Thoughts on GreenStone Media and the real lesson

That was the end of Grogan,the man who killed my father, raped and murdered my sister, burned my ranch, shot my dog and stole my Bible. But if there was one law of the West, bastards had brothers . . .

-- Diane Thomas, Romancing the Stone



And if there's one 'law' of 'modern times,' it's that while 'success' has one father, failure has multiple mothers. Or that's what some would have you believe.



"Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinem's Radio Network Fails!" scream some headlines while others include Rosie O'Donnell in the text. GreenStone Media, first of all, wasn't a "radio network" or a "radio station." We realize that's hard for some to grasp. Stab felt the best place to slam GreenStone Media was at a gala (during wartime -- oh, if Bette Davis were alive today) for FAIR and, all things considered, she may have chosen aptly.



On September 19, 2006, the Idiot Bellafante ran her attack in The New York Times. At the time GreenStone Media programs were only broadcast over the airwaves in Jackson, Miss., and Hartford, Conn. So it only made sense (in what world?) for Stab to attend the October 20th FAIR gala and, in a speech noting problems with The New York Times' coverage of women, rely on the same paper to attack GreenStone Media, Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinem:



And then, you know here's a real stab. We get Gloria Steinem and Jane Fonda coming along and starting a radio station for women which won't have arguments on it, won't have debate on it. Because they . . . are saying as they start this new station that women don't like to argue and debate. We're too sweet, too nice. Gloria and Jane, have you heard of Katha Pollitt!



Stab, unless the government has started issuing ear plugs, we'll guess that everyone's heard Pollitt. But probably not a good idea to utilize The Times for facts because that explains your trouble with 'facts'. GreenStone Media was not "a radio station." Nor did Fonda or Steinem ever say women were "too sweet, too nice".



But there was Stab, offering a fact-free attack on Fonda and Steinem at a FAIR gala and apparently that was going to serve as the left's 'support' for GreenStone Media. Now please note, many were happy to take to GreenStone to flog their wares. But who offered anything back? Who among the left even explored why GreenStone came into being?



Certainly not FAIR's CounterSpin which is allegedly concerned with media outlets and the coverage offered. There's not enough diversity, CounterSpin tells you once a week in a show hosted by two White males and one African-American woman. Had they wanted to address that topic, they could have interviewed Steinem, Fonda or any of the other founders or even, shocker, some of the radio hosts of GreenStone Media programs. In fact, we'd argue the perfect time for that would have been in any of their broadcasts from February 16, 2007 through March 9, 2007, four weeks when not one woman was among their guests.



An interesting contrast can be made with Air America Radio and GreenStone Media's reception. Air America Radio was kicked off with massive coverage, the cover of the Sunday magazine for The New York Times (Baby Cries A Lot solo, War Hawk then and War Hawk now), The Nation would both do a cover story before Air America Radio celebrated its first year. [Ty note: Others would later follow including The Progressive. C.I. notes The Progressive put Baby Cries A Lot on the cover in 2005, not 2004, as this previously stated.] GreenStone Media? Apparently not even worthy of a blog mention at The Nation. (Possibly Katrina vanden Heuvel's many male co-authors weren't interested in listening in to GreenStone Media?)



On July 6th, CounterSpin would begin airing a program on the lack of diversity in radio but, strangely, even then had no interest in speaking to anyone with GreenStone Media.



It's really amazing that so many left outlets, supposedly concerned with diversity, had nothing to say about GreenStone Media. (Maybe The Huffington Post believes their gleeful 'GreenStone Is Dead!' recent coverage makes up for it?).



For those who can remember the start of Air America Radio, promoted (falsely) as the great left hope, it debuted with six programs that aired Monday through Friday and five of those programs had female hosts or co-hosts (So What Else Is News? had one host, male) with one show (Unfiltered) having two female hosts. Twelve hosts in all, six males, six females. Today? Eight hosts (all but one program is solo hosted) and the figures are six men and two women. [The Air Americans, hosted by a male, goes off the air next month.] Women have dropped from six to two. And, of course, the network's strongest weekend show, RadioNation with Laura Flanders, has dropped from six hours of live radio, covering a wide range of topics, to one pre-taped hour a week. Along with Flanders' reduced presence, the number of women have been reduced as well on the weekends: eleven males, three women.



And that's the alleged left. Forget right-wing, commercial radio, you don't even have to go there to demonstrate the need for programs hosted by women.



In death, GreenStone Media has gotten more concentrated attention than it did during its broadcasting life. Gleeful little jabs as short on facts as anything Stab could have offered.



GreenStone Media failed. There's no denying that. As a syndicator of original content, it failed. Why it failed might offer some lessons for the next go round.



We would suggest that the next enterprise accept that you will not be broadcast over the airwaves. Start from that premise. Radio's hostility towards women is obvious. So instead focus on online streaming.



In its early months, GreenStone Media had a problem with online streaming. At one point, one of us (Dona) tried all over campus to stream to make sure it wasn't just a problem with her computer. The stream was not working. It was fixed. That's the only problem we would pin on GreenStone Media (and they did fix it).



One of the most widely broadcast (over traditional airwaves) programs is Democracy Now! and that show should be seen as the model for any broadcasters. It started in 1995 and was a Pacifica Radio program. It is no longer (that's a whole backstory we won't go into great detail on). Amy Goodman (who hosts with Juan Gonzalez) fought for the show when it was banned from the WBAI studios in an attempt by some to turn Pacifica into NPR. Breaking away from Pacifica ownership was a smart move. It wasn't the last smart move.



The Democracy Now! website offers podcasts, live streaming, streaming and downloads. It also moved from audio only into TV as well. In addition to video, the site offers Goodman's weekly column, excerpts from her two books written with her brother David Goodman (Exception to the Rulers and Static) as well as links to a variety of articles and columns including Juan Gonzalez' New York Daily News columns. Someone just discovering Democracy Now! has a number of reasons to repeatedly visit the website. That's not to suggest those familiar with it have no reason to visit -- it's to note if you're starting up new broadcast content, you should provide multiple reasons for people to visit your website and do so from the start.



It is true that Democracy Now! built up their website as they went along (and it's also true that their archived broadcasts are available) but anyone coming after has a model and there is no excuse for not starting out of the gate with a variety of offerings to encourage visitors and repeat visitors.



DN! notes:



Democracy Now! is a national, daily, independent, award-winning news program airing on over 450 stations in North America. Pioneering the largest public media collaboration in the U.S., Democracy Now! is broadcast on Pacifica, NPR, community, and college radio stations; on public access, PBS, satellite television (DISH network: Free Speech TV ch. 9415 and Link TV ch. 9410; DIRECTV: Link TV ch. 375); as a "podcast," and on the internet.



In addition it is broadcast throughout the world. It offers its headlines in both English and Spanish (and those are also carried by many radio stations).



It didn't build up overnight. It used traditional and (then) non-traditional means to become the force it is today and, again, should be used as the model for anyone attempting to start up a program or several programs.



By building an online audience across the nation, it had an audience that could advocate for local radio stations and TV stations to carry the program.



The reverse model is Air America Radio which started up with online streaming, archived broadcasts and blogs. The Majority Report quickly had to move its blog off of the AAR site. (Sensitivities were offended at The New York Times, primarily with regards to comments about Adam Nagourney and Jodi Wilgoren.) Then everything fell apart to the point that even Air America Place (not affiliated with Air America Radio) had to pull their own archives. Though allegedly a 24 hour, 7 day a week network, they toyed with limiting the amount of time online listeners could listen (three hours) and that also chapped their base. As did their streaming change which prevented stand alone Real Player or Windows Media Players and instead offered up an AAR player with non-stop visual ads which often cause the audio stream to drop out.



The lesson there, as Air America Radio continues to flounder, is that you don't go backwards. You don't offer various content and then begin reducing it. (AAR's reduced listenership also results from the loss of or reduction in hours of popular hosts such as Janeane Garofalo, Laura Flanders, Mike Malloy, Sam Seder, Lizz Winstead, Marc Maron and pushing non-left hosts -- Lionel Hampton, Bob Kerrey -- on what was supposed to be a left outlet.)



In focusing on the online aspect to build up listenership and presence, a number of things could and should be done. GreenStone Media could have partnered with Feminist Wire Daily (a part of Ms. magazine) to provide an audio version of FWD. Anyone coming after should seriously consider doing that. Ms. magazine itself should have done a thirty minute weekly segment that, even if it was available only online, would have provided GreenStone Media with new content and allowed for the presence of the magazine to be raised. Others should have also seen GreenStone Media as a resource. Kim Gandy, for instance, could have done an audio version of her bi-weekly column Below the Belt. This and other features would have been in addition to the four programs that GreenStone Media produced. "Check out our website," you hear often over the airwaves. You do and often wonder why you even bothered?



GreenStone Media offered a blog, offered archives, streaming and podcasts. This isn't a slam GreenStone Media piece. We think they did a strong job. But we think it was a mistake to assume that a radio market unfriendly (at best) to women was going to welcome them. We think anyone coming after should be aware of the cards stacked against you and realize you need a very strong web presence and you need to offer content in multiple forms.



In this community, Hilda's Mix was started by Hilda to highlight the issues of disabled community members. We e-mailed Hilda for her thoughts on GreenStone last Wednesday. She responded that the blog (which she wrote about in Hilda's Mix) was a big improvement "but as a deaf feminist, GreenStone Media didn't offer me much else. I could hit the website and see that some wonderful women were going to appear on various programs or that a topic would be covered but I never knew anything about what was said. My suggestion for anyone trying this again would be to realize that people such as myself may not be able to 'listen' via audio but we are interested in what is happening and it's really a door shut on us when there's no attempt made to reach out to us. Though we will never be listeners, obviously not by our own choice, we can give you web traffic. We can give you support. But for that to happen, we need to be included. Besides the blog, GreenStone Media largely did not include us. It did allow for the inclusion of the blind and the sight impaired which is wonderful. But I would strongly urge anyone trying something similar to remember that various people are served, or not served, by various means. Your example of Democracy Now! is the best example. That show provides text, audio and video. The addition of the headlines in Spanish is another way of reaching out and welcoming."



Along with opening doors to various communities, a variety of new content also will encourage people to re-visit websites. As Ava and C.I. noted in their radio column for Hilda's Mix, Law and Disorder is among the radio programs with websites that is beefing up their online content. In her e-mail, Hilda noted the positive response to that and that for those who do not do that "who just provide an archived broadcast with a date and possibly a brief synopsis, they are missing out on reaching a portion of a potential audience. No, the deaf and hearing impaired aren't going to help programs in the Arbitron ratings but a program like Law and Disorder is about covering issues, not ratings, and a lot of broadcasters are passionate about issues so it boggles my mind that they aren't attempting to reach out as they try to raise awareness. One of the biggest surprises to me in reading Ava and C.I.'s weekly radio reports is how much is discussed over the airwaves, topics and points of view, that do not make it into newspapers or magazines. Those columns are funny and well received for their writing but also because it brings those of us who can't hear the programs into the discussion. Their review of Uprising, to offer just one example, resulted in a great deal of e-mails wondering why there is no print equivalent?"



In terms of longevity, GreenStone Media failed in and of itself. We wish that weren't the case (and several wince as we write that it did). But that is reality. Reality is also that you never succeed if you don't try and GreenStone Media deserves tremendous credit for seeing a very real issue (the under-representation of women on the airwaves) and attempting to address it. Its success in the long term, as a stepping stone for others to build upon, depends upon the take-away.



The popular take-away is: "Ha! It failed! Women won't listen!" The reality is that it had listeners (over the airwaves and online), male and female. The reality is that radio isn't interested in women. You can see that in the dominance of males over the airwaves. You can see that in Air America Radio's decision to promote Baby Cries A Lot at the expense of proven radio hit (before AAR ever started airing) Randi Rhodes. Or in that hideous article The Nation ran (with Baby Cries A Lot on the cover, naturally) where men were funny but "OH MY GOD! JANEANE GAROFALO IS NOT!" The author was bothered by a bit about 'ass babies.' He must have missed Baby Cries A Lot asking an elderly, African-American woman if her (White) father and her (underage, African-American) mother (who was a servant in the household) got it on in the garden or kitchen? Garofalo was funny. And treated guests with respect. Baby Cries A Lot just wanted to leer even when dealing with what was a case of sexual harassment and, most likely, rape or coerced sex since inter-racial relations weren't all the rage in 1925's South Carolina. The man -- yes, it was a man, Nicholas von Hoffman -- was obsessed with her "mouth" which, considering why CBS canned Hoffman's ass, is rather surprising -- until you grasp that when a man says something it's "universal." If Nation readers were hoping to find support for Garofalo, Flanders or Rhodes among the women, they were hoping in vain. No coverage to show. But our always 'helpful' Katha Pollitt couldn't be counted on (sorry, Stab) to write about Baby Cries A Lot (August, 2004) and not any of the women. See a pattern?



Though many were featured by Garofalo (included Pollitt who seemed irritated that her first name was mispronounced -- CATH-ah or KAY-tha, which will it be? -- the most important thing on election night 2004 to be sure), the payback was scorn and silence. She did get a shout out in an editorial that listed her with Baby Cries A Lot (first billed, of course), Randi Rhodes "and others." And, of course, prior to the von Hoffman article, Katrina vanden Heuvel was a regular, weekly guest on the show. Somehow Garofalo never made the "cut" for Editor's Cut (though AlterPunk did whine about her and others in what was supposed to be a piece on Roseanne Cash in 2003 -- AlterPunk was upset that people like Garofalo were getting press attention for opposing the illegal war while he wasn't).



Now for any who missed it, Janeane Garofalo has long done (for free) an advertisement in the magazine for . . . the magazine. So, for the record, has Gloria Steinem. But the magazine can't embrace female broadcasters. (Amy Goodman has never been a cover though Baby Cries A Lot, a War Hawk has, someone explain that.) The next attempt to rectify women's low representation in any media better grasp that there's not going to be any assistance or promotion from the bulk of the left including from women with positions to offer a boost (such as Pollitt and vanden Heuvel).



GreenStone Media got some mainstream media attention (largely negative and mocking) and that was really all it got.



That's the world we live in. Stab may have said more about GreenStone than any other voice on the left (male or female). So much for the 'sisterhood' at the mid-level.



When there is no support from the left outlets, we don't think it's fair to say GreenStone Media failed due to what it provided. Most didn't know what it provided because so many other outlets avoided even noting its existance.



But it presented four programs, Monday through Friday. and one weekend program. The programs were entertaining and informative. By those standards it succeeded. It came into being to give women's voices a forum and in that regard it also succeeded.



The Radio Ritas was easily our favorite program. Humorous, topical and, yes, Stab, the hosts (three originally, then two) could and did disagree. They didn't, however, scream at each other.

Maureen Langan and Cory Kahaney, with the show from start to finish, were (are) radio naturals. If NPR had any sense, they'd find a spot on their network (which has time for car talk) and hand it over to them.


Lisa Birnbach did the most political show. She had her fan base but not among this crowd. It only took her calling for war on Sudan (whether she grasped that or not) to have Jim screaming to turn that off. We are not part of Our Modern Day Carrie Nations.


Rolonda -- Did you know an African-American woman was hosting a live call-in show on commercial radio? Probably not. And that's your loss.


Women Aloud -- Mo Gaffney and Shana Wride were the hosts and Gaffney doing radio alone should have resulted in huge press attention. The second-half of Kathy & Mo is a legendary comic. (For the record, Baby Cries A Lot is not and was not a legendary comic. He was a comedic writer who failed as performer -- repeatedly and in all formats.) But women don't get get the attention men do. If you doubt that, go to any store that sales CDs and flip through the comedy section. Along with a host of names you've (rightly) never heard of, you'll notice that women are barely, if at all, represented. If you're lucky, you'll find a 'millenium' collection of Lily Tomlin's. If you're really, really lucky, Gilda Radner and Whoopi Goldberg's Broadway performances may be included. Even Nichols and May (Mike Nichols and Elaine May -- comedic pioneers and huge sellers) lose out due to what we'll dub the 'rack jobbers trouble with women'. Gaffney could have blown most people out of the water and it's a testament to Wride that she held her own as a co-host and not a sidekick.



The World According to Giles & Moriarty -- A late entry to GreenStone Media but possibly the most heard over the airwaves due to production partnership with CBS News. Nancy Giles and Erin Moriaty hosted. The two women previously hosted Giles and Moriarty and Philadelphia and won two Gracies for their work. The Gracies are awards presented by the American Women in Radio and Television, Inc. If you're not aware of them, take that up with your media.

In June, they held the 32nd presentation of the awards. If you're wondering why so many females have outlets in independent media but have never noted these awards, take it up with them and be sure not to let the males off the hook either. Among the winners in June were Wanda Sykes and Susan Stamberg.



On AWRT, it should be noted they issued a press release June 13th expressing their "deep disappointment" with Dan Rather's sexist remarks. Possibly you don't hear about them because when Rather elects to spout sexism, Katrina vanden Heuvel elects to ignore and justify it? As Ava and C.I. noted June 17th:



The most damaging of the voices defending Dan Rather last week was Katrina vanden Heuvel because, to too many not paying attention, she is a woman of power who is concerned about women. So if this woman was saying, "It's not sexism" (as she did), then, surely, it wasn't sexism.
It was sexism. Those not paying attention shouldn't take vouching from a woman who, as editor and publisher of the weekly Nation magazine, has seen fit to print approximately four male writers for every one woman. Those not paying attention shouldn't take vouching from a woman who is attempting to grab on to some big bucks via the fund raiser/pyramid scheme that is The Nation Cruise -- which, this summer, includes the 'honor' of speaking to Mary Mapes, Dan Rather's former producer. In her defense of Dan Rather, vanden Heuvel failed to note either her own record of publishing women or her magazine's financial gain from her defense of Dan Rather.
That's a bit like saying you're for economic justice and then attempting to weasel out of paying taxes by taking your case as high as the Supreme Court (where you still lose) and . . . Oh, wait.


The reality of GreenStone Media's failure is that it didn't fail because it couldn't deliver solid programming. It delivered strong and amazing program. It was hurt by not grasping the need for a strong online presence and that's a lesson to be learned for the next go round. But most importantly, it was hurt by the lack of support from what should have been allies.

Any new venture needs word of mouth and attention, so that's a really important point. Women who are considering attempting a similar venture need to be very aware that a lot of the female 'names' aren't going to do a thing to support you or use their own outlets to even note you. To the contrary, they will allow men to slam you and stay silent. When Dan Rather accuses Katie Couric of "tarting up" news, the same women, who will not do one damn thing to promote women broadcasters, will rush in to assure you that Rather's sexist remarks weren't sexism.

That may be the most important lesson in this because none of the women involved (and men were involved as founders as well) expected the attacks. They expected the right-wing to attack. That's no surprise to feminists at this late date. Feminism has been maligned and smeared by the right-wing for years. The surprise came from the lack of support and attention from those who should have been 'friends.' What was done to Janeane Garofalo in The Nation article (whose only positive benefit was that listeners no longer had to hear Katrina vanden Heuvel pontificate and struggle for words on air each week) should have been a serious signal to the way feminists would be treated by the 'left' and should have telegraphed that women being at the top of 'left' didn't mean feminists were at the top.

Again, Democracy Now! is the model for the future. The show was built via its online site, Amy Goodman's non-stop speaking engagements and word of mouth. Attention from "big" little media? If you think Democracy Now! crossing over to TV was a story, you didn't work for The Nation. Goodman co-wrote two successful bestselling books with no help from The Nation (and search their archives if you doubt it) -- no reviews, no shout outs on from Editor's Cut blog. In other words, the key lesson can be summed up via quote from Tori Amos' "Taxi Ride" (Scarlet's Walk):



I guess on days
like this
you know who your
friends are



It's a lesson that all should heed.

Bully Boy lies about Vietnam -- who calls him out?

Wednesday, August 22nd, Bully Boy went to Kansas City to speak to the VFW convention. He was all smiles. Why wouldn't he be? He was about to attempt a major rewriting of history as he pushed revisionary lies about Vietnam.



The online revolution is upon us -- or so we've been told repeatedly. So it was surprising (or maybe not really) who called out the lies and who didn't. Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted the speech before it was given. Matthew Rothschild (The Progressive) noted the "rewriting of history" the day of the speech. Ron Fullwood (OpEdNews) also came out strong day of.



Okay, well maybe (no surprise) the net really hasn't taken us into the 'real time' world. But who else, day of or later, took Bully Boy and/or his lies about Vietnam to task? Anne Zook (Peevish . . . I'm Just Saying) did, Amy Goodman, with Juan Gonzales, returned to the issue on Thursday's Democracy Now! for an indepth discussion with Gareth Porter, Ron Jacobs (CounterPunch) called it for the lies it was, Robert Parry (Consortium News) refused to let the lies slide by without challenge, Rosa Brooks (Los Angeles Times) challenged the lies and Marjorie Cohn (at Common Dreams) refused to be silent while another attack on history was launched. There are a few more and, despite including Zook, our concern here really isn't with independent bloggers. Our concern is with the independent press.



What of 'the leading magazine of the left'? It might interest you to note that John Nichols weighed in on Wednesday. Cpl. John Nichols Klinger.







Bully Boy was telling repeated lies about Vietnam so The Nation's Nichols suited up (possibly with the scarf pictured above) and cried, "Gather round kiddies while I tell you about Korea." Yes, that is right: Korea. In over 100 lines, over 1500 words, John Nichols elected to weigh in on Korea.



Wow, we told ourselves, we must have missed something. Maybe we just thought Vietnam and Iraq were the focus. So we checked the transcript. It did provide laughter such as here:



In other words, we agree the veterans deserve the full support of our government and that's what you're going to get as George W. Bush as your President. (Applause.)



Laughter both because the decay in veterans' services has happened repeatedly under Bully Boy's watch and for the mangled "that's what you're going to get as George W. Bush as your President." (That is the official White House transcript.) We're eyeballing "Korea" used 16 times. "Indochina," "Vietnam," "Cambodia" and "Laos"? 21 times.



The word count for the Korean section? 517 words spoken by the Bully Boy.



The word count for the Vietnam section? 882.



And never once did Bully Boy refer to the "Korean specter" -- yet, for some reason, Korea is what John Nichols elects to go on about for over 1500 words.



Were we missing something?



On Wednesday, a number of groups were spoken to/with by C.I., Kat, Ava, Dona and Jess. As the speech began to get news coverage, it became a focal point in four different discussions with students who wanted to know about Vietnam. Was Bully Boy being honest? Was this a rewriting? What really happened?



On that day, on Thursday and on Friday, not one student ever asked about Korea. Clearly, the concern among young adults who heard the speech that the five encountered was with Vietnam.



Bully Boy, in his speech, elected to give a questionable "vocabulary lesson" and, as Kat noted Thursday, Wednesday, C.I. presented students with vocabulary "gained" from the war on Vietnam. At Kat's urging, a few of the terms made it into Thursday's snapshot:



Bully Boy made ridiculous comments about how US withdrawl from Vietnam led to a host of things when the realities are that the illegal war itself led to that. Bully Boy felt the need to speak of new vocabulary the withdrawal created (it didn't create it) and while it's nice to know he is attempting to increase his Word Power, let's explore some of the actual vocabulary that illegal war did create. "Double veteran" was someone who killed a woman after he'd had sex with her. "Expactants" was a 'cute' term for those who were 'expected' to die. "Glad bags" were body bags and "litters" were what the dead and wounded were carried on. "Willie Peter" which was white phosphorus added to napalm to prevent water from stopping the burning of skin. "Fragging" which was when those serving under an officer elected to kill him often with a grenade. "Dust offs" were when service members were medically evacuated by helicopter. Those are only some of the words that illegal war added to the vocabulary.



The Nation offered nothing else on the topic (until the weekend when a kind of note appeared). Why was that? Why was Nichols' falling all over himself to address Korea?



Who knows? But on Thursday, noting the Vietnam revisions, The New York Times Jim Rutenberg, Sheryl Gay Stolber, Mark Mazzetti, Damien Cave and Erich Schmitt observed: "With his comments Mr. Bush was doing something few major politicians of either party have done in a generation: rearguing a conflict that ended more than three decades ago but has remained an emotional touch point." Something few attempt? Certainly that's worthy of comment from 'the leading magazine of the left'?



While Nichols was off in Korea, 2008 Democratic presidential nominee hopeful Bill Richardson was calling the Vietnam revisionary nonsense out:



The correct conclusion to draw from our experience in Vietnam is that dragging out the process of withdrawal will be tragically worse in terms of U.S. lives lost and worse for the Iraqi's themselves in terms of the ultimate instability we will create by staying longer.

In 1968 Nixon ran on a platform of ending the war with honor. It took 7 years to get the last American soldier out of Vietnam. In the meantime, tens of thousands more Americans died. The costs in terms of tragedy in Southeast Asia itself are a matter of historical record. Millions of civilians ultimately died in Vietnam, in Cambodia and the killing fields and millions more ultimately had to flee their homes.

We have now been in Iraq longer than it took to win World War II. My plan for Iraq is designed to end this war with the least possible number of U.S. casualties and with the least damaging effects of Iraqi's reconciliation process. This means getting all of our troops out as quickly and safely as possible. Leaving residual troops in Iraq as Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards have suggested will only drag out the process to the detriment of all involved. Reconciliation can only occur when the U.S. has completely withdrawn. Everyday, more and more experts are coming to the same conclusion I drew seven months ago. My position has been consistent and unwavering. A fast, safe withdrawal with no residual troops.

I am pleased that Senator Clinton, today, recognizes that the surge has produced no progress of any long term significance to the Iraq debacle. That is different from what she said yesterday to the Veterans of Foreign Wars. But, it is that audience, who has sacrificed more than any of us, who deserves to hear a clear statement that our sons and daughters and mothers and fathers are not going to be sacrificed because of an irrational commitment to a failed strategy.

The President is asking the country to wait for next month's progress report from General Petraeus. The chances are that report will be just another White House spin job and attempt to justify this war. This has been the bloodiest summer yet -- our troops have done an admirable job at trying to make a bad idea work, but the surge has failed, the war has failed, Bush has failed. It is time to end this war and bring all of our troops home as soon as possible. I'm glad Hillary Clinton has retracted her comments yesterday and has declared the surge a failure today -- but I still haven't gotten an answer to my question -- a peace in Iraq will fail as long as we leave troops behind -- how many would you leave behind? Every other major candidate would leave thousands of US troops in Iraq for an indefinite. I will leave no U.S. forces there. Zero.

The only way out of the Iraq mess is to remove all U.S. troops, and to use that leverage to get the warring parties to resolve their differences, and surrounding Muslim nations to help stabilize the country. Any residual U.S. force reduces the chances for success, and exposes our troops as targets. Our brave troops, and the American people, deserve better.



Here's reality. The revisions on Vietnam didn't just happen. You had a lot of left and 'left' refusing to address reality. Some because they thought it wasn't 'nice manners,' some because they were scared off by the attacks. So the lies have taken hold. And every time they are pushed forward again, they need to be called out.


As Jane Fonda explained in the amazing Sir! No Sir!, "You know, people say, 'Well you keep going back, why are you going back to Vietnam?' We keep going back to Vietnam because I'll tell you what, the other side does. They're always going back. And they have to go back -- the Hawks, you know, the patriarchs. They have to go back because, and they have to revise the going back, because they can't allow us to know what the back there really was."


Yeah, the right-wing always does. And the battle for truth will be lost as long as so many elect to sit it out. Good news for The Nation, however, former US Senator Max Cleland delivered yesterday's Democratic radio response to the Bully Boy's radio address and Cleland called out Bully Boy's revisionary history. In other words, the Democratic Party has given the Green Light. Now all the little Nation writers who can't have a thought without permission from the DNC can prepare their "You know, I've been thinking about that speech Bully Boy gave last week where he lied about Vietnam and . . . "


Thank the ones noted above (and any others not noted) who bothered to call out Bully Boy's lies about Vietnam. But grasp that the majority of our left media opted to sit it out 'led' by . . . The Nation.



For any wondering, in this community it was called out in C.I.'s Wednesday "Iraq snapshot,"
in C.I.'s Thursday "Iraq snapshot," in C.I.'s "When the left plays dumb, Bully Boy advances,"
in Rebecca's "robert parry, vietnam," in Kat's "Glen Ford, Iraq, Vietnam," in Elaine's"Matthew Rothschild, John Nichols, Katha Pollitt," in Mike's "Ron Fullwood, William S. Lind," in Cedric's
"Professor Bully Boy," in Wally's "THIS JUST IN! BULLY BOY GIVES ANOTHER HISTORY LESSON!," in Kat's "Music, Ron Jacobs," in C.I.'s "And the war drags on . . .," in Rebecca's "robert parry, a.a.r.," in Elaine's "Grace Paley and other items" and in C.I.'s Friday "Iraq snapshot." For the record, accuracy watchdog FAIR has issued no action alert on made no comment on the speech.

FAIR late to the party and a little lost

At 5:59 EST on Friday, FAIR was suddenly interested in what The New York Times did Tuesday and sent out an action alert entitled "NYT Smears Peace Movement, Again." If it all seems familiar, it should. Last week, in real time, the smear (labeled as such) was called out in joint-posts written by Wally, Cedric and C.I. (C.I. is not participating in the writing of this feature). See: "NYT Slimes the peace movement (Cedric & Wally)'), "New York Times lies again!" and "THIS JUST IN! NEW YORK TIMES LIES ABOUT PEACE MOVEMENT!" -- all of which went up Tuesday evening.



No need for our truth squad-ers to wait until Friday evening.



Wednesday's "Iraq snapshot" included this:



And finally, in media news, Jeff Zeleny and the New York Times have smeared the peace movement with a big-old-fat lie. Yesterday, Senator Barack Obama (and 2008 Democratic presidential hopeful) delivered a speech to the VFW where he declared, "The graves of our veterans are hallowed ground. When men and women who die in service to this country are laid to rest, there must be no protests near the funerals. Its' wrong and it needs to stop." Obama was referring to the 'vangical fringe that is the gay hating Fred Phelps crowd. The extreme right wing set. As Cedric's "New York Times lies again!" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! NEW YORK TIMES LIES ABOUT PEACE MOVEMENT!" noted yesterday, somehow New York Times' Jeff Zeleny heard that and decided Obama was talking about the peace movement: "He also said it was wrong for anti-war activists to protest at military funerals, declaring: 'It needs to stop'." The print version of the story ran in this morning's paper on A11 and does not contain the error/lie; however, the story is still up online at the paper's website and has not been corrected. How many times is the Times going to smear the peace movement during this illegal war?



FAIR notes, "In an August 21 New York Times story about Democratic presidential candidate Barrack Obama's talk to a veterans group the day before, reporter Jeff Zeleny attributed to Obama a dig at the anti-war movement that the Democratic candidate did not make." Readers of the alert may not be aware that the print version never contained the erroneous paragraph. (FAIR may not be aware, in fact.)



FAIR asks that its people contact the ombudsperson of the paper and ask for an explanation.



They requested that at 5:59 p.m. EST Friday. We weren't waiting around like FAIR. Friday, at 11:34 a.m. EST, this site contacted the DC editorial staff via e-mail:



On August 21, 2007, The New York Times website published Jeff Zeleny's "Obama Tells Veterans Iraq Plan Is Failing" online. The article has a glaring error:

He also said it was wrong for anti-war activists to protest at military funerals, declaring: "It needs to stop."

Barack Obama was speaking of the Fred Phelps groups (right-wing) who protest gays and lesbians by picketing military funerals. His speech does not mention "anti-war activists." Apparently the paper grasped the error since they didn't include the passage in the August 22nd print article by Zeleny on the same speech. When does the website intend to correct the online article?

Thank you,

Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.



There was no response to the e-mail and we didn't assume there would be after learning that at least seventy-three complaints had gone into The New York Times last week from community members about the error. (There may have been more. 73 community members elected to e-mail that they had complained as early as Tuesday night and that there had been no response nor had the paper corrected the error online.)



For the record, the paper has still not corrected the error in their online article. Those contacting the paper (via letter, phone or e-mail) should be advised (and FAIR should have told people this) that the problem is with an online article. The problem is not with a printed article. Whether the ombudsperson covers online matters or not, we're not sure. We knew the DC editorial staff was responsible so we contacted them. We'd also suggest the site's webmaster.


But, and this is important because the paper's already chuckling about FAIR's outraged e-mailers who are angry about a story that ran in the paper, the story only ran online. Do not, as some have already written, type: "I just opened my paper and this Obama story . . ." It was passed on to C.I. that those e-mails have provided much laughter.

Obama sucks up again

And our sacred trust does not end when a service-member dies. The graves of our veterans are hallowed ground. When men and women who die in service to this country are laid to rest, there must be no protests near the funerals. It's wrong and it needs to stop.



So declared Senator Barack Obama who wants to be the Democratic Presidential nominee for 2008. From a speech he gave Tuesday, August 21st, to the VFW.



Read the above quote again. While pandering in speaking appearances is nothing new, ask yourself about what he's saying.



Fred Phelps' right-wing wackos have been protesting gays and lesbians by picketing military funerals for some time. They are wackos. But are they doing something unconstitutional?



No, not at all. They've got the right to protest any event they want.



Who, we wondered, would we protest? Whose funeral would we stage a protest outside? The only name we could all agree on was Henry Kissinger (though, under some apparent deal with the devil, he appears unstoppable).



Henry Kissinger's actions are responsible for a number of deaths around the world. In addition, his encouragement (to put it mildly) of the overthrowing of Chile's democratically elected government in 1973 led to torture (to murder as well, but we're focusing on torture survivors). A victim who was tortured under Pinochet's regime (and thousands of them are still alive) might want to protest at the funeral of War Criminal Henry Kissinger. His complicity in the overthrow of Salvador Allende's democratically elected government led to the murders and torture that followed. Since he's learned to avoid certain countries (due to extradition treaties) and thereby avoid extradition, the closest approximate of justice his victims may see is protesting at his funeral.



Some might argue, Obama's not saying they can't.



They may be right and that's the more troubling aspect of the quoted of Obama's speech.



We live in a democracy and, presumably, Obama's campaigning for as many votes as he can rake in. So why does it appear he's setting up a two-tier system? Military service members have hallowed graves? And what of the rest of Americans? We thought "hallowed grave" (and "hallowed ground" were terms used by poets throughout the centuries to apply to all and that, of course, the Catholic Church used the terms to refer to consecrated grounds. In fact, if Obama is suggesting that only military graves are "hallowed," he's going to run into a great deal of trouble with various religions (many of which, including the Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church, demand that their followers be buried on hallowed ground).



More likely, he was brown nosing again. Sucking up.



It needs to stop. In fact, we wondered if Obama had a stance on the pledge? For those who've forgotten, and Obama appears to have forgotten, it goes:



I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.



"With liberty and justice for all." Nothing in there (admittedly, it came into existence well after the Declaration of Peace and the Constitution) about "with liberty and justice for all in the military." This two-tiered system Obama and others seem to be promoting needs to stop. In a democracy all are equal.



So, from a political standpoint, if he believes that any graves are hallowed, all are. (From a religious standpoint, he can think whatever he wants.)

Highlights

This piece is written by Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man, 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 and all highlights selected by us unless otherwise noted.



"NYT Slimes the peace movement (Cedric & Wally)," "New York Times lies again!," "THIS JUST IN! NEW YORK TIMES LIES ABOUT PEACE MOVEMENT!," "Other Items," "Iraq snapshot," "Sunsara Taylor, Cat Radio Cafe," "white house ignores congress again" and "Wally, Cedric; David Bacon; Walter C. Uhler" -- C.I., Wally, Cedric, Rebecca, Elaine and Mike calling out The New York Times' smear of the peace movement beginning Tuesday evening. In real time. No waiting until late Friday here. Wally and Cedric want it noted that C.I. did not just listen to their original post (which never posted). In the original post, they were going to town on Barack Obama for attacking the peace movement. Wally read that to C.I. who said, "I don't think that happened." C.I. called a friend with the Obama campaign and it DID NOT happen. Wally and Cedric rewrote their post ("with help from C.I.," Cedric notes and Wally agrees) and then immediately posted it. So Wally, Cedric and C.I. on the job and on the ball in real time while other 'critics' floundered badly.



"on the relative term 'fair'" -- Rebecca explaining more on the above.





"robert parry, a.a.r." -- Rebecca addresses the realities of the 'left' Air America Radio.


"Black Bean Dip in the Kitchen" -- Trina notes the importance of snacks at gatherings and addresses the Kucinich campaign.


"Questions" -- Betty's latest chapter where Betinna gets a strange phone call.



"Music, Ron Jacobs" -- Yes, Kat says, she will write the review. In the gina & krista round-robin she riffed on a new CD and Mike encouraged her to do a review of it. She planned to do so on Saturday. She didn't. We (including Ruth) all ended up working on one feature (the main one for this edition) and there wasn't time. But that will be her next review.



"Grace Paley and other items" -- Kat, Betty and Rebecca's pick for Elaine's finest from last week. (Rebecca notes that she would have picked it "even if it didn't say so many kind things about me!")





"Vanishing 'coalition'" -- Mike talks the strained relationship between the British and US government over Iraq, music, The Nation and more.


"Professor Bully Boy" and "THIS JUST IN! BULLY BOY GIVES ANOTHER HISTORY LESSON!" -- This will probably a running theme for Cedric and Wally since the Bully Boy has taken to delivering history lessons.



"THIS JUST IN! DNC TO FLORIDA :'DROP DEAD!'" & "DNC tries to screw over Florida voters" -- Every now and then, events dictate that Wally and Cedric don't do a humorous post. This was one of those times. Wally resides in Florida, Cedric is African-American. So the two of them are furious with the DNC for threatening to disenfranchise all voters. (African-Americans were disenfranchised in Florida during the 2000 presidential election.)



Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Bully Boy Meets Jenna's Fiance" -- Isaiah's comic where Bully Boy tries to figure out why anyone would want to marry into his family?



"2nd governor of a southern province assassinated" -- Kayla asked that this be noted and pointed out that the set up was there "for community members last week so the second assassination didn't mean 'Let's explain from square one'." Good point.

Supermarket check out?

Which US supermarket chain is rumored to be up for sale and, in fact, about to close the sale? The same one that had British and Indian business people touring its company last year. The same one whose companies meetings begin with a denominational prayer. That's denominational, not non-denominational. The same one that just saw the loss of a large number of higher ups.

Got your attention? Good. We are posting this week and putting the finishing touches on our pieces. They will go up shortly. [For the record, the rumors come from the press and not people with the company -- noted so we aren't accused of insider trading at some later date -- we own no stock and wouldn't buy any due to the company's confusing employment with a right to push religion down employees' throats.[

Truest statement of the week

The real problem, I want to argue today, is confidence, our confidence, the confidence of people who gather at events like this under the banner of building another world, a kinder more sustainable world. I think we lack the strength of our convictions, the guts to back up our ideas with enough muscle to scare our elites. We are missing movement power. That’s what we're missing. "The best lacked all convictions,” Yeats wrote, "while the worst are full of passionate intensity." Think about it. Do you want to tackle climate change as much as Dick Cheney wants Kazakhstan's oil? Do you? Do you want universal healthcare as much as Paris Hilton wants to be the next new face of Estee Lauder? If not, why not? What is wrong with us? Where is our passionate intensity?



-- Naomi Klein, "Naomi Klein: From Think Tanks to Battle Tanks, 'The Quest to Impose a Single World Market Has Casualties Now in the Millions'" (Democracy Now!, August 15, 2007).

A Note to Our Readers

Hey --
Another Sunday. Another rough Sunday.

Here's who worked on this edition:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and 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

We thank them all. We thank Dallas for his help (soundboard and links). We thank Isaiah for permission to reprint his illustrations.

Here's what we got:

Truest statement of the week -- Naomi Klein's speech has many amazing moments in it. We went with this one. Use the DN! link to figure out if you'd have selected something different.


Editorial: The death toll from the illegal war mou... -- "mounts." That cut off. So be it. We're too tired to mess with it. The 3700 mark has been crossed. A lot of marks have (but still no 'benchmarks'!) but the Bully Boy wants us to all believe the escalation has worked. It hasn't.

TV: Another cesspool trying to pass for news -- Ava and C.I. hitting hard. I thought they were going to do George Lopez. They didn't. They may be punishing me. It's also true that we were short on time and due to an idiot (and a stalker, Jim says it), they weren't in the mood. They want it noted that they are not endorsing any religion. (There's a reference to God where they're referring to God with a gender. That was for the piece. Not to endorse.) They also want it noted that they were promised ten minutes to do a rewrite on one section but they didn't get it. There wasn't time. The spacing on their reviews is always way off (due to our template, not their own spacing of it). I tried to fix it when I offered to put in their illustration (done by Jess and Rebecca) and ended up knocking out half their review. They had to retype it and there wasn't time for a real polish of the section they wanted to fix. If you're thinking, "They never want to polish!" That is correct. It's the sentence with "crap" in it, they say right now. They were limited because there was no time for an e-mail alert on language and they don't think "attitude" is the word they were searching for. Regardless, it is hard hitting and you will laugh. (And remember, they always hate what they write no matter what. I really love this week's commentary.)

Getting to know . . . Pelosi -- The idiot put us all behind. C.I. insisted on calling the parents (or in Ty's case, the grandparents) of each of us to say a security detail team came through the home, "I'm sure it's nothing but I want you to know what is going on." These were long conversations. (No one's parents were worried or grandparents in Ty's case. All of have been out here. All know the various security measures in the house. But C.I.'s attitude was, "I don't worry about me but if something happens, it would be to one of you." So everyone got notified about the idiot e-mailing.) Due to that putting us way behind starting time, Dona proposed short pieces all the way through. Ava looked at C.I. C.I. looked at Ava. "F**k that, we're not going soft just because a creep threatens." This is a long piece and took longer to research and discuss than it probably did to write.

17 US service members announced dead last week -- Dona's cry for a short piece did register here and one other place.

The boom goes bust -- Not here. C.I. brought in three friends to explain this to us. (As Mike noted last week, he's confused on this topic.) They were told "Keep it as simple as possible. We have to understand it and then we have to be able to explain it." The tutorial lasted about 45 minutes. Then we went to work writing. (Elaine, Rebecca, C.I. and Cedric already grasped the basics, just FYI.) (C.I. adds, "I believe Betty did as well.")

Once up a time . . . A scary tale -- Don't you love our fiction pieces?

Timothy J. Learn arrested for being AWOL in Ithaca... -- short pieces. Dona sighed a sigh of relief when this was completed.

Highlights -- Mike, Wally, Betty, Rebecca, Cedric, Kat and Elaine wrote this and picked highlights unless otherwise noted. We thank them for it.

So it was a shorter writing edition because it started late, it was a crazy Saturday evening (Ruth saw the e-mails, everyone else was avoiding them because the last were filled with abuse), but we pulled it off and didn't end up with the light edition Dona was willing to settle for. "Having pulled it together this weekend, I don't think we ever have an excuse," says Dona.

So that's that. See you next week.

-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.