Let's say you're a woman and you want coverage in The New York Times. (You're alive for the sake of this piece. Not deceased. That's the subject of our editorial.) How do you get it?
It helps if you play off the end of your blogging career as your decision and not something that the people employing you were discussing over ten months ago. Success always plays well to the paper. What helps even better is if you're someone willing to tear down women because The New York Times loves tearing down women, especially feminists. (Which accounts for the non-trend "trend" stories of women leaving the workforce in droves.)
Now if you've refashioned yourself, that's even better. Say you were a semi-serious reporter who suddenly became a woman who supposedly dished. They love that. "Girls Who Gossip!" is the sort of "dusty" stereotype the paper can always get into. But even better if you can fashion yourself as the Anka (Radakovich) of this decade (while avoiding addressing any of the topics that Anka actually addressed -- but, hey, hype trumps substance). It's a long way from Round Rock, Texas but if you've fooled people into thinking you're the Britney Spears of the net, they'll probably buy that as well.
So the former Wonkette releases a book and she's all over The New York Times. Janet Maslin reviews Dog Days (the non-reading reviewer reviews for the non-reading public), former Wonks get a profile piece, she writes an op-ed and she pens a book review. You may think that's all in a year's time but you'd be wrong. In basically fourteen days or less, Wonks get saturation coverage.
How do you do that when your roman a clef depends upon the activities of the others? Dog Days gives new meaning to the phrase Wallflower At The Orgy. In fact, had Nora Ephron not used that for the first collection of her writings, Wonks could have. When it's so badly written, try as you may to paint yourself as the Barbara Hower, it's not happening. (It helps that Hower had something in her own life to write about.)
So what's a Wonks to do to get the publicity needed to make her failed attempt at writing a novel break even? (The contracts still wet for the second novel!) Trash feminists. Which Wonks did.
While supposedly reviewing a book, she took jabs at Gloria Steinem and Jane Fonda. "Dusty relics" was the term, right?
Gloria Steinem's a pioneer, an inspiration and someone that's lived on the public stage for four decades now. We don't think heroes become relics, dusty or otherwise. Jane Fonda? Well, we could note that her return to film in May of 2005 found her back at number one on the box office charts. But let's cut a little closer to Wonks. 2005 was also the year that My Life So Far topped the nonfiction book charts. All the way to number one. We're not seeing Dog Days make that leap. (We're not even seeing it chart significantly.) So the "dusty relic" achieved what Wonks can't.
Somewhere in Wonks is a real person. But when your paid a buck for every site-visit you attract, you can lose sight of reality and resort to flashy charges in an attempt to get recognition from the mainstream media. And it must be difficult for her to see how easily she was replaced. (The Common Ills warned her repeatedly of that prospect for almost a year.) So now she's the former Wonks and crossing over into fiction (or psuedo fiction) because her cartoonish version of Britney Does Politics pretty much killed what should have been a promising career as a journalist.
It's hard to be "saucy" in public and the meet & greets haven't been going all that well. It doesn't help when you look very little like the illustration that accompanied your, oops, their website. On the other hand, appearing on The Times' Sunday Magazine cover seated between two old men, while dressed as though you just shot the video for ". . . Baby One More Time," does wonders for your sex appeal . . . by comparison. Possibly, you could bring them on the road to stand next to you?
The simple truth is that for all the "naughty," Wonks was rather dull in real life. That's why she couldn't write about her own life in the uncelebrated first novel. It's not a crime to be a dull person. No one's ever prosecuted for it. And we're neither prosecuting or perscuting here. But we are calling Wonks out. By trashing feminists, she had a lengthy run in the paper of record. But she's not serious enough to be one of the middle-aged women they prefer to feature and, Wonks, you are middle-aged no matter how hard you strive to come off like Britney. (If it's any comfort, Liz Phair's attempts to be Avril are pretty pathetic as well.)
Wonks played the card she had to for coverage in the paper of record. It doesn't appear to have helped sales of the book (but then, what would, short of rewriting?).
We have no idea what the future holds for Wonks. We are aware that when self-promoters can't
make it in the mainstream, they tend to go rightwing. After the jabs at feminists, that really wouldn't surprise us. But Wonks, you're not only a long, long way from Round Rock, you're also a long, long way from Ann Marie Cox. She was going to make a difference. Today, you're just one more schill cracking unfunny jokes.
Sunday, February 05, 2006
About those posts . . . plus why you should avoid the media
We're having luck with getting somethings up and we're not having luck with others. We lost an entry which led to Ava and C.I. stepping up to the plate (and then some) and delving into the mail bag.
Currently, we're going round and round in discussion time as we attempt to write a post. We have an e-mail on something and C.I. got an e-mail as well. We'd like to address it. However, the magazine in question asked C.I. to help promote them back in October. C.I. wasn't aware of that until Jess mentioned it. Now the issue we're debating is whether that needs to be disclosed or not?
Jess replied to the e-mail (which requested personal information on C.I.) with a "we already note two columnists regularly and C.I. doesn't give out personal information" and a thanks but not thanks.
Had Jess not opened his mouth, we wouldn't have a problem. However, he mentioned the e-mail and now C.I.'s thinking that if it's not noted that a request for some sort of partnering was turned down (by Jess on C.I.'s behalf), that we can't criticize the magazine.
C.I.'s point is the issue of e-mails at The Common Ills which are held to a different standard than at the other sites in the community. Was this a private e-mail? If so, it can't be mentioned. If not, it can be.
Later today, C.I. will put up something at the site that any press contact that goes on which does not result in an agreement will not be considered to be an issue. All requests for personal information and all requests for interviews or quotes (Jess says quotes were big last month, press contacts for quotes) are turned down. C.I.'s happy to note anything from MediaChannel.org (and has disclosed knowing Danny Schechter -- "and has respect and love for Danny and the work he does," C.I. states) or BuzzFlash ("which does amazing work and should be noted more") but that's not a partnership of any kind. This was a proposal of a partnership as a result of the fact that The Common Ills had linked to many articles from the magazine. ("If it helps, it's not The Nation, Ms. or The Progressive," C.I. notes.) So we're stuck while Ty's significant other attempts to find it in Ty, Jess and Jim's apartment. (Ava notes "Jim may be on the lease but he's always at our apartment." "Our" being Ava and Dona's apartment.) Jess made a print out of it because it struck him as strange. After the print out is found and read to us, we'll make the call on private or not (giving C.I. the last word). But this is an important issue and if we're not able to note the magazine, it's not because we're ignoring a reader of this site that presented a serious issue.
You'll also note that we're posting as we can. That's because it's still hit or miss with Blogger. We'll put it all into an order of some form when we complete this edition.
And we've just been read the e-mail. It was sent on October 17, 2005. We're going to have to debate this some more.
But to have an entry, Dona says we need to add to this.
C.I.'s policy has been "no interviews." That's been the policy since The Common Ills started and that's meant turning down every offer that comes in. C.I.'s happy to suggest people for interviews (and has suggested Delilah Boyd, Danny Schechter, Mark Karlin, Ron Brynaert, Anne Zook and others) . But there's no interest in becoming one more gasbag in a nation full of them already. Sometimes, Ava or Jess has mentioned a turn downed request and the rest of us have been, "Are you crazy!"
We think that less now as we've seen a friend get some local press and noticed what's happened since. (Not pretty.) Our attitude now is that we have our forums and that there is a seductive nature to the access. Would we have pulled punches if access was a concern? We'd like to think we wouldn't but the fact of the matter is that since our friend who blogs got local attention, he's gone much softer on the outlet he used to critique.
Another concern C.I. had, based on non-online experiences, is how easily the media can distort through selective quotes.
"You can spend twenty minutes offering details about how nice an experience was," C.I. notes, "and then be asked to talk about something unpleasant. You give one sentence on that, and that's what the leg goes with. Did you say it? Yes. But you said it in relation to a host of other comments that are left out. A leg's trying to be sure that his or her story is noticed and it's honestly not worth it in most cases to grant an interview. The first time I was distorted, it bothered me. Now I know it's just part of the game and have no interest in doing more than I have to, bare minimum. Having grown up around journalists, I'm smart enough to know how to make demands, but corrections are half-assed and you should always beware of any offer to 'end the dispute' by presenting your side. That's really just another excuse for the outlet to trash you again because as soon as they note your side, they immediately prepare their rebuttal. I have no interest in playing the press game anymore than I have to. As C.I. there's no need to play it at all and I don't. Seriously, be very wary of any 'We want to bury the hatchet so how about we interview you or you write something up and we'll just let it go.' Usually that desire is based not on wanting to bury the hatchet but on wanting to avoid running any of the large number of letters protesting the slam job they did on you. Never, ever accept that kind of offer. I'm deadly serious. If you take nothing else away from this piece, remember that."
A year ago, Jess, Ava, Jim, Dona and Ty wouldn't have agreed with that. As we've learned more about journalism in courses (and heard many wonderful speakers share their experiences), we have to say that's pretty much true. We'll note the journalist's desire is to get a story and it's not to make the subject come off like the embodiment of perfection. The "one minute" C.I.'s speaking of may strike a journalist as much more important than the twenty minutes of praise that preceeded it. That does not excuse offering that one soundbyte as a reflection on the interviewee's views and not noting that it was a minor point of a larger discussion.
A concern C.I.'s had for others (since C.I. doesn't do interviews) is that people aren't prepared for the body slam coming bloggers way. Some hungry journalist will come along and get a number of bloggers to speak on the record. He or she will befriend them, hang out with them ("like that ridiculous profile on the 'brat pack' that nearly destroyed several careers," C.I. notes) and then turn them into cartoons in the printed article.
"Someone's going to come along and do that -- and there's already talk of it in press circles," C.I. notes. "It's the 'lonely, unable to connect outside the computer and with the real world' blogger' narrative as it's being tossed around now. That's how it works, first the narrative, then the 'research' to fit the narrative. Unless you know a journalist's work and respect it, do not invite anyone to observe your life. You're asking for trouble. Whomever does a take down piece on a blogger or a group of bloggers that portrays them in a silly manner will win hosannas and back slaps from many in the media. Whomever writes the piece will be able to grab a year or two of immoratility as 'the journalist who put the bloggers in their place.' Outside of certain magazines, be very wary of newspapers. People need to do what they want, and feel free to blow off my suggestion, but it's out there, and everyone's responsible for themselves."
Currently, we're going round and round in discussion time as we attempt to write a post. We have an e-mail on something and C.I. got an e-mail as well. We'd like to address it. However, the magazine in question asked C.I. to help promote them back in October. C.I. wasn't aware of that until Jess mentioned it. Now the issue we're debating is whether that needs to be disclosed or not?
Jess replied to the e-mail (which requested personal information on C.I.) with a "we already note two columnists regularly and C.I. doesn't give out personal information" and a thanks but not thanks.
Had Jess not opened his mouth, we wouldn't have a problem. However, he mentioned the e-mail and now C.I.'s thinking that if it's not noted that a request for some sort of partnering was turned down (by Jess on C.I.'s behalf), that we can't criticize the magazine.
C.I.'s point is the issue of e-mails at The Common Ills which are held to a different standard than at the other sites in the community. Was this a private e-mail? If so, it can't be mentioned. If not, it can be.
Later today, C.I. will put up something at the site that any press contact that goes on which does not result in an agreement will not be considered to be an issue. All requests for personal information and all requests for interviews or quotes (Jess says quotes were big last month, press contacts for quotes) are turned down. C.I.'s happy to note anything from MediaChannel.org (and has disclosed knowing Danny Schechter -- "and has respect and love for Danny and the work he does," C.I. states) or BuzzFlash ("which does amazing work and should be noted more") but that's not a partnership of any kind. This was a proposal of a partnership as a result of the fact that The Common Ills had linked to many articles from the magazine. ("If it helps, it's not The Nation, Ms. or The Progressive," C.I. notes.) So we're stuck while Ty's significant other attempts to find it in Ty, Jess and Jim's apartment. (Ava notes "Jim may be on the lease but he's always at our apartment." "Our" being Ava and Dona's apartment.) Jess made a print out of it because it struck him as strange. After the print out is found and read to us, we'll make the call on private or not (giving C.I. the last word). But this is an important issue and if we're not able to note the magazine, it's not because we're ignoring a reader of this site that presented a serious issue.
You'll also note that we're posting as we can. That's because it's still hit or miss with Blogger. We'll put it all into an order of some form when we complete this edition.
And we've just been read the e-mail. It was sent on October 17, 2005. We're going to have to debate this some more.
But to have an entry, Dona says we need to add to this.
C.I.'s policy has been "no interviews." That's been the policy since The Common Ills started and that's meant turning down every offer that comes in. C.I.'s happy to suggest people for interviews (and has suggested Delilah Boyd, Danny Schechter, Mark Karlin, Ron Brynaert, Anne Zook and others) . But there's no interest in becoming one more gasbag in a nation full of them already. Sometimes, Ava or Jess has mentioned a turn downed request and the rest of us have been, "Are you crazy!"
We think that less now as we've seen a friend get some local press and noticed what's happened since. (Not pretty.) Our attitude now is that we have our forums and that there is a seductive nature to the access. Would we have pulled punches if access was a concern? We'd like to think we wouldn't but the fact of the matter is that since our friend who blogs got local attention, he's gone much softer on the outlet he used to critique.
Another concern C.I. had, based on non-online experiences, is how easily the media can distort through selective quotes.
"You can spend twenty minutes offering details about how nice an experience was," C.I. notes, "and then be asked to talk about something unpleasant. You give one sentence on that, and that's what the leg goes with. Did you say it? Yes. But you said it in relation to a host of other comments that are left out. A leg's trying to be sure that his or her story is noticed and it's honestly not worth it in most cases to grant an interview. The first time I was distorted, it bothered me. Now I know it's just part of the game and have no interest in doing more than I have to, bare minimum. Having grown up around journalists, I'm smart enough to know how to make demands, but corrections are half-assed and you should always beware of any offer to 'end the dispute' by presenting your side. That's really just another excuse for the outlet to trash you again because as soon as they note your side, they immediately prepare their rebuttal. I have no interest in playing the press game anymore than I have to. As C.I. there's no need to play it at all and I don't. Seriously, be very wary of any 'We want to bury the hatchet so how about we interview you or you write something up and we'll just let it go.' Usually that desire is based not on wanting to bury the hatchet but on wanting to avoid running any of the large number of letters protesting the slam job they did on you. Never, ever accept that kind of offer. I'm deadly serious. If you take nothing else away from this piece, remember that."
A year ago, Jess, Ava, Jim, Dona and Ty wouldn't have agreed with that. As we've learned more about journalism in courses (and heard many wonderful speakers share their experiences), we have to say that's pretty much true. We'll note the journalist's desire is to get a story and it's not to make the subject come off like the embodiment of perfection. The "one minute" C.I.'s speaking of may strike a journalist as much more important than the twenty minutes of praise that preceeded it. That does not excuse offering that one soundbyte as a reflection on the interviewee's views and not noting that it was a minor point of a larger discussion.
A concern C.I.'s had for others (since C.I. doesn't do interviews) is that people aren't prepared for the body slam coming bloggers way. Some hungry journalist will come along and get a number of bloggers to speak on the record. He or she will befriend them, hang out with them ("like that ridiculous profile on the 'brat pack' that nearly destroyed several careers," C.I. notes) and then turn them into cartoons in the printed article.
"Someone's going to come along and do that -- and there's already talk of it in press circles," C.I. notes. "It's the 'lonely, unable to connect outside the computer and with the real world' blogger' narrative as it's being tossed around now. That's how it works, first the narrative, then the 'research' to fit the narrative. Unless you know a journalist's work and respect it, do not invite anyone to observe your life. You're asking for trouble. Whomever does a take down piece on a blogger or a group of bloggers that portrays them in a silly manner will win hosannas and back slaps from many in the media. Whomever writes the piece will be able to grab a year or two of immoratility as 'the journalist who put the bloggers in their place.' Outside of certain magazines, be very wary of newspapers. People need to do what they want, and feel free to blow off my suggestion, but it's out there, and everyone's responsible for themselves."
History Spotlight: On the Dangers of an Unchecked Bully Boy
C.I. wrote this due to the fact that so many people are unaware of the illegal actions of our government in the past. Before writing it, long before, C.I. noted that magazines with websites would do the country a favor by digging into their archives and making their real time reporting and commentary available. That hasn't happened. We'll note that the original version of this entry was read by five people and while dubbed "historical" it was also seen as too "cut and dry" and containing far too many historical examples. That's great if you're aware of the Church Committee. If you're not, you need something a little less thesis-like. We think C.I.'s focus will keep everyone reading through what Mike has dubbed "the mother of all entries." If you haven't read it and you're thinking, "Blah, blah, blah, history" note that you'll find Joan Baez within the post. You'll find many things you may not expect. Throughout it all, you'll find passion and a call to arms. We think it's one of C.I.'s finest.
On the Dangers of an Unchecked Bully Boy
What begins as surveillance moves to wiretapping, then COINTELPRO tricks, and finally to murder -- a diagram of what happened to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and why the illegal NSA surveillance is so alarming.
The above is from Joan Mellen's "HOW THE FAILURE TO IDENTIFY, PROSECUTE AND CONVICT PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S ASSASSINS HAS LED TO TODAY'S CRISIS OF DEMOCRACY" and Eddie had asked that we note it when we do the entry on the Church Committee.
The above is from Joan Mellen's "HOW THE FAILURE TO IDENTIFY, PROSECUTE AND CONVICT PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S ASSASSINS HAS LED TO TODAY'S CRISIS OF DEMOCRACY" and Eddie had asked that we note it when we do the entry on the Church Committee.
So what was the Chuch Committee? Background. Watergate. Nixon steps down to avoid being impeached. The Watergate break-in is only the tip of the icebergs. There were enemies list (the recently deceased Jack Anderson was one of the reporters who broke the story on the enemies list). Are we moving too fast?
Richard Nixon's administration went after Daniel Ellsberg who passed the Pentagon Papers onto the press (the papers revealed that there was no "win" in Vietnam and that the government, despite constant happy talk, had known that for many, many years). But you didn't have to be Ellsberg. You could be anyone opposed to the Nixon administration, speaking out against it. Ask Donald Sutherland, ask Jane Fonda, ask Jean Seberg. Oh, wait, we can't ask Seberg.
If you were a Quaker opposed to the illegal war in Vietnam, speaking out, that's all it took to be on the enemies' list. Once you made the list, the administration encouraged all government agencies to monitor you: customs (if you crossed the border), the IRS (with regards to your tax returns) and, of course, the FBI, the CIA and military intelligence (when it came to spying on you). Illegal wiretaps, surveillance, warrantless searches, intercepting your mail . . . Go down the list, there's very little that wasn't done. Including attempts to stop the peaceful Ring Around Congress (Jun 21, 1972). As information bubbled out during the Watergate hearings, outrage demanded action.
As Joan Mellen points out, it starts with shirking the law, it starts with thinking you are above it and that rules don't apply. Presumably, the committment to an earlier Bully Boy (Nixon) was more important than the rules of law (or the foundations of a democracy) and the people 'following orders' felt that their duty was to protect the president and not the Constitution or the country. We're back in those days now. We have been for sometime.
Diane Sawyer making an ass out of herself attempting to publicly shame the Dixie Chicks by repeating the nonsense of "the commander-in-chief" should have been a tip off. A journalist repeating a lie (over and over) should have warned us that democracy was once again in troubled waters. (Bully Boy is the commander-in-chief of the military and the military only. No president is commander-in-chief of the nation. We don't live under military rule.) There were other signals as well. There was Colin Powell, supposedly the one with "integrity" in the administration, and his constant talk of 'service' that just flew over the heads of the mainstream press. This wasn't service to the nation, this wasn't living up to the highest calling. He was speaking of putting his loyalities to Bully Boy ahead of everything else. That's not democracy.
The oath that is taken is to the Constitution, not to any president.
Presidents come and go. What the founders of the country were attempting to create was a democracy. The republic has had to adapt over the years because original notions of citizenship were very limited and because democracy is a living thing. Give a Bully Boy a "Pearl Harbor" like event and suddenly he can get away with anything. The recounts are buried, Dan Rather goes on the BBC and speaks of how you only report so much for fear of reprisals, idiots like Diane Sawyer jump on the flag waving bandwagon. The flag is a symbol. The Constitution is what we're supposed to live under. But Sawyers and her kind didn't wave the Constitution.
Quickly a chill sets upon the nation (as Tim Robbins rightly pointed out) and you've got the supposed free press rushing in to shame anyone who speaks out against the administration. Regardless of who occupies the oval office when that behavior surfaces, it should alarm everyone. But it was left to the alternative press to call this toady-ism out. It was left to brave voices (Sibel Edmunds, for example) to speak out with little support from the supposed free press.
Congress? They were scared of their own shadows with very few exceptions. (They're still scared.) "Strategy" (bad strategy as we saw in the 2002 election) trumped their oath of office.
The mainstream press likes to pin the blame for any issue they don't cover in recent times on the fact that the Democrats in office didn't challenge the official spin. Toady-ism saw the New York Times, NPR, many Democrats in office (as well as bean counters passing as journalists on CNN) and countless others smear Cynthia McKinney for something she never said. You saw people stand in line to savage Susan Sontag for asking that we not be foolish. It has been one witchunt after another. Some were done openly in public, some were a little more clever (such as the planting of false rumors in the foreign press that were then trumpeted by the Murdoch house organs -- the New York Post and Fox "News").
All of that should have been alarming as well as how quickly it took place as everyone rushed to prove their "patriotism" which they read as little-to-no serious crititicsm of the Bully Boy. As many have pointed out, "terrorism" is the new "communism" menace and those who can't be dubbed "terrorists" must be "terrorist supporters" is what passes for "logic."
We have seen massive roundups and deportations of people guilty only of being Muslim. Congress and the press can claim they went along just to give Bully Boy the benefit of the doubt but they were being cowardly and refusing to stand up for their country. Rounds ups? After the national shame of our interment of Japanese-Americans, suddenly roundups were back in style. Criminal defense attorney Lynne Stewart is tarred and feathered as a "terrorist" and your brave mainstream press either remains silent or goes along with that nonsense. Jose Padilla is locked away (still) year after year without ever having a day in court and your mainstream press won't speak out.
For all the talk of "national security," these and other actions aren't done in secret. But out of fear and lack of a spine, we look the other way and act like none of it is happening. We spy on the UN and what little coverage the spying gets in this country from the mainstream press (I'm not remembering anyone in Congress objecting -- but, if they had, it's unlikely the press would have covered it anyway). Abuses go unchecked and the Bully Boy grows more and more bold.
Any acquiescence or intimidation at this point will only lead to more intimidation. You have, whether you like it or not, an awesome responsibility and an awesome power: the fate of discourse, the health of this republic is in your hands, whether you write on the left or the right. This is your time, and the destiny you have chosen.
That was in 2003, you'd think we'd be further along now then we are but we aren't. The mainstream press, with few exceptions, doesn't cover the Downing Street Minutes, doesn't cover anything that points to the serious abuses of this administration.
Now comes the revelations that the Bully Boy's ordered warrentless spying on Americans, by the NSA, and we're still seeing spin promoted as "legal strategy." That's where we are today and we need to think about that before we look back.
Following Nixon's exit from the national stage in disgrace, and the revelations of his misdeeds, Congress began to look into the activities of our government. The Church Committee began its task in 1975 and was chaired by Frank Church, a Democratic senator from Idaho. From 1975 to 1976, the committee published reports, fourteen in all, but some of the committee's work is still classified to this day.
What did America learn from the Church Committee? At the time, a great deal, but surprisingly (or not), this episode of our history doesn't appear to have made it into our national curriculum. Most of the mainstream press, when noting the Church Committee (or the Pike Committee) due to the recent revelations of the Bully Boy's spying, toss it out as an aside, a shout out. A sentence or two passes for summarizing the work of the Church Committee.
What the Church Committee discovered went beyond spying but let's start with some of that. The FBI spied on Americans, targeted them. Spying on the Communist Party included spying on the National Committee to Abolish the House Un-American Activities Committee as well as on civil rights leaders. Footnote fourteen to the Church Committee's Book II: Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans reads:
For example, the entire Unitarian Society of Cleveland was targeted because the minister and some members circulated a petition calling for the aboliton of the HUAC, and because the Church gave office space to the "Citizens for Constitutional Rights". (Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Cleveland Field Office, 11/ 6/64.)
Spying on them, on the Black Nationalists (defined in the report as the Black Panthers, the SNCC, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference "and included every Black Student Union and many other black student groups"), the New Left and assorted other groups and organizations, was illegal. The report found that:
The acts taken interfered with the First Amendment rights of citizens. They were explicity intended to deter citizens from joining groups, "neutralize" those who were already members, and prevent or inhibit the expression of ideas.
In achieving its purported goals of protecting the national security and preventing violence, the Bureau attempted to deter membership in the target groups.
From Book II:
Instructions to "preclude" free speech were not limited to "black nationlists;" they occurred in every pgoram. In the New Left program, for instance, approximately thirty-nine percent of all actions attempted to keep targets from speaking, teaching, writing, or publishing.
The cases included attempts (sometimes successful) to prompt the firing of university and high school teachers; to prevent targets from speaking on campus; to stop chapters of target groups from being formed; to prevent the distribution of books, newpapers, or periodicals; to disrupt or cancel news conferences; to interfere with peaceful demonstrations, including the SCLC's Poor People's Campaign and Washington Spring Project and most of the large anti-war marches; and to deny fcilities for meetings or conferences.
As the above cases demonstrate, the FBI was not just "chilling" free speech, but squarely attacking it.
The tactics used against Americans often risked and sometimes caused serious emotional, economic, or physical damage. Actions were taken which were designed to break up marriages, terminate funding or employment, and encourage gang warfare between violent rival groups. Due process of law forbids the use of such covert tactics whether the victims are innocent, law-abiding citizens or members of groups suspected of involvement in violence.
The Church Committe found out a great deal more (probably a great deal more than we know, hence the continued classification of some details) but let's focus on the people.
In the hazy tributes over Mark Felt last summer (which we didn't engage in), reality often left the room. Mark Felt wasn't a "hero" or a "good guy." His being Deep Throat didn't change who he was. (And, as Daniel Schorr pointed out on NPR, it's very likely his motives for whistle blowing had to do with his being passed over for a promotion. I don't think you can examine the record of Felt and find any strong support for notions of democracy.)
But apparently are amenesia regarding recent history was great enough to allow some to hail Felt as a "hero." When you want reality, skip the mainstream press and head over to Democracy Now! Specifically, "EXCLUSIVE... Jennifer Dohrn: I Was The Target Of Illegal FBI Break-Ins Ordered by Mark Felt aka 'Deep Throat:'"
AMY GOODMAN: Tell us about what happened to you. Where did you live?
JENNIFER DOHRN: I lived in New York primarily. I was based in New York. I was very, very active in the anti-war movement and in support of the Black Freedom Movement and the Puerto Rican liberation struggle, and I was followed night and day by the F.B.I. I had my apartments, several apartments, wiretapped. Apartments next to me were rented by F.B.I. agents who kept continuous 24-hour surveillance of every sound made in my apartment. I was followed up and down the streets. I would get a job, the F.B.I. would go in after me, and I would then be fired from the job. It was around-the-clock harassment.
AMY GOODMAN: Were you aware of it at the time?
JENNIFER DOHRN: I was aware of a lot of it. I was certainly aware of being followed a lot. I was -- assumed that perhaps my phones were tapped, and I had no idea of the level of extent under which I was being surveilled. I had no idea that break-ins were repeatedly happening into my apartments. I remember when I was pregnant with my first born feeling extremely vulnerable because I was being followed a great deal of the time, and then it was revealed when I received my Freedom of Information Act papers, over 200,000 documents, that there actually had been developed by Felt a plan to kidnap my son after I birthed in hopes of getting my sister to surrender.
When you are already breaking the laws, subverting the Constitution, kidnapping is just another step along the way. The rules of law matter but the Bully Boy has attempted one power grab after another. He wants to be unchecked by the two other branches. This isn't a new development. Just as the administration refused to release items on Dick Cheney's energy commission, they refuse to release the 'legal opinions' that okayed their NSA spying.
Instead of serious and hard questions, many in the mainstream press have returned to their apparently dreamed of careers as sports commentators -- which must be why reality leaves the reporting and instead the "success" or "failure" of the spin campaign (what Amy Goodman's dubbed "Why We Spy") is their focus. The press is failing at it's job (the mainstream press). The same press that bent over backwards to run to Vicky Toejam and others for the talking points on why no crime was committed by outing Valerie Plame, now bend over backward to avoid addressing the obvious (in reporting, the New York Times would point to their editorials, they can't point to their reporting).
The Church Committee not only discovered spying and efforts to disrupt movements (as well as destroy lives). From Book II of the Church Committee:
The Bureau also contacted employers and funding organizations in order to cause the firing of the targets or the termination of their support. For example, priests who allowed their churches to be used for the Black Panther breakfast programs were targeted, and anonymous letters were sent to their bishops, a television commentator who expressed admiration for a Black Nationalist leader and critized heavy defense spending was transferred after the Bureau contacted his employer, and an employee of the Urban League was fired after the FBI approached a "confidential source" in a foundation which funded the League.
When not doing that, like Gladys Kravitz on Bewitched, the intelligence community (including military intelligence) was fond of spreading rumors to spouses of infidelity -- the sort of actions that Americans would feel the KGB would do but never our own agencies were done and then some.
Coretta Scott King just passed and there's been reluctance on the part of the New York Times to note that on their editorial or op-ed pages. Possibly they don't want to delve too deeply into the Church Committee findings? The committee found gross violations of "the law and fundamental human decency" with regards to the FBI's actions against Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Strong language and the FBI more than earned it:
The Committee devoted substantial attention to the FBI's covert action campaign against Dr. Martin Luther King because it demonstrates just how far the Government could go in a secret war against one citizen. In focusing upon Dr. King, however, it should not be forgotten that the Bureau carried out disruptive activies against hundreds of lesser-known American citizens. It should also be borne in mind that postive action on the part of high Government officials outside the FBI might have prevented what occurred in this case.
[. . .]
The FBI's campaign against Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. began in December 1963, four months after the famous civil rights March on Washington, when a nine-hour meeting was convened at FBI Headquarters to discuss various "avenues of approach aimed at neutralizing King as an effective Negro leader." Following the meeting, agents in the field were instructed to "continue to gather information concerning King's personal activites . . . in order that we may consider using this information at an opportune time in a counterintelligence move to discredit him."
About two weeks after that conference, FBI agents planted a microphone in Dr. King's bedroom at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C. During the next two years, the FBI installed at least fourteen more "bugs" in Dr. King's hotel rooms across the country. Physical and photographic surveillances accompanied some of the microphone coverage.
The FBI also scrutinized Dr. King's tax-returns, monitored his financial affairs, and even tried to determine whether he had a secret foreign bank account.
In late 1964, a "sterilized" tape was prepared in a manner that would prevent attribution ot the FBI and was "anonymously" mailed to Dr. King just before he received the Nobel Peace Prize. Enclosed in the package with the tape was an unsigned letter which warned Dr. King, "your end is approaching . . . you are finished." The letter intimated that the tape might be publicly released, and closed with the following message:
King, there is only one thing left for you to do. You know what it is. You have just 34 days in which to do (this exact number has been selected for a specific reason, it has definite practical significance). You are done. There is but one way out for you . . .
Dr. King's associates have said he interpreted the message as an effort to induce him to commit suicide.
At about the same time that it mailed the "santized" tape, the FBI was also apparently offering tapes and transcripts to newsmen. Later when civil rights leaders Roy Wilkins and James Farmer went to Washington to persuade Beureau officials to halt the FBI's discrediting efforts, they were told "if King want[s] war we [are] prepared to give it to him."
Shortly thereafter, Dr. King went to Europe to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. The Bureau tried to undermine ambassadorial receptions in several of the countries he visited, and when he returned to the United States, took steps to diminish support for a banquet and a special "day" being planned in his honor.
The Bureau's actions against Dr. King included attempts to prevent him from meeting with world leaders, receiving honors or favorable publicity, and gaining financial support. When the Bureau learned of a possible meeting between Dr. King and the Pope in August 1964, the FBI asked Cardinal Spellman to try to arrange a cancellation of the audience. Discovering that two schools (Springfield College and Marquette University) were going to honor Dr. King with special degress in the spring of 1964, Bureau agents tried to convince officials at the scools to rescind their plans. And when the Bureau learned in October 1966 that the Ford Foundation might grants three million dollars to Dr. King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference, they asked a former FBI agent who was a high official at the Ford Motor Company to try to block the award.
A magazine was asked not to publish favorable articles about him. Religious leaders and institutions were contacted to undermine their support of him. Press conference questions were prepared and distributed to "friendly" journalists. And plans were even discussed for sabotaging his political campaign in the event he decided to run for national office.
[. . .]
The "neutralization" program continued until Dr. King's death. As late as March 1968, FBI agents were being instructed to neutralize Dr. King because he might become a "messiah" who could "unify, and electrify, the militant black nationalist movement" if he were to "abandon his supposed 'obedience' to 'white liberal doctrines' 9non-violence) and embrace black nationalism. Steps were taken to subvert the Poor People's Campaign which Dr. King was planning to lead in the spring of 1968. Even after Dr. King's death, agents in the field were proposing methods for harrassing his widow, and Buereau officials were trying to prevent his birthday from becoming a national holiday.
As the committee noted, these activites happened to many less well known people as well. It was open season on anyone who thought free speech and democracy meant that you might actually be able to publicly criticize your government. And agencies had nothing better to do then plot against Americans and sneak around. Take Joan Baez's 1967 concert tour of England where the CIA . . . Wait, let's go the New York Times, February 21, 1967, via Baez's And A Voice to Sing With:
. . . Press reports allege that an American, indentifying himslef as Harold Cooper, a CIA man, had ordered the Japanese interpreter, Ichiro Takasaki to substitute an innocuous tranlation in Japanese for Miss Baez's remarks in English on Vietnam and Nagasaki's atom bomb survivors. Mr. Takasaki was cited as the source for these allegations . . . This morning, Asahi Shimbun, a leading Tokyo daily, printed a long account of the affair. The newspaper quoted Mr. Takasaki as saying, "It is a fact that pressure was applied on me by a man who said he was from the CIA." Mr. Takasaki's interpretation surprised bilingual Japanese listeners when the national Japanese television network carried a tape recorded replay of Miss Baez's concert on January 27th.
[. . .]
When Miss Baez had referred to Nagasaki and Hiroshima, Mr. Takasaki said simply that "the show would be televised." And when she said that she had refused to pay taxes because she did not want her money to be used to finance the Vietnam war, Mr. Takasaki gave this translation: "Taxes are high in the United States . . ." Mr. Takasaki explained that before the concerts began, a telephone call came to him on January 12th, apparently from the American Embassy. The caller said he was an interpreter for someone named Harold Cooper, of the American Embassy, and reportedly said, "You are free to act as master of ceremonies, but Mr. Cooper hopes that you will not make any political statements." . . . Next day, a man who called himself Harold Cooper, telphoned him directly . . . After saying that he was a United States intelligence agent, he asked that Mr. Takasaki change the meanings when Miss Baez made political statements . . . "If you don't cooperate, you will have trouble in your work in the future." Each year Mr. Takasaki works in the United States about two months . . .
Mr. Takasaki decided to cooperate, since he felt if he refused he might not be able to obtain visas for the United States in the future. Mr. Takasaki told the Asahi Shimbun that he had actually met Mr. Cooper four times, and that each time Mr. Cooper made strict demands concerning Miss Baez's concerts. He said that at one time Mr. Cooper said, "Japan is in the midst of general elections, so be especially careful about Miss Baez' statements. Since many of her fans have a right to vote, political statements made during concerts have a major influence. . ." On February 3rd, Mr. Cooper called Mr. Takasaki at his home and reportedly said, "Thank you for your cooperation. I am now leaving for Hawaii . . ."
"It was a most strange case," said Takasaki. "I knew that Miss Baez was a marked person who was opposed to the Vietnam War and who had been tacitly boycotted by the broadcasting companies in the United States. American friends also repeatedly advised me not to take on the job. But I took it on as a business proposition, since the Japanese fans were coming not to hear her political statements, but her music. I met Mr. Cooper once in the presence of a Japanese Times reporter, but even in that meeting he openly demanded that I mistranslate.
Joan Baez concerts as a threat to national security? Sounds like something only the Bully Boy could dream up but it happened. (Pages 144 - 145 of And A Voice to Sing With, by the way.)
As abuses abuses came to light via the Church Committee and other Congressional committees, the FISA court was created in 1978 to prevent abuses of the Constitutional rights of American citizens. When the New York Times first broke the story of Bully Boy and NSA spying on American citizens without warrants, the spin was that it had to be kept quiet. Part one of the Why We Spy spin was that to go to FISA might have alerted the "terrorists." That went over about as well as his attempts to fine tune the economy, which is why Bully Boy's latest Why We Spy spin is that he has the authority to order spying without a FISA warrant.
Does he have that right? No. From Democracy Now!'s "An Impeachable Offense? Bush Admits Authorizing NSA to Eavesdrop on Americans Without Court Approval:"
JAMES BAMFORD: Well, before I get into that, just one other comment on what we just have been talking about. When the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was created in 1978, one of the things that the Attorney General at the time, Griffin Bell, said -- he testified before the intelligence committee, and he said that the current bill recognizes no inherent power of the President to conduct electronic surveillance. He said, 'This bill specifically states that the procedures in the bill are the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance may be conducted.' In other words, what the President is saying is that he has these inherent powers to conduct electronic surveillance, but the whole reason for creating this act, according to the Attorney General at the time, was to prevent the President from using any inherent powers and to use exclusively this act.
Bully Boy is again trying to render the other two branches of the government useless. He's saying that he has the power as commander-in-chief. But he's not commander-in-chief of the country. (Someone grab Diane Sawyer, she just fainted.) He's commander-in-chief of the military. The Geena Davis show doesn't seem to grasp the difference either. The country doesn't have a commander-in-chief over it because we're not a military junta, we're a democracy (or we're supposed to be).
While this goes on, as Patricia J. Williamson notes in "Foggy Bottom" (February 6, 2005 issue of The Nation, not available to nonsubscribers of the magazine):
The debate is playing out in the media fuzzily, haltingly, perhaps because of the conflation of two questions. One is whether the executive can eavesdrop on citizens at all. It can. The other is whether exercise of that power rests entirely upon the say-so of the President or his agents. It does not. Yet breathless radio and TV debates pit those two issues against each other. "He has the power to protect us by listening in!" versus "He has no power to invade our privacy!" The issue is better stated by interconnecting the two premises: He has the power to listen in when he has gotten permission by presenting reasons to do so that are within a warrantable range of relevance to law-enforcement goals.
The law is hardly burdensome, as should be well understood by now. The President must go to a special court set up for the purpose of vetting the underlying reasons or suspicions necessitating such intrusion. That court is secret, in deference to matters of national security. If time is of the essence, a warrant may be obtained from the court after the fact. The President may also seek the approval or waiver of members of Congress. These requirements are simple but not at all equivocal: The President must get permission to wiretap, period. It is not a deep or mysterious point of law. If there is law, then this is it. If there is due process, then this is the procedure that is due.
Another talking point of Why We Spy is that a fully staffed Alberto Gonzales can't prepare the necessary paperwork for a FISA brief withinin three days after the fact. Apparently Gonzales and all those under him are on vacation? If it's worth spying on an American citizen, shouldn't the Justice Dept. be in the loop immediately? And shouldn't Gonzales and his staff be able to do the job that they are paid to do? It's more spin that gets passed off in the press as 'legal strategy' as though all of this has about as much impact on our nation and who we are and who we become as a tennis match does.
After Bully Boy blusters that he doesn't need to go to the FISA court, Gonzales comes along and says "It's too burdesome and I'm not able to do it in the time frame." And this is 'strategy' to be cheered on by a lazy press? As each talking point goes against the previous one, instead of being called on it, the press rushes to play it as though this is up in the air and just a jolly match to sit back and enjoy. This isn't up in the air.
And when one spin point doesn't work, they offer another and the press runs with it. Did anyone in the mainstream press, reporting on Gonzales' talking point, note that his explanation was contradictory to Bully Boy's claim that he didn't need permission? If they're going to argue that he doesn't need permission, what does it matter whether or not Gonzales can process the paperwork required for FISA?
It doesn't matter. But the press is to busy providing color commentary on "plays" to do the basic job of informing the public. Mia wanted Michael Ratner's "Tomorrow is Today: the Time for Resistance is Now" (CounterPunch) noted and this is probably the best place for it because it speaks to what is at stake:
In other words, the republic and democracy is over. In Germany what did they call that? They called that the fuhrer's law. Why? Because the fuhrer was the law. That's what George Bush is saying here. George Bush is the law.This assertion of power is so blatant so open, and so notorious, that it is finally shocking some people like former Vice President Gore to speak up. I'm sure many of you are familiar with what he said in his recent speech on Martin Luther King's birthday. "The President of the United State has been breaking the law repeatedly and persistently." He was referring to the NSA spying scandal. And then he went on to say, "A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government." And then he said what that means to a Republic: "An executive who acts free of the will of Congress as this president says he can, or the check of the judiciary, as this president says he can, becomes the central threat that the founders sought to nullify in the Constitution." And then Gore quotes James Madison to the effect that what President Bush has done is the very definition of "tyranny." So there you have it. It's not just us, its not just progressives, but even someone like former Vice President Gore is saying this government is the very definition of tyranny.
Next week the Senate holds a hearing on the issue of NSA spying. It may be the only hearing we get. It may be a whitewash. It may not be. But regardless of what happens in the official chambers in DC, we need to be watchful and we need to be vocal. In a previous time, the citizens of this country were able to stand up to these sorts of abuses. Granted, we had something resembling a working press (in the mainstream) then. We have to call this abuse out and we have to do it loudly. There's too much at stake. The point in noting the recent past (always referred to as an aside when noted in the mainstream) is to point out that we've been down this road before. We stopped it before. We can stop it again. But that won't come by waiting for the New York Times to decide to actually report. It won't come from hoping our senators do their job. We need to be active and we need to be vocal.
This is our country, this is our democracy. In the 2000 recounts (that weren't a full recount), one of the talking points was that the military ballots had to be counted because they protect this country and preserve our liberties. No offense intended to the military, but our liberties at home have always been preserved and protected by the citizens. Whether it was MLK, Cesar Chavez, Ida B. Wells-Barnett, the Congressional staffers working on the impeachment indictment of Nixon, movements that forced the nation to address an issue or face reality, the person who wouldn't shut up even though everyone told her/him too . . . We're the ones who can ensure that this country remains a democracy. We can also look the other way and allow it to slide into something that the framers warned us against. We have that power and it can't be taken away, not even by the New York Times or the Bully Boy. But it can be given away if we choose not to use it.
As Norman Solomon points out in War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death (page 236), "fear is not a viable long-term foundation for building democratic structures or finding alternatives to future wars." Fear and apathy, the national crisis -- though it can't push obesity off the cover of the news weeklies. It's time to understand that we've been through this before (and will probably go through it again). The only thing that stopped the abuse before was engaged and outraged citizens. That is the "special interest group" that's feared the most. Obviously, or the government wouldn't abuse the law so often to spy. We've stopped it before and we can do it again. Make yourself heard and follow the hearings next week.
the church committee
joan mellen
frank church
nsa
fisa
government snooping
government spying
snoopgate
democracy now
amy goodman
juan gonzalez
jennifer dohrn
michael ratner
james bamford
tim robbins
norman solomon
joan baez
mlk
the new york times
patricia j. williams
jean seberg
cedrics big mix
thomas friedman is a great man
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
kats korner
the third estate sunday review
Note of thanks to everyone who provided input. That includes Mia and Eddie who noted quotes that they wanted include. It also includes five friends who read over what I thought was the completed/nearly completed draft of this and were honest enough to say, "It's too factual, too little passion." The result was a radical reworking of this entry that threw out pretty much everything (though not my typos, I'm sure). Thanks to multiple friends who phoned during the five hours that have been spent on this version of this entry -- thanks for listening and offering suggestions (including, "delete that whole section"). (Those include, but are not limited to, Cedric, Betty, Rebecca, Ava, Jess and Kat.) (Special thanks to ___.)
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
Spotlight: The Bush Commission Part 1
What do we call this spotlight? You know C.I. calls The Common Ills a "resource/review." So we can't call it a blog spotlight. We'll just call it a spotlight -- on an important organization doing work you should know about.
The Bush Commission Part I
When we first got there, the people that we were relieving, they gave us a training. They said that those who were in charge were three spooks. For those of you who don't know what a "spook" is -- a spook is someone who belongs in a highlly specialized unit. Could be CIA, perhaps FBI, civilian contractor, maybe special forces. Nobody knows who they are. They wear no name tags, no unit badges. They're basically untraceable. They go by codenames. The ones we had, for instance, were Rabbit, Scooter, the other one, I think, they called him Artie
[. . .]
When we were receiving this training we saw that there was this soldier who was yelling at the detainees telling them to stand up and sit down, telling them to turn around, to roll, to get up, to sit down again. And we asked how come these people understood? Because they did not speak English. And they said "Well if you yell at them enough, they're kind of like dogs, you yell at a dog enough, and the dog will get it. And its the same with these people. You just yell at them enough and they'll get the point."
The above is from Camilo E. Mejia's testimony to the Bush Commission conducting. Mejia gave that testimony in October. Huh? The Bush Commission just happened, right? This was the second of three planned hearings. The first was in October. The second was this month. In fact the verdicts for the second hearing will be announced this week: Thursday, February 2nd.
What's the purpose of the Bush Commission? It's a citizen's tribunal much like the World Tribunal on Iraq. It gathers testimony, it raises awareness. It does so without the aid of the press, in case you missed that. The New York Times hasn't been interested in covering the tribunal, but they weren't interested in covering the Bertrand Russell World Crimes Tribunal in 1967. If they had been, Americans would have been less shocked when ugly truths about Vietnam were later revealed.
Camilo Mejia, a name well known in this community, in the first hearings of the Bush Commission underscored this with his own testimony about what he saw in Iraq as well as in detailing his Conscientious Objector application:
In that application I spoke about the abuse of prisoners, I wrote about the abuse of prisoners, and this application was submitted to the commanding general of the 3rd Infantry Division which was in Ft. Stewart, Georgia. No investigation was conducted at that time. There was no Abu Ghraib scandal back then.
This is an echo of a time before, a time when it was possible to know what was happening but the press wasn't interested. Which is why we need to be interested. But to underscore a point Mejia made, let's note that Congress was aware of what Mejia saw. Their reaction (in the pre-Abu Ghraib days)? They "declined" and and preferred "to wait for the Pentagon to conduct an investigation."
So what do you gain by being aware of the Bush Commission? You gain information, you gain
insight and you raise your own awareness.
You know that Mejia testified, "We started conducting mission in cities. There's no such thing as a trench line in Iraq. This war is being fought in every corner of that country, not in the desert not in the vallies not in the mountains but next to schools, neighborhoods, mosques."
In the most recent set of hearings (January), independent journalist, Dahr Jamail testifited about "War Crimes and crimes against humanity in Iraq committed by US forces, acting on orders from their commander-in-chief, George W. Bush."
We'll focus on some of his remarks regarding Falluja because Dexter Filkins may have won an "award" but he seems to have missed everything that happened in his rah-rah reporting (a journalistic war crime).
Jamail: Collective Punishment. I'll use Falluja for the model city for Bush policy in Iraq. The US caused actions to be taken in Falluja in violation of the laws of war. For example,
targeting by snipers of children and other civilians, targeting of ambulances, the placement of snipers on the roofs of hospitals and prevention of civilians from getting there for medical attention and also illegal weapons used. Article 48 of the Geeneva Conventions states that the basic rule regarding the protection of the civilian population provides QUOTE "in order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects the party to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives." Article 51 on the protection of the civilian population provides "the civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law shall be observed in all circumstances.
It also notes the civilian populations, as such, as well as individual civilians shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited. It also notes indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. It should also be noted that the US military, again following orders from their commander-in-chief, declared the entire city of Falluja, a city with a population of over 350,000 civilians, a "free fire zone" meaning once that operation began in November of '04 anything in the city was to be targeted by the US military. [. . . ] It should also be noted that approximately 70% of the entire city of Falluja was bombed to the ground during the US assault on that city in November of '04 which left dead estimates of between four and six-thousand civilians. Water, food and medical aid were cut off from Falluja both before and during the seige of that city. This form of collective punishment, which I've seen first hand in Ramadi and Sumara as well has even led the UN to declare in October of last year that this was QUOTE "a flagrant violation of international law.
Barbara Olshansky, who testified at the first installment, focused on two areas in her testimony for the second round in January. Speaking of Alberto Gonzales' involvement in devising the torture loophole, she noted that:
What becomes torture in the eyes of the administration, if they follow this memo, is really only that which brings a person to the brink of complete organ failure and/or death. So everything that they know, in their mind that does not accomplish that end, is not torture. So even the water boarding torture technique where people think they are about to drown and it's done repeatedly [isn't torture] because from the point of the view of the intent of the torturer they know they are not about to bring about the immenent death or organ failure of the individual and so therefore it does not constitute torture. That is the understanding of that memorandum.
So are you interested? You should be.
Speaking on the first day of the second rounds of hearings, Michael Ratner addressed Bully Boy's signing statement of the torture amendment:
It makes three points and I'll paraphrase. First, speaking as the president, 'My authority as commander in chief allows me to do whatever I think is necessary in the war on terror including use torture. Second, the Commander in Chief cannot be checked by Congress. Third, the Commander in Chief cannot be checked by the courts.' There it is. There you have it. That boring stuff I learned, as a junior high school student, about checks and balances or about limited law or about authority under law? Out the window. Gone. In other words, the republic and democracy is over. In Germany, what did they call that? They called that "the fuhrer's law." Why? Because the fuhrer was the law. That's what George Bush is saying here.
Interested? Grasping the importance?
The Bush Commission is something that the community's interested in (and something some members have already been following). We're going to cover it it a series of installment. The plan was to do it in one entry but I'm running behind due to depression over Coretta Scott King's passing. So we'll focus on getting a series of entries up to explain the importance of the commission.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
bush commission
camilo mejia
dahr jamail
barbara olshansky
michael ratner
iraq
[. . .]
When we were receiving this training we saw that there was this soldier who was yelling at the detainees telling them to stand up and sit down, telling them to turn around, to roll, to get up, to sit down again. And we asked how come these people understood? Because they did not speak English. And they said "Well if you yell at them enough, they're kind of like dogs, you yell at a dog enough, and the dog will get it. And its the same with these people. You just yell at them enough and they'll get the point."
The above is from Camilo E. Mejia's testimony to the Bush Commission conducting. Mejia gave that testimony in October. Huh? The Bush Commission just happened, right? This was the second of three planned hearings. The first was in October. The second was this month. In fact the verdicts for the second hearing will be announced this week: Thursday, February 2nd.
What's the purpose of the Bush Commission? It's a citizen's tribunal much like the World Tribunal on Iraq. It gathers testimony, it raises awareness. It does so without the aid of the press, in case you missed that. The New York Times hasn't been interested in covering the tribunal, but they weren't interested in covering the Bertrand Russell World Crimes Tribunal in 1967. If they had been, Americans would have been less shocked when ugly truths about Vietnam were later revealed.
Camilo Mejia, a name well known in this community, in the first hearings of the Bush Commission underscored this with his own testimony about what he saw in Iraq as well as in detailing his Conscientious Objector application:
In that application I spoke about the abuse of prisoners, I wrote about the abuse of prisoners, and this application was submitted to the commanding general of the 3rd Infantry Division which was in Ft. Stewart, Georgia. No investigation was conducted at that time. There was no Abu Ghraib scandal back then.
This is an echo of a time before, a time when it was possible to know what was happening but the press wasn't interested. Which is why we need to be interested. But to underscore a point Mejia made, let's note that Congress was aware of what Mejia saw. Their reaction (in the pre-Abu Ghraib days)? They "declined" and and preferred "to wait for the Pentagon to conduct an investigation."
So what do you gain by being aware of the Bush Commission? You gain information, you gain
insight and you raise your own awareness.
You know that Mejia testified, "We started conducting mission in cities. There's no such thing as a trench line in Iraq. This war is being fought in every corner of that country, not in the desert not in the vallies not in the mountains but next to schools, neighborhoods, mosques."
In the most recent set of hearings (January), independent journalist, Dahr Jamail testifited about "War Crimes and crimes against humanity in Iraq committed by US forces, acting on orders from their commander-in-chief, George W. Bush."
We'll focus on some of his remarks regarding Falluja because Dexter Filkins may have won an "award" but he seems to have missed everything that happened in his rah-rah reporting (a journalistic war crime).
Jamail: Collective Punishment. I'll use Falluja for the model city for Bush policy in Iraq. The US caused actions to be taken in Falluja in violation of the laws of war. For example,
targeting by snipers of children and other civilians, targeting of ambulances, the placement of snipers on the roofs of hospitals and prevention of civilians from getting there for medical attention and also illegal weapons used. Article 48 of the Geeneva Conventions states that the basic rule regarding the protection of the civilian population provides QUOTE "in order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects the party to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives." Article 51 on the protection of the civilian population provides "the civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law shall be observed in all circumstances.
It also notes the civilian populations, as such, as well as individual civilians shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited. It also notes indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. It should also be noted that the US military, again following orders from their commander-in-chief, declared the entire city of Falluja, a city with a population of over 350,000 civilians, a "free fire zone" meaning once that operation began in November of '04 anything in the city was to be targeted by the US military. [. . . ] It should also be noted that approximately 70% of the entire city of Falluja was bombed to the ground during the US assault on that city in November of '04 which left dead estimates of between four and six-thousand civilians. Water, food and medical aid were cut off from Falluja both before and during the seige of that city. This form of collective punishment, which I've seen first hand in Ramadi and Sumara as well has even led the UN to declare in October of last year that this was QUOTE "a flagrant violation of international law.
Barbara Olshansky, who testified at the first installment, focused on two areas in her testimony for the second round in January. Speaking of Alberto Gonzales' involvement in devising the torture loophole, she noted that:
What becomes torture in the eyes of the administration, if they follow this memo, is really only that which brings a person to the brink of complete organ failure and/or death. So everything that they know, in their mind that does not accomplish that end, is not torture. So even the water boarding torture technique where people think they are about to drown and it's done repeatedly [isn't torture] because from the point of the view of the intent of the torturer they know they are not about to bring about the immenent death or organ failure of the individual and so therefore it does not constitute torture. That is the understanding of that memorandum.
So are you interested? You should be.
Speaking on the first day of the second rounds of hearings, Michael Ratner addressed Bully Boy's signing statement of the torture amendment:
It makes three points and I'll paraphrase. First, speaking as the president, 'My authority as commander in chief allows me to do whatever I think is necessary in the war on terror including use torture. Second, the Commander in Chief cannot be checked by Congress. Third, the Commander in Chief cannot be checked by the courts.' There it is. There you have it. That boring stuff I learned, as a junior high school student, about checks and balances or about limited law or about authority under law? Out the window. Gone. In other words, the republic and democracy is over. In Germany, what did they call that? They called that "the fuhrer's law." Why? Because the fuhrer was the law. That's what George Bush is saying here.
Interested? Grasping the importance?
The Bush Commission is something that the community's interested in (and something some members have already been following). We're going to cover it it a series of installment. The plan was to do it in one entry but I'm running behind due to depression over Coretta Scott King's passing. So we'll focus on getting a series of entries up to explain the importance of the commission.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
bush commission
camilo mejia
dahr jamail
barbara olshansky
michael ratner
iraq
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
Blog Spotlight: Cedric on Coretta Scott King
Cedric shared his thoughts on the passing of Coretta Scott King which is more than The New York Times has done at present. From Cedric's Big Mix:
Coretta Scott King, 1927-2006
Civil Rights Icon Coretta Scott King, 1927-2006The Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rev. Joseph Lowery and Herb Boyd reflect on the legacy of freedom fighter Coretta Scott King, the widow of Martin Luther King Jr.
That's from today's Democracy Now! and they did a strong job organizing it basically while they were on the air. Juan Gonzalez filled in for Amy Goodman who's somewhere overseas. They announced where but it's been a daze day due to the news of the passing of Mrs. King.
1927 seems so long ago and that may be due to the fact Mrs. King aged well. My cousin pointed out that Jack Nicholson and Jane Fonda are only a decade younger. (He pointed that out when someone trying to be silly on a sad day said, "Black don't crack!" No one was in the mood for yucks and ha-has today.)
It is so strange and distant to think of Mrs. King not being in this world with us any longer. I grew up hearing about her, reading about her and, honestly, kind of feeling her. There's a sadness that sort of falls today and it's really sad.
Dr. King was taken from us before people my age were even born but we had Mrs. King and she just always seemed like this smiling, kind giant, so strong and so comforting. They killed her husband and she still found her way to love the world. Growing up, I got angry and mad about Dr. King being assassinated and I'm sure she did as well. But she was just this ocean of gentleness.
You knew she could stand up to anyone and would do it. But she just radiated sweetness and kindness. I can't believe she's gone.
I looked at The Third Estate Sunday Review today because I knew she'd been brought up in discussions there and I found these two things in November.
First, "Five Books, Five Minutes:"
Rebecca: C.I., Elaine and I have all been joking back and forth with each other at our sites about books we give to each other. One book that C.I. gave me that I've always meant to read but never gotten around to was Alice Walker's In Search Of Our Mother's Gardens.
Ty: This was a great book. These are essays, the subtitle to the book is "womanist prose," and they are some outstanding essays. Like most people, I knew Walker's fiction. And we've read some of her poetry for discussions here. But this was my first time reading any of her essays.With a lot of writers, you read one genre and that's their solid footing. Walker's really able to work in various genres and do strong work throughout. My favorite was "The Unglamorous but Worthwhile Duties of the Black Revolutionary Artist, or of the Black Writer Who Simply Works and Writes."
Cedric: I'd agree that's a good one but for me the one that stood out was "Coretta King Revisted" due to Coretta Scott King's recent health problems.
Betty: I actually skipped that one because her stroke still saddens me. She's someone who's always been larger than life to me, someone to look up to and, since her stroke, the tears well up too easily so I took a pass on that essay. Her essay on Buchi Emecheta's Second Class Citizen was the one that had me thinking the most.
Second, a later "Five Books, Five Minutes:"
Cedric: One thing that puzzled me was why the host of the discussion between Malcolm X and Rustin wasn't identified except as "HOST"? I'm also wondering who you found yourself siding with in the discussion?
Jess: For me, it was Malcolm. I know his writing and his story, so I may have been filling in details that I wasn't able to with Rustin but I got the impression that Rustin grew more cautious with age.
Betty: I'd agree with that except for the issue of sexuality. That reads cautious today but for the time period, that is a big deal. And I'll add that he was known within the civil rights movment as gay and, in fact, within the nation since an arrest was used by a White senator to force Rustin out of the movement. But in terms of discussing his sexuality publicly, that's in the eighties. And it was a big deal.
Cedric: And you can say it still is a big deal because Rustin is one of the civil rights pioneer, very essential to the movement, and he's not someone that is stressed when you hear of the civil rights movement.
Betty: I'd agree with that. I'd add that it's part of our community's, I'm speaking of the Black community and directing the "our" to Cedric, refusal or reluctance to address the issue of sexuality and orientation. I think it's embarrassing. Of course some do address it. But we've allowed it to be a something that can turn against each other. Bully Boy's been able to use it with some Black churches, sexual orientation, to turn them against their own interests. In my church we had to deal with it, we had too many members and families of members who were dealing with AIDS. It's one of the healthiest things we've done. With the empahis on family in the Black community, I look skeptical at any Black person that tells me they've never met a gay or lesbian. They are in our families, they are in our churches and it distresses that a White Bully Boy has been allowed by some "Black leaders" to turn us against each other. There's some idiot. and I use that term by choice, Cedric's also heard him, his "sermons" get passed around in e-mails. And for someone so supposedly opposed to gays and lesbians, he sure knows a lot about gay sex and he sure seems to enjoy talking about it in terms that I can't imagine sex being talked about in my church.
Cedric: Yeah, that guy is an idiot. And every month or so, it'll pop up in an e-mail forward to someone in the office and they'll be giggling at it. They say, if you ask them, they're laughing at how stupid he is. Well that doesn't help the race either, flaunting ignorance. I really do not have respect for people who pass that around, either out of their own beliefs or to giggle over.Ty: And this goes to what erases Rustin for history and how a race whose leaders want to fuss and fret over language don't want to address serious issues. I mean, where is Bill Cosby on this issue? Where his speech on the need for us to embrace one another?
Betty: Exactly, you can list the leaders who've addressed this topic in any form and it's a small list. Coretta Scott King and Julian Bond would be on the list but a lot of other so-called "brave" voices wouldn't be. I like Jesse Jackson but I don't respect his opinions on this issue.Rebecca: Which is interesting that you cite him when Rustin cites him as one of the people working to turn MLK against him.
Ty: And it's forty years later and he still hasn't changed his tune.
Cedric: I don't know if Dona wants to call time or not, I know we've got Betty's pick still to do.
Dona: No, this has been an interesting discussion and we can extend. We actually have two more books.
Cedric: Well I'll make my comment and try to be brief about it. Some African-Americans are offended when sexual orientation is likened to race. And it's not just that. You heard some nonsense about "Cindy Sheehan is no Rosa Parks!" As though allowing someone else to build on a very powerful movement will erase Ms. Parks. It won't. It will only extend her reach and future generations' knowlege of her. I hear, everyone hears, modern day comparisons to George Washington or Thomas Jefferson or whomever. They become points of reference. I can understand the fear here because any minority group risks being stripped of whatever place in history they've earned. But while realizing that, we should realize that part of what makes Whites such a point of history, besides who got to draw it up, is that it is a short hand. Most people couldn't tell you where Thomas Jefferson was born. But they can use him as a point of reference. When the civil rights movement is used as a point of reference, I think it extends the movement, keeps it alive in history and increases knowledge. Otherwise it's going to be confined to one time, one period, one group and it will be ghetto-ized in terms of how history is taught. I'm thrilled that we have our African-American heroes but I want to see them be heroes for all. They fought as hard as anyone else and they are a part of American history. I was thrilled to hear some people calling Cindy Sheehan the Rosa Parks of the peace movement. I see it as a huge improvement over years of someone being "the Black __" who ever. We have heroic figures and their struggles are heroic. If they inspire people that's a great thing, regardless of race. The point of teaching Black History is to get it back into our understanding of history. It's a part of American history and hopefully it will be worked into American history more and more with each generation. I'm done.
Ty: I'll add that I agree with Cedric. I've attended predominately African-American schools and predominatley White ones. And I've seen a "Oh, it's Black history" type collective groan at some of the White schools. In standing up for her race, Rosa Parks stood up for a better nation.I didn't always hear that point in made in school.
If you were talking about civil rights then or now (and civil rights is still a battle to be fought today), you couldn't have much of a conversation without mentioning Mrs. King. She really was something special and that's going to have be it because this is upsetting to write about.
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
Blog Spotlight: Betty on NYT's continued editorial silence re: Coretta Scott Kin
This week, C.I. posted an entry by Rebecca in full. Due to the late hour and not wanting "to deal," C.I. e-mailed it to The Common Ills site. Which led to C.I. suggesting that we do the same to avoid all the nightmares involved in copy and pasting (all lines run together). So that's what we'll do tonight and hopefully it will work. (We do have a backup plan.) We should add that there have been problems with the Blogger website/program nonstop since Friday. Remember to check the mirror site for The Common Ills if they persist. We're going to try to do an edition despite the problems. This is Betty's latest. She wrote it on Friday and it wouldn't post due to Blogger's problems. It debuted at the mirror site tonight (see, you should check it) and an hour ago went up at her site. However, she's still having publishing problems and Blogger's still not working correctly for her site. Just FYI. C.I. adds another FYI. Betty wrote this on Friday. Saturday's New York Times continued the "sad tradition" of not one editorial or column devoted to Coretta Scott King or her passing.
The Pig Is Racism, The Pig Is The New York Times
Thomas Friedman, Gail Collins, Nicky K and all the rest can go to hell wearing a white sheet over their White heads.
Wednesday, Gail Collins phoned. She opened with, "How are you, Betinna, I'm not good. This death has upset me so. I'm questioning life and death, purpose and intent, da funk and da noise."
I replied that the death had destroyed me.
"Really?" Gail asked in a curious tone. "You knew of her?"
"I kind of think the whole word did," I replied more than slightly irritated to find Collins seemed shocked that a woman of so much meaning, so much passion, so much drive would be known worldwide.
"I knew her," Gail said.
"Was she as wonderful as she seemed?"
"Much more. You know she really changed people's lives."
"I know!" I agreed.
"Women are so often written out of history, Betinna. Their achievements minimized, their work overlooked. I've written about this topic in book form."
Oh, yeah. That. It reads like it's from the mouth of Cokie Roberts; however, that may be lending its superficial tone too much weight. However, the book is perfect for smacking the bugs that have been crawling around since Thomas Friedman decided that since "someone" was sneaking into his supply of canned cheese and Ritz crackers, he needed to hide them throughout the apartment. "Someone" is clearly Thomas Friedman, something he might realize if he stopped pointing the finger at me and used that hand to shake his ever increasing jelly belly.
"Well Wendy was a good friend," Gail said softly.
Wendy?
"Who's Wendy?"
"Wendy Wasserstein! Hello, she just passed away! Don't you read the paper!"
Oh yeah, I saw that. I saw that front page story on a playwright and the editorial Gail Collins wrote about her. She was big on "the theatre belongs to all!" and, as part of that strategy, she helped low income children, who were 'gifted & talented' see plays. It struck me as another White Ladies Who Lunch program. I mean, if you believe the theatre belongs to all and you really want to help low income children, what the hell are you doing going to the 'gifted & talented' set who will, more than likely, see a play at some point on their own if they want to?
Wouldn't the point be to show struggling students the theatre, to open them up to a new world?
The whole thing struck me as a bunch of overly groomed matrons wanting to reward the 'exceptions' -- not to share the theatre.
I remembered reading the editorial Gail wrote (and signed) and thinking, "Oh, that's how it works. If you're a friend of Gail's and you die you get an editorial."
Meanwhile, what struck me as nationally, globaly, important news was that Coretta Scott King passed away.
1) Coretta Scott King, 79, Dies
In Georgia, Coretta Scott King - the widow of Martin Luther King Junior - has died at the age of 79. She had spent her life fighting for civil rights and preserving her late husband's legacy. In April of 1968 she led a march through Memphis just days after Martin Luther King Jr. had been assassinated. Later that year she led the Poor People's March in Washington, D.C. She continued working for equality, peace and economic justice for the remainder of her life, both in the United States and abroad.
2) Civil Rights Icon Coretta Scott King, 1927-2006
The Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rev. Joseph Lowery and Herb Boyd reflect on the legacy of freedom fighter Coretta Scott King, the widow of Martin Luther King Jr.
I made the mistake of saying that to Gail. She sputtered, she raged and then she hung up.
And I waited. I waited for the editorial on Coretta Scott King. I waited for op-eds on her by the regular columnists (like the fat monkey Thomas Friedman). Surely Nicky K who's always acting like he's the only voice speaking out for injustice would note Coretta Scott King's passing. The woman gave her life to fighting injustice.
And surely Gail Collins, the feminist, would bring in some guest writers to note the passing of Coretta Scott King, right?
No.
On Tuesday, Wendy Wasserstein made the front page as a playwright who died of cancer at the age of 55. We're told "Her Plays Spoke to a Generation." Presumably a White generation and the same sub-set that Sex and the City speaks to and of. Did Wasserstein have any Black characters in her plays? While reading the long article, I felt like every minor actress (plus Meryl Streep) in Hollywood was listed. I didn't see any Black names. On the editorial page of the same edition, Gail Collins went on about Wendy for ten paragraphs.
Coretta Scott King made the front page on Wednesday for her passing. Now Coretta never wrote a play starring Swoosie Kurtz (who I last saw in the teen exploitation rip-off of Dangerous Liasons). Is it Mrs. King's skin color or is it that she was known for politics?
Here's Wasserman's politics:
"My work is often thought of as light-weight commercial comedy," she told The Paris Review in 1997, "and I have always thought, No, you don't understand: this is in fact a political act. 'The Sisters Rosensweig' had the largest advance in Broadway history," for a play (not a musical). Therefore, she continued, "nobody is going to turn down a play on Broadway because a woman wrote it or because it's about women."
Well gee, thanks for paving the way for Lillian Hellman, Jane Wagner, Lorraine Hansberry and assorted others who were there on Broadway, as playwrights who happened to be women, long before 1997.
Success as a political act? Well the paper didn't see it that way when August Wilson died. But maybe his plays couldn't be easily compared to Sex in the City? Maybe if they'd been accused of being "light-weight commerical comedy" and he'd replied, "No, my success is a political act!" the paper would have cared about him?
But I read the long article. The type usually reserved for a head of state, not a playwright whose best days were behind her -- and they were. When you define your power as "success" and when success (ticket sales) begins to fail you (as it did her in 1997), then you're not cutting it. Was failure also a political act? Did it prove that women couldn't be playwrights on Broadway?
There'd be no reason to compare the two women. One was politically and historically significant and it wasn't the one doing watered-down Philip Barry. But the paper begged readers to compare the two women by the manner in which they were treated. Wasserstein dies and gets a front page article and an editorial. Coretta Scott King dies and just gets a front page story.
That's really it. Wednesday the editorials were devoted to "The State of Energy" and "Westward Into War With the Soviet Novelist and Reporter Vasily Grossman." On the op-ed page, two guest writers wondered "Can junior management end the transit wars?" Two other guest writers wrote of "Russia's Sweetheart Deal for Iran." One guest writer wrote "The State of the Union: A Citizen's Rebuttal." Maureen Dowd wrote of whatever she writes about in that attempt at wisecracking-gun-moll she's so fond of (but Ann Sheridan and Eve Arden did it so much better) while Thomas Friedman, the pig, wrote of "Addicted to Oil." Try "Addicted to In Between Meal Snacks," lard butt.
That was the day Gail and I spoke so I expected that Thursday, Coretta Scott King would get an editorial or op-ed devoted to her because Gail, who sees herself as educated, would surely want to right a wrong, right? Wrong.
"When You Wish Upon A Merger" wrote one guest columnist of the earth shattering issue of Walt Disney. Davy Brooks wrote of "The Nation of the Future" which apparently requires no looking back to note a historical passing. Bob Herbert quoted Coretta Scott King (three and a half lines) and actually mentioned that she'd died in his final two paragraph (three lines devoted to her and MLK) in "An American Obsession" or, as I liked to think of it, "Not About Coretta."
Wednesday, Gail Collins phoned. She opened with, "How are you, Betinna, I'm not good. This death has upset me so. I'm questioning life and death, purpose and intent, da funk and da noise."
I replied that the death had destroyed me.
"Really?" Gail asked in a curious tone. "You knew of her?"
"I kind of think the whole word did," I replied more than slightly irritated to find Collins seemed shocked that a woman of so much meaning, so much passion, so much drive would be known worldwide.
"I knew her," Gail said.
"Was she as wonderful as she seemed?"
"Much more. You know she really changed people's lives."
"I know!" I agreed.
"Women are so often written out of history, Betinna. Their achievements minimized, their work overlooked. I've written about this topic in book form."
Oh, yeah. That. It reads like it's from the mouth of Cokie Roberts; however, that may be lending its superficial tone too much weight. However, the book is perfect for smacking the bugs that have been crawling around since Thomas Friedman decided that since "someone" was sneaking into his supply of canned cheese and Ritz crackers, he needed to hide them throughout the apartment. "Someone" is clearly Thomas Friedman, something he might realize if he stopped pointing the finger at me and used that hand to shake his ever increasing jelly belly.
"Well Wendy was a good friend," Gail said softly.
Wendy?
"Who's Wendy?"
"Wendy Wasserstein! Hello, she just passed away! Don't you read the paper!"
Oh yeah, I saw that. I saw that front page story on a playwright and the editorial Gail Collins wrote about her. She was big on "the theatre belongs to all!" and, as part of that strategy, she helped low income children, who were 'gifted & talented' see plays. It struck me as another White Ladies Who Lunch program. I mean, if you believe the theatre belongs to all and you really want to help low income children, what the hell are you doing going to the 'gifted & talented' set who will, more than likely, see a play at some point on their own if they want to?
Wouldn't the point be to show struggling students the theatre, to open them up to a new world?
The whole thing struck me as a bunch of overly groomed matrons wanting to reward the 'exceptions' -- not to share the theatre.
I remembered reading the editorial Gail wrote (and signed) and thinking, "Oh, that's how it works. If you're a friend of Gail's and you die you get an editorial."
Meanwhile, what struck me as nationally, globaly, important news was that Coretta Scott King passed away.
1) Coretta Scott King, 79, Dies
In Georgia, Coretta Scott King - the widow of Martin Luther King Junior - has died at the age of 79. She had spent her life fighting for civil rights and preserving her late husband's legacy. In April of 1968 she led a march through Memphis just days after Martin Luther King Jr. had been assassinated. Later that year she led the Poor People's March in Washington, D.C. She continued working for equality, peace and economic justice for the remainder of her life, both in the United States and abroad.
2) Civil Rights Icon Coretta Scott King, 1927-2006
The Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rev. Joseph Lowery and Herb Boyd reflect on the legacy of freedom fighter Coretta Scott King, the widow of Martin Luther King Jr.
I made the mistake of saying that to Gail. She sputtered, she raged and then she hung up.
And I waited. I waited for the editorial on Coretta Scott King. I waited for op-eds on her by the regular columnists (like the fat monkey Thomas Friedman). Surely Nicky K who's always acting like he's the only voice speaking out for injustice would note Coretta Scott King's passing. The woman gave her life to fighting injustice.
And surely Gail Collins, the feminist, would bring in some guest writers to note the passing of Coretta Scott King, right?
No.
On Tuesday, Wendy Wasserstein made the front page as a playwright who died of cancer at the age of 55. We're told "Her Plays Spoke to a Generation." Presumably a White generation and the same sub-set that Sex and the City speaks to and of. Did Wasserstein have any Black characters in her plays? While reading the long article, I felt like every minor actress (plus Meryl Streep) in Hollywood was listed. I didn't see any Black names. On the editorial page of the same edition, Gail Collins went on about Wendy for ten paragraphs.
Coretta Scott King made the front page on Wednesday for her passing. Now Coretta never wrote a play starring Swoosie Kurtz (who I last saw in the teen exploitation rip-off of Dangerous Liasons). Is it Mrs. King's skin color or is it that she was known for politics?
Here's Wasserman's politics:
"My work is often thought of as light-weight commercial comedy," she told The Paris Review in 1997, "and I have always thought, No, you don't understand: this is in fact a political act. 'The Sisters Rosensweig' had the largest advance in Broadway history," for a play (not a musical). Therefore, she continued, "nobody is going to turn down a play on Broadway because a woman wrote it or because it's about women."
Well gee, thanks for paving the way for Lillian Hellman, Jane Wagner, Lorraine Hansberry and assorted others who were there on Broadway, as playwrights who happened to be women, long before 1997.
Success as a political act? Well the paper didn't see it that way when August Wilson died. But maybe his plays couldn't be easily compared to Sex in the City? Maybe if they'd been accused of being "light-weight commerical comedy" and he'd replied, "No, my success is a political act!" the paper would have cared about him?
But I read the long article. The type usually reserved for a head of state, not a playwright whose best days were behind her -- and they were. When you define your power as "success" and when success (ticket sales) begins to fail you (as it did her in 1997), then you're not cutting it. Was failure also a political act? Did it prove that women couldn't be playwrights on Broadway?
There'd be no reason to compare the two women. One was politically and historically significant and it wasn't the one doing watered-down Philip Barry. But the paper begged readers to compare the two women by the manner in which they were treated. Wasserstein dies and gets a front page article and an editorial. Coretta Scott King dies and just gets a front page story.
That's really it. Wednesday the editorials were devoted to "The State of Energy" and "Westward Into War With the Soviet Novelist and Reporter Vasily Grossman." On the op-ed page, two guest writers wondered "Can junior management end the transit wars?" Two other guest writers wrote of "Russia's Sweetheart Deal for Iran." One guest writer wrote "The State of the Union: A Citizen's Rebuttal." Maureen Dowd wrote of whatever she writes about in that attempt at wisecracking-gun-moll she's so fond of (but Ann Sheridan and Eve Arden did it so much better) while Thomas Friedman, the pig, wrote of "Addicted to Oil." Try "Addicted to In Between Meal Snacks," lard butt.
That was the day Gail and I spoke so I expected that Thursday, Coretta Scott King would get an editorial or op-ed devoted to her because Gail, who sees herself as educated, would surely want to right a wrong, right? Wrong.
"When You Wish Upon A Merger" wrote one guest columnist of the earth shattering issue of Walt Disney. Davy Brooks wrote of "The Nation of the Future" which apparently requires no looking back to note a historical passing. Bob Herbert quoted Coretta Scott King (three and a half lines) and actually mentioned that she'd died in his final two paragraph (three lines devoted to her and MLK) in "An American Obsession" or, as I liked to think of it, "Not About Coretta."
And the editorials? "Hamas at the Helm" because anyone a darker shade than beige scares the hell out of the New York Times. "The March of the Straw Soldiers" dealt with Bully Boy's spying even though the reporting in the paper continues to treat it as a non-issue, head-scratcher. And "Seducing the Medical Profession" gave Gail the chance to do what she was hired for, to self-congratulate the paper. ("Reed Abelson reported in The Times on Jan. 24 about a whistle-blower's lawsuit . . ." Yeah, he saw the court docket and somehow that's brave reporting, Gail.)
I thought, "Well maybe Gail considers these important topics for editorials?" Then I saw "Oh, Oscar!" about the Oscar nominations. The Oscar nominations? The Times needs to editorialize about Oscar nominations? But has no time for Coretta Scott King?
"Oh, Oscar!"? Oh, Gail.
I was fuming. I was raging. Thomas Friedman was kvetching, "Who the hell knew I married Angela Dickinson!"
"Angela Davis!" I corrected.
"Oh yeah," Thomas Friedman snorted. "One played Police Woman, the other was hunted by the police."
I just stared him until he stopped laughing.
"Um," he said staring at the ground. "Um, it's, see it's funny because it's juxtaposition."
"And funny because a Black woman is the butt of the joke? Or maybe you thinking Blacks should be hunted down?"
Thomas Friedman retreated to his office where, no doubt, he continued surfing online for fake nudes of the male cast from Saved By The Bell.
This morning, Thomas Friedman hands me the paper and tells me I'll be happy with it today.
Knowing the New York Timid too well, I finish my coffee before opening and flipping to the op-eds and editorials. Editorials? Four. None on Coretta Scott King. Opinion pieces? Paul Krugman writes of the "State of Delusion" which does not cover the paper's own delusion that they're somehow inclusive. Thomas Friedman writes about Bully Boy (he's got a poster of Bully Boy in a onesie nailed to the bedroom closet door) and oil in "Will Pigs Fly" (sooner than Lard Butts, Tommy, sooner than Lard Butts). Graphic designer Barbara Blauber does "Op-Art" about judging books by their cover. (Why not judge papers by what they choose to cover?) And not one, but two guest columnists are brought in to write two separate columns on Pope Joseph Ratzinger who, for the record, didn't die.
I guess Coretta Scott King doesn't matter to the paper. I guess her passing doesn't matter. She's known globally at least as well as Mother Teresa was. She dedicated her life to fighting for equality and peace. She was known around the world as a leader and her husband was as well -- her husband who was targeted by the FBI and who was assassinated. She fought for civil rights, for women's rights, for peace. She fought against poverty, against homophobia. On the national stage, she was certainly as graceful as Jackie Kennedy and she never felt the need to draw the veil and retire from public service.
So I found myself wondering, "Exactly what didn't Mrs. King do? What should she have done to have her death noted by the editorial and opinion staff of the New York Times?"
At first, I thought, "Well she should have written a play length version of Designing Women!" But then I remembered how August Wilson's passing was down played.
Then I thought, "She should have befriended Gail Collins!" Because women with unibrows are too often the butt of the jokes. Gail Collins should not be laughed at for her unibrow. There are plenty of other reasons to laugh at Gail Collins, trust me.
Which left only one thing that Coretta Scott King 'forgot' to do: Be born White.
If Coretta Scott King had been born White, you better believe Gail Collins would have dashed off an editorial to her.
Just as that hit me, Thomas Friedman came lumbering in, grinning, and obviously pleased with himself.
"Did you see it, Betinna?" he asked beaming at me.
"You didn't mention Coretta Scott King, you fat jerk!" I snarled tossing a waffle at him.
I think his feelings were hurt. But it was hard to tell as he had lifted the hem of his shorty robe up to his face in order to lick off the syrup from where the waffle landed.
When he was done with that task, he pointed to his column.
"I've got my readers saying, 'You should have listened to your wife!' about Iraq! I mentioned you! A Colored woman. See I'm not a racist."
That's when I realized the pig is racism, the pig is the New York Times. Thomas Friedman, Gail Collins and the rest are just the sop that gets fed to the pig.
the new york times
the common ills
democracy now
coretta scott king
mlk
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
thomas friedman is a great man
thomas friedman
gail collins
racism
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
