Jim: At the request of reader Alicia, we're doing another roundtable. She suggested that the mailbags had become mini-roundtables but she asked for something "lengthier." She further noted that "roundtables are becoming all the rage lately and if you don't do another one soon, you'll lose your place." Hey, no cutting in line! Ty's picked out a few e-mails and he'll explain that in a second but here's who is participating: The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and me, Jim, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man, C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, and Wally of The Daily Jot. Ty?
Ty: I was looking for a mix in the e-mails in terms of topics and I was also attempting to note repeated questions or issues that come up. If you've written about something and it's not here, maybe we'll be able to get to it in the mailbag. I do try to respond to all e-mails that require a response and I know Dona does as well. First up is a question that is very popular after last week's edition: Are illustrations worth it?
Dona: I think they are. Ty and I both responded to that during the bulk of the week. They do put us behind, no question. There are huge problems with posting them and there are huge problems with getting them up on Flickr to begin with. Rebecca, what's the time on that right now?
Rebecca: 45 minutes on one illustration.
Dona: That's uploading one so that gives you an idea. Now uploading can slow down postings but most of the time they do not slow down the actual writing process. What they also do, in the best instances, is give us to something to focus on. Often, the ones doing the illustration are Kat, Jess, Ty, Jim, Ava, C.I. and myself. That's because we're all together. But, even when the rest assisting aren't present, they can make suggestions over the phone, and it's a way to get us all on the same page before writing. So in terms of that, they're a bonus. In terms of the look of the site, I think they've been a plus. We are toying with posting features on Sunday without illustrations when we're unable to get them to load, then coming back in the evening and adding them. It is a problem, but it's also has an upside. Having offered illustrations, at this point, I'd be upset if we stopped because I am used to the 'new' look.
Betty: I'd just add to that illustrations became a big deal to everyone for the editions in the lead up to the September rally. We really wanted to move towards more illustrations. Good or bad, they can be a breather from text. It's also true that even before illustrations became so important, they already were in one regard. C.I. was very vocal that we needed illustrations of war resisters because they weren't being covered and we really needed to do our part to put a face on war resistance. From that flowed where the site is now.
Ty: That was the most asked question, most raised issue in last week's e-mails. I'll turn it back over to Jim.
Jim: Thank you, Ty. For anyone wondering, Ty's turning it over to participate. I like to moderate and listen. On Thursday, C.I. discussed "What's Next for the Peace Movement?" (Foreign Policy in Focus) which was a follow up to Lawrence Wittner "How the Peace Movement Can Win." One complaint came in, C.I. didn't link to the piece. Which was an accidental oversight and C.I. plans to provide the link in tonight's "And the war drags on" entry. But everyone else just wanted to know what anyone else thought of that.
Wally: I agreed with it. I read it and I can't wait to read Marcia's take on it Tuesday in Hilda's Mix, but I agreed with the critiques offered. Cedric and I were talking about it Saturday morning while we were working on a joint-post and we agreed that Brian Corr's was one of the real standouts of that.
Cedric: He's addressing the fact that you can't just say 'we're diverse' by providing spokespeople, you also have to be diverse within the structure of the organization itself. That was the one that stood out the most, most favorably, for me. I was glad it stood out to Wally too and C.I. as well. I also agreed that the "I agree with Wittner" parts should have been dropped. When I started reading it, the Wittner parts are at the beginning, I nearly stopped reading. Then I flipped back to C.I.'s entry and saw Corr was one of the ones C.I. was really talking up, so I went back over and read. About the second paragraph, he starts really getting into it. It was my own personal favorite and I find it interesting that he was the only one to address that.
Jim: Just so you know, everyone appears to want to respond right now so we may make that the topic, Dona's very serious about the time limit here, the sole topic of this roundtable. Mike wants to speak and I'm pretty sure what he wants to say because there's something that really ticked me off and I'm guessing it did Mike as well.
Mike: Saif Rahman, right? We've got one young or youngish person in the mix and he's wasting his allotted time to include an eight-line MLK quote. C.I.'s comments on that were: "I'd also add that in limited space, a multi-line quote from MLK isn't advancing anything. You can summarize it. But to use limited space to share a quote? MLK has had his say and should be remembered. But as the only youth voice invited into the discussion, it was more important to hear from that then to hear a lengthy quote (eight lines) from MLK." I loved that. I've got no problem with a quote and certainly not one from MLK but this was about today's peace movement and the one young or youngish voice is using eight lines to insert a quote? It just struck me as, "Got to beef up my term paper!" C.I. wanted to hear from the youth. Me, I wanted my generation represented. There are very real issues for my generation and they're not going to be addressed that way.
Jim: Other than the use of a lengthy quote, what did you think of Rahman's piece?
Mike: Seems to me everyone's looking for an easy fix. The peace movement is moving along, without much help from outside, and in that section and other people's suggestions, I saw a lot of copy-catting. I saw, "The key is if we just do this!" But "this" wasn't often about the peace movement. It was "let's copy!" Rahman wanted a peace movement that was put together like NOW or the NAACP. I disagree with that and wondered what could have been offered instead, in terms of people my age and issues -- good or negative -- with the peace movement?
C.I.: I wasn't planning to comment on this because I had my say. However, I feel the need to note that Rahman is a young person and that he may have been intimidated by some of the other contributions. I think it's right to point out that we lost a shot at hearing from a young voice. But I also think, or hope, that the next time that won't happen. Foreign Policy in Focus is one of the firsts to present a roundtable on peace. So I just want to note that doing that was a strong thing and if all the contributions had left us less than thrilled, it still would have been. In terms of Rahman, it's not easy being the first one in the water. I'll also throw a nod to Ron Jacobs' "Sitting In On Senator Kohl and the War-A Conversation With Antiwar Students" (ZNet).
Jess: I'll back that point up and note that the complaint is not, "Shut up, Rahman." The complaint is that we wanted to hear from Rahman. And that Ron Jacobs' roundtable is worth reading, really worth reading. That's a wide ranging look of students involved in the peace movement today.
Rebecca: Let me point out what no one probably wants to be the first to about the roundtable in Foreign Policy in Focus, Joanne Landy. Now I hated that. I hated it and I won't give the qualifiers that C.I. did. C.I.'s commentary on that piece had me laughing and it was funny because it was true.
Jim: Should we note the organization?
Jess: A.N.S.W.E.R. is the organization that Landy offers negative criticism on by name. They aren't a participant in the roundtable and I found that a bit snarky.
Rebecca: I would agree with that completely. I also note that the "Mother Russia" comment by C.I. made me snort my diet cola when I read it. That was funny and it really did capture it. I'm also familiar with one get together a decade or two back where C.I. and several others had to step between and separate people because they were bringing their old grudges into a social function and were ready to come to blows.
Elaine: Well the organization I support is United for Peace & Justice. I don't have a problem with other organizations -- ones that really work for peace -- but that's the one I'm behind. I don't see any need for anyone, in a roundtable like that, to trash A.N.S.W.E.R. I found her offensive and her suggestions, as C.I. pointed out, leading to exactly the thing she supposedly doesn't want.
Jim: Meaning?
Elaine: A party line. I'm not going to be as diplomatic as C.I. I have no problem with the left that is Democratic, Socialist or Communist. But I'm not interested in those who are taking their marching orders . . . I'm taking a breath. During Vietnam, and C.I. addressed this in the last roundtable we did, there would be people who were established activists. I'm glad and I thank them all. But for every four of them there was someone who apparently had once taken orders from Russia and, as the leadership changed, the orders changed. So one moment you were supporting this and the next you were supporting that. On board with Germany! Oops, we're opposed now. That was not the entire left nor was it the entire left who were Communists. I want to be clear about that. But there were some like that and, by Vietnam, there were some who wanted to bring all their old baggage into it. I loved C.I.'s comment last roundtable about the man complaining that the youth, then youth, didn't know all about Russia: "So what?" That's how many my age felt when that nonsense would start up. And I dispute the idea that enough wasn't known. It wasn't an issue of knowledge, for those people, it was an issue of commitment, an issue of following the party line.
Betty: Well, and this was before my time so I may be misunderstanding this, but with all that was going on and had gone on, JFK, MLK, RFK, Malcolm X shot, the attacks by the police in Chicago, the stench of Nixon that would lead to the exposure of Watergate, I'm wondering if people, the young people then, would have accepted something like that to begin with?
Elaine: I don't think so. I think you're getting at exactly what the problem, the 'gap,' was. Now I'm not judging anyone for what they fought for or what they thought pre-Vietnam. I am saying no one needed them dragging their old battles into the then current peace movement. It was irritating and a distraction. On the most basic level, it was a distraction because someone would ask you after, "What was that about?"
Jess: My mother, like Rebecca, loved the "Mother Russia" comment as well. She noted the group, which is still around and often younger, that bends themselves into logic pretzels trying to justify this and that and she remembered how much angst and anger they caused in the movement. Not because of their beliefs or their past actions but because they wanted to relive that during Vietnam.
Elaine: Right and I really wish C.I. would jump in.
C.I.: Okay.
Rebecca: Only for Elaine, I will note.
C.I.: You are so right. I'm joking. But, hmm, the thing that has Elaine hesitating is that we're not red baiting and you end up having to choose every word carefully to avoid anyone thinking you're doing that. I majored in poli sci, real ideologies don't scare me, actions may. There were many wonderful Communists or lapsed Communists who made very valuable contributions and were trying to fit in and work with young people during that period. It was probably as difficult for some as it was for young people. And I'm sure that a roundtable of them would note issues, our issues, that weren't exactly helpful either. But this nonsense of "You supported/opposed the Warsaw Pact!" This wasn't a conversation with the youth, it was bickering and arguing between two factions, some of whom would slip over into being neocons as time progressed, was a private argument that they really needed to take outside. Rebecca outed me as a non-Communist --
Rebecca: My mother-in-law told me you'd be upset about that.
C.I.: I'm not upset with you. But that's the sort of thing that I'd never weigh in on one way or another at The Common Ills. I'm not interested in red baiting. If the issue came up, I always sidestepped it. That was with anyone that wasn't a close friend as well. The reason for that, and Elaine and I have discussed this at length starting in college, people who were Communist were wrongly targeted and wrongly smeared. So that's why Elaine's hesitant to tackle this issue full on, she doesn't want it to appear as if it's "Dump on the Communists time!" It's not. We are, however, talking about some members of two strands in conflict who, years and years later, brought their disagreements into the effort to end Vietnam. And it wasn't productive then and it's not productive now. The article we're discussing is drawing a line in the sand and that line could cut off one strong ally. We're not interested in that. We weren't interested in it during Vietnam where some people were trying to bring decades old grievances into a movement to end the war. It was disruptive. It was also very ignorant because if I had been a Communist, I would've been much more interested in what was going on in China than what was going on in the USSR. China was already emerging and you had various visits and trips to that country, not just by Tricky Dick and Pat Nixon, so that would have been on the radar more than someone's love affair with Russia.
Jim: There are people who feel that some people need to apologize for past actions.
C.I.: You're talking about in the 30s they supported this or that, or whatever decade, you can pick at will, and then something awful happened so the right wants them to parade in ash cloth, right?
Jim: Right.
C.I.: Anyone can be wrong. I'm wrong all the time. There's a difference between being wrong and lying. If someone's wrong because they made a mistake in judgement, then so be it. Happens every day, every hour of the day. If someone's wrong because they're lying, that's different. I'm really not interested, however, in individuals apologizing. When world leaders start being forced to apologize, then maybe individuals should. While I wasn't mad at Rebecca for outing me as a non-Communist, I really wasn't, Rebecca, I was bothered because there would be, for some, possibly a feeling of, "Oh, C.I.'s not Communist, I can read C.I. now." If someone likes or doesn't like or believes or doesn't believe in Communism, they're welcome to read but I'm not really interested in anyone who needs a safety valve to read -- someone who needs a disclaimer on this or that before they can think for themselves.
Rebecca: I will note that I wrote about that over a year ago and my mother-in-law said, "Rebecca, you shouldn't have written that." I didn't get that. Now, I know you're not mad, but I do get it now and I'm remembering a guy I dated in college pressing Elaine about whether or not she was a Communist and Elaine refusing to answer it and Elaine did get very mad when I answered it for her.
Elaine: Right. That was one of your dumb jock periods. I think you went through six weeks where you were sampling the entire athletic department. So there was the little boy, in school on a sports scholarship, accusing me of being a Communist and getting angry that I wouldn't take the bait or issue a denial. People were actively persecuted for that and things weren't going to stop by me, or anyone else, stopping in the middle of every political debate to say, "No, I'm not a Communist." In fact, that would have only kept the witch hunts alive on some level. It would have rewarded them to begin with because people would still have to be answering that: "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?"
C.I.: And let's remember that a number of organization and outlets behaved very shamefully. You can include The Nation in that. So the idea that the one piece we're talking about, in Foreign Policy in Focus, seems to us, Elaine and myself, to have been built around that "I do real work and I'm not like those people" nonsense and we found that very offensive. In this case, "those people" are A.N.S.W.E.R. and in terms of ending this illegal war, A.N.S.W.E.R. has worked very hard on that issue.
Rebecca: It's like the lesbian issue [at the start of the second wave of feminism in the US].
Elaine: Exactly. At a time when lesbians were coming out of the closet and claiming their rightful space, there was an attempt by some outside the feminist movement to use that as a battering ram.
C.I.: Some inside as well, don't forget The Ego Of Us All.
Elaine: Correct. And Gloria Steinem had the best way of responding to that question. I'm not remembering the wording.
C.I.: "Are you a lesbian" is the question and Steinem's answer to the male questioneer was, "Are you the alternative?" Lesbian, straight, bi, non-sexual, various women made up the feminist movement, and still do today, and there was a very real effort to pit sides against one another. I'm not talking about disagreements within the movement. There were valid disagreements that needed to be raised about issues such as were all women being given the same opportunities welcomed equally, etc. The issue was that lesbian had a perjorative for many in society and the easiest thing in the world, whether you were straight or a lesbian, was to rush in to say, "No, I'm not a lesbian." And by doing so, you were perpetuating the belief that there was something wrong with being a lesbian.
Elaine: Whether you meant to or not. And some meant to and were happy to reap the benefits.
Betty: What this is reminding me of is Thomas Friedman. It's reminding me of how he's always wanting Muslims to prove their non-violence with this statement or that.
Ava: I think that's a very good comparison. He's setting up a negative and asking them to prove they aren't that way. Why should any group have to denounce violence that hasn't used it? If they followed his suggestion, if every mosque denounced every act of violence in the world, it wouldn't lead to a universal agreement that "They're not a violent faith." It would lead to, "Oh, did you hear that? They're denouncing it again. You know what they say, where there's smoke there's fire. The lady doth protest too much." And let's be really clear that I've never expected to open The New York Times and find Thomas Friedman denouncing every act of violence by the Israeli government. I didn't enjoy that piece, essay to begin with, and the more it's discussed here, the more I wish the woman had chosen another approach to write about peace or to try to write about or pretend to write about peace.
Jess: To get back to another piece in this edition, what it does is create a Sister Souljah movement, like me or vote for me because I'm not like them! But the reality is that for the right and the right-of-center, regardless of what someone might say, they are always like them. So this nonsense about striving for respectablity in the eyes of the enemy is self-defeating.
Jim: Go, Jess! Okay, Dona's just told me we "really, really need to wrap up." This has become the topic, the piece in Foreign Policy in Focus, so let's stay with that and Dona says Wally, Cedric and Ty especially need to be given the chance to talk.
Ty: I think everything that could be said on Landy's piece has been said, and said very well, so I'll note that along with Corr's piece, I was really impressed with the one by Bal Pinguel. I think it is really important for the peace movement to emphasize the war's costs here. And I think those costs go beyond monetary and to the ugly stain we're leaving on our character. I think the Bully Boy has cheerleaded the nation into a series of dark moments and by not rejecting them, the Congress still hasn't shut down Guantanamo, we've come to a place where our very foundation is at risk. Secret detentions, warrantless searches, illegal spying, these aren't things that just either happen to you or not, these are things that effect the character of a nation.
Cedric: I'd agree with that and back it up by noting, we can only be what we can dream. The US has never been the land where everyone was treated equal and all rights were protected and enshrined. But we could believe that we might get there. What Bully Boy has done is damage that dream, pit us against one another, teach us not "Love thy neighbor" but "Be scared to death of your neighbor." He hasn't done it by himself, he's had a lot of help, but I do believe he set the tone on it and I do believe that we don't know how bad the fallout will be. You have people who have been raised in a time when it was okay to illegal spy on American citizens, to give one example. You have people who believe it is okay to detain Jose Padilla for years with no trial. Let me correct that, to imprison him. And before anyone says, "Well ___ didn't say it was okay!" I know some groups have argued against it. I also know Congress has gone along with it so the message has been sent that our government is okay with it, including the Supreme Court which has elected to sit out on most of the important issues today.
Wally: What Cedric and Ty are talking about are very real concerns. There's also the concern that when you have a country that shrugs over the gang rape and murder of a 14-year-old girl, Abeer, by US soldiers, you have to wonder if it's two 14-year-old girls next time, or if it's a 10-year-old girl next time? At what point do we become outraged after living through one outrage after another while Congres, the Courts and most of the media sat it out? Let me give an example from the real world. You get a neighbor who blasts his music non-stop, all day. He moves out and you get a neighbor who does the same but only for a few hours. You may feel relief that it's not all day. You've accepted that it's okay for someone to blast you out. By the same token, what things are we now going to be more accepting of when Congress finally does act? Okay, no illegal wiretapping but black bag searches are still okay? Where's the line now because Bully Boy has destroyed the line and some people will just be so glad that a line is redrawn that they won't care too much that it cuts off a large chunk of rights we used to have.
So there are very real effects of the illegal war and Bully Boy's other abuses that are going on in this country and they go beyond the cost and the debt and what we could have had if all the money hadn't gone to the war. In many ways, getting back to Cedric's dream point, it may be worse than some of the things we've lost out on financially because even though we were deprived of some needed things, we still had the ability to dream of better and at this point, when you hear some people longing for the days of Nixon, it's as though better has been downgraded to the extreme.
Jim: And on that note, we're going to wrap up this roundtable.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Mailbag
Due to the fact that Dona read over some of the e-mailed questions and topics Ty had pulled for the roundtable and enjoyed the mix, we're also doing Mailbag this edition.
Brendan e-mailed to note that Elaine (Like Maria Said Paz) had an idea for a feature here on Wednesday but by Friday had given it up. How often does that happen?
Elaine: Today's Mother's Day, so peace to all, and I had a thought for a feature here. It was a fictional one. On Friday, Laurie Hasbrook's "This Minute and Then the Next" was up at CounterPunch and she'd done it much better, realistically, then we could have fictionally so I tabled the idea but do urge everyone to read Hasbrook's piece.
It's not uncommon for that to happen. We'll have ideas during the week and discuss them then, by the time Sunday rolls around, someone's grabbed them and we don't feel we have much to add to the discussion. (Jess says "Now That's Everything's Be Said" -- a Carole King song.)
Winter093 notes that Mike (Mikey Likes It!) used to talk more about his mother (Trina's Kitchen) at his site and doesn't as much now. It's either "folks" or it's "Dad." Why is that?
Mike: It's obvious, huh? Because I catch hell from two older brothers when I mention Ma and forget to do a link. I don't know how everyone else does their posting. I know C.I. usually gets links and then writes around them. But I write all the way through and when I'm done, I go back in and add my links. I had a story about Ma last week that I really wanted to share but didn't because I was tired and in the middle of the post when I thought, "If I forget the link, I'll have two griping phone calls tomorrow."
With the exceptions of Wally and Cedric, everyone's pretty bad about linking. We've all told Kat not to worry about linking to us when she puts in our names. (We is actually: Jim, Dona, Jess, Ava, Ty and C.I.) We're usually all together when she blogs and we know she's usually leaving something fun to do it and hurrying to get back. We should all do a better job of linking but the reality for those who post during the week is that they're dealing with what's happened on Monday and a lot of other things, including being tired and there's not always time.
Elaine notes that she never goes back and re-reads herself. Usually on Wednesday, she's asking Sunny, "Did I link to Trina?" or whomever so that she can get in that link before she takes Thursdays off.
Marv wanted to know what the deal was with Cedric (Cedric's Big Mix) and Wally (The Daily Jot)? Last week had some shorter items and then a really long one on Saturday and what's up with posting on Saturdays anyway?
Cedric: It's a combination of time and how much space we need to say what we want to say. Sometimes we can say it in as little as three sentences. When that's possible, we do so.
Wally: There has been non-stop complaints in the community that not enough goes up on Saturdays. It's also true that it can be easier for us to post on Saturdays. We play it by ear but are seriously considering dropping the Friday posts for good and instead doing a Saturday post each week.
CallieLouBelle e-mails that as someone who does not get the print edition, she feels very cheated for missing out on the feature Rebecca (Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude) led on and then pulled. She wonders if there's anything Rebecca has to say about her pregnancy that can be shared online?
Rebecca: I pulled it because it said too much. I'm a really open person and always have been. I know that means you get it slapped back in your face from time to time and I am cool with that; however, we're talking about my child and I'm following Ruth's lead on that because who knows what it would be like ten or twenty years from now to read about your life online? I regretted pulling the piece only because (a) I felt I put everyone behind (which everyone says wasn't the case) and (b) a lot of time was put into it. In terms of my pregnancy, what do you want to know? My weight gain. Want to hear about my trips to bathroom? My back pain? I've actually blogged about all of that at my own site. I think you actually mean if there's anything I want to share about the birth or the baby? My child is off limits. Regarding the birth, I'll note that I sailed right through it. I'd heard, my entire life, about how painful it was and how long and all the rest. Mine wasn't like that at all.
Betty asks that we note it's okay to hate Rebecca for the easy labor; however, she "is one of the most genuinely nice people you'll ever meet." Elaine notes that Rebecca's long wanted a child for so long that she honestly thinks Rebecca was (naturally) high during the birth and didn't register the pain for that reason. Elaine adds it's also okay to hate Rebecca for emerging from giving birth looking ready to pose for a magazine cover. (Mike adds ":D")
JuJu praises Betty (Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man) ("everyone in fact, but really Betty") for her guest posts at Rebecca's site and wants to know if Betty would consider doing two blogs -- her own and a new one where she just blogs?
Betty: Thank you, JuJu. Filling in for Rebecca, or Kat or anyone, is always fun for me because I can just talk without all the structure and conventions that go into posting at my site. To do a site like that of my own, I'd have to drop Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man because I'd tell myself, "Oh go write at your blog. It's easier and you're not making any sense here." I would use it as an excuse to avoid Betinna's story. I love Betinna but some of the people that girl hangs around with -- ay-yi-yi.
BlueDogYouDog e-mails to complain about C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot"Thursday, specifically this statement: "Like the triangulator in the US, Bill Clinton, Blair destroyed his party." BlueDogYouDog doesn't believe there's any basis to that statement.
C.I.: You're entitled to your opinion. You may be right. I happen to disagree.
Jess: C.I. sent out that blanket statement all last week to about 27 people who e-mailed defending the illegal war: "I happen to disagree." I'll add my two cents. Bill Clinton 'triangulated.' He didn't fight from the left, he fought from the middle. As such, he sold out a number of people in the policies he backed and advocated. This did very real damage.
Ty: Jumping on to that, his dramas -- some were lies but some were self-created -- took up a lot of time that should have gone elsewhere. Hillary had no right or reason, my opinion, to hide away health care. That was the people's business and it shouldn't have been conducted in secret. When they were attacked for that or for inflated claims or outright lies, we used all energy trying to defend them. It wasn't about the party at that point, it was about the Clintons. Time that should have gone into the party went into them.
Betty: As someone who continues to have a soft spot for Bill Clinton, I'll add that I agree with what was said but I'll further note that leadership and bean counters did an equal amount of damage thinking the answer was 'personality' and that all they had to do was find charismatic candidates. I think 2000's choice as well as 2004's choice demonstrates charisma is not easily found. Time could have spent on real issues during Clinton's terms -- I mean time spent by the party -- but they thought they'd found the quick fix and ran from real issues.
Dona: I don't think it's open to debate. I'm jumping in because Ava asked me to because she finds the comment so "stupid and repugnant" that she's not even addressing it. But the Democratic Party stood for something. When Clinton moved to the White House he was interested in standing for something else. He wanted to please and to reach out and did so at the expense of those he was supposed to protect. The desire to please by him and his administration allowed Poppy Bush to get away with breaking the law by allowing Iran-Contra to be set aside. If everyone read Robert Parry (Consortium News), I think it would have been more difficult for Bully Boy to be installed into the White House. But as much as I appreciate Parry's strong work, it's really sad that a journalist had to do what Congress and the administration wouldn't and that, having done that, there's never been any governmental follow up. Larry Bensky recently stepped down from his regular duties at KPFA and in the retrospective they broadcast, he was on NPR being asked about Oliver North. He explained he didn't feel sorry for North because North and his family weren't raped or killed or maimed or injured but North's actions allowed that to happen to many other. The NPR host said, paraphrase, "You're talking about a man that many consider a hero." Larry Bensky responded, "So? I don't." The reason many considered, or even any considered, North a hero when he broke the laws was due to the fact that so many wanted to cover up. The cover up then goes a long way to explaining the situations we're in now. I could give other examples as well. While consensual sex is not an impeachable crime, it sure did get old having to repeat that over and over. No question, that was a witch hunt. But, no question, Clinton did a stupid thing allowing that to happen in the first place. I'm not speaking of morals, I don't care what his morality is or was. I do know he went into office with a "bimbo" cloud over his head and he presumably wanted to be president. I think, regardless of whether he's faithful or not, he could have kept it in his pants while occupying the White House since he already knew the fallout from various 'bimbos' and that the press had such a field day with it originally that it nearly sank him in the 92 primaries. It was a self-control issue for him, a lack of it, and Democrats like me ended up having to explain over and over how consensual sex is not rape, is not harassment. It's easy to say, "He was under attack!" But the reality is he handed out the ammo for this attack by his own actions. But to repeat, consensual sex is not grounds for impeachment nor is lying about it.
Lastly, Kystal wants to know, from Elaine and C.I., what they see as the difference for war resisters then and now in terms of coverage?
Elaine: Well, during Vietnam, there was a greater awareness of war resisters. They might be people who avoided the draft and never showed up or they might be ones who were inducted and then checked out. You knew there were different ways. Today? You get reporters who don't even comprehend the difference between AWOL and desertion. C.I. pointed out last week or the week before, a reporter saying that the maximum someone could face if convicted with desertion was one year, that the reporter really didn't know what they were talking about. A mistake like that back then would have resulted in a correction. I'm not sure that there's the same level of awareness, the same number of people who could complain about an error like that. That's one way, I know Dona said keep this quick.
C.I.: I'll add to that. The awareness Elaine's speaking about existed because of the press as much as because people knew a war resister or two. One difference today has to do with the fact that you have less outlets. Back then, outlets had to compete. Today, they're all owned by the same basic people. Back then, if you were a radio station and you were silent on war resisters, you better believe another station was covering it and people would listen accordingly.
Alternative weeklies were a strong source and there were more of them with less connections and less concentrated ownership. Today you have syndicates and many aren't interested in the topic so you're not, as you might have then, seeing the topic cut out of just one weekly on one person's say-so, you're seeing it cut out of ten or twenty.
Ava: I'll grab the last word and note that the silence on Joshua Key's book was very sad. The Progressive has just run a review in their May issue. ZNet has one online that may appear in print. The Nation has been silent despite all the space they have each issue devoted to books and despite the fact that their book edition, devoted to books, just came out. Let me change my "very sad" to read "very sad and very telling."
The Trojan
In 1992, then candidate Bill Clinton reassured (racist) White voters he could be "tough" on the people of color by comparing Sister Souljah to the racist David Duke -- former Grand Wizard for the KKK. The comparison was false (and blatantly offensive) but it's come to be known as a "Sister Souljah moment" and candidates need to wink and nod to racists that, if elected, equality isn't high on their to-do list.
Bi-racial Barack Obama has long been winking and nodding but, as Paul Street's "'He's a Mouse': Russell Simmons Speaks Some Truth on Obama" (Black Agenda Report) notes, who is paying attention?
Not The Nation magazine which, in the past, could be counted to call this nonsense out. They made the senator and 2008 presidential candidate a cover boy and their legal professor took to the airwaves (KPFA and WBAI) to gush over Obama in a way not seen since Peggy Noons decided she'd have the last word on the Bully Boy. For those who turned crimson as Noons gushed repeatedly over her girl-age crush, you hadn't heard anything. (Ruth addressed Williams' appalling appearance on KPFA.) It was the audio equivalent of her doodling in a classroom spiral "Patty loves Barack" and "Mrs. Patricia Obama."
But Street did point it out and forced up to grab the bad book and read it. The Audacity of Hope is written by The Punk of Politics and it is nothing if not a multi-page Sister Souljah moment as the biracial politician repeatedly rushes to reassure that his half White side will predominate.
Street writes:
He argues that encouraging black girls to finish high school and stop having babies out of wedlock is "the single biggest that we could do to reduce inner-city poverty" (Obama 2006, p. 256).
And that was the first thing we wanted to check out because we're used to that claim coming from White racists. Street is correct, Obama makes it. It's racist and sexist and calls to mind James Cagney's moment in The Lady Killers when he mashes a grapefruit into the face of Mae Clark. If Williams is aware of it, we have to wonder if it gave her 'tingles'?
Presuming that by "we," he means "government," we'd argue "the single biggest that we could do to reduce inner-city poverty" would be to see government invest in inner-cities. We'd further argue that a politician who blames women and pushes the myth of "'hood rats" really isn't prepared for primetime, regardless of whether or not Patrica J. Williams feels that his having once been president of the Harvard Law Review trumps everything else.
In a really bad book, Obama presents one lie after another that he may or may not believe but certainly sends the message to racists, "I see things just as White as you do." Attempting to associate himself with popular White cultural figures such as Abraham Lincoln and Superman only underscore that. (Does no one notice that Obama's yet to identify with any popular African-American cultural figures?)
He's a 'get tough' kind of junior senator who wants the world to see just how 'tough' he can be. He only has to parade that in print because the press acted as if Jack Ryan decided to air his own dirty laundry in 2004.
At the height of Williams soft-porn appearance on KPFA, a listener attempted to interject some reality and noted the fact that Obama is weak on the issue of ending the illegal war. "I am not a single-issue voter!" Williams all but snarled speaking for herself and presumably the bulk of Nation writers who always find a topic -- any topic -- more worthy to gas bag over than Iraq. Furthermore, Williams wanted the little upstart to know, Obama didn't vote for the illegal war!
No, he didn't vote for the 2002 act (which didn't authorize the illegal war that the Bully Boy started). But, left unsaid by Williams, he wasn't in Congress then.
Throughout the book, you'll find Obama untroubled by the illegal war. You'll find that, in the abstract, he supports such wars. You'll find him applauding the attack on the poor (popularly mischaracterized as "welfare reform"). You'll find an idiot who believes racism is really a thing of the past. You won't find anything presidential, you won't find authentic leadership and you won't find good writing.
Sometimes a leader emerges
And is followed for awhile
Doesn't matter what he encourages
As long as he's got style
Young ones conceived in a passion
Of directions we thought enlightened
Grown-up, they follow the mood in fashion
But beneath their bravado
You know they're frightened
I remember time gone by
When peace and hope and dreams were high
We followed inner visions and touched the sky
Now we who still believe won't let them die
We're sorry to disagree with one of the finest songs Carole King's ever written solo ("Time Gone By" from the album of the same name) but we don't think it's the "young ones" we have to worry about. It's the "old ones" at The Nation (who, granted were "young ones" -- or at least "youngish" in 1979) who want to avoid the realities of Barack Obama, the very real racism he expresses that, in better days, they'd call out in a candidate who was (or thought to be) 100% White.
Bi-racial doesn't just get him a pass from the magazine (which avoids current realities of race) it leads to non-stop gushing. We don't think Barack Obama is an Uncle Tom -- even setting aside that Uncle Toms are traditionally 100% Black. We think that's far too modest for what he stands for. We think he's a Trojan Horse. The empty suit, issuing platitudes, with a mainstream press presenting him (racistly) as Black needs some serious analysis. We don't expect to find it in the pages of The Nation. (He is, after all, in name only a Democrat.)
Pigicles?
We'll note upfront (again) that we don't support efforts to make the online world 'safe' from mean comments. We think many need to grow a thicker skin. But Ty passed us (Ava and C.I.) an e-mail by a woman who was outraged by something she found online. She wondered if she was wrong to be outraged by an exchange that took place on a site she visits?
Background, Alice Marshall is one of the ones supporting 'better manners online' (she'd describe it differently). We disagree with her on that and don't know her work enough to agree or disagree with the rest of it. We do know that in what a reader copied, pasted and sent to us, Monroe and other women were disrespected and we have no problem calling that out.
It started innocently enough when Matt Stoller decided to share his thoughts and they were the usual nonsense you'd expect. (Want to have an impact online? "Raise money for candidates.") The reader was somewhat concerned that we'd hesitate to take on Stoller. We already have. In fact, in his post he mentions that he's blogged "125-175" posts on net neutrality to little apparent effect. Possibly it helps to know what you're talking about?
Monroe opened with:
When over a hundred bloggers come together to blog about the same issue it is no longer a pet issue. It is a movement. To ignore such a blogswarm is, well, bad form.
Schaller is talking about the importance of women in the Democratic party. Without any reference to the recent blogswarm. As in they have ears but they hear not.
You cannot ask people to contact Steny Hoyer and support your work if you will not reciprocate. And really, if you do not prepare the ground ahead by enlisting the support of the local Democratic bloggers I really do not see you getting anywhere.
And how can MyDD be a specialist in talking about campaigns & elections without reference to those who actually vote Democratic?????
I respect all the hard and poorly compensated work you have put into this, but acting like a movement requires a certain mentality, and right now it is not clear to me that you have it.
Get it right out of your head that this has to do with site traffic. Most of us are not dependent upon blogging for our income, thank Jesus fasting. What some of us want is a sense that the conversation goes both ways. You cannot ask us to have your back if you don't have ours.
And Stoller quickly responded with:
To ignore such a blogswarm is, well, bad form...Schaller is talking about the importance of women in the Democratic party. Without any reference to the recent blogswarm. As in they have ears but they hear not.
The immediate assumption here is that I am ignoring this campaign out of malice. I had no idea that this was going on, and no one asked me to join or explained why I should. I don't really understand this campaign but I'm open-minded. I become closed-minded very quickly when I am insulted for not knowing something I don't know about just because a hundred blogs linked to it. A hundred blogs link to stuff all the time that I don't know about. I'm not omniscient.
Get it right out of your head that this has to do with site traffic.
What is your criteria here? A hundred blogs link to lots of stuff. Why is this different? Make the case.
We agree that Monroe was wrong to assume that Stoller had heard of something or, in fact, anything. That The Washington Post had covered this doesn't really matter. For many today, a paper is not read, just articles that get linked to. Consider it the equivalent for the crowd that prefers the Greatest Hits and Best Of.
However, reviewing what the reader passed on, we just rolled our eyes at Stoller's blame the victim mentality. We thought the offensive statement came from Pericles which we'll address in full.
The two of the last three comments are instructive indeed. The overarching meme of America today is:
Me...me...me...me....
My blog...
My candidate...
My ideas...
No sense that others might see things differently or that just because 'the other', in this case
The "me" may arise from a post that elects to share one person's opinion.
Stoller, is criticizing the 'Me' in question it does not follow that 'the other' is acting out of a nefarious and evil agenda.
This is what, theoretically, separates us on the progressive branch of the human family tree from the mouthbreathers. Sad to see that 'some' did not get the memo.
Community matters and if you cannot criticize in a manner that avoids corroding the ties that make up the community then you and your agenda will not be successful.
He uses a lot of words (it is a he) and says very little. But, we're sure, he does the goat dance very well.
Further, I now cringe whenever a woman enters the thread with a complaint. Valid or not the complaint always seems to proceed from the viewpoint that 'the white men' want to keep the women down.
Having dropped his thesaurus, Pericles now wants to get down and dirty. Use Gloria Steinem's parallel therapy and substitute "African-American" for "woman" if you have trouble determining how offensive the first statement is: "Further, I now cringe whenever an African-American enters the thread with a complaint." Pericles isn't done insulting women.
Many do, no question.
But I would ask, 'Why lead with your chin?' If you are, as you stoutly maintain, an independent progressive women why do you need anyone's assistance in making your ideas known? This from a man who hung out with the first generation of feminist women and who has seen this attitude do more to undermine feminism than any of the ravings of the ReighWing.
Pericles is struggling hard to keep his head above water here. We have no idea of his age but he did not hang "out with the first generation of feminist women." He did not even hang "out with the first generation of American feminist women." If he had, he'd long be dead and we'd be spared his endless ruminations.
He doesn't know what he's talking about but that may be due to the fact that women make him cringe. When complaining, he might add, but to these types, anything other than, "No, two inches is impressive," tends to come off as a complaint.
For Pericles, the apparent offense of a woman being independent means she doesn't "need anyone's assistance" and, for the record, Monroe wasn't asking him to zip up the back of her dress. She was addressing the silence on an issue that mattered to many. Apparently a man can be independent and still have assistance getting the word out on an issue but when a woman tries to do both the best thing is to justify your own inaction by snarling, "You asked for it, libertine!"
He's seen real destruction come from feminist attitudes, a certain sort, you understand, the sort that takes people to task for sexism or, as Pericles prefers to put it, offers "a complaint."
You get the feeling Pericles has heard a lot of complaints in his lifetime? Want to bet on how many were justified?
Ladies, it's your fight...
So fight it.
I support you but I've got my own agenda to work on.
"Ladies" adds to the insult before he even gets to "it's your fault." Ladies. Ladies who lunch? That is so insulting -- "Ladies." Possibly he feels it's a step up from "girls"? His use of the term further proves he didn't hang out with any group of feminists (of any generation).
It's your fight, he says, because (a) he's busy (with real issues, we're sure, manly ones), (b) you wanted to be independent!, and (c) for all his condemning of 'me-me-me,' he's really can't see beyond his own limited circumstances. Or as Monroe rightly put it, "You cannot ask us to have your back if you don't have ours."
The reader who passed this on is a dedicated MyDD follower or was. We think that's the best way to "Take Back the Net": stop visiting sites that allow women to be attacked en mass without moderators stepping in to issue their own opinion. We're not saying delete it or ban it, we are saying when a moderator allows Pericles sexist b.s. to stand without comment, the moderator has endorsed it -- intentionally or not.
Background, Alice Marshall is one of the ones supporting 'better manners online' (she'd describe it differently). We disagree with her on that and don't know her work enough to agree or disagree with the rest of it. We do know that in what a reader copied, pasted and sent to us, Monroe and other women were disrespected and we have no problem calling that out.
It started innocently enough when Matt Stoller decided to share his thoughts and they were the usual nonsense you'd expect. (Want to have an impact online? "Raise money for candidates.") The reader was somewhat concerned that we'd hesitate to take on Stoller. We already have. In fact, in his post he mentions that he's blogged "125-175" posts on net neutrality to little apparent effect. Possibly it helps to know what you're talking about?
Monroe opened with:
When over a hundred bloggers come together to blog about the same issue it is no longer a pet issue. It is a movement. To ignore such a blogswarm is, well, bad form.
Schaller is talking about the importance of women in the Democratic party. Without any reference to the recent blogswarm. As in they have ears but they hear not.
You cannot ask people to contact Steny Hoyer and support your work if you will not reciprocate. And really, if you do not prepare the ground ahead by enlisting the support of the local Democratic bloggers I really do not see you getting anywhere.
And how can MyDD be a specialist in talking about campaigns & elections without reference to those who actually vote Democratic?????
I respect all the hard and poorly compensated work you have put into this, but acting like a movement requires a certain mentality, and right now it is not clear to me that you have it.
Get it right out of your head that this has to do with site traffic. Most of us are not dependent upon blogging for our income, thank Jesus fasting. What some of us want is a sense that the conversation goes both ways. You cannot ask us to have your back if you don't have ours.
And Stoller quickly responded with:
To ignore such a blogswarm is, well, bad form...Schaller is talking about the importance of women in the Democratic party. Without any reference to the recent blogswarm. As in they have ears but they hear not.
The immediate assumption here is that I am ignoring this campaign out of malice. I had no idea that this was going on, and no one asked me to join or explained why I should. I don't really understand this campaign but I'm open-minded. I become closed-minded very quickly when I am insulted for not knowing something I don't know about just because a hundred blogs linked to it. A hundred blogs link to stuff all the time that I don't know about. I'm not omniscient.
Get it right out of your head that this has to do with site traffic.
What is your criteria here? A hundred blogs link to lots of stuff. Why is this different? Make the case.
We agree that Monroe was wrong to assume that Stoller had heard of something or, in fact, anything. That The Washington Post had covered this doesn't really matter. For many today, a paper is not read, just articles that get linked to. Consider it the equivalent for the crowd that prefers the Greatest Hits and Best Of.
However, reviewing what the reader passed on, we just rolled our eyes at Stoller's blame the victim mentality. We thought the offensive statement came from Pericles which we'll address in full.
The two of the last three comments are instructive indeed. The overarching meme of America today is:
Me...me...me...me....
My blog...
My candidate...
My ideas...
No sense that others might see things differently or that just because 'the other', in this case
The "me" may arise from a post that elects to share one person's opinion.
Stoller, is criticizing the 'Me' in question it does not follow that 'the other' is acting out of a nefarious and evil agenda.
This is what, theoretically, separates us on the progressive branch of the human family tree from the mouthbreathers. Sad to see that 'some' did not get the memo.
Community matters and if you cannot criticize in a manner that avoids corroding the ties that make up the community then you and your agenda will not be successful.
He uses a lot of words (it is a he) and says very little. But, we're sure, he does the goat dance very well.
Further, I now cringe whenever a woman enters the thread with a complaint. Valid or not the complaint always seems to proceed from the viewpoint that 'the white men' want to keep the women down.
Having dropped his thesaurus, Pericles now wants to get down and dirty. Use Gloria Steinem's parallel therapy and substitute "African-American" for "woman" if you have trouble determining how offensive the first statement is: "Further, I now cringe whenever an African-American enters the thread with a complaint." Pericles isn't done insulting women.
Many do, no question.
But I would ask, 'Why lead with your chin?' If you are, as you stoutly maintain, an independent progressive women why do you need anyone's assistance in making your ideas known? This from a man who hung out with the first generation of feminist women and who has seen this attitude do more to undermine feminism than any of the ravings of the ReighWing.
Pericles is struggling hard to keep his head above water here. We have no idea of his age but he did not hang "out with the first generation of feminist women." He did not even hang "out with the first generation of American feminist women." If he had, he'd long be dead and we'd be spared his endless ruminations.
He doesn't know what he's talking about but that may be due to the fact that women make him cringe. When complaining, he might add, but to these types, anything other than, "No, two inches is impressive," tends to come off as a complaint.
For Pericles, the apparent offense of a woman being independent means she doesn't "need anyone's assistance" and, for the record, Monroe wasn't asking him to zip up the back of her dress. She was addressing the silence on an issue that mattered to many. Apparently a man can be independent and still have assistance getting the word out on an issue but when a woman tries to do both the best thing is to justify your own inaction by snarling, "You asked for it, libertine!"
He's seen real destruction come from feminist attitudes, a certain sort, you understand, the sort that takes people to task for sexism or, as Pericles prefers to put it, offers "a complaint."
You get the feeling Pericles has heard a lot of complaints in his lifetime? Want to bet on how many were justified?
Ladies, it's your fight...
So fight it.
I support you but I've got my own agenda to work on.
"Ladies" adds to the insult before he even gets to "it's your fault." Ladies. Ladies who lunch? That is so insulting -- "Ladies." Possibly he feels it's a step up from "girls"? His use of the term further proves he didn't hang out with any group of feminists (of any generation).
It's your fight, he says, because (a) he's busy (with real issues, we're sure, manly ones), (b) you wanted to be independent!, and (c) for all his condemning of 'me-me-me,' he's really can't see beyond his own limited circumstances. Or as Monroe rightly put it, "You cannot ask us to have your back if you don't have ours."
The reader who passed this on is a dedicated MyDD follower or was. We think that's the best way to "Take Back the Net": stop visiting sites that allow women to be attacked en mass without moderators stepping in to issue their own opinion. We're not saying delete it or ban it, we are saying when a moderator allows Pericles sexist b.s. to stand without comment, the moderator has endorsed it -- intentionally or not.
Pencil it in
Today, at 7:00 pm EST, Amy Goodman and Greg Palast will be among the people on CSPAN's BookTV. If you do not get BookTV, but you can stream online, you have the options of listening or watching online live.
In addition, today (also beginning at 7:00 pm EST and lasting until 10:00 pm EST) you can listen to the Sunday broadcast of RadioNation with Laura Flanders (over Air America Radio airwaves, via XM satellite radio and via online streaming):
Heroes, anti-heroes and double-standards on terrorism: Cuba expert and journalist ANN LOUISE BARDACH on the release of the West's most wanted terrorist. Then FBI agent-turned-whistleblower MIKE GERMAN and ANGELICA SALAS of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles on home-grown groups targeting immigrants let go easy. And a return visit to some of our favorite Blue Grit grassroots heroes. This week, BOB FULKERSON and company from the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada.
And Flanders would be the first to note, don't just listen or watch, get out there in the world. If you're in the Bay Area you could attend one of the events of the speaking out tour that's bringing the realities of war resistance to the people:
Sunday May 13 - San Francisco
7pm at the Veterans War Memorial Bldg. (Room 223) , 401 Van Ness St, San Francisco. Featuring Agustin Aguayo, Camilo Mejia and Pablo Paredes. Sponsored by Courage to Resist, Veteran's for Peace Chp. 69 and SF Codepink.
Monday May 14 - Watsonville
7pm at the United Presbyterian Church, 112 E. Beach, Watsonville. Featuring Agustin Aguayo, Camilo Mejia, Pablo Paredes and Robert Zabala. Sponsored by the GI Rights Hotline & Draft Alternatives program of the Resource Center for Nonviolence (RCNV), Santa Cruz Peace Coalition, Watsonville Women's International League for Peace & Freedom (WILPF), Watsonville Brown Berets, Courage to Resist and Santa Cruz Veterans for Peace Chp. 11. More info: Bob Fitch 831-722-3311
Tuesday May 15 - Palo Alto
7 PM at the First Presbyterian Church (Fellowship Hall), 1140 Cowper, Palo Alto. Featuring Camilo Mejia. Sponsored by Pennisula Peace and Justice Center. More info: Paul George 650-326-8837
Wednesday May 16 - Eureka
7pm at the Eureka Labor Temple, 840 E St. (@9th), Eureka. Featuring Camilo Mejia. More info: Becky Luening 707-826-9197
Thursday May 17 - Oakland
4pm youth event and 7pm program at the Humanist Hall, 411 28th St, Oakland. Featuring Camilo Mejia, Pablo Paredes and the Alternatives to War through Education (A.W.E.) Youth Action Team. Sponsored by Veteran's for Peace Chp. 69, Courage to Resist, Central Committee for Conscientious Objector's (CCCO) and AWE Youth Action Team.
Friday May 18 - Berkeley
7pm at St. Joseph the Worker featuring Camilo Mejia.
If you're in the DC area Monday, you can join CODEPINK, Cindy Sheehan and others:
Mother's Day: Women Say NO to War!
Join us in DC to walk the halls of Congress with some of the most influential moms of our day! Plan your own local Mother's Day peace picnic, post your event here, or host a peace movie night.
More...
NEW! View the Mothers Day for Peace Video
More on Monday's action:
Camp Casey Peace Institute
MOTHER OF A MARCH
The time for being polite to our war-mongering politicians and organizations which support them is over. We mothers have to stand up and put our bodies on the line for peace and humanity. We must look into the best parts of ourselves that make us mothers willing to care for and protect all children of the world, not just our own. We need to access our hearts and souls to lead from a place of compassion and love not from war/fear mongering, hatred and disgraceful threats and use of bullying force. I am calling on Mothers of the world to join us in Washington DC for a "10,000 Mother of a March" on the day after Mother's Day, Monday, May 14th, 2007. Marches on the weekends are not effective, we need to shut the city of DC down! We will surround Congress and demand an end to this evil occupation and refuse to leave until the Congressional Leadership agrees with us, or throws us in jail!
Meet at Layfayette Park at noon. We will rally then march to Congress
I am calling on Mothers of the world to descend on US embassies all over the world that day. Imagine 10,000 Iraqi women marching on the Green Zone: marching in solidarity with us to end the slaughter of their children. I believe millions of mothers around the world are tired of their children being used as cannon fodder and political tools in the games of war and killer sanctions. Together we will stop the war machine.
Mothers united will never be defeated!
Sign up and let us know you are coming. Need a ride to DC? Have room in your Car? Go to our Rideshare Board
Need a Roomie? Have a spare bed? Housing Board
Those are only some events taking place around the country. Find something in your area or start something in your area. When your country's on the ledge, you don't just veg.
And because it's never too early to make summer plans
Press Contacts:
Kimberly Wilder, Green Party of Suffolk, Press Secretary
(631) 422-4702 votewilder@yahoo.com.
Roger Snyder, Green Party of Suffolk, Chair
(631) 351-5763 info@gpsuffolk.org
The Green Party of Suffolk will be holding a "Summer in Setuaket--Green Fundraising Party" on Friday, June 22 from 7pm to 10pm at the Setauket Neighborhood House, 95 Main Street, Setauket. (Main Street is north of 25A and 6/10th of a mile west of Nichols Road) http://www.setauketneighborhoodhouse.com/
The evening will include a potluck dinner, music, an art auction, and a display of the Green Party of Suffolk’s "Bring Home The Troops" poster contest entries. The winning poster from the youth category is on display now at http://www.gpsuffolk.org/.
Vegetarian and vegan dishes will be served. Admission is $15 (with a dish) and $20 (without a dish). Children are welcome. There will be a silent auction of work by local artists. Please note that political donations are not tax-deductible
Blacklisted & The Banned will perform their unique style of original, political music. Blacklisted features Sonny Meadows, Bob Westcott, Jon Foreman, Bob Campbell and Robert Langley. Blacklisted’s repertoire is sure to include some words against war and you can also expect them to play at least one song from their recently released first album, "I Never Thought I'd Miss Richard Nixon." More information about Blacklisted & The Banned can be found at http://www.sonnymeadows.com/.
The Green Party is an alternative to the Democrats and Republicans. The Green Party’s values can be described by the four pillars of: Nonviolence; Grassroots Democracy; Ecological Wisdom; and Social and Economic Justice.
Donations and/or requests for advance tickets can be sent to: Green Party of Suffolk, 14 Robin Drive, Huntington, NY 11743. For more information call Roger at (631) 351-5763 or go to http://www.gpsuffolk.org/
Robert Knight's "The Knight Report"
Last Thursday, someone was kind enough to e-mail the public account of The Common Ills with a transcription of "The Knight Report" from Wednesday. Ava read the e-mail. It was after C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" had posted but Ava passed it on to all of us (except Elaine who doesn't blog on Thursdays but notes she will post it Monday) and it got posted at various sites.
What's "The Knight Report"? Oh, no, you didn't, says Betty. "The Knight Report" is written and read by Robert Knight on KPFA's hour long news magazine Flashpoints Radio, Monday through Thursday. (The program also airs on KPFB and KFCF Fresno.) Fridays, Flashpoints Radio a news summary in Spanish. The hour long program airs from 5:00 pm EST to 6:00 pm EST and can be heard, via archives at any of the previous links, at any time provided you can listen online.
What is Flashpoints Radio? From Ava and C.I.'s commentary in the debut issue of Hilda's Mix: "The people's peace radio. A one-two body blow to the war machine that never starts churning. The information that often is provided by no other outlet." Along with Robert Knight, other contributors include Emily Howard and Miguel Molina. The hosts are Dennis Bernstein and Nora Barrows-Friedman. Again from Ava and C.I.'s commentary: "The topics? Forget what NPR won't tell you because NPR is far from alone in playing the Quiet Game. Live reporting from the occupied territories. Guests like Dahr Jamail, Dr. Mona el-Farra and Robert Parry. Life in times of war and peace. Reporting from in the line of fire."
Ava and C.I. are now doing weekly overview/reviews of radio programs for Hilda's Mix which is a newsletter for all Common Ills community members but exists to highlights the issues of the disabled. We asked them about their commentary of this program and they said what they did, what they're trying to do with each one, is convey the program in more than "And then . . ." "The show crackles with life and zips along at a fast pace. If you read the thing, we tried to re-create/honor that in our sentence structure by using partial sentences as well as full ones to convey the quieter moments to attempt to convey, for those who can't hear it, what goes on each broadcast."
If you are able to listen but haven't yet, please consider sampling the program. For now, you can enjoy "The Knight Report" from Wednesday.
In today's "Knight Report" --
VP Cheney gets another thunderous respomse to his secret visit to Iraq; and
Democrats decide to continue the War in Iraq by giving President Bush a bimonthly "allowance," rather than an annual "trust fund."
I'm Robert Knight in New York.
The man who mapped Iraq's oilfields as the payoff for the Bush administration's 2003 invasion today visited his prize territory under cover of darkness, where security required Halliburton alumnus and VP Richard Cheney to wear a massive flack-jacket under his blue blazer during yet another secret visit to Baghdad. Nevertheless, Cheney was serenaded with the percussive sound of nearby explosions, just as he was duriung his secret visit to Bagram airnbase in Afghanistan several weeks ago.
Today, mortars fired by the Iraqi patriotic resistance struck near the heavily guarded home of the Iraqi puppet parliament and prime minister inside Baghdad's US controlled Green Zone, with such force and proximity that Cheney's traveling team of reporters and mainstream media stenographers were quickly hustled from the rattling windows that framed a scheduled press conference, to the basement bunker of the US embassy compound, for their own safety.
Following the upstaging of his meeting with US "proconsul" Ryan Crocker and Iraq's de facto military governor, General David Petraeus, the surly VP terminated reporters' questions by growling that "This is just a photo spray." and grumbling that "There still are some security problems, security threats, no question about it." Later, as reporters filed into an embassy conference room for another photo-op of Cheney they overheard him tell his staff "...then we kick the press out."
Cheney's primary purpose was to pump the unratified Iraqi oil law, which was actually written by an American consultancy based near Langley, Virginia -- and which would abolish Iraqi national sovereignty over national petroleum reserves, in favor of lucrative extraction agreements with multinational oil conglomerates, whose proceeds the Bush administration had fondly hoped would help fund the 2-trillion-dollar cost of the ill-advised invasion and occupation of Iraq.
The legislation would also lead to a defacto partition of Iraq by disempowering the central Baghdad government, as well as Iraq's 18 provinces, in favor of so^called "regional governments" -- of which there is currently only one: namely, the Kurdistan regional regime in northern Iraq, which has long enjoyed the favors and clandestine presence of the CIA and Mossad.
But the legitimacy of the Kurdish construct was also challenged during Cheney's visit by the Iraqi resistance, which launched a suicide truck attack in the fortified Kurdish capitol of Irbil, killing nearly 2 dozen and wounding more than 100, in the most significant attack in three years. The "Islamic State of Iraq" claimed responsibility, saying it was in retaliation for the Kurdish government's dispatch of Peshmerga troops and militias to Baghdad for the American security surge.
Cheney's secondary purpose in Iraq was to demand speedy compliance from Iraq's "plantation parliament," which has yet to rubber-stamp the Bush administration's desperate desire for the oil law giveaway. The absentee assembly seldom reaches quorum because nearly half of its members now reside in London and in neighboring countries for their own safety. Cheney (along with most of the American mainstream media) feels competent to judge the parliament's plans for a 2-month recess during the 100-degree summer days of Iraq -- just like the US Congress enjoys during its annual recesses, as do most of America's schoolteachers and students.
More than 4 years into the disastrous occupation that Cheney and the the White House said would be "welcomed with open arms," Cheney today blamed the US-constructed occupation regime for the lack of post-invasion progress, saying of the scheduled Iraqi recess that "Any undue delay would be difficult to explain," and adding that "I do believe that there is a greater sense of urgency now than I'd seen previously."
But, unfortunately for Cheney, much of that urgency is in direct opposition to his presence in Iraq.
The Mahdi Army movement led by Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr today announced large demonstrations in the three holy cities of Kufa, Karbala and Kadhemiyah to protest Cheney's visit. al-Sadr has also withdrawn a half-dozen Sadrist party members from the occupation cabinet of puppet PM Nouri al Maliki, over his refusal to demansd a US troop withdrawal from Iraq. Yesterday the Sunni VP of the occupation, Tarek Al Hashimi, gave Maliki a one-week deadline for accomodatoing Sunni interests and ending the occupation -- or face the withdrarwal of Sunni contingents from Maliki's shaky coalition government.
There was also some back-tracking in Washington, where Democrats in Congress are adopting a new strategy to maintain the war in Iraq, while appearing to oppose it.
The latest Democratic party gambit in prolonging the bipartisan war is to not end funding for the war, but to transfer President Bush from an annual war-making "triust fund," to a bi-monthly "allowance."
The Democrats' proposal would pay for the war through July, then give Congress the option of renewing more money if conditions meet up with arbitrarily-defined "benchmarks" -- not the least of them being... passage of the oil law. The Democrats would also agree to eliminate withdrawal requirements and give Bush a blank check for a potential invasion of neighboring Iran. The bill would fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for three months, but "sequester" $48 billion until Bush made an automatic and unchallenged claim of "progress" in Iraq.
Even so, the White House said today it would still veto the new conditional House legislation -- which Democrats consider a "win-win" tactic, because it would give the impression (with renewals every few weeks) that they are "opposed" to the war and occupation that more than 2/3 of the American public wish to come to a rapid comnclusion.
Nevertheless, Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the day-to-day commander for U.S. military operations in Iraq, revealed today there are NO plans to end the US escalation in Iraq anytime soon. Odierno said "The surge needs to go through the beginning of next year for sure," .
And that's some of the news of this Wednesday, May 9, 2007.
From exile in New York, I'm Robert Knight for Flashpoints.
What's "The Knight Report"? Oh, no, you didn't, says Betty. "The Knight Report" is written and read by Robert Knight on KPFA's hour long news magazine Flashpoints Radio, Monday through Thursday. (The program also airs on KPFB and KFCF Fresno.) Fridays, Flashpoints Radio a news summary in Spanish. The hour long program airs from 5:00 pm EST to 6:00 pm EST and can be heard, via archives at any of the previous links, at any time provided you can listen online.
What is Flashpoints Radio? From Ava and C.I.'s commentary in the debut issue of Hilda's Mix: "The people's peace radio. A one-two body blow to the war machine that never starts churning. The information that often is provided by no other outlet." Along with Robert Knight, other contributors include Emily Howard and Miguel Molina. The hosts are Dennis Bernstein and Nora Barrows-Friedman. Again from Ava and C.I.'s commentary: "The topics? Forget what NPR won't tell you because NPR is far from alone in playing the Quiet Game. Live reporting from the occupied territories. Guests like Dahr Jamail, Dr. Mona el-Farra and Robert Parry. Life in times of war and peace. Reporting from in the line of fire."
Ava and C.I. are now doing weekly overview/reviews of radio programs for Hilda's Mix which is a newsletter for all Common Ills community members but exists to highlights the issues of the disabled. We asked them about their commentary of this program and they said what they did, what they're trying to do with each one, is convey the program in more than "And then . . ." "The show crackles with life and zips along at a fast pace. If you read the thing, we tried to re-create/honor that in our sentence structure by using partial sentences as well as full ones to convey the quieter moments to attempt to convey, for those who can't hear it, what goes on each broadcast."
If you are able to listen but haven't yet, please consider sampling the program. For now, you can enjoy "The Knight Report" from Wednesday.
In today's "Knight Report" --
VP Cheney gets another thunderous respomse to his secret visit to Iraq; and
Democrats decide to continue the War in Iraq by giving President Bush a bimonthly "allowance," rather than an annual "trust fund."
I'm Robert Knight in New York.
The man who mapped Iraq's oilfields as the payoff for the Bush administration's 2003 invasion today visited his prize territory under cover of darkness, where security required Halliburton alumnus and VP Richard Cheney to wear a massive flack-jacket under his blue blazer during yet another secret visit to Baghdad. Nevertheless, Cheney was serenaded with the percussive sound of nearby explosions, just as he was duriung his secret visit to Bagram airnbase in Afghanistan several weeks ago.
Today, mortars fired by the Iraqi patriotic resistance struck near the heavily guarded home of the Iraqi puppet parliament and prime minister inside Baghdad's US controlled Green Zone, with such force and proximity that Cheney's traveling team of reporters and mainstream media stenographers were quickly hustled from the rattling windows that framed a scheduled press conference, to the basement bunker of the US embassy compound, for their own safety.
Following the upstaging of his meeting with US "proconsul" Ryan Crocker and Iraq's de facto military governor, General David Petraeus, the surly VP terminated reporters' questions by growling that "This is just a photo spray." and grumbling that "There still are some security problems, security threats, no question about it." Later, as reporters filed into an embassy conference room for another photo-op of Cheney they overheard him tell his staff "...then we kick the press out."
Cheney's primary purpose was to pump the unratified Iraqi oil law, which was actually written by an American consultancy based near Langley, Virginia -- and which would abolish Iraqi national sovereignty over national petroleum reserves, in favor of lucrative extraction agreements with multinational oil conglomerates, whose proceeds the Bush administration had fondly hoped would help fund the 2-trillion-dollar cost of the ill-advised invasion and occupation of Iraq.
The legislation would also lead to a defacto partition of Iraq by disempowering the central Baghdad government, as well as Iraq's 18 provinces, in favor of so^called "regional governments" -- of which there is currently only one: namely, the Kurdistan regional regime in northern Iraq, which has long enjoyed the favors and clandestine presence of the CIA and Mossad.
But the legitimacy of the Kurdish construct was also challenged during Cheney's visit by the Iraqi resistance, which launched a suicide truck attack in the fortified Kurdish capitol of Irbil, killing nearly 2 dozen and wounding more than 100, in the most significant attack in three years. The "Islamic State of Iraq" claimed responsibility, saying it was in retaliation for the Kurdish government's dispatch of Peshmerga troops and militias to Baghdad for the American security surge.
Cheney's secondary purpose in Iraq was to demand speedy compliance from Iraq's "plantation parliament," which has yet to rubber-stamp the Bush administration's desperate desire for the oil law giveaway. The absentee assembly seldom reaches quorum because nearly half of its members now reside in London and in neighboring countries for their own safety. Cheney (along with most of the American mainstream media) feels competent to judge the parliament's plans for a 2-month recess during the 100-degree summer days of Iraq -- just like the US Congress enjoys during its annual recesses, as do most of America's schoolteachers and students.
More than 4 years into the disastrous occupation that Cheney and the the White House said would be "welcomed with open arms," Cheney today blamed the US-constructed occupation regime for the lack of post-invasion progress, saying of the scheduled Iraqi recess that "Any undue delay would be difficult to explain," and adding that "I do believe that there is a greater sense of urgency now than I'd seen previously."
But, unfortunately for Cheney, much of that urgency is in direct opposition to his presence in Iraq.
The Mahdi Army movement led by Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr today announced large demonstrations in the three holy cities of Kufa, Karbala and Kadhemiyah to protest Cheney's visit. al-Sadr has also withdrawn a half-dozen Sadrist party members from the occupation cabinet of puppet PM Nouri al Maliki, over his refusal to demansd a US troop withdrawal from Iraq. Yesterday the Sunni VP of the occupation, Tarek Al Hashimi, gave Maliki a one-week deadline for accomodatoing Sunni interests and ending the occupation -- or face the withdrarwal of Sunni contingents from Maliki's shaky coalition government.
There was also some back-tracking in Washington, where Democrats in Congress are adopting a new strategy to maintain the war in Iraq, while appearing to oppose it.
The latest Democratic party gambit in prolonging the bipartisan war is to not end funding for the war, but to transfer President Bush from an annual war-making "triust fund," to a bi-monthly "allowance."
The Democrats' proposal would pay for the war through July, then give Congress the option of renewing more money if conditions meet up with arbitrarily-defined "benchmarks" -- not the least of them being... passage of the oil law. The Democrats would also agree to eliminate withdrawal requirements and give Bush a blank check for a potential invasion of neighboring Iran. The bill would fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for three months, but "sequester" $48 billion until Bush made an automatic and unchallenged claim of "progress" in Iraq.
Even so, the White House said today it would still veto the new conditional House legislation -- which Democrats consider a "win-win" tactic, because it would give the impression (with renewals every few weeks) that they are "opposed" to the war and occupation that more than 2/3 of the American public wish to come to a rapid comnclusion.
Nevertheless, Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the day-to-day commander for U.S. military operations in Iraq, revealed today there are NO plans to end the US escalation in Iraq anytime soon. Odierno said "The surge needs to go through the beginning of next year for sure," .
And that's some of the news of this Wednesday, May 9, 2007.
From exile in New York, I'm Robert Knight for Flashpoints.
Highlights
This feature is written by Wally, Cedric, Rebecca, Betty, Elaine and Mike and all selections were made by us unless otherwise noted.
"The Jowls of Death" -- Look out Betinna! You've heard of the Jaws of Life? Betinna's up against the converse, a very ugly device.
Pesto Potato Salad in the Kitchen" -- Trina's providing several recipes, actually, and also noting why some need to clarify and explain themselves on Iraq now.
"Bully Boy doesn't understand "foreign forces"" &"THIS JUST IN! BULLY BOY SAYS FOREIGNERS OUT OF IRAQ!"-- the Iraqi parliament calls for a timeline for withdrawal of foreign forces and Cedric and Wally show you how the Bully Boy greets the news.
"Katie Couric, Robert Knight" -- if someone was slagged non-stop, from long before taking a job, how do you think they're ratings would be? Kat on both the continued sexism and the silence on the topic.
"NYT: He's reallly too old to play go-go boy" -- Ty said Lynda picked this one as her favorite entry by C.I. last week. ("He" is John F. Burns.)
"The US must 'stay the course' - says the exile who fled in the 80s" -- and our own pick for favorite entry from C.I. last week. (In the non-Iraq snapshot division.)
"David R. Francis, The Third Estate Sunday Review" -- Jim's pick for his favorite post by Mike last week. If you haven't noticed, Jim and Mike are engaged in a continuous bid of one-upmanship.
"Ron Jacobs, Paual Rothenberg, feminism" -- a very popular entry by Elaine last week. And, did you notice, a "Mommy's Day means flowers and food" type this year elected to emphasize the peace roots of the holiday. (After Elaine's post went up.)
"THIS JUST IN! MODEL CITIZEN BULLY BOY!" & "The 'inspiring' Bully Boy" -- Wally & Cedric explore the realities of Bully Boy as motivational speaker.
"camilo mejia, dennis kucinich, matthew cardinale" -- Rebecca's first real post since giving birth.
("Sir! No Sir! airs Monday on The Sundance Channel" was a mini-post to give a heads up.)
"Gonzales Cesspool, Robert Knight (Betty)" -- we'll let Rebecca and only Rebecca speak about this one. "Betty was just asked to fill in. I didn't expect her to go to the trouble of hunting down things and trying to get on top of them. This is an amazing post as she updates on the latest regarding Gonzlaes. That said, I hope she never does that again. I just wanted her to have a little fun while she's filling in for me."
"So-called apathy (C.I. guest posting)" -- Betty, "My oldest son said he'd finished his project when asked on Monday. Wednesday, as we're driving home from church, this is Wednesday night, he says he didn't finish it. I had to make sure that was being done and C.I. was the last one I wanted to ask but the only one I could reach." Amazing post and one that Betty tried to get highlighted at The Common Ills but C.I. said "No." So it's also a "Banned from The Common Ills post!" :D
"This & That (Betty filling in for Rebecca)" -- Rebecca says this is a wonderful blend of various strands and a treat to read. "The sort of thing I expected Betty would do and have fun with."
"Jim filling in for Rebecca (and Betty)" -- Jim wanted to fill in to help out and Betty said it wasn't needed but it was appreciated. A first-rate post. Jim argues he had about half-planned out and the minute he reached the end point on that, the thing just goes flat. We just know we enjoy it.
"The Jowls of Death" -- Look out Betinna! You've heard of the Jaws of Life? Betinna's up against the converse, a very ugly device.
Pesto Potato Salad in the Kitchen" -- Trina's providing several recipes, actually, and also noting why some need to clarify and explain themselves on Iraq now.
"Bully Boy doesn't understand "foreign forces"" &"THIS JUST IN! BULLY BOY SAYS FOREIGNERS OUT OF IRAQ!"-- the Iraqi parliament calls for a timeline for withdrawal of foreign forces and Cedric and Wally show you how the Bully Boy greets the news.
"Katie Couric, Robert Knight" -- if someone was slagged non-stop, from long before taking a job, how do you think they're ratings would be? Kat on both the continued sexism and the silence on the topic.
"NYT: He's reallly too old to play go-go boy" -- Ty said Lynda picked this one as her favorite entry by C.I. last week. ("He" is John F. Burns.)
"The US must 'stay the course' - says the exile who fled in the 80s" -- and our own pick for favorite entry from C.I. last week. (In the non-Iraq snapshot division.)
"David R. Francis, The Third Estate Sunday Review" -- Jim's pick for his favorite post by Mike last week. If you haven't noticed, Jim and Mike are engaged in a continuous bid of one-upmanship.
"Ron Jacobs, Paual Rothenberg, feminism" -- a very popular entry by Elaine last week. And, did you notice, a "Mommy's Day means flowers and food" type this year elected to emphasize the peace roots of the holiday. (After Elaine's post went up.)
"THIS JUST IN! MODEL CITIZEN BULLY BOY!" & "The 'inspiring' Bully Boy" -- Wally & Cedric explore the realities of Bully Boy as motivational speaker.
"camilo mejia, dennis kucinich, matthew cardinale" -- Rebecca's first real post since giving birth.
("Sir! No Sir! airs Monday on The Sundance Channel" was a mini-post to give a heads up.)
"Gonzales Cesspool, Robert Knight (Betty)" -- we'll let Rebecca and only Rebecca speak about this one. "Betty was just asked to fill in. I didn't expect her to go to the trouble of hunting down things and trying to get on top of them. This is an amazing post as she updates on the latest regarding Gonzlaes. That said, I hope she never does that again. I just wanted her to have a little fun while she's filling in for me."
"So-called apathy (C.I. guest posting)" -- Betty, "My oldest son said he'd finished his project when asked on Monday. Wednesday, as we're driving home from church, this is Wednesday night, he says he didn't finish it. I had to make sure that was being done and C.I. was the last one I wanted to ask but the only one I could reach." Amazing post and one that Betty tried to get highlighted at The Common Ills but C.I. said "No." So it's also a "Banned from The Common Ills post!" :D
"This & That (Betty filling in for Rebecca)" -- Rebecca says this is a wonderful blend of various strands and a treat to read. "The sort of thing I expected Betty would do and have fun with."
"Jim filling in for Rebecca (and Betty)" -- Jim wanted to fill in to help out and Betty said it wasn't needed but it was appreciated. A first-rate post. Jim argues he had about half-planned out and the minute he reached the end point on that, the thing just goes flat. We just know we enjoy it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
