Dope of the week (US division)

What world does The Nation's editor & publisher The Peace Resister Katrina vanden Heuvel live in? Apparently the world of hypocrisy.

Last week, she hopped on her high horse to scribble about healthcare and included this:

Even if the Post or the Times devoted a full story analyzing the leading candidates' healthcare proposals, how much attention would the two papers give to alternatives offered by someone like Congressman Dennis Kucinich--the only candidate supporting a truly universal, Medicare for all, healthcare plan that, according to recent polls, has majority support? I suspect very little. In our downsized politics of excluded alternatives, media polices the parameters of what's considered "realistic" when it comes to many choices, including healthcare reform.

Woooh! The day Katrina socked it to the MSM?

Hardly.

That's it on Dennis Kucinich -- both in her 'commentary' (which includes 14 other lines) and in the lengthy analyses she attaches to it -- an analysis of Hillary, John and Barack's plans. Would the leading papers leave out Kucinich's plan, fail to give it significant coverage? Katrina's 'suspects' they would give it "very little" attention. Sort of the way she refuses to give it attention and sort of the way she rushes to share an over fifty-line analysis that never mentions (let alone addresses) the Kucinich plan.

We don't doubt her 'analysis' of the mainstream but we are fully aware of what her own magazine's provided regarding Kucinich. Very little.

Katrina, that shattering you hear is the sound of your own glass house breaking.

Keep serving up your Barack-ali and pretend like no one notices.



Illustrations are Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Peace Resister" and
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "From the kitchen of the Peace Resister."

Dope of the week (British division)

We'd really prefer to ignore the Moonbat. We know he's embarrassed British community members (and that was the subject of a lengthy roundtable in Polly's Brew last year). But he keeps leaving his droppings on our side of the pond.

Case in point, Thursday's Uprising. We heard about it. We listened to it Saturday. (Go to Uprising or the KPFK archives.)

There was the Moonbat, pushing his soft-issue, the environment, yet again. He was again decrying plane travel and insisiting that it was damaging the environment.

Insisting that with no sense of irony, apparently.

Sonali Kolhatkar, at the end of the interview, made a point to note WBAI's help with the interview.

What?

Why is WBAI assisting in a telphone interview from England? Because he wasn't in England, he was in NYC. That is correct, the Moonbat wanted to decry plane travel. Apparently he swam to the United States for his latest publicity junket.

George Monbiot wasn't satisified just to leave everyone wondering if reducing plane travel starts with others. He had a lot to 'offer.'

He offered a slime of Alexander Cockburn, the assessment that Cockburn was 'blowing it' and the left had experienced more than enough of Cockburn. What left, Moonbat? Were you speaking for England, the United States or, yet again, being the self-proclaimed voice of the globe?

If Cockburn has indeed ignored replying to Moonbat, we say, "Well done, Alex, well done."

The fact that Moonbat feels the need to travel to the United States to speak about global warming (while railing against the pollution created by planes) appears to indicate that he honestly believes that issue is under-reported in the United States and really requires a smug punk with a bad haircut to put a 'face' on the issue.

We're aware people bend over backwards to avoid criticizing him but maybe they're unfamiliar with the fact that he's promoting nuclear energy?

That's what the one-time journalist, now environmental activist wanted to share: It's needed. It's clean.

It's destructive and dangerous to the planet. Only a fool, only a Moonbat, would promote it. He made no reference to solar power or wind power, but he could hawk nuclear energy.

For those unaware, the nuclear energy and nuclear weapon industry are tied together. At a time when it appears a serious movement is on the verge of rebuilding to call for a reduction and then elimination of nuclear weapons, the last thing the world needs is the likes of Moonbat selling nuclear energy as 'safe' and 'clean.'

Along with the damage they would do to the environment, a series of nuclear plants spring up all over the United States would send a message that nuclear energy is 'normal.' That would carry over to nuclear weapons and make them more palitable.

Moonbat, fly away, fly far, far away.

Green Party

The Green Party of Illinois announces: "In their meeting Thursday, the Illinois Board of Elections dismissed objections to all four Green Party candidates for president: Jared Ball of Washington D.C., Howie Hawkins of New York, Kent Mesplay of California and Cynthia McKinney of California."



Kent Mesplay "[g]rew up in a rain forest" and can list the following on his resume: "Green Party U.S. presidential candidate, 2004 primaries. Running again in the 2008 race. Participated in 12 presidential debates and panel discussions, including at the Institute of Politics, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, January 2004.Collected signatures, helping to get David Cobb, myself and the Green Party on the ballot in Rhode Island in 2004."



Cynthia McKinney is a nationally know former member of Congress who declared her candidacy last month. As a member of Congress, McKinney fought to raise real issues and ask the questions others didn't even want whispered. Her 'thanks' for that was to have the Democratic Party work to destroy her chances of re-election, not once but twice. The first time, she ran again the following cycle and was elected; however, her party's leader refused to restore her seniority the way she did for other members. In 2006, Democratic leadership worked overtime to demonize McKinney (and the most that 'left' Nation magazine could do was offer that they didn't want to get into it and 'enough' about Cynthia McKinney). That shows you how feared she is and how corrupt party leadership is because while working to run off a genuine progressive voice, they were begging anti-choice people to run as Democrats (some of whom were elected). McKinney is currently campaigning in Illinois. She will be in Madison and Milwaukee, Wisconsin* December 11th: "Congresswoman McKinney will announce her candidacy and hold a press conference at the Madison State Capitol, room 330 SW at 12:30 PM. She will speak at UW Milwaukee Campus, Bolton, room 150 at 7 PM, and will attend a fundraiser directly after at Espresso Christoph coffee shop, 3116 N. Downer Ave., Milwaukee."

Of her party switch, McKinney explains, "With the Democratic Party having left so many of its base supporters behind, the appeal of the Green Party was one that I could hear."



Cindy Sheehan says of McKinney, "She has always fought against the establishment (and that is why she is not in Congress now, in fact) and she has fought for legitimate voting and for the people of New Orleans. She introduced Articles of Impeachment on her last day as a Congressperson in 2006."



[*"In addition to McKinney, other Green candidates appearing on the Wisconsin Green Party’s presidential ballot will be: Jared Ball -- college professor from the District of Columbia, Jesse Johnson -- filmmaker and film company owner from West Virginia, Jerry Kann -- child welfare non-profit administrative assistant from New York, Kent Mesplay -- air quality inspector from California, Joe Schriner -- journalist and author from Ohio, and Kat Swift -- non-profit bookkeeper from Texas."]



Ralph Nader is still deciding whether or not to run and has stated he will announce before the end of this year. Others may announce as well.



Jared Bell and Howie Hawkins?



If you're running for national office, you need a website and you need it now. Third parties are historically underfunded. We can understand that. We also know Blogger/Blogspot is free (and that Green candidates have used it in the past).



Is Jared Bell a skateboarder or does he run track? He may very well but we doubt those are his websites. You can view him speaking online here.



Howie Hawkins is someone we've noted before. In fact, unlike independent media, we actually called out the refusal to include Hawkins in New York's 2006 Senate candidate debate. It was cute to hear one gasbag whine last week about how Hillary Clinton spent X dollars on her Senate race when she didn't have any real competition. That's obvious now but, for those who forget, independent media signed up to push another candidate. Hawkins? Ha, you make us laugh. Hawkins ran as a Green and when's the last time you can remember alleged independent media doing a damn thing to help a Green candidate? You can find his 2006 Senate campaign website easily. If he has a presidential campaign site, we're not seeing it.



If you know that a site exists, please e-mail us and we'll note it when we next cover the Green Party presidential candidates. If you support a Green presidential candidate and have started your own website noting them, let us know and we'll link to it in a future feature. But websites need to be started by someone because there is not enough money to cover the nation with campaign headquarters for individual candidates. The best shot is going online to explain why you should be the presidential candidate for the Green Party. With primaries on the verge of starting and a number of people on the left dissatisfied with the Democratic Party, you really need to get your message out there.



The Illinois Green Party notes, "The decision by the board sets the stage for the state's first ever contested Green Primary." It does set the stage but for a true contest, all candidates running need to have an online resource that can be readily found so potential voters know what they stand for.



Of those participating on this feature, Jess is the only registered Green and notes that he will be voting Green in 2008. If Nader runs, he has Jess' vote "because he's stood for the right issue and because he's been so smeared since 2000." Otherwise? "Cynthia McKinney's campaign strongly interests me. I'm familiar with Hawkins, as most Greens are, but a little puzzled as to why he doesn't have a campaign site up and running. If someone wants my primary vote, they better have an online resource where I can start my research. I will, however, vote for the Green Party nominee in the general election regardless of who that person is."



The Illinois Green Party has sent us many press releases and we're grateful for that. We'll be reposting the rest of the latest one in full but first a few things. We are a left site. We are all aware of the way the Green Party has been attacked and the way it is regularly ignored by alleged independent media. If you're a state Green Party and you'd like to be noted as well, feel free to send an e-mail and we'll be happy to post in full. Will the same policy be extended to the Democratic Party?



No. The Democratic Party receives ample attention from independent media and we've got other things to offer each week. The fact that the Green Party is regularly excluded by alleged independent media requires that we do our part to be a corrective to that reality so we will gladly and happily note what we can on the Green Party. We said "state parties." That means if it's a release on state candidates, we'll note it. It doesn't just have to be presidential candidates. We will, however, note that we publish on Sunday and if you send us something about an event that's already taken place, we probably won't note it.



Here is the rest of the Illinois Green Party's press release:



"Because we will have four candidates on the ballot for the same office, and thus a contested primary, every voter in the state will have the chance to pull a Green ballot on Feb. 5," says Phil Huckelberry, Chair of the ILGP Government & Elections Committee.
The Illinois Green Party became an established political party in 2006, when gubernatorial candidate Rich Whitney earned more than 10% of the vote. As an established party, Greens will participate in the Feb. 5 primary, name committee people, and can slate candidates to fill vacancies on the ticket.
"Voters in Illinois went to the polls in 2006 and demanded more options, beyond the two party system," says David Black, Secretary of the Illinois Green Party. "And we've delivered a number of excellent candidates in races all over the state."
In addition to the state board's decisions, the Cook County Board of Elections also threw out objections to the candidacy of Jerome Pohlen, a journalist and library trustee from Berwyn seeking the Green nomination for 3rd Congressional District.
Not all of the objections filed last month had favorable outcomes to the Illinois Green Party. The board voted unanimously to remove Scott Summers, attorney and McHenry Community College trustee, from the primary ballot for 16th Congressional District, despite hearing arguments that the Board used a different formula to calculate Green signature requirements than it used to calculate Republican and Democratic requirements.
"Had the board used the same formula, I would have had more than enough signatures to get on the ballot," says Summers."I think the political parties should be treated equally under the law." Summers says that he may file suit in the case or will seek to be slated by the party following the primary.
Objections are still pending against congressional candidate David Kalbfleisch (10th district), as well as other candidates for state, local and committee person offices.

About those permalinks

It's a rare week that goes by where someone doesn't e-mail to complain about the permalinks. Why do we note ___? Why don't we note ___? Mama Cass!



On the phone Friday, Jim mentioned to C.I. some of the nonsense coming in regarding links. Those with Blogger/Blogspot know-how may assume you pull up the template, copy and paste the code, then copy and paste the link and it's in there and you're done.



Jim, Dona and Ty switched templates this year and added links. Or thought they did. It didn't work. C.I. figured out how and remains the only one that really knows how to add links to our template. But when you do, unlike with the older templates, you don't just add it where it you want. It automatically adds to the top and you have to click to get it to go down once, click again for two, click . . . click . . . click.



It took a half-hour for C.I. to update the links on Friday.



They are what they are (to modify a saying of Kat's). If you don't like them (to steal from Cedric), oh well.



Since we're not people who trash our own beliefs to write a voters' guide, we first link to all community sites and they are linked to in the order they started.



The Official Cass Elliot Webpage? If you can't appreciate Cass, we're not going to be able to offer anything you can appreciate so move along.



C.I. redid the order to address some complaints. War resisters are now grouped together.



Peace organizations are now grouped together.



If you see something you think was there but appears to have vanished, you can e-mail.



While clicking on the tiny dashes (to go up or down), C.I. accidentally deleted Military Families Speak Out and noticed that but fears it may have happened before that and didn't get noticed. So there may be something that got automatically deleted on Friday. If you see something missing, thirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com is the e-mail address.



A.N.S.W.E.R. was the biggest issue in last week's e-mails about the permalinks. Some e-mailed to say they were glad we didn't support the organization and others e-mailed to ask why we didn't support the organization. We have no beef with them. We also have no time to play around with the permalinks. We'd planned to add them before and Dona had tried to two months ago. There's a step she missed (a save step apparently) and it wasn't added. It's on the permalinks now.



You don't link to any third party candidates was what two people wrote in to say. Ralph Nader may or may not decide to run, but he is now linked. Cynthia McKinney is running and she is now linked. Cindy Sheehan is running for Congress and she is now linked.



Unless something was accidentally deleted and is drawn to our attention, that's probably it for the updates to our links for a few months. It's a pain in the butt to do links, Dona's been talked through it twice but still has trouble with the new process and she knows more about it than anyone other than C.I.

Here come the revisonary tactics

Last week's "Mailbag" resulted in an angry e-mail from Troyz255 who took issue with C.I.'s comments regarding No End In Sight. He begs the rest of us to go on record explaining we oppose C.I.'s opinion. We can't go on record stating something that isn't true.



C.I. explained, in response to an e-mail, " I don't support No End In Sight. It's a bad film that sells illegal war and the Culture Project can exhibit whatever they want but I don't publicize that film and I won't. The film was made by a War Hawk who still supports the illegal war and will not call it out. He wants to offer that it wasn't 'planned.' Naomi Klein has aptly demonstrated that the chaos was planned. I'm not going to endorse any event that features that crappy film." If Troyz225 read on, he would have seen Elaine voicing agreement.



Troyz225 asserts that "impeachment matters more than some movie."



While we support impeachment, we disagree with that statement.



When the US finally pulled out of Vietnam, there was a reality among the American people that the nightmare was over. Those of us who weren't born then were surprised to learn that was the case. (It was the case.) How did that reality turn into the popular myth of "We could have won!"?



Sir! No Sir! explains a great deal of how that happened. The public narrative was purged of reality including the realities that those protesting the illegal war included a large number of service members. It mentions film's roles in rewriting history. It gets closest to another reality when Jane Fonda's explaining how people accuse her of "going back" to the topic all the time.



The left and the 'left' (with few exceptions) made the mistake of assuming that, since the majority of the public, knew that conflict was wrong, that would always be the case. People avoided "going back" to it because reality was reality and let's all be nice and understand other's feelings and a lot of other hog wash.



While the left and 'left' was being nice, the right-wing was determined to launch their revisionary campaign.



If those who lived through that time expected it would be taught to future generations (which includes a number of people writing this feature), they were dead wrong. None of us born after it ever heard a word about in our history classes. It's at the end of the book and no one's in a rush to teach that area.



Into the vacuum came bad movies. With no information provided to younger generations about that time period and a lot of bad movies running constantly on TV, it's really not surprising that the revisionary history succeeded as well as it did.



We can't go back and change that.



We can refuse to take part in the same process again.



Endorsing No End In Sight is endorsing revisionary history. Whether it's Naomi Klein or Greg Palast or Antonia Juhasz or any other number of writers, it has been established that the US government did not 'forget' to plan what to do after they seized control in Iraq. It was planned. It was a tag sale.



No End In Sight lies and says there was no planning. If you watch the film (and pay attention), you'll quickly grasp that there is no argument against the illegal war. Not surprising when the 'director' was for the illegal war and remains for it. He wants to dicker over what should have been done after the US seized control and wants to assert that there should have been solid planning.



That is not a message to end the illegal war. It is a message of: "Let's do it differently next time!"



It does not call out the illegal war. It does not call out illegal wars.



If you needed that lame movie to indicate that the administration was corrupt, you've obviously missed many articles, books and, yes, other documentaries -- real documentaries.



If you're okay with another illegal war but just want it planned better, then No End In Sight is the film for you.



But there is no reason in the world for the peace movement to support a film by a War Hawk who remains a supporter of the Iraq War.



The film is not making a minor point that we can all 'live with.' The film is rewriting reality to argue that the war could have been 'won' if the US government had planned the occupation. The occupation was planned. Pretending that it wasn't is lying.



You start allowing one lie, you start allowing others. Then you've got every bad, B-actor in the world churning out action flicks about how Iraq could have been 'won' if only the military hadn't had their 'hands tied.'



That is what happened before and it will happen again unless those opposed to the illegal war fight. That's not a one day fight. The right-wing has a great deal of interest in rewriting reality. You've got a press that has a lot of interest in doing that as well because so many of them -- not just Judith Miller -- cheerleaded this illegal war.



History can be just factoids and trivia. Or you can actually learn from it. The lesson to take from the post-Vietnam period is that, bit by bit, there will be revisions promoted to destroy the reality of how unpopular this illegal war was, of how illegal it was and of what actually went down.



We're not just committed to opposing the No End In Sights for the life of this website. We will spend the rest of our days telling the truth about this illegal war and calling out the lies. We're not going to 'play nice' when it's over and take the attitude of, "Well it is over so let them have their say." We won't assume that because we know the reality everyone will always know the reality. We certainly won't assume that it will be taught in schools to the next generations.



It is a battle for the truth and if you slide on No End In Sight, you'll slide on the next revision and then the next. Then, before you know it, we will have the "We could've won if our hands hadn't been tied" myth applied to the Iraq War as well. We don't know that we can stop that from happening but we do know we will do our part to make sure the truth remains alive.

KPFK ballots due by midnight December 11th

Last week, we noted Kimberly Wilder's "Green heroine, Donna Warren runs for KPFK" (On the Wilder Side) on Warren's run for the KPFK's LSB. Voting ends December 11th at midnight. That means your ballot needs to be received by then or turned in at the station by then.


"Peter Camejo & Nativo Lopez Support Donna Warren & John Wegner for KPFK Board" at LA Indymedia is an open letter on the election and we'll note it in full:

Dear KPFK members,
It is regretable that some Greens have attempted to bring internal Green Party conflicts into the KPFK election. It is unfortunate enough that our party has such problems, without having Green Party members bringing our internal disputes into an election as important as the election to the KPFK board.
The charges made in this letter are, of course, completely without foundation.
You may be unaware, but the Green Party of Los Angeles County has been involved in a years-long struggle over internal democracy, democratic accountability, political and financial ethics, and the future of Green Politics.
Donna Warren and John Wenger have been in the forefront of the struggle by the majority of Los Angeles County Greens to preserve and protect grassroots democracy, and high standards of ethical behavior and democratic process in the Green Party both locally and statewide.
Because of the stands they have taken to protect, preserve and promote all that is decent and honorable in the Green Party today, they have angered those Green Party members who feel threatened by any semblance of rank and file democracy or political morality in our party.
The struggle Donna Warren and John Wenger and others have waged in our party to preserve, enhance and protect the values of our party has been nothing short of heroic, and demonstrates precisely the strength of character KPFK needs on its board.
Please vote for Donna and John with an open heart and a clear conscience. You will be voting for the best the Green Party has, and you will never regret it.
Signed,

-Peter Camejo - Green Party Candidate for Governor.
-Nativo. V. Lopez – National President, Mexican-American Political Association (MAPA) and Hermanidad Mexicana Latinoamericana;
-Ceil Sorenson - Female Co-Coordinator (with John Wenger, Male Co-Coordinator) of the County Council of the Green Party of Los Angeles County;
-Ellen Maisen – At-Large Representative to the Coordinating Committee of the Green Party of California; Member, County Council of the Green Party of Los Angeles County
-Jim Odling - County Councilor of the Green Party of Los Angeles County and Green Party of California Regional Representative, Los Angeles County;
-Will Yeager -- Green Party of California Regional Representative, Los Angeles County; Green Party Nominee 38th Congressional District, 1996; Treasurer, Southern California Green Assembly, 1988-1989; Corresponding Secretary, Green Party of Los Angeles County County Council, 1992-1994;
-Matt Leslie -- County Council of the Green Party of Orange County, Former Regional Representative for Orange County, San Bernardino County, and Riverside County, Green Party of California State Coordinating Committee;
-Lynda A. Hernandez -- Chair, Green Party of Orange County 2002 Council member and Treasurer 2003-2004;
-Todd Van Etten -- County Council of the Green Party of Orange County;
-Mike Wyman -- Former Treasurer, Green Party of California; Candidate for Attorney General of California; Second Alternate for North Bay Region, Green Party of California State Coordinating Committee;
-Shane Que Hee -- LA County Green and Co-Coordinator, Green Party of California Platform Committee
- Carole and Andre LaFlamme -- Member and Supporter of Women in Black

Highlights

This piece is written by Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Kat of Kat's Korner, Betty of Thomas Friedman is a Great Man, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz and Wally of The Daily Jot. Unless otherwise noted, we picked all highlights.

"Ruth's Report" -- for this report, Ruth addresses e-mail and actually had another topic for the second-half of her report. However, Beth returned her call and she had that and so much more to include.

"Katrina's quests" -- Betinna's latest in which Cathy and Katrina come a' calling.

"Green Beans, Onions and Nuts in the Kitchen" -- Trina addresses issues of concerns concering canned foods and notes Kucinich's latest endorsement.

"Law and Disorder, Dennis Kucinich" -- Mike runs down the latest from Law and Disorder and also tosses in some Kucinich news.

"women and 'ladies'" -- Rebecca's commentary on the realities of much of the gas bag set female division today.

"Chris Dodd Impersonator" & "THIS JUST IN! OBAMA TRIES TO PASS FOR CHRIS DODD!" -- It's not enough to claim to be the modern day JFK, Cedric and Wally inform you, Bambi's now stealing from Chris Dodd. Betty says: "Stop the Whiteness! Stop the Whiteness!"

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "From the kitchen of the Peace Resister" -- one of the most instantly popular of all of Isaiah's comics. Check it out and you'll see why. Check out Elaine's "Isaiah, Marjorie Cohn" for an analysis of the comic.


"And the war drags on . . ." -- reader demanded. It's a bit different than the usual "And the war drags on" (and C.I. rates it as "pathetic") but it's hard hitting and resonated with many.

"Ann Wilson, Carly, Joni and Carole" -- Kat discussing music today as well as clearing up some misinformation.

"Iraqi refugees" -- Ruth on the slowly emerging reality that contradicts the myth of the 'great return.'

"Bi-Racial Boy, meet the Black Woman" & "THIS JUST IN! HE CAN STILL CLAIM TO BE A CROSS DRESSER!" -- Cynthia McKinney declares, leaving the half-Black Bambi with one less novelty card to play.

Note

The edition is done except for two pieces we'd like to rework. It's posting late. Why? The piece everyone's e-mailing about (noted by Mike, Elaine and Kat). It's written. It wasn't hard to write, C.I. had done the bulk of it already (as they noted at their sites).

The way it works is some 'elders' are named including Tom Hayden, Medea Benjamin and Phyllis Bennis. There is a hilarious joke to Bennis (on Bennis?) in the piece currently.

Despite the fact that it's noted the piece only names people worth naming (we were kind and left unnamed the ones doing intentional harm), C.I.'s going back and forth over the joke and it's become a bigger issue than it actually is.

The rest of us love the joke. It is, however, C.I.'s and C.I. can pull it if that's the 'final answer.' But since we've spent two hours debating the pros and cons of it (pros: It's funny as hell and, in my -- Jim -- opinion, that's all that matters), Dona suggested we take a nap and sleep on it.

For those wondering, the joke appears in the context of Bennis' slam of Alexander Cockburn and I also argue that, after writing that piece, she should be willing to live with any jokes that come out of it. I made the mistake of noting the Medea Benjamin section as an example of how we're not worrying about humor there which only led to C.I. wondering, "Is that really hurtful? I thought it was funny and underscored one of the central points."

Dona thinks if we take a nap, we'll come back either rested with the attitude of "It was made into something by ___ so they should expect comments" or else we'll be in such a rush to edit the last two pieces that it will be a case of "Whatever! Just post it!" So that's what we're doing.