Repeatedly, press reports run with the claims that the "US killed X number of terrorists in __ Iraq today/yesterday." The reporters don't know if the dead were terrorists or not. They haven't verified anything. Most don't even put 'terrorists' in quotes. The US military says it and the press runs with it. This despite the fact that a number of 'terrorists' killed have ended up being innocent civilians.
Last week, Wally and Cedric attempted to demonstrate the absurdity of it in a series of posts.
We loved their series and wanted to note it in full.
From Tuesday's "Christmas in Baghdad" and "THIS JUST IN! U.S. MILITARY KILLS 'TERRORIST'!:"
BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIX MIX -- BAGHDAD.
IN THE U.S. NATIONAL GREEN ZONE TODAY, THE GIDDIEST GABOR OF THE GREEN ZONE, WILLIE CALDWELL, STEPPED BEFORE THE PRESS TO CONFIRM WHAT HAD BEEN UNCONFIRMED FACT BUT COULD NOT BE REPORTED UNTIL THE U.S. GOVERNMENT CONFIRMED IT BECAUSE THE PRESS CORPS HAS NO SPINE. LAST NIGHT, OVER BAGHDAD, THE U.S. MILITARY SHOT DOWN AND KILLED A MAN.
WILLIE INFORMED THAT THE MAN WAS ONE OF AL-QAEDA'S LEADING TERRORISTS AND DISMISSED SPECULATION THAT THE U.S. MILITARY SHOT DOWN SANTA CLAUSE.
"THAT IS AN ALIAS!" INSISTED WILLIE. "HIS REAL NAME IS KRIS KRINGLE. ONLY TERRORISTS NEED ALIAS! WE HAVE IT ON RADAR THAT HE FIRST STOPPED IN IRAN AND WE HAVE EVERY REASON TO BELIEVE HE WAS SMUGGLING IN I.E.D.S. AND OTHER EXPLOSIVES."
AS THE PRESS CORPS DUTIFULLY WROTE DOWN WILLIE'S EVERY WORD AND A BEAMING MARTHA RADDATZ EXCLAIMED "LOVELY!" VIA SATELLITE LINK FROM THE UNITED STATES,
THESE REPORTERS ASKED WHETHER OR NOT SANTA CLAUSE MIGHT HAVE STOPPED IN IRAN TO DELIVER PRESENTS?
"KRINGLE!" EXCLAIMED WILLIE. "I DO NOT KNOW WHY YOU INSIST ON CALLING HIM 'SANTA CLAUSE.' HIS NAME IS KRIS KRINGLE, WE KNOW HE STOPPED IN IRAN, WE KNOW HE BROUGHT WEAPONS INTO IRAQ!"
THESE REPORTERS INQUIRED AS TO THE TYPE OF PRESENTS THAT WERE FOUND WHERE THE SLED CRASHED DOWN?
"PRESENTS? WEAPONS! THERE WERE A FEW REMOTE CONTROL THINGS, LOOKED LIKE CARS, BUT YOU CAN PLANT A BOMB IN A TOY CAR, AND WE ARE THE UNITED STATES MILITARY! WE KNOW BEST! WE HAVE TAKEN OUT A TERRORIST WHO REGULARLY TRAVELED THE GLOBE INDICATING THAT HE WAS PART OF THE GLOBAL DRUG CARTEL!"
ABC'S MARTHA RADDATZ AGAIN BUBBLED "LOVELY" AS REPORTERS RUSHED OFF TO FILE THEIR 'SCOOPS.'
THESE REPORTERS SPOKE WITH TWO IRAQI CHILDREN WHO HAD STAYED UP LATE HOPING TO CATCH SANTA AS HE DELIVERED TOYS. THEY SOBBED UNCONTROLLABLY AS THEIR MOTHER EXPLAINED HOW, LAST NIGHT, THEY HAD RUN TO THE WINDOW AND POINTED EXCITEDLY AT SANTA FLYING JUST OVER BAGHDAD ONLY TO SEE "THIS HUGE FIREBALL" AND HEAR THE CRIES AND SCREAMS OF SANTA AS THE SLED CRASHED DOWN TO EARTH.
A UNITED STATES SOLDIER ON DUTY LAST NIGHT SAID, "WE WERE TRYING TO WAIT AND CAUTIONING THAT IT DID NOT APPEAR TO BE A HOSTILE BUT WE WERE ORDERED 'TAKE HIM OUT NOW! TAKE THAT MOTHER-F**KER OUT NOW!"
Having shot down Santa's sled (thereby killing Clause), the next day it was time for the 'chatter' defense often used to excuse themselves when facing criticism. "U.S. military labels elves 'terrorists'" and "THIS JUST IN! THEY NUKED THE NORTH POLE!:"
BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIX MIX -- BAGHDAD.
YESTERDAY THE U.S. MILITARY'S SPOKESMODEL WILLIE CALDWELL CONFIRMED IN A PRESS CONFERENCE, HERE AND HERE, THAT, IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF DECEMBER 25TH, THE U.S. MILITARY HAD LAUNCHED A ROCKET AT KRIS KRINGLE WHO IS MORE POPULAR KNOWN AS SANTA CLAUSE THOUGH CALDWELL DISMISSED THAT AS AN "ALIAS."
IN ADDITION, CALDWELL STATED THAT SANTA CLAUSE WAS A "TERRORIST" SMUGGLING WEAPONS INTO IRAQ AND THAT HIS YEARLY TRIPS AROUND THE GLOBE WERE PART OF THE "GLOBAL DRUG CARTEL."
TODAY THESE REPORTERS SPOKE WITH THE GENERAL IN CHARGE OF U.S. OPERATIONS IN IRAQ, DAVID PETRAEUS.
PETRAEUS DOES NOT DENY THAT "STRATEGIC TARGET" AND NOTES THAT THE U.S. ALSO NUKED THE NORTH POLE BECAUSE THE ELVES IN "SANTA'S WORKSHOP" WERE A "TERRORIST CELL."
WHEN ASKED FOR PROOF, PETRAEUS REFERRED TO "CHATTER" AND NOTED THAT SOME OF THE LETTERS TO SANTA CAME IN FROM CHILDREN "WHO WERE CLEARLY MEMBERS OF HAMAS. KRINGLE WAS THE LYNCHPIN IN INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM AND RECRUITED FOLLOWERS BY PROMISING THAT HE WOULD PROVIDE WITH 'GIFTS' IF THEY WERE 'GOOD'. THIS IS AKIN TO A PROMISE OF 7 OR MORE VIRGINS IN AN AFTER-LIFE. NOT ONLY DOES THE U.S. MILITARY STAND BY IT'S DECISION TO SHOOT DOWN SANTA, ER, KRINGLE, WE ALSO STAND BY THE DECISION TO NUKE THE NORTH POLE."
PETRAEUS WENT ON TO BOAST THAT THE U.S. MILITARY WAS CURRENTLY USING GLOBAL POSITIONING/TRACKING TO LOCATE THE TOOTH FAIRY VIA BIOMETRICS THEY SWABBED OFF OF A CHILD'S PILLOW.
"TINKY'S REIGN OF TERROR IS OVER!" PETRAEUS THUNDERED.
And what's left after that but to discredit or vanish the last one speaking out? "The widow speaks" and "THIS JUST IN! SANTA'S WIDOW CALLS OUT THE U.S.!""
BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIX MIX -- BAGHDAD.
TODAY, MRS. CLAUSE VISITED BAGHDAD, WITH PROTECTION PROVIDED BY THE EASTER BUNNY, TO HOLD A PRESS CONFERENCE WHERE SHE DECRIED THE U.S. MILITARY'S DECISION TO ASSASSINATE HER HUSBAND EARLY ON THE MORNING OF DECEMBER 25TH.
STANDING IN THE CRATER WHERE HER HUSBAND'S SLED CRASHED AFTER BEING FIRED UPON, MRS. CLAUSE INSISTED THAT HER HUSBAND WAS NO TERRORIST.
"HE DELIVERED TOYS. HE BROUGHT JOY. HE WAS VICIOUSLY KILLED. THE REAL TERRORISTS ARE IN CENTCOM!"
MRS. CLAUSE DECRIED THE HATRED AND FEAR THAT SHE STATED WAS BEHIND HER HUSBAND'S ASSASSINATION.
MRS. CLAUSE EXPLAINED THAT EACH CHRISTMAS DAY, THE CLAUSES HAD VACATIONED IN MIAMI AND SHE HAD ALREADY DEPARTED THE NORTH POLE BEFORE THE U.S. NUKED IT WHICH WAS "WHY I REMAIN THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN DECRY THIS STATE-SPONSORED TERRORISM."
AS FOR CHARGES OF TERRORISM, SHE STATED THE U.S. MILITARY WAS "HIDING BEHIND THAT FALSE CHARGE" IN ORDER TO COVER UP THEIR OWN ACTIONS.
"THE WORLD IS WATCHING! THE WORLD IS WATCHING!" SHE EXCLAIMED TO THUNDEROUS APPLAUSE SHORTLY BEFORE GENERAL DAVID PETRAEUS PULLED THE POWER ON THE MICROPHONE, SENT IN A 5 MAN TEAM TO BAG HER HEAD AND WHISK HER OUT OF SIGHT.
RUMORS ABOUND THAT SHE IS BEING HELD IN GUANTANAMO.
We think just about captures it all.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
2007 Tour
While the bulk of those still around who achieved fame or semi-fame during the period known as "alternative rock" suffer through one identiy crisis after another (should I be a solo? part of a super group?) as they attempt to chase down whatever might hand them a hit, Tori Amos has repeatedly stood up for art.
Her CD releases this decade (Scarlet's Walk, The Bee Keeper and American Doll Posse) have been not only among the finest but also among the most adventurous. American Doll Posse is epic in scope, so it was little surprise that it would be equally ambitious as a concert tour.
The album speaks through characters and, for the tour, one of them opened each show: Isabel,
Clyde, Pip and Santa. After 'they' opened, she would leave the stage and return as Tori. Along with featuring the strong material from the new CD ("Big Wheels," "Bouncing Off Clouds" and "Girl Disappearing" among them), she also dipped into the vault and, judging from what we saw and the e-mails we received, appears to have performed all the tracks that have appeared on her albums at one point or another. The set changed repeatedly (as did the character who opened the show) so if you were fortunate to have Tori in your area for multiple dates, you could have seen a different concert every night.
The US leg of the tour opened October 9th in Albany and concluded December 16th in Los Angeles. The bulk of us caught her performances in Boston and Oakland (caught both locations) but whether the others caught her in West Palm Beach or Atlanta or elsewhere, we all agree it was an amazing tour.
The tour, like the CD, was about expressing your own strength and grasping that the political was personal. Ambitious and she pulled it off. Missed the tour or a date or two you wanted to catch? The official Tori Amos site is offering downloads.
As she sings in the album opener "Yo George:"
I salute to you Commander
and I sneeze
'Cause I have Now
an Allergy
To your policies it seems
Where have we gone wrong America?
Mr. Lincoln we can't seem
to find you anywhere out of the millions
From the deserts
To the mountains
To the shores
Is this just the Madness of King George
Yo George
Is this just the Madness of King George
Yo George
Well you have the whole Nation
on all fours.
Her CD releases this decade (Scarlet's Walk, The Bee Keeper and American Doll Posse) have been not only among the finest but also among the most adventurous. American Doll Posse is epic in scope, so it was little surprise that it would be equally ambitious as a concert tour.
The album speaks through characters and, for the tour, one of them opened each show: Isabel,
Clyde, Pip and Santa. After 'they' opened, she would leave the stage and return as Tori. Along with featuring the strong material from the new CD ("Big Wheels," "Bouncing Off Clouds" and "Girl Disappearing" among them), she also dipped into the vault and, judging from what we saw and the e-mails we received, appears to have performed all the tracks that have appeared on her albums at one point or another. The set changed repeatedly (as did the character who opened the show) so if you were fortunate to have Tori in your area for multiple dates, you could have seen a different concert every night.
The US leg of the tour opened October 9th in Albany and concluded December 16th in Los Angeles. The bulk of us caught her performances in Boston and Oakland (caught both locations) but whether the others caught her in West Palm Beach or Atlanta or elsewhere, we all agree it was an amazing tour.
The tour, like the CD, was about expressing your own strength and grasping that the political was personal. Ambitious and she pulled it off. Missed the tour or a date or two you wanted to catch? The official Tori Amos site is offering downloads.
As she sings in the album opener "Yo George:"
I salute to you Commander
and I sneeze
'Cause I have Now
an Allergy
To your policies it seems
Where have we gone wrong America?
Mr. Lincoln we can't seem
to find you anywhere out of the millions
From the deserts
To the mountains
To the shores
Is this just the Madness of King George
Yo George
Is this just the Madness of King George
Yo George
Well you have the whole Nation
on all fours.
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.
"Sammy, sans axe, enters the picture" -- Betinna spies on a bad musical act and finds where there is deceit, there is Our Modern Day Carrie Nations.
"Zucchini Farfalle" -- Trina provides a simple, easy recipe and some simple, plain truths.
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Scary Bullymas" -- Never forget, ego and greed drive the White House.
"IVAW & Law and Disorder" -- Mike discusses IVAW and notes the others -- the lazies who can't do a damn thing.
"The 3900 mark reached" -- C.I. noted it. Many didn't feel it was even worth mentioning.
"Third, John V. Walsh" -- Mike breaks down the edition and this highlight was selected by Jim who says the only thing missing was a rundown of the latest episode of Chuck. (When the show broadcasts new episodes, Mike usually notes it on Monday.)
"My oven doesn't work!" -- a bonus post from Trina.
"betty's father was right" -- Rebecca noting the truth everyone wants to avoid. Thanks, Little Media and get your hand out of my pocket.
"Rubin & Cave encounter the 'Awakening' Council" -- selected by both Alicia and Zach who e-mailed to sing the praises of this entry by C.I.
"And the war drags on . . ." -- and, as Alicia also noted, a good portion of this is actually an Ava and C.I. entry.
"Merry Christmas (Talking Post)" -- selected by Jim and C.I. who both were surprised to read it and discover that Mike's idea of 'light post' (posted on Christmas Day) was far deeper than they suspected.
"Ruth's Report" -- Ruth's noting some basics that only became more true as the week wore on (see today's editorial). We asked Ruth what the bookstore was and she said "Crossroads Market."
"Call out Katrina vanden Heuvel" -- Elaine's entry was a strong one on Monday but when Rebecca learned later in the week about some censorship of the very topic Elaine's addressing, it only became more so. Post-Boring, we say to the censor, post-boring. (Private message.)
"PBS' NOW and Carole King" -- Ruth went beyond a jotting this week at her own site. (Like Wally and Cedric, her site is intended to be brief posts.) It's an amazing mini-essay and a must read.
"The Cult ensures that I've got a secret" -- Kat's title hooked us before we read it (and we knew the topic). Some have a lot of explaining to but watch them duck their heads and pretend it never happened.
"Karma" -- on a similar note, you reap what you sow, as Elaine points out.
"I Hate The War" -- this is the sort of thing the Thursday night entry will be like at The Common Ills from now on. Read it and you'll grasp why C.I. felt it needed to do more than travel the same ground as the Sunday night entry.
"Christmas in Baghdad" & "THIS JUST IN! U.S. MILITARY KILLS 'TERRORIST'!," "U.S. military labels elves 'terrorists'" & "THIS JUST IN! THEY NUKED THE NORTH POLE!"
and "The widow speaks" & "THIS JUST IN! SANTA'S WIDOW CALLS OUT THE U.S.!" --
Cedric and Wally's mini-epic that was among the best work done anywhere last week.
"Sammy, sans axe, enters the picture" -- Betinna spies on a bad musical act and finds where there is deceit, there is Our Modern Day Carrie Nations.
"Zucchini Farfalle" -- Trina provides a simple, easy recipe and some simple, plain truths.
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Scary Bullymas" -- Never forget, ego and greed drive the White House.
"IVAW & Law and Disorder" -- Mike discusses IVAW and notes the others -- the lazies who can't do a damn thing.
"The 3900 mark reached" -- C.I. noted it. Many didn't feel it was even worth mentioning.
"Third, John V. Walsh" -- Mike breaks down the edition and this highlight was selected by Jim who says the only thing missing was a rundown of the latest episode of Chuck. (When the show broadcasts new episodes, Mike usually notes it on Monday.)
"My oven doesn't work!" -- a bonus post from Trina.
"betty's father was right" -- Rebecca noting the truth everyone wants to avoid. Thanks, Little Media and get your hand out of my pocket.
"Rubin & Cave encounter the 'Awakening' Council" -- selected by both Alicia and Zach who e-mailed to sing the praises of this entry by C.I.
"And the war drags on . . ." -- and, as Alicia also noted, a good portion of this is actually an Ava and C.I. entry.
"Merry Christmas (Talking Post)" -- selected by Jim and C.I. who both were surprised to read it and discover that Mike's idea of 'light post' (posted on Christmas Day) was far deeper than they suspected.
"Ruth's Report" -- Ruth's noting some basics that only became more true as the week wore on (see today's editorial). We asked Ruth what the bookstore was and she said "Crossroads Market."
"Call out Katrina vanden Heuvel" -- Elaine's entry was a strong one on Monday but when Rebecca learned later in the week about some censorship of the very topic Elaine's addressing, it only became more so. Post-Boring, we say to the censor, post-boring. (Private message.)
"PBS' NOW and Carole King" -- Ruth went beyond a jotting this week at her own site. (Like Wally and Cedric, her site is intended to be brief posts.) It's an amazing mini-essay and a must read.
"The Cult ensures that I've got a secret" -- Kat's title hooked us before we read it (and we knew the topic). Some have a lot of explaining to but watch them duck their heads and pretend it never happened.
"Karma" -- on a similar note, you reap what you sow, as Elaine points out.
"I Hate The War" -- this is the sort of thing the Thursday night entry will be like at The Common Ills from now on. Read it and you'll grasp why C.I. felt it needed to do more than travel the same ground as the Sunday night entry.
"Christmas in Baghdad" & "THIS JUST IN! U.S. MILITARY KILLS 'TERRORIST'!," "U.S. military labels elves 'terrorists'" & "THIS JUST IN! THEY NUKED THE NORTH POLE!"
and "The widow speaks" & "THIS JUST IN! SANTA'S WIDOW CALLS OUT THE U.S.!" --
Cedric and Wally's mini-epic that was among the best work done anywhere last week.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Truest statement of the week
Mommy and Daddy broke up, little boy, not because they got tired but because Daddy beat the s**t out of Mommy, because Daddy put her in the hospital over and over.
Grow the hell up.
-- Elaine counsels the Ike Turner defenders for free in "Only women & countries get 'discovered'."
Grow the hell up.
-- Elaine counsels the Ike Turner defenders for free in "Only women & countries get 'discovered'."
A Note to Our Readers
Hey --
If you are or will be celebrating or gathering for any reason, may you build pleasant memories that carry you through rougher days.
Here's who participated on this edition:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim,
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,
Wally of The Daily Jot
and Ruth of Ruth's Report
Our thanks to all of them. Our thanks to Dallas who was a sounding board, a link locator and so much more.
Our apologies to Rebecca whose "nader, the ballet, caving dems" was the building blocks for a feature we worked on that needed additional time. We ended up not having it. (We may pull a quote for a truest statement two for the week. After we've gotten some sleep.)
We especially thank Betty's oldest son who knocked himself doing illustrations, stockpiling them, when we were all in DC in September. Saturday night, before he went to sleep, he asked to talk to us and Betty gave him the phone. Was there anyone one of his illustrations could be used this week. He'd told his friends they'd be coming and only a few had but his sister (Betty's youngest child) wanted to see Santa. One of the things he did was try to pull together some seasonal illustrations. We have three of his illustration posted this week. (He says Kat and C.I. helped him with at least one but they can't remember. He deserves all credit for the illustrations.) We apologize for our long delays in posting his illustrations and we thank him for them. (We also note we have many, many more to post.)
We've had computer problems all morning and would have been done three hours ago were it not for those (which include a "corrupted file" warning on all laptops we were using). But it's up.
Here's what we have . . .
Truest statement of the week -- Elaine was the obvious pick. Most e-mails to all community sites noted Elaine's post and this was one of the often noted passages from it.
Editorial: Should we pray to Santa? -- Betty's son did the illustration. We had a different editorial but couldn't figure out how to work in the illustration otherwise. (Santa is a snowman in the illustration and her son said, back in September, "That's because Christmas melts away so fast." True.) Ruth, Kat, Mike, Elaine, Betty, Wally, Jess, Ava and C.I. wrote this.
TV: The Weak Get Weaker -- This is Ava and C.I.'s piece and this is Ava and C.I. only speaking here. Jess doesn't want to touch it because apparently Jim gets raked over the coals by some readers if they feel he didn't note what was important about the commentary. Here's what stands out to us: We miss entertainment programming! We really miss it. We are so sick of the news programming and all the liars, fluffers and fibbers who seem to inhabit them. A mailbag feature was started but killed. (There was no print edition this weekend. Ty's boyfriend is with Ty.) So since we're not going to comment on what we wrote, let's answer the e-mail. Are we really going to break the strike and review NBC's Medium? We don't know what we're going to do. We know we are sick to death of news programming. We know the network should have settled the strike a long time ago. We're thinking of reviewing a Saturday morning cartoon next week. Is that breaking the strike? (Friends who urged us to stop writing about entertainment programs said no, it wasn't. But we'll toss that out to readers.) We will be tempted to review Medium because it is a great show and Patricia Arquette is amazing. Plus the show does not get the support it needs and you've got some exciting moments this year and some amazing performances (including one guest star and we hope everyone knows who we mean). Along with the e-mail asking, some friends asked about it. What we're going to try to do if the strike is still on is wait. But we don't enjoy writing these pieces to begin with. We're not TV watchers to begin with. Due to the strike, we have to catch a ton of these shows we wouldn't watch otherwise. We can tell you about every Charlie Rose interview last week, we can tell you about five evening newscasts on the networks, we can tell you about all of PBS' public affairs program -- primetime and elsewhere. When we get done speaking, we're either streaming online and watching TV trying to find something that there's a review in. We're logging way too many hours watching this nonsense. And we worry that constant repetition of conventional wisdom will have a damaging effect. So we don't know what we're doing. We do know the networks need to pay the writers' their fair share and that's not happening. We'll probably be tempted to review Medium but will probably wait on that until the strike's over. But we promised another look at that (the original review here was a group project, Jim figured that out last week and told us that we fought over many points others were making -- fought and lost -- so we would like to take another crack at). A friend called this morning and said whenever we get through to call because he has an idea of how we could honor the strike and avoid news and public affairs programming for a week or two. We'll be calling him and blessing him if he does indeed have a workable answer.
The Nation featured 491 male bylines in 2007 -- how many female ones? -- This time last year, "Nation Stats" started. Here's the year run down and it's not pretty and it just goes to show that the answer is not putting a woman in charge, the answer is putting the right one in charge, one who will see to it that women have an equal number of seats at the table. Ruth, Wally, Cedric, Mike, Elaine, Betty, Kat, Jess, Ava and C.I. wrote this.
Roundtable -- Roundtables are nightmares. This one was only a nightmare to type, thankfully. Betty's oldest son did the illustration for this feature and we'll be using it for future roundtables as well.
"I Hate The War" -- Ruth, Kat, Betty, Mike, Elaine, Wally, Jess, Ava and C.I. wrote this, our second feature on The Ballet. Please check out the group.
Dems & Iraq -- A brief look at some Democrats running for president. This was pulled together at the last minute and written by Jess, Ava and C.I. We found Betty's son illustration of Barack Obama (whom Betty's son loathes) and thought we could pull something together very quickly and use the illustration. This is not providing a look at all candidates. The focus is Iraq. We're noting Bill Richardson, John Edwards and Barack Obama. Richardson had to be noted because he was the first to start talking about Iraq and should have made it into a snapshot last week but there wasn't time. Obama's latest dramatics meant that he and Edwards were included. Nothing is intended in ignoring the others except maybe Kucinich because he had a personal tragedy last week and we were too tried to want to go there. (Kucincih is mentioned in this week's TV commentary.)
Iowa -- At last we weigh in on Florida. Thank you to Wally for his patience. (He lives in Florida.) Wally was the leader on this piece and also helping out were Betty, Elaine, Kat, Mike, Jess, Ava and C.I.
Cynthia McKinney announces run for president -- Cynthia McKinney has declared, she is running for the Green Party nomination. This also contains a press release on another Green candidate so please check that out. This piece was written by Mike, Wally, Betty, Kat, Elaine, Jess, Ava and C.I.
Things to watch, things to listen to -- your online TV and radio guide. Elaine, Kat, Wally, Mike, Jess, Ava and C.I. wrote this.
Highlights -- Betty, Mike, Kat and Wally wrote this and selected all highlights unless otherwise noted. We thank them for their great job.
That's it. We'll see you next week provided we wake up after we finally get to sleep.
-- (In spirit) Jim, Dona, Ty, (in the painful flesh) Jess, Ava and C.I.
If you are or will be celebrating or gathering for any reason, may you build pleasant memories that carry you through rougher days.
Here's who participated on this edition:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim,
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,
Wally of The Daily Jot
and Ruth of Ruth's Report
Our thanks to all of them. Our thanks to Dallas who was a sounding board, a link locator and so much more.
Our apologies to Rebecca whose "nader, the ballet, caving dems" was the building blocks for a feature we worked on that needed additional time. We ended up not having it. (We may pull a quote for a truest statement two for the week. After we've gotten some sleep.)
We especially thank Betty's oldest son who knocked himself doing illustrations, stockpiling them, when we were all in DC in September. Saturday night, before he went to sleep, he asked to talk to us and Betty gave him the phone. Was there anyone one of his illustrations could be used this week. He'd told his friends they'd be coming and only a few had but his sister (Betty's youngest child) wanted to see Santa. One of the things he did was try to pull together some seasonal illustrations. We have three of his illustration posted this week. (He says Kat and C.I. helped him with at least one but they can't remember. He deserves all credit for the illustrations.) We apologize for our long delays in posting his illustrations and we thank him for them. (We also note we have many, many more to post.)
We've had computer problems all morning and would have been done three hours ago were it not for those (which include a "corrupted file" warning on all laptops we were using). But it's up.
Here's what we have . . .
Truest statement of the week -- Elaine was the obvious pick. Most e-mails to all community sites noted Elaine's post and this was one of the often noted passages from it.
Editorial: Should we pray to Santa? -- Betty's son did the illustration. We had a different editorial but couldn't figure out how to work in the illustration otherwise. (Santa is a snowman in the illustration and her son said, back in September, "That's because Christmas melts away so fast." True.) Ruth, Kat, Mike, Elaine, Betty, Wally, Jess, Ava and C.I. wrote this.
TV: The Weak Get Weaker -- This is Ava and C.I.'s piece and this is Ava and C.I. only speaking here. Jess doesn't want to touch it because apparently Jim gets raked over the coals by some readers if they feel he didn't note what was important about the commentary. Here's what stands out to us: We miss entertainment programming! We really miss it. We are so sick of the news programming and all the liars, fluffers and fibbers who seem to inhabit them. A mailbag feature was started but killed. (There was no print edition this weekend. Ty's boyfriend is with Ty.) So since we're not going to comment on what we wrote, let's answer the e-mail. Are we really going to break the strike and review NBC's Medium? We don't know what we're going to do. We know we are sick to death of news programming. We know the network should have settled the strike a long time ago. We're thinking of reviewing a Saturday morning cartoon next week. Is that breaking the strike? (Friends who urged us to stop writing about entertainment programs said no, it wasn't. But we'll toss that out to readers.) We will be tempted to review Medium because it is a great show and Patricia Arquette is amazing. Plus the show does not get the support it needs and you've got some exciting moments this year and some amazing performances (including one guest star and we hope everyone knows who we mean). Along with the e-mail asking, some friends asked about it. What we're going to try to do if the strike is still on is wait. But we don't enjoy writing these pieces to begin with. We're not TV watchers to begin with. Due to the strike, we have to catch a ton of these shows we wouldn't watch otherwise. We can tell you about every Charlie Rose interview last week, we can tell you about five evening newscasts on the networks, we can tell you about all of PBS' public affairs program -- primetime and elsewhere. When we get done speaking, we're either streaming online and watching TV trying to find something that there's a review in. We're logging way too many hours watching this nonsense. And we worry that constant repetition of conventional wisdom will have a damaging effect. So we don't know what we're doing. We do know the networks need to pay the writers' their fair share and that's not happening. We'll probably be tempted to review Medium but will probably wait on that until the strike's over. But we promised another look at that (the original review here was a group project, Jim figured that out last week and told us that we fought over many points others were making -- fought and lost -- so we would like to take another crack at). A friend called this morning and said whenever we get through to call because he has an idea of how we could honor the strike and avoid news and public affairs programming for a week or two. We'll be calling him and blessing him if he does indeed have a workable answer.
The Nation featured 491 male bylines in 2007 -- how many female ones? -- This time last year, "Nation Stats" started. Here's the year run down and it's not pretty and it just goes to show that the answer is not putting a woman in charge, the answer is putting the right one in charge, one who will see to it that women have an equal number of seats at the table. Ruth, Wally, Cedric, Mike, Elaine, Betty, Kat, Jess, Ava and C.I. wrote this.
Roundtable -- Roundtables are nightmares. This one was only a nightmare to type, thankfully. Betty's oldest son did the illustration for this feature and we'll be using it for future roundtables as well.
"I Hate The War" -- Ruth, Kat, Betty, Mike, Elaine, Wally, Jess, Ava and C.I. wrote this, our second feature on The Ballet. Please check out the group.
Dems & Iraq -- A brief look at some Democrats running for president. This was pulled together at the last minute and written by Jess, Ava and C.I. We found Betty's son illustration of Barack Obama (whom Betty's son loathes) and thought we could pull something together very quickly and use the illustration. This is not providing a look at all candidates. The focus is Iraq. We're noting Bill Richardson, John Edwards and Barack Obama. Richardson had to be noted because he was the first to start talking about Iraq and should have made it into a snapshot last week but there wasn't time. Obama's latest dramatics meant that he and Edwards were included. Nothing is intended in ignoring the others except maybe Kucinich because he had a personal tragedy last week and we were too tried to want to go there. (Kucincih is mentioned in this week's TV commentary.)
Iowa -- At last we weigh in on Florida. Thank you to Wally for his patience. (He lives in Florida.) Wally was the leader on this piece and also helping out were Betty, Elaine, Kat, Mike, Jess, Ava and C.I.
Cynthia McKinney announces run for president -- Cynthia McKinney has declared, she is running for the Green Party nomination. This also contains a press release on another Green candidate so please check that out. This piece was written by Mike, Wally, Betty, Kat, Elaine, Jess, Ava and C.I.
Things to watch, things to listen to -- your online TV and radio guide. Elaine, Kat, Wally, Mike, Jess, Ava and C.I. wrote this.
Highlights -- Betty, Mike, Kat and Wally wrote this and selected all highlights unless otherwise noted. We thank them for their great job.
That's it. We'll see you next week provided we wake up after we finally get to sleep.
-- (In spirit) Jim, Dona, Ty, (in the painful flesh) Jess, Ava and C.I.
Editorial: Should we pray to Santa?
Should we pray to Santa?
Is there anyone else that hasn't been prayed too?
The illegal war drags on to be sure. But that's Bully Boy and Congress. What explains the rest of the nonsense?
Something isn't right
I don't know how I know
But baby, it's despite
Your dog-and-pony show
I can hear it coming
You're only going through the motions, baby
-- "Going Through The Motions," by Aimee Mann (available on the CD The Forgotten Arm and the CD & DVD Live at St. Ann's Warehouse).
If you missed it, and you may well have because no Pacifica program explored it and The Nation and The New York Times couldn't even be bothered with mentioning it, there was a Congressional hearing you should know about.
In the US House of Representatives Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security held a hearing on the sexual assaults of Jamie Lee Jones and Tracy Barker while working in Iraq. Barker [PDF format warning] submitted a statement to the committee where she noted that "under the direct supervision of Crystal Daniels and Byron Marcee, I was exposed to physical threats, verbal abuse, and sexually explicit conversations on a daily basis" and "[n]othing was done to resolve the sexually hostile work environment or investigate the complaints".
Despite the promise of confidentiality under the HDRP Kara Hall, a human resources supervisor received several of my complaints and forwarded them to Marcee and Daniels. As a result, Daniels and Marcee retaliated against me by escalating the abusive behavior and screaming at me for filing the formal complaints with human resources. After filing yet another complaint, Wesley Lane, a human resources supervisor, called me in to her office and informed that Daniels and Marcee had filed a report complaining of my job performance. While in Hall's office, I was not permitted to leave or call anyone. Lane followed me into the bathroom and watched me as I urinated. When I asked her why she was doing this she said it was to keep me from calling Houston again, or anyone else, to report the abuse. Hall then instructed me to return to my living container and remain there for three days, I was not permitted to speak with anyone, and if I was seen outside, I would be fired.
Iraq or not, US corporations operate under US laws. And what Barker's describing are serious violations. She was moved to the Basra compound where "I was assigned to a shared office space with Sherman Richardson. Richardson had hung pictures of prostitutes and animals having sex with one other on his office walls and he often talked about how he took his Rest and Relaxation time in Thailand where he would hire prostitutes. Other male employees would visit Richardson in the office to seek information on how to obtain a prostitute while on R&R." Let's be clear that this is paid for with US tax dollars. The work environment that wouldn't be allowed in the US (and shouldn't have been allowed in Iraq) was paid for with US tax dollars. Basra Camp contained no HR personnel and she took her complaints to the camp manager Craig Grabien who 'dealt' with them apparently by sexually harassing Barker "on a daily basis by insisting that I sleep with him because he was camp manager and he could provide benefits in exchange for sexual favors."
Complaining to the hotline did not good and, in fact, only caused Grabien to increase his sexual harassment. Barker explains the physical assault by an employee (still an employee) of the US State Department:
On June 23, 2005, I accompanied U.S. Department of State employee, Ali Mokhtare, to his living quarters to complete a work order for an alleged faulty air conditioner and to discuss employment opportunities within the U.S. State Dept. Once we arrived, Mokhtare said the air conditioner was working fine. I immediately felt uncomfortable expressed that I was going to leave. Mokhtare said he wanted to explain the war to me and a story about a 'Filipino woman.' As Mokhtare began to talk about the war, he poured two drinks of Jack Daniels and Coke and offered me one. I declined but eventually took the drink in my hand anyway. Mokhtare then began to talk about a Filipino woman in Saudi Arabia who was repeatedly raped by a prince, and although she reported it to the police, no one believed her and the prince continued to rape her. Finally, the woman became so distraught she committed suicide by jumping out of a window. In the midst of telling this story, Mokhtare grabbed my breasts and tried to kiss me on the mouth. I screamed "No!" and escaped Mokhtare's hold and began to run toward the door. Mokhtare grabbed hold of me again, put his hands around my throat and tried to force his lips on my mouth and against the back of my hand; I pushed him away, escaped his hold, and ran from the living quarters. Mokhtare followed after me screaming in Arabic as I ran in the direction of my living quarters.
Repeating that pathetic scum who assaulted her works for the State Department. The same State Department that would conduct an 'investigation.' Barker turned over a statement to them and asked for protection but was told by Grabien and the State Dept's Brian Hathaway "to just avoid Mokhtara." Barker explains that when Mokhtare was interviewed, he initially refused to talk but opened up in a second interview with the State Dept's Diplomatic Security: "During the interview, Mokhtare admitted to the agents he inappropriately grabbed my breast and attempted to kiss me. He also admitted to telling me the story of a Filipino woman who was raped by a prince in Saudi Arabia. Mokhtare's story was exactly as I had explained to agent Hathaway, he even goes so far as to admit his actions were 'inappropriate' and he 'made a mistake'."
Who's in charge of the State Department? Oh, yeah, Condi Rice. That explains a great deal.
Especially how it got buried when there was no significant differences between Barker's statements and those of the man who assaulted her: "According to the agents notes, when they confronted him about an inconsistent statement he made regarding his alcohol consumption he became agitated and angry." And he remained (and still remains) employed by the State Department all this time later.
Barker submitted a signed, written statement. Jamie Leigh Jones testified in public about being gang-raped by employees of Halliburton/KRB and then held in a container to keep her from talking. She was greeted in Iraq with cat-calls and harassment. Complaining did nothing to end the verbal harassment. Day four arrived and some other (male) employees offered her a drink.
With one claiming that there was no need to worry because "I saved all my Ruffies for Dubai." Jones took the drink and ended up drugged. The next morning she woke up in pain. A rape kit was taken with the doctor confirming "that I had been penetrated both vaginally and anally and that I was, quote: 'quite torn up down there'. She indicated that based upon the damages to my genitalia, it was apparent that I had been raped."
What happened next, Jones explained, was "The KBR security then took me to a trailer and locked me in a room with two armed guards outside my door. I was imprisoned in the trailer for approximately a day. One of the guards finally had mercy and let me use a phone. I called my dad who contacted Congressman Ted Poe who took actions to get me out of the country. I believe he saved my life. I was later interviewed by Halliburton-KBR supervisors and it was made clear to me that I had essentially two choices: '(1) Stay and get over it or (2) Stay with no guarantee of a job in Iraq or Houston.' Because of the severity of my injuries, I elected to go home despite the obvious threat of being fired."
Jones has attempted to get treatment and is still in need of more physical surgery. Meanwhile, she notes, "there has been no prosecution after two and a half years" of any of the men involved.
US House Rep John Conyers chairs the committee Jones testified before and he wondered, "Does anyone in this room feel it is acceptable for an American citizen like Ms. Jones to be drugged, raped and falsely imprisoned? Does anyone think it is appropriate that almost 2 1/2 years after the incident, there has not been a single prosecution in the case? Does anybody believe it is appropriate that the DOJ victims' rights ombudsman summarily rejected Ms. Jones complaint 6 months ago, and she was not even seen by a federal prosecutor until October? This is no small matter given that there are some 180,00 civilian contractor employees in Iraq, including more than 21,000 Americans, plus additional security contractor employees. And there are other troubling reports of similar sexual assaults against contractor employees."
We wonder it too but, then, we also wonder about the silence so much media offered in place in coverage?
Two of the few who have covered it are Marie Tessier's "Sexual Violence as Occupational Hazard -- In Iraq and at Home in the U.S.A." (TWMC) and Stephanie Mencimer's "Cheney: No Justice for Jaime Jones" (Mother Jones).
Shall we pray to Santa for coverage?
Maybe you recognize this:
Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC event:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation.
That announcement was made weeks ago. (It runs in each "Iraq snapshot" until the event.) So why is it that IVAW has to ask that other groups and organizations respect the fact that they carved out this date sometime ago for the event they've put hours and hours into planning and staging?
Do we need to ask Santa to give out understanding and common sense this year to various allegedly in touch groups and organizations?
How it will play out is anyone's guess but, in joyful news, United for Peace and Justice's report on the steering committee indicates they grasp the need to start bringing in 'young blood.' (Not a surprise, UPFJ usually has a better grasp of the mood around the country than many other peace organizations.)
And since it is the season for giving, we'll note this regarding Sir! No Sir!:
Happy Holidays!
We at Displaced Films would like to invite you to give the gift that educates, entertains, and puts the move in movement.
Sir! No Sir!
We have been able to get this extraordinary film into the hands of over 1000 active duty soldiers. We could not have done this without your financial support. We ask that you continue to donate to our "Make a Resister out of a Soldier" program so that we can send out another 200 copies before the new year. Or buy bulk copies (10 or more) yourself at drastically reduced rates and get them to those who need them most.
"...I had to stand in ranks and face the beast. Sir! No Sir! gave me the courage to do that and in turn, my courage empowered other resisters..."
Sgt. Darrell Anderson
TO READ MORE OF THESE TESTIMONIALS
AND DONATE TO OUR PROGRAM
GO TO: http://www.sirnosir.com/BuyForGI.html
FREE SHIPPING UNTIL JANUARY 1, 2008
We are offering free shipping on all domestic U.S. orders from now until January 1, 2008.
Take advantage of the deal for your last minute holiday shopping.
Also, we have been grueling over a redesign of our new site for several months now. We have new home pages on rotation right now and would LOVE your feedback. Please take a moment to go to our site and navigate through. If you click on the refresh button, you will get a new home page each time. Not only that, but we have made the shopping cart much more efficient.
CHECK IT OUT AT...
www.sirnosir.com
Many war resisters have seen Zieger's amazing documentary, including Agustin Aguayo.
[Illustration by Betty's oldest son.]
TV: The Weak Get Weaker
Before endorsing Al Gore in 2000, Wesley Clark (former general and 2004 Democratic presidential primary candidate) met with No-One-Could-Have-Guessed (or at least not her) Condi Rice because his wife, a former staffer for Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, said it was only fair he hear from the other side. He made a call and Condi was eager for a face to face. To hear him tell it, the two might have exchanged blows had it gone on any longer because it was obvious to him that Condi and the team she was on (Team Bully Boy) had no concept of the real world, had no concept of foreign relations, had no concept of how to interact with others and thought they could bend reality to their will. He did pretty much everything but call her a nut job (since he didn't, we will, "Condi, you're a nut job."). He offered a lengthy comparison of an election run to parachuting and refused to speculate on whether or not, should Hillary Clinton win the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, he would be her running mate ("I'm interested in getting Hillary elected.")
He explained all of that (and more) in an interview with Krys Boyd for KERA's Think. Think is both a radio program and a TV program. Boyd is attracting some serious attention from PBS nationally for the work she's done including an interview with The NewsHour's Ray Suarez that people higher up nationally are very proud of. (Ourselves, we wish Suarez practiced even half the lofty journalism principles he preached in that interview.) We think Boyd does a strong job and watch the tapes when they're passed on by friends at PBS. We think she is more than qualified to go "national." (KERA is the Dallas-Fort Worth, NPR and PBS station.) We've been repeatedly asked to note her work and we're doing so now for two reasons. One, Dallas was kind enough to check if this show we get on videotape is available online? It is in radio and TV form. (Note that the formats are not offering the same program. Clark was on the TV show.) There are, however, no transcripts. Two, we're about to rip apart another PBS program (national) and our friends at PBS -- who used to beg for PBS to be included in our commentaries -- have gotten a little less thrilled that, due to the writers' strike, they're now suddenly popping up each week. As requested, we will include a link to the show we're about to carve up. As we explained repeatedly last week, there were no links provided in our last review because that edition went on too long and we were too tired.
So, to our PBS friends, we are including links and we have praised Think and the work Boyd does. Those were your kind words and the kind word section is now closed.
What is the worst show PBS offers up? That's far too difficult to narrow down. They provide a lot of bad programs across the land. But of the public affairs/news programs, the worst offender consistently has to be . . . No, not The Charlie Rose Show. Even as bad as it so often is, there are watchable moments and the rare segment that actually works. The envelope please.
The worst is Washington Weak. "I can't believe you're about to attack the show again," said one friend. Well we hadn't planned to and then we watched. (Click here for the program's website.)
We actually had high hopes. Gwen Ifill appears to be modifying her Miss Beasley hairstyle so there was no longer a reason to laugh just because she was shown on camera. However, Gwen was in a giving mood, as she herself noted early in the program, and, at the end of the program, she demonstrated how many laughs she could give when she went out with the worst teleprompter reading the world may have ever seen on an alleged PBS news/public affairs program. What was with the head, Gwen? What was that all about? It was as though she thought she was filming a Wella Balsam commercial and about to become the new Farrah Fawcett or at least the new Brooke Shields.
She also felt the need to wish viewers a merry Christmas ("Merry Christmas everyone and goodnight!") and we had to wonder about that because we don't recall a Happy Hanuka being tossed out this month let alone any other holidays. (And, sadly, we've seen every episode of Washington Weak this month.) But before she got to her gutsy-brava finale, she'd already provided many other comic moments.
The show began with Gwen seated at the table with Doyle McManus (Los Angeles Times), Alexis Simendinger (National Journal) and Jeanne Cummings (PO'LIceandTICksOh) and, like us, you may have wondered, does this half-hour of fluff fear it's packing so much information that it needs to drop from four to three guests?
If the show needed to drop down to three guests, the most easy to ditch was Cummings who wouldn't be missed because she has nothing to offer and always needs assistance when she's attempting to make a point. Case in point, speaking of Mike Huckabee's TV advertisement involving a cross, she was all over the place from the start as she noted that he stands "behind what appears to be a very large cross." Oh really? Huckabee, running for the GOP's 2008 presidential nomination, is not front and center in his own TV ad? Well that would be news.
But she was wrong and Gwen helped Cummings float back down to earth by correcting her that Huckabee stands in front of the cross. Nodding eagerly and sporting a thousand tics, Cummings agreed, "Yes, in front of." She is an Estelle Parsons character come to life and, in a news medium, that isn't a good thing. McManus tried to provide a bit of logic and honesty when he suggested that everyone stop obsessing over polls and provide them with "not so much attention". Gwen and the other two weren't having anything to do with that suggestion. Doyle, if they stopped talking about polls, Gwen would be required to do more than 2 minutes 'research' for her weekly show. "Money," one offered as to the influence of polls causing Cummings to nearly go cross-eyed as she cooed of a candidate, "Yeah, he's got a lot of money."
"Yeah, he's got a lot of money." And Huckabee stood behind a cross. (She was wrong.) Why is this woman even brought on TV? As hideous as Washington Weak is, when you are the character actress of the news set (one who seems determined to parody Kim Stanley in the closing of The Goddess), why are you even invited on? We could provide more of Cummings' nonsense but we fear doing so might create a She's-so-bad-I-love-her! response and lead some to begin e-mailing Washington Weak requesting that she be featured even more often.
The segment was over very quickly and we were already wondering about the lack of a fourth guest and about to turn off the TV when Gwen revealed that she had more guests but they were too numerous to fit around the roundtable. Instead, she was doing one-on-one interviews with them. (Taped ahead of time.)
As awful as the show is, the most recent episode demonstrated that it can get even worse. What's worse than four gas bags chatting and chewing with the ultimate gas bag (the latter would be Gwen)? A plethora of them. A parade of gas bags. All offering the verbal equivalent of can-can kicks as they moved quickly on and off, tossing out key phrases and exploring very little.
That's probably how you grab the time to note that Scooter Libby left the White House, that he had to because he was indicted but you, somehow, never say the words "Valerie Plame." (Plame was an undercover CIA agent. The White House outed her in retaliation for her husband Joe Wilson speaking out about Bully Boy's lead-up to the illegal war lies. Scooter was indicted for lying to the grand jury during the investigation.) Facts and issues? Really not present. But a lot of faces, a lot.
We're pretty sure we only fantasized Broadway veteran Ann Miller in the proceedings, but that's because, while it was awful, it moved so quickly. And a rush to include everyone (Michael Duffy?) left no time to address anything. Most of all we were confused because US and World Reports' Gloria Borger looked like she needed her face sanded. (Or, worse, that she'd had a skin peel and it had burned her facial skin. What were those vertical -- vertical, not horizontal -- lines spaced out across her forehead?)
The New York Times David E. Sanger demonstrated, if nothing else, why print was a wise medium choice and, though we've seen Sanger before, we weren't aware that he had developed so many more chins than common sense. What he had to say was useless and, in his case, we were thankful it was over very quickly.
Humanized pond scum John Harris (PO'LIceandTICsOh) vied with Borger in The Biggest Lie Most Pompously Delivered Derby. We're not sure who won and we'll let you judge for yourself. Harris, a really bad 'reporter' and someone whose departure from his previous job actually led to his former employer throwing a bit of a celebration party, got a tiny dollop of reality out before he started spinning. He dubbed the illegal Iraq War "the biggest disappointment." Having gotten that bit of truth out, he was off to the derby and insisting that the Democratic leadership in Congress had done all that anyone could (not true -- they didn't filibuster, they didn't send bill after bill to Bully Boy on Iraq to force him to veto it, they didn't make everyone do a roll call vote on Iraq every day for a prolonged period of time), insisting that hoping the other side would change it's mind qualified as a strategy ("peel off Republican support" sounds so much more active than the 'plan' was if only because it was so weak to begin with) and that this all goes to history (he's talking the southern strategy) which has "made the Democratic Party more liberal." More liberal, John-oh?
More liberal than nut jobs that want to deny evolution? More liberal than pigs in a sty who want to launch non-stop attacks on women? The fact that Pat Buchanan's controversial 1992 GOP Convention speech (or for that matter Dan Quayle's nonsense at the same convention) now seems 'normal' to the mainstream media only indicates how far right-ward the media and the country's two largest political parties have gone. Two, John, two parties, because the Democratic Party is far from liberal today. But he founded that trashy site whose slogan could be "Proud to Be a Republican Apologist Daily," so lying comes very easy to him. Just as easy as future employment at The Washington Times if the plug gets pulled on his 'brainchild'.
Before we get to Borger, ABC News' Martha Raddatz showed up -- looking like Martha Stewart and bubbling like Annette Funicello. Here's the thing with Raddatz and Iraq, you have to let her bubble. You have to wait until she's burped up all her Happy Talk and then, at the end, she may slip in a little does of reality. But when you're talking about a news person who uses 'words' like "totality," probably most are already snoozing by that point. Maybe her talk of Bully Boy's "legacy" (and how "that has to be on the president's mind" -- it has to be, has to?) had already sent them dozing? Our notes show that Raddatz "flashed a frightening smile." We've both added exclamation points beside that note so, obviously, at that moment it left a mark. However, the long parade of faces allows it to now fade from memory.
In our notes, we also noted The Washington Post's Peter Baker looked good on camera and wondered what could be done with AP's Charles Babington's hair? (We do like Charlie, but that hair has really become a problem and, if nothing's done and done quickly, we feel he will soon be auditioning for an off-Broadway production of David Lynch's Eraserhead) Time magazine's Karen Tumulty was wasted in her brief moments commenting on the election due to Gwen selecting the most obvious, most belabored points (such as there "is no front runner"). Like Tumulty, The Washington Post's Dan Baltz might as well have avoided sitting down with Gwen considering what made it to air ("frustration").
Jeff Zeleny demonstrated he will have a long career at The New York Times since there's no fact he is not willing to bend and misshape in order to lie to the people. In his brief bit, he was speaking of senators and 2008 Democratic presidential contenders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and noted that there was no difference between the two's health care plan (there is a difference, Clinton's is more inclusive and maybe the paper's own Paul Krugman needs to walk Zeleny threw that). Having bent reality, he was now ready to offer up the paper's version of an acid trip. Watch, kiddies, as the walls run liquid gold and the carpet turns to fire while Zeleny goes on to insist "and really all the candidates . . . there's no difference on health care." Dennis Kucinich doesn't have a difference on health care? (Kucinich favors true universal health care.) We'd suggest the paper begin drug testing but, the truth is, they love Zeleny doped up.
Gloria Borger is just a dope period. After we got over the shock of her face (and a new hairstyle and color), we were left with the same old Gloria, pushing water cooler spin off as fact. We watched in wonder as she lied and proclaimed (prefaced with the weasel words "I think") "the big issue that surfaced on both sides is immigration." "We think" she's got too many miles on her to think anyone sees her as young and fresh despite all the work done.
From FAIR's "The Lou Dobbs Primary" (December 7, 2007):
Media coverage of the 2008 presidential election identifies immigration as a key issue for the U.S. electorate--even though, according to most polling, it does not rank as a top priority for voters.
[. . .]
That's not what voters have been saying, though.The Iraq War still tops the list of priority issues for both Democrats and Republicans. "It's raised twice as often as the next-ranking issue, the economy," according to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll (11/30/07-12/1/07). Another recent poll (L.A. Times/Bloomberg, 11/30/07-12/3/07) found only 15 percent of Americans ranking immigration as one of the top three issues of concern to them. In fact, noted L.A. Times columnist Tim Rutten (12/1/07), "more than nine out of 10 Americans think something matters more than immigration in this presidential election."
The FAIR release, in fact, notes Borger and that she has claimed that immigration is one "killer issue" -- you kind of picture her pulling a large comb out of her back jean pocket to work on her feathering while saying that -- as well as "Independent voters are unhappy that nothing has been done on the matter, and anyone who wants to be president needs to keep independent voters happy." Facts really don't matter to Gloria. Except maybe one: Anyone who wants to be on TV needs to work on being presentable. We'd suggest a dermatologist visit immediately.
What stood out the most were the bits of bravery from Bloomberg News' Janine Zacharia. True, Zacharia did note Condi Rice was "putting out fires everywhere" without noting that all of those fires she started or co-started (Lebanon, Iraq, go down the list) but Zacharia also noted how unpopular Gwen's evening meal time pal was. When you know who's cooking with Gwen, it takes a lot of guts to discuss how Condi had the press cheering her on in 2005 and now people are a wee bit wiser. It wasn't up there with Wesley Clark's remarks about Condi but, considering the forced smile Gwen was giving Zacharia, we think Gwen's head would pop off if she'd been sitting across from Clark.
Gwen called this nonsense a "gift" and we think calling it a "gift" is a lot like calling Gwen "the managing editor" of Washington Weak. Which, for the record, they do. We're not sure whether that's repeated so often to give credit or to make sure all viewers know who deserves the blame. Gwen more than earned it as she presented Night of 100 Snores. We look forward to seeing next year's extravaganza when she will, no doubt, be decked out in an off-the-shoulder Nolan Miller original.
He explained all of that (and more) in an interview with Krys Boyd for KERA's Think. Think is both a radio program and a TV program. Boyd is attracting some serious attention from PBS nationally for the work she's done including an interview with The NewsHour's Ray Suarez that people higher up nationally are very proud of. (Ourselves, we wish Suarez practiced even half the lofty journalism principles he preached in that interview.) We think Boyd does a strong job and watch the tapes when they're passed on by friends at PBS. We think she is more than qualified to go "national." (KERA is the Dallas-Fort Worth, NPR and PBS station.) We've been repeatedly asked to note her work and we're doing so now for two reasons. One, Dallas was kind enough to check if this show we get on videotape is available online? It is in radio and TV form. (Note that the formats are not offering the same program. Clark was on the TV show.) There are, however, no transcripts. Two, we're about to rip apart another PBS program (national) and our friends at PBS -- who used to beg for PBS to be included in our commentaries -- have gotten a little less thrilled that, due to the writers' strike, they're now suddenly popping up each week. As requested, we will include a link to the show we're about to carve up. As we explained repeatedly last week, there were no links provided in our last review because that edition went on too long and we were too tired.
So, to our PBS friends, we are including links and we have praised Think and the work Boyd does. Those were your kind words and the kind word section is now closed.
What is the worst show PBS offers up? That's far too difficult to narrow down. They provide a lot of bad programs across the land. But of the public affairs/news programs, the worst offender consistently has to be . . . No, not The Charlie Rose Show. Even as bad as it so often is, there are watchable moments and the rare segment that actually works. The envelope please.
The worst is Washington Weak. "I can't believe you're about to attack the show again," said one friend. Well we hadn't planned to and then we watched. (Click here for the program's website.)
We actually had high hopes. Gwen Ifill appears to be modifying her Miss Beasley hairstyle so there was no longer a reason to laugh just because she was shown on camera. However, Gwen was in a giving mood, as she herself noted early in the program, and, at the end of the program, she demonstrated how many laughs she could give when she went out with the worst teleprompter reading the world may have ever seen on an alleged PBS news/public affairs program. What was with the head, Gwen? What was that all about? It was as though she thought she was filming a Wella Balsam commercial and about to become the new Farrah Fawcett or at least the new Brooke Shields.
She also felt the need to wish viewers a merry Christmas ("Merry Christmas everyone and goodnight!") and we had to wonder about that because we don't recall a Happy Hanuka being tossed out this month let alone any other holidays. (And, sadly, we've seen every episode of Washington Weak this month.) But before she got to her gutsy-brava finale, she'd already provided many other comic moments.
The show began with Gwen seated at the table with Doyle McManus (Los Angeles Times), Alexis Simendinger (National Journal) and Jeanne Cummings (PO'LIceandTICksOh) and, like us, you may have wondered, does this half-hour of fluff fear it's packing so much information that it needs to drop from four to three guests?
If the show needed to drop down to three guests, the most easy to ditch was Cummings who wouldn't be missed because she has nothing to offer and always needs assistance when she's attempting to make a point. Case in point, speaking of Mike Huckabee's TV advertisement involving a cross, she was all over the place from the start as she noted that he stands "behind what appears to be a very large cross." Oh really? Huckabee, running for the GOP's 2008 presidential nomination, is not front and center in his own TV ad? Well that would be news.
But she was wrong and Gwen helped Cummings float back down to earth by correcting her that Huckabee stands in front of the cross. Nodding eagerly and sporting a thousand tics, Cummings agreed, "Yes, in front of." She is an Estelle Parsons character come to life and, in a news medium, that isn't a good thing. McManus tried to provide a bit of logic and honesty when he suggested that everyone stop obsessing over polls and provide them with "not so much attention". Gwen and the other two weren't having anything to do with that suggestion. Doyle, if they stopped talking about polls, Gwen would be required to do more than 2 minutes 'research' for her weekly show. "Money," one offered as to the influence of polls causing Cummings to nearly go cross-eyed as she cooed of a candidate, "Yeah, he's got a lot of money."
"Yeah, he's got a lot of money." And Huckabee stood behind a cross. (She was wrong.) Why is this woman even brought on TV? As hideous as Washington Weak is, when you are the character actress of the news set (one who seems determined to parody Kim Stanley in the closing of The Goddess), why are you even invited on? We could provide more of Cummings' nonsense but we fear doing so might create a She's-so-bad-I-love-her! response and lead some to begin e-mailing Washington Weak requesting that she be featured even more often.
The segment was over very quickly and we were already wondering about the lack of a fourth guest and about to turn off the TV when Gwen revealed that she had more guests but they were too numerous to fit around the roundtable. Instead, she was doing one-on-one interviews with them. (Taped ahead of time.)
As awful as the show is, the most recent episode demonstrated that it can get even worse. What's worse than four gas bags chatting and chewing with the ultimate gas bag (the latter would be Gwen)? A plethora of them. A parade of gas bags. All offering the verbal equivalent of can-can kicks as they moved quickly on and off, tossing out key phrases and exploring very little.
That's probably how you grab the time to note that Scooter Libby left the White House, that he had to because he was indicted but you, somehow, never say the words "Valerie Plame." (Plame was an undercover CIA agent. The White House outed her in retaliation for her husband Joe Wilson speaking out about Bully Boy's lead-up to the illegal war lies. Scooter was indicted for lying to the grand jury during the investigation.) Facts and issues? Really not present. But a lot of faces, a lot.
We're pretty sure we only fantasized Broadway veteran Ann Miller in the proceedings, but that's because, while it was awful, it moved so quickly. And a rush to include everyone (Michael Duffy?) left no time to address anything. Most of all we were confused because US and World Reports' Gloria Borger looked like she needed her face sanded. (Or, worse, that she'd had a skin peel and it had burned her facial skin. What were those vertical -- vertical, not horizontal -- lines spaced out across her forehead?)
The New York Times David E. Sanger demonstrated, if nothing else, why print was a wise medium choice and, though we've seen Sanger before, we weren't aware that he had developed so many more chins than common sense. What he had to say was useless and, in his case, we were thankful it was over very quickly.
Humanized pond scum John Harris (PO'LIceandTICsOh) vied with Borger in The Biggest Lie Most Pompously Delivered Derby. We're not sure who won and we'll let you judge for yourself. Harris, a really bad 'reporter' and someone whose departure from his previous job actually led to his former employer throwing a bit of a celebration party, got a tiny dollop of reality out before he started spinning. He dubbed the illegal Iraq War "the biggest disappointment." Having gotten that bit of truth out, he was off to the derby and insisting that the Democratic leadership in Congress had done all that anyone could (not true -- they didn't filibuster, they didn't send bill after bill to Bully Boy on Iraq to force him to veto it, they didn't make everyone do a roll call vote on Iraq every day for a prolonged period of time), insisting that hoping the other side would change it's mind qualified as a strategy ("peel off Republican support" sounds so much more active than the 'plan' was if only because it was so weak to begin with) and that this all goes to history (he's talking the southern strategy) which has "made the Democratic Party more liberal." More liberal, John-oh?
More liberal than nut jobs that want to deny evolution? More liberal than pigs in a sty who want to launch non-stop attacks on women? The fact that Pat Buchanan's controversial 1992 GOP Convention speech (or for that matter Dan Quayle's nonsense at the same convention) now seems 'normal' to the mainstream media only indicates how far right-ward the media and the country's two largest political parties have gone. Two, John, two parties, because the Democratic Party is far from liberal today. But he founded that trashy site whose slogan could be "Proud to Be a Republican Apologist Daily," so lying comes very easy to him. Just as easy as future employment at The Washington Times if the plug gets pulled on his 'brainchild'.
Before we get to Borger, ABC News' Martha Raddatz showed up -- looking like Martha Stewart and bubbling like Annette Funicello. Here's the thing with Raddatz and Iraq, you have to let her bubble. You have to wait until she's burped up all her Happy Talk and then, at the end, she may slip in a little does of reality. But when you're talking about a news person who uses 'words' like "totality," probably most are already snoozing by that point. Maybe her talk of Bully Boy's "legacy" (and how "that has to be on the president's mind" -- it has to be, has to?) had already sent them dozing? Our notes show that Raddatz "flashed a frightening smile." We've both added exclamation points beside that note so, obviously, at that moment it left a mark. However, the long parade of faces allows it to now fade from memory.
In our notes, we also noted The Washington Post's Peter Baker looked good on camera and wondered what could be done with AP's Charles Babington's hair? (We do like Charlie, but that hair has really become a problem and, if nothing's done and done quickly, we feel he will soon be auditioning for an off-Broadway production of David Lynch's Eraserhead) Time magazine's Karen Tumulty was wasted in her brief moments commenting on the election due to Gwen selecting the most obvious, most belabored points (such as there "is no front runner"). Like Tumulty, The Washington Post's Dan Baltz might as well have avoided sitting down with Gwen considering what made it to air ("frustration").
Jeff Zeleny demonstrated he will have a long career at The New York Times since there's no fact he is not willing to bend and misshape in order to lie to the people. In his brief bit, he was speaking of senators and 2008 Democratic presidential contenders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and noted that there was no difference between the two's health care plan (there is a difference, Clinton's is more inclusive and maybe the paper's own Paul Krugman needs to walk Zeleny threw that). Having bent reality, he was now ready to offer up the paper's version of an acid trip. Watch, kiddies, as the walls run liquid gold and the carpet turns to fire while Zeleny goes on to insist "and really all the candidates . . . there's no difference on health care." Dennis Kucinich doesn't have a difference on health care? (Kucinich favors true universal health care.) We'd suggest the paper begin drug testing but, the truth is, they love Zeleny doped up.
Gloria Borger is just a dope period. After we got over the shock of her face (and a new hairstyle and color), we were left with the same old Gloria, pushing water cooler spin off as fact. We watched in wonder as she lied and proclaimed (prefaced with the weasel words "I think") "the big issue that surfaced on both sides is immigration." "We think" she's got too many miles on her to think anyone sees her as young and fresh despite all the work done.
From FAIR's "The Lou Dobbs Primary" (December 7, 2007):
Media coverage of the 2008 presidential election identifies immigration as a key issue for the U.S. electorate--even though, according to most polling, it does not rank as a top priority for voters.
[. . .]
That's not what voters have been saying, though.The Iraq War still tops the list of priority issues for both Democrats and Republicans. "It's raised twice as often as the next-ranking issue, the economy," according to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll (11/30/07-12/1/07). Another recent poll (L.A. Times/Bloomberg, 11/30/07-12/3/07) found only 15 percent of Americans ranking immigration as one of the top three issues of concern to them. In fact, noted L.A. Times columnist Tim Rutten (12/1/07), "more than nine out of 10 Americans think something matters more than immigration in this presidential election."
The FAIR release, in fact, notes Borger and that she has claimed that immigration is one "killer issue" -- you kind of picture her pulling a large comb out of her back jean pocket to work on her feathering while saying that -- as well as "Independent voters are unhappy that nothing has been done on the matter, and anyone who wants to be president needs to keep independent voters happy." Facts really don't matter to Gloria. Except maybe one: Anyone who wants to be on TV needs to work on being presentable. We'd suggest a dermatologist visit immediately.
What stood out the most were the bits of bravery from Bloomberg News' Janine Zacharia. True, Zacharia did note Condi Rice was "putting out fires everywhere" without noting that all of those fires she started or co-started (Lebanon, Iraq, go down the list) but Zacharia also noted how unpopular Gwen's evening meal time pal was. When you know who's cooking with Gwen, it takes a lot of guts to discuss how Condi had the press cheering her on in 2005 and now people are a wee bit wiser. It wasn't up there with Wesley Clark's remarks about Condi but, considering the forced smile Gwen was giving Zacharia, we think Gwen's head would pop off if she'd been sitting across from Clark.
Gwen called this nonsense a "gift" and we think calling it a "gift" is a lot like calling Gwen "the managing editor" of Washington Weak. Which, for the record, they do. We're not sure whether that's repeated so often to give credit or to make sure all viewers know who deserves the blame. Gwen more than earned it as she presented Night of 100 Snores. We look forward to seeing next year's extravaganza when she will, no doubt, be decked out in an off-the-shoulder Nolan Miller original.
The Nation featured 491 male bylines in 2007 -- how many female ones?
In one of her "I just remembered I'm a woman!" posts at The Nation's Editor's Cut, Katrina vanden Heuvel felt the need to weigh in that 20 million women (she labels them "unmarried," we'll just note that none are recognized as married by federal law) didn't vote in the 2004 elections and that, in 2006, the number rose to 30 million.
Oh, the humanity!
Of course, one could argue that anyone truly concerned about the number of women who vote would realizae it might be larger (and this is numbers, not proportions -- there are more adult women in the US than adult men) if women were actually invited to the table.
vanden Heuvel is both editor and publisher of The Nation magazine. So who's she had over for dinner?
For those late to our own party, in the summer of 2006, a number of women -- established and emerging writers -- brought to our attention that The Nation wasn't publishing women, that solid articles by women could be easily snapped up elsewhere but The Nation was consistently sending out a message of "Men Only." We hadn't noticed. We'd been focused on Iraq and hadn't noticed the imbalance (which did exist). They wanted the issue addressed at The Common Ills but (a) the site had already switched over to the Iraq focus (at the request of members) and (b) the year was half-over. Would it be okay if we monitored the imbalance at The Third Estate Sunday Review? It was. So we agreed that we would monitor 2007.
The December 24, 2006 edition featured "The Nation Stats." The plan was for that be a weekly feature but time issues and boredom with the magazine as well as mail delivery made that impossible. We did, however, cover every issue of the magazine for the first half of the year.
July 4th, our results went up: "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you must have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," and "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis." That went up at all sites and it was a feature written by all.
The results weren't 'pretty'. During that time frame (January 1, 2007 issue through the June 25, 2007 issue), the magazine published published 255 male bylines and 74 female ones. As was noted then, just to achieve equal numbers of women, the magazine would have to publish 181 female bylines in the second six months of the year.
To have an actual day off, for everyone, we didn't wait until July 4th to write our planned article. We worked on it throught June and nailed it on the last Sunday before the first of July. That was it, at last! A day offline for all.
What we hadn't counted on (and weren't aware of then) was that a 'professional' had passed on the plans for the feature. To be clear, the plans were announced here. Seven people from The Nation magazine e-mailed while we were doing "The Nation Stats." (Six mentioned the figure and said it was about time.) C.I. had spoken to friends with the magazine and the foundation about the article throughout (including -- as with this feature -- calling two to check the gender on some writers). But the magazine wasn't concerned until a 'professional' passed on Jess' e-mail to score points. We didn't learn that until after the 4th.
What we knew before the 4th was that Ben Wyskida, publicity hack for The Nation (and so much more interesting when he was just obsessed with sex and sarcasm) was writing us via the public e-mail account at The Common Ills. He wrote twice. In an insulting e-mail (where he blamed Ava and C.I. for the lack of women writers at The Nation and pulled the nonsense so many of his kind love to -- "glaring errors" which of course they never identify), he noted, "On the subject of women and the magazine; you should also know that the magazine is more than aware of the imbalance, and has taken steps in the last several months to recruit and bring in more women writers." Great. We were thrilled they were aware of the problem. We thought it would only take a month -- at most -- of "The Nation Stats" for the problem to be dealt with. It had taken longer than that but a July 2nd e-mail says it's known and being addressed, great. The whole reason the feature started was women were being shut out.
Ben went on to explain, "Between now and the Fall there are six new writers being added to our blogs, as well as new staff added to the editorial ranks." On the first point, we were (and are) covering the print edition -- the one people pay for. The one that has more prestige (and pays more money) than "online exclusives." So women bloggers might be nice in terms of online, but that really wasn't our focus. (We've received many e-mails pointing out that it hasn't translated that way online. Some have noted that Katha Pollitt now has her own blog at the site. She also has her own blog online, away from the magazine. But in terms of feedback here, Pollitt's the only improvement our readers have noticed in terms of online content at The Nation.) But editorial ranks? Along with Katrina vanden Heuvel at the top, we were aware of many women in positions at the magazine. Ben added, "Its worth noting, I think, the extent to which women ARE the leadership of the magazine -- from the editorial side (print, web, and almost all of our senior and executive editors) to the business side (President and the heads of advertising and fundraising) -- but there is an ongoing effort to bring in more women in to the magazine and the website." Again, our focus was not the website. It was women being published in the magazine.
But Ben's e-mail told us (a) the problem was known and (b) the problem would be addressed.
We're not going to call Ben a "liar" on this. We'll assume he thought it would be addressed. 181 bylines of women were needed to bring women up to an equal position to men. From the July 2, 2007 issue through the December 31, 2007 issue, 289 pieces with bylines were published.
It was possible that equality might be achieved. Not likely, but possible.
How did they fare?
Not good at all.
289 articles with bylines (many with more than one writer receiving billing for an article) and 236 men received bylines while only 75 women did. In terms of the simplest math, in July we were noting 255 men received bylines and only 74 women. That meant 181 more bylines were for males. "Improvement" and "awareness" translated into 75 women receiving bylines to 236 males. 161 more males received bylines. So all that talk of any improvement was really just empty talk. For issues dated 2007, The Nation published 491 male bylines to 149 female ones.
And Katrina vanden Heuvel wants to score points talking about low numbers of women voters?
It needs to be pointed out that the magazine now does a rip-off of Rolling Stones' Random Notes column and also regularly offers a comic. Those features weren't included in our study because they didn't exist at the first of the year. The weekly magazine added those in the October 15, 2007 issue. "Noted" (the rip-off) is unsigned. The comic? Apparently, women don't draw. Who knew? Had the male comic artists been included in the count, it would have been even worse. Could someone explain that? How, when you know you have a HUGE imbalance, you end up with a male cartoonist?
Maybe at the interviews, only 'single' women applied and it was thought they might not vote in the 2008 elections?
You might think women columnists helped beef up the numbers. There are three regular female columnists: Naomi Klein, Katha Pollitt and Patricia J. Williams. But that's not reality. They did help in one area: When you compare the first period studied with the second, the first obvious thing you note is that at least the magazine didn't (AGAIN) manage to go an entire issue without featuring the byline of any women.
Instead, you got the October 22, 2007 issue that included Katha Pollitt . . . and eleven men. You got the October 29, 2007 issue that included Patricia J. Williams . . . with eleven men. You got the November 5th issue with Katha Pollitt . . . and -- well you get the idea. The female columnists greatest contribution (in terms of our study) was in making sure that no issue was published where not a single woman received a byline -- a problem the magazine had in the first period.
The second thing you quickly notice is that (true in the first period as well), women have an easier chance of getting a byline if they're commenting on books, art or writing a (brief) poem. The "girls" are apparently thought to be able to handle that 'soft' terrain . . . if not much else.
The numbers also benefit from co-writing. Though not one issue feature two or more women sharing the byline of a single article, women could be paired up with men and, of course, men were paired up with men. Maybe they're all following Katrina vanden Heuvel's lead? She apparently needs a partner with a penis when it's time to co-write. Or maybe she just needs to be Queen Bee?
It bears noting that they ran the writings of a War Criminal. Before you rack your mind trying to figure out what woman we're talking about, please -- they didn't search so far and wide for women that they asked Mad Maddie Albright to write an article. However, they did make time for a former left-winger (former by many, many years) who is thought -- by the international community -- to have killed poet Roque Dalton. Jack Hirshcman (at CounterPunch) was among the many aghast by how low the magazine would stoop.
But maybe you have to resort to publishing War Criminals when you work so hard at refusing to publish women?
Having started the year featuring a 'book review' by her friend Pig Bergman which went several years back to find a man to praise after sharing his impressions of a whorehouse in Afghanistan and ripping apart the books of Ann Jones and Sarah Chayes (Jones is a conspiracy monger, to hear Pig tell it, how nice of vanden Heuvel to allow her centrist friend to rip apart the work of a Nation contributor on the pages of The Nation; Chayes isn't 'objective' -- apparently she never visited a whorehouse in Afghanistan), vanden Heuvel rushes in at the end of the year to pretend she's got any thoughts of women and wants to share her shock over the fact that a number of 'single' women don't vote. Women, single or not, make less money than men and are more likely to be responsible for young children.
vanden Heuverl spares them a moment of time only because they might be voters. Make no mistake, this SEXIST rag hasn't written one word about Tracy Barker or Jamie Leigh Jones. Jones testified before a Congressional committee last Wednesday about being drugged and gang-raped in Iraq. Tracy Barker submitted a written statement about being sexually harassed while working in Iraq and being sexually assaulted by a State Department employee. Both women were profiled on 20/20 two Fridays ago. (20/20 broadcast noted at this site here.) March 12, 2006, Abeer Qassim Hamza was gang-raped by US soldiers, while two gang-raped her, she also had to endure hearing her parents and five-year-old sister shot in the other room by a third US soldier who then allegedly (both of the two have confessed and identified Steven D. Green as the instigator, a co-rapist and the murderer) killed her. By June 2006, these events were being reported in the mainstream media. An Article 32 hearing was held for those soldiers still in the service (Green was discharged before the crimes came to light, he will be tried in a civilian court -- scheduled to begin April 13th). In 2007, Alexander Cockburn would become the first Nation journalist to write about Abeer in the pages of the magazine. Katha Pollitt would then offer Abeer in a half sentence.
Last Tuesday, AP's Ryan Lenz described the events as "four U.S. soldiers who helped gang rape and kill a 14-year-old Iraqi girl in one of the war's worst atrocities. . . . The allegations of rape and murder at the hands of U.S. soldiers in July 2006 enraged the world community, including Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who demanded full accountability." Enraged the world community. One of the war's worst atrocities. Lenz, for the record, has covered the story repeatedly. The Nation, by contrast, hasn't. (That's in print, that's in 'online exclusives' and the magazine's 'blogs.')
That a weekly magazine, allegedly left (but look at all those New American Foundation contributors in a recent issue), wants to ignore Jones, Barker and Abeer (along with many other women) is disgusting. That a woman holds both titles of editor and publisher at said magazine is appalling. (By contrast, Mother Jones has written about it, Stephanie Mencimer wrote about it from DC -- of course Mother Jones has a strong bureau chief. Maybe The Nation could consider asking him to write for their magazi . . . Oh, wait. Never mind.)
As noted before, Ben accused Ava and C.I. of being responsible for the lack of women. Apparently, so almighty powerful are Ava and C.I. (some of our readers might agree with that description) that one comic critique from them and all women writers shrivel away. So they avoided noting the writing of any women done during the second period with the exception of the disgusting attempts by the magazine to tear apart Cindy Sheehan. They avoided, for instance, noting that Patricia J. Williams -- allegedly a law professor -- was off writing about Oprah when you'd think a law professor would be far more interested in War Crimes and not in offering bad attempts at humor (see especially August 27th's "The Protect Alberto Gonzales Act of 2007"). But maybe they misunderstood the title of Williams' columns? Maybe the "mad" in "The Diary of a Mad Law Professor" isn't meant to indicate that she's angry about the state of the world, maybe it's meant to indicate that her brain is cracked? She certainly writes (in scope and meandering nature) as if she's unhinged.
Ben maintained the magazine was aware of the issue of women writers not being printed by the magazine and they would be addressing it. The first period featured 181 more male bylines than female ones and the second period featured 161 more male bylines than female ones. At this rate of 'progress,' in four years the magazine might be able to publish only one more male than woman? Is that what we're supposed to assume?
The reality is that going from 181 more males to 161 more males is disgraceful when you admit there's a problem, when you admit you are aware of it and when you claim you are addressing it. Again, the post of comic illustrator opened up while they were allegedly aware of the problem and yet not one female has been given that page.
The Nation is supposedly a left magazine and yet they think it's acceptable to run 491 bylines by male in one year and only 149 by women. If you want to embrace that sop Katrina vanden Heuvel just tossed out to appear 'interested' in women, do so. Wallow in it. But have the guts and brains to grasp that it's sop and that a magazine where one woman holds the position of editor and publisher has repeatedly demonstrated throughout 2007 that it was no friend to women.
Oh, the humanity!
Of course, one could argue that anyone truly concerned about the number of women who vote would realizae it might be larger (and this is numbers, not proportions -- there are more adult women in the US than adult men) if women were actually invited to the table.
vanden Heuvel is both editor and publisher of The Nation magazine. So who's she had over for dinner?
For those late to our own party, in the summer of 2006, a number of women -- established and emerging writers -- brought to our attention that The Nation wasn't publishing women, that solid articles by women could be easily snapped up elsewhere but The Nation was consistently sending out a message of "Men Only." We hadn't noticed. We'd been focused on Iraq and hadn't noticed the imbalance (which did exist). They wanted the issue addressed at The Common Ills but (a) the site had already switched over to the Iraq focus (at the request of members) and (b) the year was half-over. Would it be okay if we monitored the imbalance at The Third Estate Sunday Review? It was. So we agreed that we would monitor 2007.
The December 24, 2006 edition featured "The Nation Stats." The plan was for that be a weekly feature but time issues and boredom with the magazine as well as mail delivery made that impossible. We did, however, cover every issue of the magazine for the first half of the year.
July 4th, our results went up: "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you must have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," and "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis." That went up at all sites and it was a feature written by all.
The results weren't 'pretty'. During that time frame (January 1, 2007 issue through the June 25, 2007 issue), the magazine published published 255 male bylines and 74 female ones. As was noted then, just to achieve equal numbers of women, the magazine would have to publish 181 female bylines in the second six months of the year.
To have an actual day off, for everyone, we didn't wait until July 4th to write our planned article. We worked on it throught June and nailed it on the last Sunday before the first of July. That was it, at last! A day offline for all.
What we hadn't counted on (and weren't aware of then) was that a 'professional' had passed on the plans for the feature. To be clear, the plans were announced here. Seven people from The Nation magazine e-mailed while we were doing "The Nation Stats." (Six mentioned the figure and said it was about time.) C.I. had spoken to friends with the magazine and the foundation about the article throughout (including -- as with this feature -- calling two to check the gender on some writers). But the magazine wasn't concerned until a 'professional' passed on Jess' e-mail to score points. We didn't learn that until after the 4th.
What we knew before the 4th was that Ben Wyskida, publicity hack for The Nation (and so much more interesting when he was just obsessed with sex and sarcasm) was writing us via the public e-mail account at The Common Ills. He wrote twice. In an insulting e-mail (where he blamed Ava and C.I. for the lack of women writers at The Nation and pulled the nonsense so many of his kind love to -- "glaring errors" which of course they never identify), he noted, "On the subject of women and the magazine; you should also know that the magazine is more than aware of the imbalance, and has taken steps in the last several months to recruit and bring in more women writers." Great. We were thrilled they were aware of the problem. We thought it would only take a month -- at most -- of "The Nation Stats" for the problem to be dealt with. It had taken longer than that but a July 2nd e-mail says it's known and being addressed, great. The whole reason the feature started was women were being shut out.
Ben went on to explain, "Between now and the Fall there are six new writers being added to our blogs, as well as new staff added to the editorial ranks." On the first point, we were (and are) covering the print edition -- the one people pay for. The one that has more prestige (and pays more money) than "online exclusives." So women bloggers might be nice in terms of online, but that really wasn't our focus. (We've received many e-mails pointing out that it hasn't translated that way online. Some have noted that Katha Pollitt now has her own blog at the site. She also has her own blog online, away from the magazine. But in terms of feedback here, Pollitt's the only improvement our readers have noticed in terms of online content at The Nation.) But editorial ranks? Along with Katrina vanden Heuvel at the top, we were aware of many women in positions at the magazine. Ben added, "Its worth noting, I think, the extent to which women ARE the leadership of the magazine -- from the editorial side (print, web, and almost all of our senior and executive editors) to the business side (President and the heads of advertising and fundraising) -- but there is an ongoing effort to bring in more women in to the magazine and the website." Again, our focus was not the website. It was women being published in the magazine.
But Ben's e-mail told us (a) the problem was known and (b) the problem would be addressed.
We're not going to call Ben a "liar" on this. We'll assume he thought it would be addressed. 181 bylines of women were needed to bring women up to an equal position to men. From the July 2, 2007 issue through the December 31, 2007 issue, 289 pieces with bylines were published.
It was possible that equality might be achieved. Not likely, but possible.
How did they fare?
Not good at all.
289 articles with bylines (many with more than one writer receiving billing for an article) and 236 men received bylines while only 75 women did. In terms of the simplest math, in July we were noting 255 men received bylines and only 74 women. That meant 181 more bylines were for males. "Improvement" and "awareness" translated into 75 women receiving bylines to 236 males. 161 more males received bylines. So all that talk of any improvement was really just empty talk. For issues dated 2007, The Nation published 491 male bylines to 149 female ones.
And Katrina vanden Heuvel wants to score points talking about low numbers of women voters?
It needs to be pointed out that the magazine now does a rip-off of Rolling Stones' Random Notes column and also regularly offers a comic. Those features weren't included in our study because they didn't exist at the first of the year. The weekly magazine added those in the October 15, 2007 issue. "Noted" (the rip-off) is unsigned. The comic? Apparently, women don't draw. Who knew? Had the male comic artists been included in the count, it would have been even worse. Could someone explain that? How, when you know you have a HUGE imbalance, you end up with a male cartoonist?
Maybe at the interviews, only 'single' women applied and it was thought they might not vote in the 2008 elections?
You might think women columnists helped beef up the numbers. There are three regular female columnists: Naomi Klein, Katha Pollitt and Patricia J. Williams. But that's not reality. They did help in one area: When you compare the first period studied with the second, the first obvious thing you note is that at least the magazine didn't (AGAIN) manage to go an entire issue without featuring the byline of any women.
Instead, you got the October 22, 2007 issue that included Katha Pollitt . . . and eleven men. You got the October 29, 2007 issue that included Patricia J. Williams . . . with eleven men. You got the November 5th issue with Katha Pollitt . . . and -- well you get the idea. The female columnists greatest contribution (in terms of our study) was in making sure that no issue was published where not a single woman received a byline -- a problem the magazine had in the first period.
The second thing you quickly notice is that (true in the first period as well), women have an easier chance of getting a byline if they're commenting on books, art or writing a (brief) poem. The "girls" are apparently thought to be able to handle that 'soft' terrain . . . if not much else.
The numbers also benefit from co-writing. Though not one issue feature two or more women sharing the byline of a single article, women could be paired up with men and, of course, men were paired up with men. Maybe they're all following Katrina vanden Heuvel's lead? She apparently needs a partner with a penis when it's time to co-write. Or maybe she just needs to be Queen Bee?
It bears noting that they ran the writings of a War Criminal. Before you rack your mind trying to figure out what woman we're talking about, please -- they didn't search so far and wide for women that they asked Mad Maddie Albright to write an article. However, they did make time for a former left-winger (former by many, many years) who is thought -- by the international community -- to have killed poet Roque Dalton. Jack Hirshcman (at CounterPunch) was among the many aghast by how low the magazine would stoop.
But maybe you have to resort to publishing War Criminals when you work so hard at refusing to publish women?
Having started the year featuring a 'book review' by her friend Pig Bergman which went several years back to find a man to praise after sharing his impressions of a whorehouse in Afghanistan and ripping apart the books of Ann Jones and Sarah Chayes (Jones is a conspiracy monger, to hear Pig tell it, how nice of vanden Heuvel to allow her centrist friend to rip apart the work of a Nation contributor on the pages of The Nation; Chayes isn't 'objective' -- apparently she never visited a whorehouse in Afghanistan), vanden Heuvel rushes in at the end of the year to pretend she's got any thoughts of women and wants to share her shock over the fact that a number of 'single' women don't vote. Women, single or not, make less money than men and are more likely to be responsible for young children.
vanden Heuverl spares them a moment of time only because they might be voters. Make no mistake, this SEXIST rag hasn't written one word about Tracy Barker or Jamie Leigh Jones. Jones testified before a Congressional committee last Wednesday about being drugged and gang-raped in Iraq. Tracy Barker submitted a written statement about being sexually harassed while working in Iraq and being sexually assaulted by a State Department employee. Both women were profiled on 20/20 two Fridays ago. (20/20 broadcast noted at this site here.) March 12, 2006, Abeer Qassim Hamza was gang-raped by US soldiers, while two gang-raped her, she also had to endure hearing her parents and five-year-old sister shot in the other room by a third US soldier who then allegedly (both of the two have confessed and identified Steven D. Green as the instigator, a co-rapist and the murderer) killed her. By June 2006, these events were being reported in the mainstream media. An Article 32 hearing was held for those soldiers still in the service (Green was discharged before the crimes came to light, he will be tried in a civilian court -- scheduled to begin April 13th). In 2007, Alexander Cockburn would become the first Nation journalist to write about Abeer in the pages of the magazine. Katha Pollitt would then offer Abeer in a half sentence.
Last Tuesday, AP's Ryan Lenz described the events as "four U.S. soldiers who helped gang rape and kill a 14-year-old Iraqi girl in one of the war's worst atrocities. . . . The allegations of rape and murder at the hands of U.S. soldiers in July 2006 enraged the world community, including Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who demanded full accountability." Enraged the world community. One of the war's worst atrocities. Lenz, for the record, has covered the story repeatedly. The Nation, by contrast, hasn't. (That's in print, that's in 'online exclusives' and the magazine's 'blogs.')
That a weekly magazine, allegedly left (but look at all those New American Foundation contributors in a recent issue), wants to ignore Jones, Barker and Abeer (along with many other women) is disgusting. That a woman holds both titles of editor and publisher at said magazine is appalling. (By contrast, Mother Jones has written about it, Stephanie Mencimer wrote about it from DC -- of course Mother Jones has a strong bureau chief. Maybe The Nation could consider asking him to write for their magazi . . . Oh, wait. Never mind.)
As noted before, Ben accused Ava and C.I. of being responsible for the lack of women. Apparently, so almighty powerful are Ava and C.I. (some of our readers might agree with that description) that one comic critique from them and all women writers shrivel away. So they avoided noting the writing of any women done during the second period with the exception of the disgusting attempts by the magazine to tear apart Cindy Sheehan. They avoided, for instance, noting that Patricia J. Williams -- allegedly a law professor -- was off writing about Oprah when you'd think a law professor would be far more interested in War Crimes and not in offering bad attempts at humor (see especially August 27th's "The Protect Alberto Gonzales Act of 2007"). But maybe they misunderstood the title of Williams' columns? Maybe the "mad" in "The Diary of a Mad Law Professor" isn't meant to indicate that she's angry about the state of the world, maybe it's meant to indicate that her brain is cracked? She certainly writes (in scope and meandering nature) as if she's unhinged.
Ben maintained the magazine was aware of the issue of women writers not being printed by the magazine and they would be addressing it. The first period featured 181 more male bylines than female ones and the second period featured 161 more male bylines than female ones. At this rate of 'progress,' in four years the magazine might be able to publish only one more male than woman? Is that what we're supposed to assume?
The reality is that going from 181 more males to 161 more males is disgraceful when you admit there's a problem, when you admit you are aware of it and when you claim you are addressing it. Again, the post of comic illustrator opened up while they were allegedly aware of the problem and yet not one female has been given that page.
The Nation is supposedly a left magazine and yet they think it's acceptable to run 491 bylines by male in one year and only 149 by women. If you want to embrace that sop Katrina vanden Heuvel just tossed out to appear 'interested' in women, do so. Wallow in it. But have the guts and brains to grasp that it's sop and that a magazine where one woman holds the position of editor and publisher has repeatedly demonstrated throughout 2007 that it was no friend to women.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
