almost identical conditions. One of the men was arrested in Jordan, the other in Indonesia. Both were jailed in Jordan where they were reportedly tortured. Each says he was then flown to an unnamed underground jail where he was held in solitary confinement for at least six months. Then they were taken to a second underground jail. Amnesty's Sharon Critoph said "To be 'disappeared' from the face of the earth without knowing why or for how long is a crime under international law and an experience no-one should have to go through. Critoph went on to say "We fear that what we have heard from these two men is just one small part of the much broader picture of US secret detentions around the world."
Speaker of House Hastert Allegedly Bribed
A new story in Vanity Fair is alleging that Turkish-Americans may have attempted to bribe a group of U.S. lawmakers including Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert. The allegation appears in an extended piece in the magazine about FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds. According to the magazine, Edmonds was helping the FBI translate tapes surrounding an investigation of Turkish nationals. She was fired from her job after she complained about corruption at the agency. Edmonds is under a federal gag order not to publicly discuss what she heard on the wiretaps. But sources told the magazine that Edmonds has testified that she heard wiretaps of individuals boasting that they had covert relationships with Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert and that Turkish interests had given tens of thousands of dollars in small donations to Hastert. The donations were reportedly given around the time that the House was considering passing a resolution condemning the Turkish genocide of Armenians. Hastert originally backed the resolution but then withdrew it minutes before it was scheduled to go up for a House vote. Hastert’s office has denied receiving any such payments and Vanity Fair reports that there is no evidence that any payments were made. Edmonds is suing the government over his dismissal but the Bush administration is attempting to have the lawsuit quashed claiming it would reveal state secrets.
Gov't Launches Criminal Investigation Over Border Interrogations
Meanwhile Newsday is reporting that the Department of Homeland Security has launched a criminal investigation into allegations that border officials illegally interrogated a group of Muslim Americans that were returning from a religious conference in Toronto. The Muslims filed suit earlier this year in federal court in Brooklyn to challenge the government's practices after they were detained, interrogated, fingerprinted and photographed.
Francisco: Hola mi amigos. De parte de "Democracy Now!" catorce cosas que vale hacer notar este fin de semana.
Bajas de la coalición que ocupa Irak ya son más de 2.000
El número total de víctimas del ejército estadounidense en Irak llegó a 1.800 y la cifra total de bajas de las tropas de la coalición que ocupa ese país es más de 2.000.
Atentado en Irak mata a 14 infantes de marina
En Irak, funcionarios del Pentágono concluyeron que una bomba de alto poder fue la causa de que murieran 14 infantes de marina el miércoles, en la ciudad occidental de Hadita. Los soldados viajaban en un vehículo anfibio blindado de transporte de tropas, que no fue diseñado para soportar ese tipo de ataques. Fue el atentado más cruento en una carretera desde el comienzo de la guerra, y ataques similares han matado a por lo menos 31 militares estadounidenses en las últimas dos semanas. Según la agencia de noticias Knight Ridder, las bombas mataron más efectivos de las fuerzas de ocupación en julio que en cualquier mes anterior de la guerra. Funcionarios estadounidenses admitieron el miércoles que actualmente las tropas son atacadas con explosivos más poderosos y eficaces. Los 14 muertos en Hadita integraban el Tercer Batallón de la Vigésimoquinta División del cuerpo de infantes de marina de Brook Park, Ohio. Otros seis miembros de ese batallón murieron el lunes.
Estados Unidos sufrió 68 ataques diarios durante el mes de julio
En Irak, la agencia de noticias Associated Press informa que Estados Unidos y las fuerzas aliadas recibieron en promedio unos 68 ataques diarios durante el mes de julio. Esto representa un aumento de casi el 50 % en el número de ataques perpetrados durante ese mes. En tanto, asciende a 2100 el número de iraquíes muertos desde la asunción del nuevo gobierno en abril.
Funcionario británico reconoce que Estados Unidos y Reino Unido son "parte del problema" en Irak
El ministro británico de Asuntos Exteriores Jack Straw admitió que la presencia de tropas británicas y estadounidenses en Irak está provocando levantamientos en ese país. Straw señaló al diario Financial Times que, "a pesar de que contribuimos a la seguridad en ese país, también somos parte del problema". Atacante británico justifica su acción como "una protesta contra la guerra en Irak" Continúa la investigación sobre los atentados del mes pasado en Londres. La abogada de uno de los detenidos por participar en los atentados fallidos del 21 de julio afirmó que su cliente justificó los atentados fallidos como "una protesta pacífica contra la guerra de Irak". La abogada de Hussain Osman, Antonietta Sonnessa expresó que, "mi cliente justificó sus actos como una forma de protesta contra el hecho de que los civiles sufren en las guerras en la actualidad. No es una persona violenta y aseguró que no provocaría ningún daño, ni dejaría heridos o muertos". A diferencia de los atentados que el 7 de julio dejaron 50 muertos, los explosivos de los atentados del 21 de julio no detonaron y no dejaron heridos. La abogada negó que su cliente tuviera alguna vinculación con organizaciones terroristas. Ahora Gran Bretaña pretende extraditar a Osman para que enfrente acusaciones.
Ex funcionario de la CIA demanda a la agencia por despido tras acusaciones de ADM en Irak
Volvemos a Estados Unidos, donde un ex funcionario de la CIA demandó a la agencia por haberlo despedido por error por cuestionar la opinión de la agencia de que Irak tenía armas de destrucción masiva.
En 2001, un año antes de la invasión a Irak, el funcionario manifestó que se enteró a través de un informante que Irak había abandonado el programa de enriquecimiento de uranio. Sin embargo, el funcionario de la CIA sostiene que la agencia nunca compartió la información con otros órganos o con los funcionarios que llevan a cabo las políticas.
El funcionario, que había trabajado en la CIA durante 20 años, fue despedido el año pasado. Su abogado comparó el caso con el de Valerie Plame, la agente encubierta de la CIA, cuya identidad fue revelada luego de que su esposo Joseph Wilson cuestionara la afirmación del gobierno de Bush de que Irak pretendía comprar óxido de uranio llamado "yellowcake" a Níger.
El abogado del ex agente de la CIA, Roy Krieger dijo "En ambos casos, los funcionarios proporcionaron información no deseada acerca de las armas de destrucción masiva en el período anterior a la invasión de Irak, por lo que fueron castigados".
Jimmy Carter: La guerra de Irak fue "innecesaria e injusta"
El ex presidente Jimmy Carter dijo que la guerra de Irak fue "innecesaria e injusta" y criticó al gobierno de Bush por el maltrato a los detenidos en la Bahía de Guantánamo.En un discurso ofrecido en la convención Bautista internacional en Gran Bretaña Carter dijo "Yo no diría que es la causa del terrorismo, pero impulsó y le dio razones a potenciales terroristas para atacar a nuestro país y justificar sus actos despreciables".
Funcionarios del gobierno alegan manipulación en tribunales militares
En otras noticias de Guantánamo, The New York Times informa que dos fiscales del gobierno presentaron quejas el año pasado, de que los tribunales militares que se estaban conformando para juzgar a los detenidos, eran algo parecido a los procedimientos sumarísimos. Los fiscales afirmaron que el sistema de juicios se había arreglado en forma secreta para aumentar la probabilidad de procesamiento y para privar a los acusados de material que pudiera probar su inocencia. Según el Times, los fiscales alegaron que el fiscal general había dicho a sus subordinados que los primeros cuatro acusados que serían juzgados por los tribunales militares serían cuidadosamente seleccionados para asegurarse de que todos fueran procesados.
Agente del FBI cuestiona legalidad del programa de "rendición extraordinaria"
Mientras tanto, Newsweek obtuvo un documento filtrado del FBI que cuestiona la legalidad de la política de "rendición extraordinaria" del gobierno de Bush, por la cual el gobierno secuestra prisioneros y los envía a países que admiten prácticas de tortura. El informe fue redactado hace tres años por el asesor del FBI asignado en ese momento a Guantánamo. En dicho informe, el agente del FBI afirma que enviar detenidos a países que aplican prácticas de tortura violaría la ley de tortura de Estados Unidos. Newsweek informa que funcionarios de inteligencia estiman que desde el 11 de septiembre la CIA ha enviado más de 100 individuos al extranjero.
Primer Ministro polaco afirma que la construcción de Irak como nación ha sido un completo fracaso
Mientras tanto, el Primer Ministro polaco Marek Belka criticó públicamente la actuación de Estados Unidos en Irak, y afirmó que los esfuerzos realizados para la reconstrucción de ese país han sido un completo fracaso. Belka dijo que Estados Unidos y sus aliados cometieron un error al basar su plan de post-guerra en Irak en el mismo modelo utilizado en Alemania luego de la segunda guerra mundial. "Fracasó totalmente. Se cometieron muchos errores graves", aseveró.
Sargento acusada de homicidio por negligencia
Volvemos a Estados Unidos, donde una sargenta de la infantería de marina fue acusada de homicidio por negligencia y de otros cargos relacionados con la muerte de Jason Tharp, un recluta de 19 años. Tharp murió a principios de este año mientras realizaba un ejercicio de natación en la isla de Parris, en Carolina del Sur. El día antes de su muerte, un canal de televisión local filmó por casualidad al recluta mientras era golpeado por la sargenta Nadya López, instructora de ejercicios de la infantería de marina. Es posible que otros tres militares de la base afronten sanciones disciplinarias.
Estados Unidos avanza en la producción de nuevas minas terrestres
El Pentágono toma medidas tendientes a reanudar la producción de minas terrestres antipersonales por primera vez desde la firma del tratado internacional para prohibirlas, en 1997 , según un informe de Human Rights Watch. De acuerdo con ese informe, ya se decidió destinar 1.300 millones de dólares a dos nuevos sistemas de minas terrestres. La última vez que Estados Unidos utilizó minas terrestres antipersonales fue durante la guerra del Golfo de 1991, cuando esparció 100.000 de esos artefactos en Irak desde aviones. En 1997, 145 países suscribieron el tratado internacional de prohibición del empleo, la producción, la exportación y el almacenamiento de minas terrestres antipersonales. Estados Unidos nunca suscribió ese tratado, pero suspendió la producción de este tipo de minas en 1997. Según Human Rights Watch, las minas terrestres aún matan o dejan lisiadas a unas 500 personas por semana, en su mayoría civiles.
Dos yemeníes informan que fueron recluidos en cárceles clandestinas estadounidenses
Amnistía Internacional pide al gobierno de Bush que revele la ubicación de las cárceles secretas que estableció en todo el mundo tras los atentados del 11 de septiembre. El reclamo surge luego de que dos hombres yemeníes denunciaron públicamente que habían sido detenidos durante más de 18 meses en cárceles subterráneas secretas de Estados Unidos. Los dos fueron arrestados por separado, uno en Jordania y el otro en Indonesia, pero las historias de ambos son casi idénticas, con un período de cárcel en Jordania, torturas, traslado en avión a una cárcel subterránea no identificada, aislamiento durante por lo menos seis meses, y luego traslado a otra cárcel subterránea. Sharon Critoph, de Amnistía, manifestó: "Hacer 'desaparecer' a alguien de la faz de la tierra, sin que sepa por qué ni por cuánto tiempo, es un delito según el derecho internacional, y nadie debería ser víctima de esa práctica". "Tememos que los testimonios de estas dos personas muestren sólo una pequeña parte de de la política de detenciones clandestinas que aplica Estados Unidos en el mundo".
Portavoz republicano de la Cámara de Representantes acusado de recibir soborno
Un artículo publicado en la revista Vanity Fair sostiene que es posible que turco-estadounidenses hayan intentado sobornar a un grupo de legisladores de Estados Unidos, entre ellos al portavoz republicano de la Cámara de Representantes, Dennis Hastert. La acusación fue publicada en una extensa nota acerca de un informante del FBI llamada Sibel Edmonds. Según la revista, Edmonds ayudaba al FBI a traducir cintas en una investigación sobre ciudadanos turcos, pero fue separada de su cargo luego de expresar su rechazo ante la corrupción que veía en la agencia. La informante tiene orden federal de no hablar públicamente sobre el contenido de las cintas que escuchó, pero según fuentes de Vanity Fair, el testimonio de Edmonds indica que ella escuchó llamadas telefónicas de individuos que se jactaban de mantener relaciones encubiertas con el portavoz Hastert. De acuerdo con esas versiones, intereses turcos habrían entregado al legislador republicano decenas de miles de dólares en pequeñas donaciones, mientras la Cámara de Representantes discutía un proyecto de condena del genocidio de armenios cometido por el gobierno turco en 1915. Hastert apoyó al principio ese proyecto, pero más tarde le quitó su apoyo minutos antes de se votara. La oficina de Hastert negó que el legislador haya recibido sobornos, y Vanity Fair informó que no hay pruebas de que ese haya ocurrido. Edmonds demandó al gobierno por su despido, pero las autoridades alegan que el juicio no debe realizarse porque revelaría secretos de Estado.
Gobierno inicia investigación penal por interrogatorios en la frontera
Mientras tanto, Newsday informa que el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional inició una investigación penal a partir de acusaciones de que funcionarios de la frontera interrogaron en forma ilegal a un grupo de estadounidenses musulmanes que regresaban de una conferencia religiosa en Toronto. Los musulmanes presentaron una demanda ante un tribunal federal de Brooklyn a principios de este año para denunciar las prácticas del gobierno de detenerlos, interrogarlos, tomar sus huellas dactilares y fotografiarlos.
Francisco: Hello friends. Here are fourteen stories from Democracy Now! this week. Tell a friend, at least one, that Democracy Now! is providing their headlines in Spanish and English, in text and audio. Help get the word out.
Coalition Death Toll in Iraq Tops 2,000
The overall U.S. military death toll in Iraq has now topped eighteen hundred and the total number of coalition troops killed has passed 2,000.
14 Marines Killed in Deadliest Roadside Bombing Of War
In Iraq, Pentagon officials have concluded it was a massive bomb that killed 14 Marines on Wednesday in the western city of Haditha. The Marines were driving in a 25-ton lightly-armored amphibious troop carrier that was not designed for coming under such attacks. It was the deadliest roadside bombing since the war began. In the past two weeks, at least 31 U.S. soldiers and Marines have died in roadside bombings. According to the Knight Ridder news agency, bombs killed more coalition troops in July than in any previous month of the war. U.S. officials admitted on Wednesday that troops are now being targeted with more powerful and more effective bombs. The 14 Marines were all members of the 3rd Battalion, 25th Marines, based in Brook Park, Ohio. Six more Marines from that Batallion died on Monday.
U.S. Faced 68 Attacks Per Day in Iraq During July
In Iraq, the Associated Press is reporting that U.S. and coalition forces were attacked on average 68 times a day during the month of July. This marks a near 50 percent increase over the number of attacks that took place last July. Meanwhile the number of Iraqis killed since the new Iraqi government took power in April has now topped twenty one hundred.
UK Official Admits U.S. & UK "part of the problem" in Iraq
Meanwhile British foreign secretary Jack Straw has admitted that the presence of British and US troops in Iraq is fuelling the uprising there. Straw told the Financial Times QUOTE "although we are part of the security solution there, we are also part of the problem."
Ex-CIA Officer Agency For Firing Him Over Iraq WMD Claims
Meanwhile back in this country, a former CIA officer has sued the agency claiming that he was wrongly fired for questioning the agency's view that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. In 2001 - a year before the Iraq invasion -- the officer reported that an informant told him that Iraq had abandoned its uranium enrichment program. However, the CIA officer charges that the agency never shared the information with other agencies or with senior policy makers. The officer - who had worked for 20 years at the agency - was fired last year. His attorney compared his case to that of Valerie Plame - the CIA agent who was outed after her husband Joseph Wilson questioned the Bush administration's claim that Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake uranium from the African nation of Niger. The former CIA agent's lawyer, Roy Krieger, said, "In both cases, officials brought unwelcome information on W.M.D. in the period prior to the Iraq invasion, and retribution followed."
Jimmy Carter: Iraq War Was "Unnecessary and Unjust"
Former President Jimmy Carter has called the Iraq war "unnecessary and unjust" and criticized the Bush administration for its handling of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Speaking at an international Baptist convention in Britain, Carter said, "I think what's going on in Guantanamo Bay and other places is a disgrace to the U.S.A." He went on to say "I wouldn't say it's the cause of terrorism, but it has given impetus and excuses to potential terrorists to lash out at our country and justify their despicable acts."
Gov't Officials Claim Military Tribunals Were Rigged
In other news on Guantanamo, the New York Times is reporting that two government prosecutors complained last year that the military commissions being set up to try detainees were little more than kangaroo courts. The prosecutors complained that the trial system was being secretly arranged to improve the chance of conviction and to deprive defendants of material that could prove their innocence. According to the Times, the prosecutors alleged that the chief prosecutor had told his subordinates that the first four defendants members tried by the military commission would be "handpicked" to ensure that all would be convicted.
FBI Agent Questioned Legality of Extraordinary Rendition
Meanwhile Newsweek has obtained a leaked FBI memo that questions the legality of the Bush's administration policy of extraordinary rendition where the government transports seized individuals and sends them to foreign countries that practice torture. The memo was written three years ago by the FBI supervisor then assigned to Guantanamo. In the memo, the FBI agent wrote that sending detainees to such countries that practice torture would be in violation of the U.S. torture statute. Newsweek reports that intelligence officials are now estimating that more than 100 individuals have been rendered to foreign countries by the CIA since Sept. 11.
Polish PM: Nation Building in Iraq Has "Failed Totally"
Meanwhile Polish Prime Minister Marek Belka has publicly criticized the U.S.-led efforts in Iraq. Belka said post-war nation-building efforts in Iraq have failed totally. Belka said the US and its allies made a mistake by basing its post-war plan for Iraq on the same model used for Germany after World War II. Belka said "It failed totally. Many mistakes, major mistakes, have been committed."
Marine Sgt. Charged w/ Negligent Homicide
Here in this country... A Marine sergeant has been charged with negligent homicide and other charges following the death of a Marine recruit. The recruit, 19-year-old Jason Tharp, died while taking part in a swimming exercise at Parris Island in South Carolina earlier this year. The day before he died a local TV station happened to have videotaped the recruit being struck and grabbed by a Marine drill instructor, Staff Sergeant Nadya Lopez. Three other Marines at the base face possible disciplinary action as well.
U.S. Moves Toward Making New Landmines
The Pentagon is moving ahead towards resuming production of antipersonnel landmines for the first time since the signing of the international Mine Ban Treaty in 1997. This according to a report by Human Rights Watch. $1.3 billion dollars has already been earmarked for two new landmine systems. The U.S. last used antipersonnel landmines in the 1991 Gulf War, when it scattered over 100,000 landmines from planes in Iraq. In 1997 145 nations signed the international Mine Ban Treaty that banned the use, production, exporting, and stockpiling of antipersonnel landmines. The U.S. never signed the pact but it stopped production of antipersonnel landmines in 1997. According to Human Rights Watch, landmines continue to kill and maim an estimated 500 people -- mostly civilians -- each week.
Two Ex-Detainees Report Being Held in Secret U.S. Jails
Amnesty International is calling on the Bush administration to disclose the locations of the government’s secret jails that were set up around the world after the Sept. 11 attacks. This comes after two Yemini men publicly claimed that they were held in secret underground U.S. jails for more than 18 months. The two men were arrested separately but reported being held in almost identical conditions. One of the men was arrested in Jordan, the other in Indonesia. Both were jailed in Jordan where they were reportedly tortured. Each says he was then flown to an unnamed underground jail where he was held in solitary confinement for at least six months. Then they were taken to a second underground jail. Amnesty's Sharon Critoph said "To be 'disappeared' from the face of the earth without knowing why or for how long is a crime under international law and an experience no-one should have to go through. Critoph went on to say "We fear that what we have heard from these two men is just one small part of the much broader picture of US secret detentions around the world."
Speaker of House Hastert Allegedly Bribed
A new story in Vanity Fair is alleging that Turkish-Americans may have attempted to bribe a group of U.S. lawmakers including Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert. The allegation appears in an extended piece in the magazine about FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds. According to the magazine, Edmonds was helping the FBI translate tapes surrounding an investigation of Turkish nationals. She was fired from her job after she complained about corruption at the agency. Edmonds is under a federal gag order not to publicly discuss what she heard on the wiretaps. But sources told the magazine that Edmonds has testified that she heard wiretaps of individuals boasting that they had covert relationships with Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert and that Turkish interests had given tens of thousands of dollars in small donations to Hastert. The donations were reportedly given around the time that the House was considering passing a resolution condemning the Turkish genocide of Armenians. Hastert originally backed the resolution but then withdrew it minutes before it was scheduled to go up for a House vote. Hastert’s office has denied receiving any such payments and Vanity Fair reports that there is no evidence that any payments were made. Edmonds is suing the government over his dismissal but the Bush administration is attempting to have the lawsuit quashed claiming it would reveal state secrets.
Gov't Launches Criminal Investigation Over Border Interrogations
Meanwhile Newsday is reporting that the Department of Homeland Security has launched a criminal investigation into allegations that border officials illegally interrogated a group of Muslim Americans that were returning from a religious conference in Toronto. The Muslims filed suit earlier this year in federal court in Brooklyn to challenge the government's practices after they were detained, interrogated, fingerprinted and photographed.
Blog Spotlight: The Common Ills' "Impunity leads to further silence"
In the face of cheerleading over the loss of a Congressional race, questions weren't being raised. Thankfully, Elaine and C.I. were there to raise the questions. Just as we asked Rebecca (Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude) to write an introductory paragraph to Elaine's entry, we've asked her to speak on this entry as well. (Hey, if we're lucky enough to have her assisting while she's on her vacation, you know we're going to run with that lucky break!)
Rebecca: First off, C.I. wants it noted that the Laura Flanders' phrase is "Don't leave politics to the politicians" and that Mike remembered it. C.I. also wanted Matthew Rothschild's "Edwards Flops" and "Kerry Clips the Wings of Liberalism" because e-mails came in saying, "At last!" and C.I. wants people to be aware that there was reasoned, real time criticism of the Kerry campaign. Now that I've dispensed with that, let me focus on this entry. When you read Elaine's entry and C.I's together, you get this huge overview. They aren't afraid to go to the issues no one's tackling. I'm really glad that these two entries are being highlighted here because I'm sure they aren't getting a great deal of attention outside the community. When you say what needs to be said, there's a tendency for a clampdown. That might be out of fear of being blacklisted or it might be out of a desire to not raise the issues no one's talking about. This issue prompted more e-mail than anything that's gone up at The Common Ills ever. In the public e-mail, Jess counted 682 e-mails the day after the entry went up and notes that they continue to come in with 80% of them being positive. From members e-mailing to the private e-mail address, Ava says the response was well over a thousand. That's because this is the sort of the entry that The Common Ills exists for. This entry doesn't just take on the fact that the Bully Boy's fought a war badly, it takes on the fact that the Democrats are still attempting to play it safe and avoid the difficult questions. It bucks conventional wisdom and C.I. wouldn't have it any other way but, as I've noted before when talking about The Common Ills, C.I. can do that. There's no career being promoted via the site, no attempt to parlay it into something else, no attempt to profit off of the site. As Kat would say, "It is what it is." And at the heart of The Common Ills is the fact that issues need to be raised and they weren't in 2004 and they still aren't being raised loudly in enough places. The Common Ills audience was built peer to peer. A telecommunications lobbyist attacking independent and small media will not be promoted at The Common Ills as a "brave voice." The grassroots won't be silenced or told to go along. Third party members are welcome there. There's no attacks on "women studies" majors or on people who don't want to go blindly down whatever path they're being steered. If someone e-mails, out of "concern," that Grace Lee Boggs or Howard Zinn or whomever shouldn't be quoted, C.I.'s response is not to stop noting them but instead to note them more often. The entry reminds me of why I wish C.I. would toss aside The New York Times and just focus on other things. C.I. would be the first to note that "information" from the daily papers doesn't go to the theory or needs. When an entry like this goes up, we're seeing the sort of thing C.I. does in a speech and, while I understand the need to keep the community informed of breaking news, I think this has more value and really wish C.I. would leave the daily stuff to sites that are better suited to offer that (and only that) and instead focus on the strengths that only an activist and someone with mulitple degrees and a larger understanding can address. You won't find this sort of entry everywhere else and it's exactly the reason that the community developed and continues to develop.
Impunity leads to further silence
Yet this administration defies the truth that comes forth every day; it continues to flaunt its will before the world as it demands acquiescence to its arrogant policy of pre-emptive strike based on its determination of what nation might threaten the United States' control of atomic weapons, military superiority, and economic Capitalistic dominance across the globe. That arrogance breeds contempt for other nations and other people. That arrogance propels a sense of superiority that gives license to control, even to gain that control by torture. That arrogance gives rise to an intransigent, deeply embedded racism that finds fault with others who attempt to thwart its dominance. That arrogance has pitted America's perceived acceptance of torture as acceptable acts of an innocuous kind, as explained away by the Republicans, against the conscience of the world's communities that find it barbaric and contradictory of the very values Bush claims to bring to the world.
It's the American people that are maligned; it's our values that are desecrated; it's our nation that has been placed under this horrific pall by an administration willing to subvert its most cherished ideals. But now truth has boiled to the surface, evidence accumulates daily, the people stir: "Wisdom cries aloud in the streets; in the market place she lifts her voice."
The above is from William A. Cook's "Words Without Meaning" (CounterPunch).
It's an important article. (And an intelligent one.) We're at a place where we should be forcing issues and questions. That didn't happen in 2004's presidential campaign.
Cook walks [you] through the reactions to John Conyers and Dick Durbin's truth telling and the violent reaction to both.
Cook argues we need to be making the most of this moment to press the issues that aren't going to be raised on their own.
Which recalls the points that Naomi Klein made in "Kerry and the Gift of Impunity:"
Impunity--the perception of being outside the law--has long been the hallmark of the Bush regime. What is alarming is that it appears to have deepened since the election, ushering in what can best be described as an orgy of impunity. In Iraq, US forces and their Iraqi surrogates are assaulting civilian targets and openly attacking doctors, clerics and journalists who have dared to count the bodies. At home, impunity has been made official policy with Bush's nomination of Alberto Gonzales--the man who personally advised the President in his infamous "torture memo" that the Geneva Conventions are "obsolete"--as Attorney General.
This kind of defiance cannot simply be explained by Bush's win. There has to be something in how he won, in how the election was fought, that gave this Administration the distinct impression that it had been handed a "get out of the Geneva Conventions free" card. That's because the Administration was handed precisely such a gift--by John Kerry.
In the name of "electability," the Kerry campaign gave Bush five months on the campaign trail without ever facing serious questions about violations of international law. Fearing he would be seen as soft on terror and disloyal to US troops, Kerry stayed scandalously silent about Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay. When it became clear that fury would rain down on Falluja as soon as the polls closed, Kerry never spoke out against the plan, or against the illegal bombings of civilian areas that took place throughout the campaign. Even after The Lancet published its landmark study estimating that 100,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the invasion and occupation, Kerry repeated his outrageous (and frankly racist) claim that Americans "have borne 90 percent of the casualties in Iraq." His unmistakable message: Iraqi deaths don't count. By buying the highly questionable logic that Americans are incapable of caring about anyone's lives but their own, the Kerry campaign and its supporters became complicit in the dehumanization of Iraqis, reinforcing the idea that some lives are insufficiently important to risk losing votes over. And it is this morally bankrupt logic, more than the election of any single candidate, that allows these crimes to continue unchecked.
Is this how 2006 will play out? Is this the landscape we're stuck in? Or are we going to ask the hard questions and tackle the real issues?
Elaine has an incredible entry that we'll repost here after this goes up. Are we going to continue to repeat the mistakes of the Kerry campaign or are we going to expect more from people running for office?
Are we going to demand that we're treated as adults and offered serious discussions or are we just going to accept bumper stickers, jingoism and easy applause lines?
Ignoring the realities of what we've done (rendition, torture, etc.) won't make them go away. Pretending Falluja has been "improved" or unharmed by our policies won't change the reality of the slaughter that went on or the police-state conditions that continue.
There are tough conversations that we need to have because they go to the heart of what kind of a country we are, what kind of a people and what sort of government will represent us.
We aren't having those conversations as a national dialogue. We won't until we drop the knee jerk "answer" that we can "win" by being just like the other side with slight modifications. Whether you accept the results of the 2004 election or not, the fact that we were left without a moral or ethic to stand on shouldn't be surprising. As Naomi Klein has pointed out numerous times, in numerous forums, torture wasn't an issue. We could have the Bully Boy in the Oval Office right now (as we do) but we could have a strong discussion on torture if the issue had been raised. It wasn't.
"Vote for me because I've seen war" isn't an platform, isn't an answer especially when the candidate pushing that cred has no answers. Fine tuning isn't an answer when so much is at stake.
Even with Bully Boy in office, we'd be better off as a people if the campaign of 2004 had been some real issues and asked us to consider, seriously, what had gone on in the last four years and what direction we were headed. The Kerry campaign could have led on that. Win or lose, they could have made inroads. But it was a "safe" campaign and as the tide has turned regarding America's opinion of the invasion/occupation's value, it would be great if we had some real issues (whether they were mocked by Fox "News," et al or not) that were put to us.
"John Kerry reporting for duty" is not a platform. When CODEPINK tried to address the elephant in the room, they were escorted out of the hall (during the Democratic convention). We didn't want to look "weak" on terror.
Instead of challenging events and decisions, the campaign wanted to say "I'd do the same but I'd do it smarter." Never was the issue raised of whether or not the planning (such as it was) was appropriate.
We'll point out these mistakes in planning and strategy and we'll look strong was the conclusion of the campaign. The right pushes jingoism and our response is to attempt to our imitation of it?That's not an alternative.
The car's run out of gas. Everyone in the car's looking at Bully Boy behind the wheel. John Kerry's saying, "I would've stopped at the gas station five miles back." Good for you but should we have headed down this road in the first place?
All the fads and crazes won't change the fact that to a large number of people that argument will come off as coulda', woulda', shoulda'. Offering a patch, a quick fix, isn't dealing with the issues that people are hungry for. We need to demand more. Not just from our press, but from our politicians and would be politicians.
At a time when "we were lied into war" isn't a shocking notion (thanks to the Downing Street Memos and all the people -- elected officials and citizens -- who raised the issue repeatedly) the idea that candidates should be questioning the invasion itself shouldn't be controversial. When people are ready to say we were taken down the wrong road, candidates need to be able to provide something more than "I would've stopped to refuel five miles back."
We're not hearing that and we won't until we demand it. Democracy doesn't begin and end with the voting in an election or with supporting a candidate. (A point Laura Flanders makes repeatedly and has a great statement on that which I'm unfortunately forgetting right now.)Short term measures to run an easy election don't improve the state of our nation. Nor do they put any pressure on our officials to do more than quick fixes and easy lip service.
Before we start handicapping the next races based on "electability" we need to think about what candidates are standing for. "I'll do the same thing but I'll do it smarter" keeps us on the same road. It doesn't raise the issue of whether we should have gone down it in the first place.As is usually the case, the people are ahead of the politicians. And when we're considering whether or not to support someone, we need to ask what they're standing for. Not what their Oprah friendly narrative represents. Not whether or not there's some great reel footage to be shown.
What's happening in Iraq now? From "Bush's Exit Plan: Fomenting Civil War in Iraq?" (Democracy Now!):
AMY GOODMAN: Pushing a civil war?
ARUN GUPTA: Well, I think that if you look at the situation in Iraq, there are indications that this is what the Bush administration may be attempting, because the whole occupation has been a disaster from the beginning. The disbanding of the army and the security forces, the failure of reconstruction effectively alienated the Sunni Arab population. And then, since then, what we have seen, such as like the blatant theft of Iraq's oil money, the use of various militias has increased the sectarian conflict.
Now, at the beginning of the year, few people considered a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites a possibility. There has been a lot of speculation all along that between Sunnis and Turkmen and the Kurds, that it was a much greater possibility because the Kurds run their own state.But over the last six to nine months, the political process has intensified. The sectarianism in Iraq, rather than bringing the country together, the elections that were held in January solidified the sectarian lines. That was because the U.S. pushed the strategy that parties should run on slates, that they should cobble together these large groupings. And because the elections were held in this atmosphere of intense violence, very few parties could actually campaign in the open in much of the country. So, what that meant was that most Iraqis who participated in the election voted their ethnicity, such that the Shiite slate, the United Iraqi Alliance, and the Kurdish slate walked away with most of the votes.
There are serious issues to be raised and they won't become part of the national dialogue if we're posturing and trying to prove our "bonafides" on national security by accepting as valid actions that should never have been taken.
Rebecca: First off, C.I. wants it noted that the Laura Flanders' phrase is "Don't leave politics to the politicians" and that Mike remembered it. C.I. also wanted Matthew Rothschild's "Edwards Flops" and "Kerry Clips the Wings of Liberalism" because e-mails came in saying, "At last!" and C.I. wants people to be aware that there was reasoned, real time criticism of the Kerry campaign. Now that I've dispensed with that, let me focus on this entry. When you read Elaine's entry and C.I's together, you get this huge overview. They aren't afraid to go to the issues no one's tackling. I'm really glad that these two entries are being highlighted here because I'm sure they aren't getting a great deal of attention outside the community. When you say what needs to be said, there's a tendency for a clampdown. That might be out of fear of being blacklisted or it might be out of a desire to not raise the issues no one's talking about. This issue prompted more e-mail than anything that's gone up at The Common Ills ever. In the public e-mail, Jess counted 682 e-mails the day after the entry went up and notes that they continue to come in with 80% of them being positive. From members e-mailing to the private e-mail address, Ava says the response was well over a thousand. That's because this is the sort of the entry that The Common Ills exists for. This entry doesn't just take on the fact that the Bully Boy's fought a war badly, it takes on the fact that the Democrats are still attempting to play it safe and avoid the difficult questions. It bucks conventional wisdom and C.I. wouldn't have it any other way but, as I've noted before when talking about The Common Ills, C.I. can do that. There's no career being promoted via the site, no attempt to parlay it into something else, no attempt to profit off of the site. As Kat would say, "It is what it is." And at the heart of The Common Ills is the fact that issues need to be raised and they weren't in 2004 and they still aren't being raised loudly in enough places. The Common Ills audience was built peer to peer. A telecommunications lobbyist attacking independent and small media will not be promoted at The Common Ills as a "brave voice." The grassroots won't be silenced or told to go along. Third party members are welcome there. There's no attacks on "women studies" majors or on people who don't want to go blindly down whatever path they're being steered. If someone e-mails, out of "concern," that Grace Lee Boggs or Howard Zinn or whomever shouldn't be quoted, C.I.'s response is not to stop noting them but instead to note them more often. The entry reminds me of why I wish C.I. would toss aside The New York Times and just focus on other things. C.I. would be the first to note that "information" from the daily papers doesn't go to the theory or needs. When an entry like this goes up, we're seeing the sort of thing C.I. does in a speech and, while I understand the need to keep the community informed of breaking news, I think this has more value and really wish C.I. would leave the daily stuff to sites that are better suited to offer that (and only that) and instead focus on the strengths that only an activist and someone with mulitple degrees and a larger understanding can address. You won't find this sort of entry everywhere else and it's exactly the reason that the community developed and continues to develop.
Impunity leads to further silence
Yet this administration defies the truth that comes forth every day; it continues to flaunt its will before the world as it demands acquiescence to its arrogant policy of pre-emptive strike based on its determination of what nation might threaten the United States' control of atomic weapons, military superiority, and economic Capitalistic dominance across the globe. That arrogance breeds contempt for other nations and other people. That arrogance propels a sense of superiority that gives license to control, even to gain that control by torture. That arrogance gives rise to an intransigent, deeply embedded racism that finds fault with others who attempt to thwart its dominance. That arrogance has pitted America's perceived acceptance of torture as acceptable acts of an innocuous kind, as explained away by the Republicans, against the conscience of the world's communities that find it barbaric and contradictory of the very values Bush claims to bring to the world.
It's the American people that are maligned; it's our values that are desecrated; it's our nation that has been placed under this horrific pall by an administration willing to subvert its most cherished ideals. But now truth has boiled to the surface, evidence accumulates daily, the people stir: "Wisdom cries aloud in the streets; in the market place she lifts her voice."
The above is from William A. Cook's "Words Without Meaning" (CounterPunch).
It's an important article. (And an intelligent one.) We're at a place where we should be forcing issues and questions. That didn't happen in 2004's presidential campaign.
Cook walks [you] through the reactions to John Conyers and Dick Durbin's truth telling and the violent reaction to both.
Cook argues we need to be making the most of this moment to press the issues that aren't going to be raised on their own.
Which recalls the points that Naomi Klein made in "Kerry and the Gift of Impunity:"
Impunity--the perception of being outside the law--has long been the hallmark of the Bush regime. What is alarming is that it appears to have deepened since the election, ushering in what can best be described as an orgy of impunity. In Iraq, US forces and their Iraqi surrogates are assaulting civilian targets and openly attacking doctors, clerics and journalists who have dared to count the bodies. At home, impunity has been made official policy with Bush's nomination of Alberto Gonzales--the man who personally advised the President in his infamous "torture memo" that the Geneva Conventions are "obsolete"--as Attorney General.
This kind of defiance cannot simply be explained by Bush's win. There has to be something in how he won, in how the election was fought, that gave this Administration the distinct impression that it had been handed a "get out of the Geneva Conventions free" card. That's because the Administration was handed precisely such a gift--by John Kerry.
In the name of "electability," the Kerry campaign gave Bush five months on the campaign trail without ever facing serious questions about violations of international law. Fearing he would be seen as soft on terror and disloyal to US troops, Kerry stayed scandalously silent about Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay. When it became clear that fury would rain down on Falluja as soon as the polls closed, Kerry never spoke out against the plan, or against the illegal bombings of civilian areas that took place throughout the campaign. Even after The Lancet published its landmark study estimating that 100,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the invasion and occupation, Kerry repeated his outrageous (and frankly racist) claim that Americans "have borne 90 percent of the casualties in Iraq." His unmistakable message: Iraqi deaths don't count. By buying the highly questionable logic that Americans are incapable of caring about anyone's lives but their own, the Kerry campaign and its supporters became complicit in the dehumanization of Iraqis, reinforcing the idea that some lives are insufficiently important to risk losing votes over. And it is this morally bankrupt logic, more than the election of any single candidate, that allows these crimes to continue unchecked.
Is this how 2006 will play out? Is this the landscape we're stuck in? Or are we going to ask the hard questions and tackle the real issues?
Elaine has an incredible entry that we'll repost here after this goes up. Are we going to continue to repeat the mistakes of the Kerry campaign or are we going to expect more from people running for office?
Are we going to demand that we're treated as adults and offered serious discussions or are we just going to accept bumper stickers, jingoism and easy applause lines?
Ignoring the realities of what we've done (rendition, torture, etc.) won't make them go away. Pretending Falluja has been "improved" or unharmed by our policies won't change the reality of the slaughter that went on or the police-state conditions that continue.
There are tough conversations that we need to have because they go to the heart of what kind of a country we are, what kind of a people and what sort of government will represent us.
We aren't having those conversations as a national dialogue. We won't until we drop the knee jerk "answer" that we can "win" by being just like the other side with slight modifications. Whether you accept the results of the 2004 election or not, the fact that we were left without a moral or ethic to stand on shouldn't be surprising. As Naomi Klein has pointed out numerous times, in numerous forums, torture wasn't an issue. We could have the Bully Boy in the Oval Office right now (as we do) but we could have a strong discussion on torture if the issue had been raised. It wasn't.
"Vote for me because I've seen war" isn't an platform, isn't an answer especially when the candidate pushing that cred has no answers. Fine tuning isn't an answer when so much is at stake.
Even with Bully Boy in office, we'd be better off as a people if the campaign of 2004 had been some real issues and asked us to consider, seriously, what had gone on in the last four years and what direction we were headed. The Kerry campaign could have led on that. Win or lose, they could have made inroads. But it was a "safe" campaign and as the tide has turned regarding America's opinion of the invasion/occupation's value, it would be great if we had some real issues (whether they were mocked by Fox "News," et al or not) that were put to us.
"John Kerry reporting for duty" is not a platform. When CODEPINK tried to address the elephant in the room, they were escorted out of the hall (during the Democratic convention). We didn't want to look "weak" on terror.
Instead of challenging events and decisions, the campaign wanted to say "I'd do the same but I'd do it smarter." Never was the issue raised of whether or not the planning (such as it was) was appropriate.
We'll point out these mistakes in planning and strategy and we'll look strong was the conclusion of the campaign. The right pushes jingoism and our response is to attempt to our imitation of it?That's not an alternative.
The car's run out of gas. Everyone in the car's looking at Bully Boy behind the wheel. John Kerry's saying, "I would've stopped at the gas station five miles back." Good for you but should we have headed down this road in the first place?
All the fads and crazes won't change the fact that to a large number of people that argument will come off as coulda', woulda', shoulda'. Offering a patch, a quick fix, isn't dealing with the issues that people are hungry for. We need to demand more. Not just from our press, but from our politicians and would be politicians.
At a time when "we were lied into war" isn't a shocking notion (thanks to the Downing Street Memos and all the people -- elected officials and citizens -- who raised the issue repeatedly) the idea that candidates should be questioning the invasion itself shouldn't be controversial. When people are ready to say we were taken down the wrong road, candidates need to be able to provide something more than "I would've stopped to refuel five miles back."
We're not hearing that and we won't until we demand it. Democracy doesn't begin and end with the voting in an election or with supporting a candidate. (A point Laura Flanders makes repeatedly and has a great statement on that which I'm unfortunately forgetting right now.)Short term measures to run an easy election don't improve the state of our nation. Nor do they put any pressure on our officials to do more than quick fixes and easy lip service.
Before we start handicapping the next races based on "electability" we need to think about what candidates are standing for. "I'll do the same thing but I'll do it smarter" keeps us on the same road. It doesn't raise the issue of whether we should have gone down it in the first place.As is usually the case, the people are ahead of the politicians. And when we're considering whether or not to support someone, we need to ask what they're standing for. Not what their Oprah friendly narrative represents. Not whether or not there's some great reel footage to be shown.
What's happening in Iraq now? From "Bush's Exit Plan: Fomenting Civil War in Iraq?" (Democracy Now!):
AMY GOODMAN: Pushing a civil war?
ARUN GUPTA: Well, I think that if you look at the situation in Iraq, there are indications that this is what the Bush administration may be attempting, because the whole occupation has been a disaster from the beginning. The disbanding of the army and the security forces, the failure of reconstruction effectively alienated the Sunni Arab population. And then, since then, what we have seen, such as like the blatant theft of Iraq's oil money, the use of various militias has increased the sectarian conflict.
Now, at the beginning of the year, few people considered a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites a possibility. There has been a lot of speculation all along that between Sunnis and Turkmen and the Kurds, that it was a much greater possibility because the Kurds run their own state.But over the last six to nine months, the political process has intensified. The sectarianism in Iraq, rather than bringing the country together, the elections that were held in January solidified the sectarian lines. That was because the U.S. pushed the strategy that parties should run on slates, that they should cobble together these large groupings. And because the elections were held in this atmosphere of intense violence, very few parties could actually campaign in the open in much of the country. So, what that meant was that most Iraqis who participated in the election voted their ethnicity, such that the Shiite slate, the United Iraqi Alliance, and the Kurdish slate walked away with most of the votes.
There are serious issues to be raised and they won't become part of the national dialogue if we're posturing and trying to prove our "bonafides" on national security by accepting as valid actions that should never have been taken.
Blog Spotlight: Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Elaine on campaigning and Iraq
As most of our readers know, Elaine is substituting for Rebecca at Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude while Rebecca's taking a vacation. During her vacation, Rebecca found time to partipate in a roundtable at The Common Ills. She's rejoining us to help out tonight and so we thought we'd get her to write an introductory paragraph to an entry of Elaine's that we're highlighting.
Rebecca: Well, you read it, and it's perfectly obvious why I wanted Elaine to fill in for me. There are huge problems with the campaign Paul Hackett ran and instead of people on that campaign pointing them out, we had silence. We saw silence from supporters who promoted the campaign and gave him a pass on not having a platform. I'm not sure what qualified him to run or what exactly he planned to do if he got to Congress other than point at other Congress members and say, "Chicken hawk, chicken hawk, nah, nah, nah!" As Elaine notes, she spoke with C.I. about this before writing the entry and they would both address the issue but even with knowing that someone else is going to be addressing a topic, it takes a lot of guts to put yourself out there. Elaine didn't shy from that. Conventional wisdom was completely wrong and Elaine wasn't afraid to buck it. Something needed saying, something obvious if someone was willing to look beyond conventional wisdom, and no one was saying it. Elaine's not afraid to lay it on the line. She's been that way for all the years I've known her. She's also firmly committed to peace, not just peace during peaceful times and then she tosses out her beliefs because all the cheerleaders are saying, "We gotta prove that patriotism!" Her beliefs are strongly held and she's spent years exploring them. She knows where she stands. Sadly, there's a not a lot of people you can say that about. It's for those reasons that C.I. and I have been on her case to blog for months now. I'm really proud of the work she's doing at my site and feel like I could stay on vacation until after Labor Day and Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude would be in good hands. She's incredible.
Casualties continue to mount and the Democratic Party needs to find some ideas and a platform that's not "more of the same"
Elaine back again while Rebecca's on vacation. For those who missed it, there's a roundtable up at The Common Ills that's worth reading for a number of reasons but Rebecca participated in it so check it out.
Mike asked me to note this from Democracy Now!
21 Marines Die in Iraq Over Two-Day Period
Fourteen Marines and a civilian interpreter were killed early today in western Iraq making it one of the deadliest days for U.S. forces in months. Seven more Marines died on Monday.I can remember when the invasion started in 2003. It was probably a week in and someone noted that it wasn't a "big deal," that it wasn't like the casualities in Vietnam. In that first month, 65 American soldiers died. One month of losses didn't seem to matter to this woman because it didn't compare with the years and years of the Vietnam conflict.
We're at 1822 right now. And we've got Donald Rumsfeld saying we could be over there for ten more years. You've got too many Democratics elected in Congress who don't want to address the problem and now Bully Boy's doing the Nixon dance of "I have a plan" as the next election cycle approaches. The plan is a Vietnam retread and it's not much of a plan.
So where does that leave us? Paul Hackett ran for Congress in a special election yesterday and he did pretty well. But there's something that bothered me about the way the election was pushed by Democrats.Vote Hackett because he's a war hero. Vote him because he's been over there.
There were probably many reasons to vote for Hackett. And he did pretty well. He lost, but he did pretty well.
But the thing that bothered me was the fact that we're still trying to do the 2004 election. Hackett wasn't for bringing the troops home now. He was going to fight a smarter war. Does that sound familiar? He was a war hero.
At some point Democrats are going to have to be able to offer a true alternative.
Bully Boy received no mandate. (Lizz Winstead would say "Mandate my ass!") But when you tried to point out a) how high turnout was, b) how many votes Kerry got, the "thinkers" would dismiss that. They would say only the results matter.
Now the talk isn't that it only mattered who won.
I don't think winning is the only thing matters and I certainly don't believe that we only learn based on who's declared the winner. But it's interesting that we're operating under a different principle now.
I also think it's interesting that we're still not presenting alternatives.
As a people, we're in favor of bringing the troops home. It's only our elected officials, with few brave exceptions, that won't enter that dialogue.
What's more worrisome is that we seem to be resorting, repeatedly, to the idea that only war heroes are worthy of office. We need ideas from our leaders. And the Democratic Party needs to offer some.
Military service is not a requirement for public office. It shouldn't be a liability either.
But it's not a platform. Jingoistic cheerleading, and we heard that as Hackett was pushed, doesn't take the place of ideas.
The party needs to get it together between now and 2006. That means offering plans and being an alternative to more of the same.
Hackett didn't have a platform and if you have trouble accepting that, listen, watch or read his interview with Amy Goodman today:
AMY GOODMAN: Well, it's hard to say congratulations on your defeat, but it has astounded many. Can you talk about what happened and the platform that you ran on?
PAUL HACKETT: Well, I mean, I had first confessed that I did not sit around and (quote/unquote) "come up with a platform." There are many issues that I believe in, and believe very passionately in, and those issues, as they came up in the campaign, I shared with the citizens of the Second District. So, it's funny, when I hear the term "platform," I sort of think as though that there was a committee that sat around and said, 'Okay, this is what we believe on this.' I mean, I just felt that in this district there had not been a choice. There had not been an alternative, and that many like me were not being represented, our voices were not being represented regarding many issues in the U.S. government, foreign policy to name a big one that was certainly spoken a lot about in the election campaign, and so forth. And then many social issues, as well. I mean, I just -- I'm just not happy with the state of politics in southern Ohio and, frankly, across the nation.
He feels that the district hadn't had a choice. He didn't offer them any choices in terms of ideas or inspiration. He speaks of having no idea what a platform is. Now the anti-government faction might like that or some factions might see it as "keeping it real," but in terms of a strategy for the Democratic Party, a platform's pretty important.
Also from the interview, he speaks of the importance of dissent but then goes on to offer this:
And the only criticism that I have heard about my comments regarding this administration are usually of those who have never served in the military. And a very, very small percentage of people have come up to me and said, "I was in the military. That wasn't right." And usually then, when I then ask them, "Have you ever been in combat?" the answer is "no." I have yet, and, you know, I am not asking -- this is not an invitation, but I have yet to have somebody say, "Hey, you know, I was in combat, and what you said was wrong." That I have not heard. Almost unanimously the word from the veterans that have contacted me by email, by telephone, and come to work with us in person have been overwhelmingly supportive, and so --
Those who disagreed hadn't served in the military. So Hackett doesn't value their opinion. Is that a Democratic message? More importantly, as he did throughout the campaign, he then goes further. Not seconds later, he's saying that actually some did serve and their opinion doesn't matter because they didn't see combat.
The message behind those statements was never examined. No one can disagree with Hackett if they didn't serve and if they didn't serve in a combat zone. Statements like that came out of his mouth constantly. I didn't note it because I didn't want to blow his chances.
But the election's over now. And people need to look at what went down because he didn't have a platform and his public statements often contradicted statements made moments before.
But what's really bothersome is the fact that there's this attitude that was pushed by others and by him which is only those who served in the military can weigh in. That's not democracy.
Back to the interview:
AMY GOODMAN: So, you would return to fight a war that you think is unjust?
PAUL HACKETT: Well, I've not said it's unjust. I have said that it's been mismanaged by the administration. I have said it was a poor use of our military. I'm not quite sure the implication of the label of unjust, so I'm uncomfortable using that. I have been critical of it up and down, but to me, that's not inconsistent with my desire to want to serve and my desire to want to lead marines and be with them in the field.
He's not sure whether it's a just war or an unjust war. He ran for office. He ran on his military record. But he can't weigh in on a very obvious question, one raised by the Pope in 2003. Amy Goodman wasn't bringing up an obscure theory and the election was over. But we can't get an answer on that question from him.
He has "no empathy or sympathy" for Camilo Mejia and that's bothersome. Mejia made a moral choice. And Hackett doesn't want do the work to determine whether the war is just or unjust.But he's perfectly happy to talk about consequences. Whose consquences?
Mejia has to take consequences for his actions, according to Hackett, but he won't weigh in on the consequences of the war itself.
What is Hackett's plan?
From the interview:
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think that the U.S. should get out of Iraq?
PAUL HACKETT: I'm not there yet. I think that -- let me step back and say, when you say, 'Should the U.S. get out of Iraq?' Yes. Eventually, yes. The question is, are we going to do it tomorrow, or are we going to accomplish the bare minimum and allow the Iraqis to survive within their defined government and social structure? And right now, I don't think that any form of security force in Iraq is capable of providing that for the people. And, while it may seem difficult to comprehend on this side of the world, at this point, I believe that Iraq will spiral out of control. And even though it's in a terrible condition today as a result of the insurgency phasing into civil war, perhaps, I don't think it's currently today as bad as it will be if we were to pull out tomorrow. I think that the administration has got to permit the American military over there to fight that fight and train the I.S.F., the Iraqi Security Forces, in a manner acceptable to our military, which I argue they're not -- the administration is not allowing that, so that the I.S.F. can be up to speed and we can get out of there. I think that, as a citizen of the United States, setting aside, you know, my uniform and so forth, I think we need to turn up the heat on the administration and demand some sort of oversight, as citizens, as to what successes the administration is having in training the Iraqi Security Forces.
There is nothing inspiring about that and nothing you couldn't read in a Thomas Friedman column. Or, for that matter, in a William Safire column if Safire was still writing op-eds. This was a campaign based on "We're not pulling out now. At some point we'll leave, but not yet." That's the Bully Boy's plan.
A lot of people, including Hackett, invested time and energy on his run for office but there was no real campaign. There was no plan, no proposal. Instead it all came down to "He served in Iraq!" Democrats need to find a way to offer proposals, plans and alternatives.
If this was a try out for the 2006 races, Democrats need to realize that we need real voices, with real ideas and real plans. We didn't get that from Hackett and the cheerleading and the applause that greeted his constant use of the term "chickenhawk" didn't provide any solutions or alternatives.
If the party wants to seriously try to win some elections, they're going to have to do better than presenting poster boys and thinking that a chorus of rah-rah cheers replaces real ideas and real thoughts. (Thanks as always to C.I. for acting as a sounding board and offering encouragement.)
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center)
The only thing that's been a worse flop than the organization of nonviolence has been the organization of violence.
Joan Baez
Rebecca: Well, you read it, and it's perfectly obvious why I wanted Elaine to fill in for me. There are huge problems with the campaign Paul Hackett ran and instead of people on that campaign pointing them out, we had silence. We saw silence from supporters who promoted the campaign and gave him a pass on not having a platform. I'm not sure what qualified him to run or what exactly he planned to do if he got to Congress other than point at other Congress members and say, "Chicken hawk, chicken hawk, nah, nah, nah!" As Elaine notes, she spoke with C.I. about this before writing the entry and they would both address the issue but even with knowing that someone else is going to be addressing a topic, it takes a lot of guts to put yourself out there. Elaine didn't shy from that. Conventional wisdom was completely wrong and Elaine wasn't afraid to buck it. Something needed saying, something obvious if someone was willing to look beyond conventional wisdom, and no one was saying it. Elaine's not afraid to lay it on the line. She's been that way for all the years I've known her. She's also firmly committed to peace, not just peace during peaceful times and then she tosses out her beliefs because all the cheerleaders are saying, "We gotta prove that patriotism!" Her beliefs are strongly held and she's spent years exploring them. She knows where she stands. Sadly, there's a not a lot of people you can say that about. It's for those reasons that C.I. and I have been on her case to blog for months now. I'm really proud of the work she's doing at my site and feel like I could stay on vacation until after Labor Day and Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude would be in good hands. She's incredible.
Casualties continue to mount and the Democratic Party needs to find some ideas and a platform that's not "more of the same"
Elaine back again while Rebecca's on vacation. For those who missed it, there's a roundtable up at The Common Ills that's worth reading for a number of reasons but Rebecca participated in it so check it out.
Mike asked me to note this from Democracy Now!
21 Marines Die in Iraq Over Two-Day Period
Fourteen Marines and a civilian interpreter were killed early today in western Iraq making it one of the deadliest days for U.S. forces in months. Seven more Marines died on Monday.I can remember when the invasion started in 2003. It was probably a week in and someone noted that it wasn't a "big deal," that it wasn't like the casualities in Vietnam. In that first month, 65 American soldiers died. One month of losses didn't seem to matter to this woman because it didn't compare with the years and years of the Vietnam conflict.
We're at 1822 right now. And we've got Donald Rumsfeld saying we could be over there for ten more years. You've got too many Democratics elected in Congress who don't want to address the problem and now Bully Boy's doing the Nixon dance of "I have a plan" as the next election cycle approaches. The plan is a Vietnam retread and it's not much of a plan.
So where does that leave us? Paul Hackett ran for Congress in a special election yesterday and he did pretty well. But there's something that bothered me about the way the election was pushed by Democrats.Vote Hackett because he's a war hero. Vote him because he's been over there.
There were probably many reasons to vote for Hackett. And he did pretty well. He lost, but he did pretty well.
But the thing that bothered me was the fact that we're still trying to do the 2004 election. Hackett wasn't for bringing the troops home now. He was going to fight a smarter war. Does that sound familiar? He was a war hero.
At some point Democrats are going to have to be able to offer a true alternative.
Bully Boy received no mandate. (Lizz Winstead would say "Mandate my ass!") But when you tried to point out a) how high turnout was, b) how many votes Kerry got, the "thinkers" would dismiss that. They would say only the results matter.
Now the talk isn't that it only mattered who won.
I don't think winning is the only thing matters and I certainly don't believe that we only learn based on who's declared the winner. But it's interesting that we're operating under a different principle now.
I also think it's interesting that we're still not presenting alternatives.
As a people, we're in favor of bringing the troops home. It's only our elected officials, with few brave exceptions, that won't enter that dialogue.
What's more worrisome is that we seem to be resorting, repeatedly, to the idea that only war heroes are worthy of office. We need ideas from our leaders. And the Democratic Party needs to offer some.
Military service is not a requirement for public office. It shouldn't be a liability either.
But it's not a platform. Jingoistic cheerleading, and we heard that as Hackett was pushed, doesn't take the place of ideas.
The party needs to get it together between now and 2006. That means offering plans and being an alternative to more of the same.
Hackett didn't have a platform and if you have trouble accepting that, listen, watch or read his interview with Amy Goodman today:
AMY GOODMAN: Well, it's hard to say congratulations on your defeat, but it has astounded many. Can you talk about what happened and the platform that you ran on?
PAUL HACKETT: Well, I mean, I had first confessed that I did not sit around and (quote/unquote) "come up with a platform." There are many issues that I believe in, and believe very passionately in, and those issues, as they came up in the campaign, I shared with the citizens of the Second District. So, it's funny, when I hear the term "platform," I sort of think as though that there was a committee that sat around and said, 'Okay, this is what we believe on this.' I mean, I just felt that in this district there had not been a choice. There had not been an alternative, and that many like me were not being represented, our voices were not being represented regarding many issues in the U.S. government, foreign policy to name a big one that was certainly spoken a lot about in the election campaign, and so forth. And then many social issues, as well. I mean, I just -- I'm just not happy with the state of politics in southern Ohio and, frankly, across the nation.
He feels that the district hadn't had a choice. He didn't offer them any choices in terms of ideas or inspiration. He speaks of having no idea what a platform is. Now the anti-government faction might like that or some factions might see it as "keeping it real," but in terms of a strategy for the Democratic Party, a platform's pretty important.
Also from the interview, he speaks of the importance of dissent but then goes on to offer this:
And the only criticism that I have heard about my comments regarding this administration are usually of those who have never served in the military. And a very, very small percentage of people have come up to me and said, "I was in the military. That wasn't right." And usually then, when I then ask them, "Have you ever been in combat?" the answer is "no." I have yet, and, you know, I am not asking -- this is not an invitation, but I have yet to have somebody say, "Hey, you know, I was in combat, and what you said was wrong." That I have not heard. Almost unanimously the word from the veterans that have contacted me by email, by telephone, and come to work with us in person have been overwhelmingly supportive, and so --
Those who disagreed hadn't served in the military. So Hackett doesn't value their opinion. Is that a Democratic message? More importantly, as he did throughout the campaign, he then goes further. Not seconds later, he's saying that actually some did serve and their opinion doesn't matter because they didn't see combat.
The message behind those statements was never examined. No one can disagree with Hackett if they didn't serve and if they didn't serve in a combat zone. Statements like that came out of his mouth constantly. I didn't note it because I didn't want to blow his chances.
But the election's over now. And people need to look at what went down because he didn't have a platform and his public statements often contradicted statements made moments before.
But what's really bothersome is the fact that there's this attitude that was pushed by others and by him which is only those who served in the military can weigh in. That's not democracy.
Back to the interview:
AMY GOODMAN: So, you would return to fight a war that you think is unjust?
PAUL HACKETT: Well, I've not said it's unjust. I have said that it's been mismanaged by the administration. I have said it was a poor use of our military. I'm not quite sure the implication of the label of unjust, so I'm uncomfortable using that. I have been critical of it up and down, but to me, that's not inconsistent with my desire to want to serve and my desire to want to lead marines and be with them in the field.
He's not sure whether it's a just war or an unjust war. He ran for office. He ran on his military record. But he can't weigh in on a very obvious question, one raised by the Pope in 2003. Amy Goodman wasn't bringing up an obscure theory and the election was over. But we can't get an answer on that question from him.
He has "no empathy or sympathy" for Camilo Mejia and that's bothersome. Mejia made a moral choice. And Hackett doesn't want do the work to determine whether the war is just or unjust.But he's perfectly happy to talk about consequences. Whose consquences?
Mejia has to take consequences for his actions, according to Hackett, but he won't weigh in on the consequences of the war itself.
What is Hackett's plan?
From the interview:
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think that the U.S. should get out of Iraq?
PAUL HACKETT: I'm not there yet. I think that -- let me step back and say, when you say, 'Should the U.S. get out of Iraq?' Yes. Eventually, yes. The question is, are we going to do it tomorrow, or are we going to accomplish the bare minimum and allow the Iraqis to survive within their defined government and social structure? And right now, I don't think that any form of security force in Iraq is capable of providing that for the people. And, while it may seem difficult to comprehend on this side of the world, at this point, I believe that Iraq will spiral out of control. And even though it's in a terrible condition today as a result of the insurgency phasing into civil war, perhaps, I don't think it's currently today as bad as it will be if we were to pull out tomorrow. I think that the administration has got to permit the American military over there to fight that fight and train the I.S.F., the Iraqi Security Forces, in a manner acceptable to our military, which I argue they're not -- the administration is not allowing that, so that the I.S.F. can be up to speed and we can get out of there. I think that, as a citizen of the United States, setting aside, you know, my uniform and so forth, I think we need to turn up the heat on the administration and demand some sort of oversight, as citizens, as to what successes the administration is having in training the Iraqi Security Forces.
There is nothing inspiring about that and nothing you couldn't read in a Thomas Friedman column. Or, for that matter, in a William Safire column if Safire was still writing op-eds. This was a campaign based on "We're not pulling out now. At some point we'll leave, but not yet." That's the Bully Boy's plan.
A lot of people, including Hackett, invested time and energy on his run for office but there was no real campaign. There was no plan, no proposal. Instead it all came down to "He served in Iraq!" Democrats need to find a way to offer proposals, plans and alternatives.
If this was a try out for the 2006 races, Democrats need to realize that we need real voices, with real ideas and real plans. We didn't get that from Hackett and the cheerleading and the applause that greeted his constant use of the term "chickenhawk" didn't provide any solutions or alternatives.
If the party wants to seriously try to win some elections, they're going to have to do better than presenting poster boys and thinking that a chorus of rah-rah cheers replaces real ideas and real thoughts. (Thanks as always to C.I. for acting as a sounding board and offering encouragement.)
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center)
The only thing that's been a worse flop than the organization of nonviolence has been the organization of violence.
Joan Baez
PSA: The Cass Elliot collection: The Solo Sessions 1968-1971 available via Hip-O Select
Knowing that many readers are fans of Cass Elliot (and the Mamas & the Papas), we're running this announcment that Ava and Jess posted at The Common Ills Thursday night.
Cass Elliot The Solo Sessions 1968-1971 (heads up to new double CD collection)
Ava and Jess here and we're doing this entry together. Last week, we received an e-mail about an upcoming Cass Elliot collection and would have been happy to link to it but it's only come out this week.
It's entitled The Solo Sessions 1968-1971 and it's a double disc set ($39.98) offered by Hip-O Select. There are 5,000 copies so if you're interested, you should consider checking it out.
"Different" is one of the songs on the collection and that's the song that C.I. noted in a "Five CDs, Five Minutes." That's not been on a CD before. In addition the collection contains "three tracks that had never been released in any form: Cass' cover of Joni Mitchell's 'Sisotowbell Lane,' a version of John Sebastian's 'Darling Be Home Soon,' and the Cashman, Pistilli & West tune 'For As Long As You Need Me.' They are revolutionary, and stand proudly with anything Cass released."
The first disc contains twenty-three tracks and the second disc contains fifteen. If you've bought a Cass collection (and Jess has many), you don't have a collection like this. You get "Dream A Little Dream Of Me," "California Earthquake," "Make Your Own Kind of Music," "I Can Dream, Can't I," "The Good Times Are Coming," and all the rest you know from other collections. But you also get tracks that aren't available in the CD format elsewhere.
There are no live tracks. The set focuses on Cass' singles from 1968 to 1971.
The Mamas and the Papas and Cass, herself, are very popular with community members so we wanted to do a heads up. And if there's a visitor who stumbles upon this entry and wonders, "What does music have to do with anything?" you're at the wrong site. Music is very important to the community. (And here's but one example of Cass and the Mamas & Papas popping up in an earlier entry.)
We'd asked C.I. if it was okay to note the set here when it came out because The Third Estate Sunday Review only publishes on Sunday and were given permission (actually, what we got was, "Why are you even asking? Of course.").
So that's your heads up.
If you're interested and can afford it, great. If you're interested but might need to save up (understandable), hopefully this gives you some time to do that. If you're a Cass fan or a Mamas and Papas fan you'll probably get a kick out of checking out the album online even if you're not planning to purchase it.
Cass Elliot The Solo Sessions 1968-1971 (heads up to new double CD collection)
Ava and Jess here and we're doing this entry together. Last week, we received an e-mail about an upcoming Cass Elliot collection and would have been happy to link to it but it's only come out this week.
It's entitled The Solo Sessions 1968-1971 and it's a double disc set ($39.98) offered by Hip-O Select. There are 5,000 copies so if you're interested, you should consider checking it out.
"Different" is one of the songs on the collection and that's the song that C.I. noted in a "Five CDs, Five Minutes." That's not been on a CD before. In addition the collection contains "three tracks that had never been released in any form: Cass' cover of Joni Mitchell's 'Sisotowbell Lane,' a version of John Sebastian's 'Darling Be Home Soon,' and the Cashman, Pistilli & West tune 'For As Long As You Need Me.' They are revolutionary, and stand proudly with anything Cass released."
The first disc contains twenty-three tracks and the second disc contains fifteen. If you've bought a Cass collection (and Jess has many), you don't have a collection like this. You get "Dream A Little Dream Of Me," "California Earthquake," "Make Your Own Kind of Music," "I Can Dream, Can't I," "The Good Times Are Coming," and all the rest you know from other collections. But you also get tracks that aren't available in the CD format elsewhere.
There are no live tracks. The set focuses on Cass' singles from 1968 to 1971.
The Mamas and the Papas and Cass, herself, are very popular with community members so we wanted to do a heads up. And if there's a visitor who stumbles upon this entry and wonders, "What does music have to do with anything?" you're at the wrong site. Music is very important to the community. (And here's but one example of Cass and the Mamas & Papas popping up in an earlier entry.)
We'd asked C.I. if it was okay to note the set here when it came out because The Third Estate Sunday Review only publishes on Sunday and were given permission (actually, what we got was, "Why are you even asking? Of course.").
So that's your heads up.
If you're interested and can afford it, great. If you're interested but might need to save up (understandable), hopefully this gives you some time to do that. If you're a Cass fan or a Mamas and Papas fan you'll probably get a kick out of checking out the album online even if you're not planning to purchase it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
