Sunday, April 26, 2009

TV roundtable

Jim: Roundtable time and, for a change, this is on TV. Only on TV. It's on one network and three shows that air Monday nights. NBC's Chuck, Heroes and Medium. Participating are The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and me, Jim, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man, C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, Ruth of Ruth's Report, Wally of The Daily Jot, Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ and Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends. This is a rush transcript. Ava and C.I. take the notes. We thank them for that. Let's get started. Ty, two of the three shows Monday night are ending their season runs.



NBC Mondays



Ty: Correct. Chuck and Heroes wrap up their seasons tomorrow night. Medium continues through Conan O'Brian's Tonight Show debut. Rebecca usually writes about Heroes at her site and Mike generally writes about Chuck at his. So we're going to go them to catch us up to speed and we'll deal with Chuck first since it kicks off Monday nights on NBC. Mike?



Mike: Chuck is a comedy, action-adventure, romance all rolled into one. It's probably my favorite show on TV. Ava and C.I. kept telling me to check it out that first year. They were waiting on reviewing it because they knew it would be on the full season so they had a sentence or two at the start of the season here but at my site I was always quoting them on it, before I started watching it and especially after I did. If you've ever dreamed of getting with someone and felt like you didn't stand a chance, you'll relate to Chuck's feelings for Sarah. And, increasingly, to Sarah's for Chuck. I don't mean her love for him is increasing. She's been in love with him for some time. What's increased in season two is her understanding that their being together is pretty much impossible. The government won't allow it. The show really picked up steam as the season went along and Sarah's not only had to object to Chuck being imprisoned by the US government, she's also had to save him when the US government ordered that he be killed. Sarah's CIA and she's had to repeatedly goes against her own agency. Anyway, Chevy Chase came on as a bad guy and supposedly died last week but at the end we saw he wasn't dead. He's headed to Ellie -- Chuck's sister -- to Ellie's big wedding. Chuck supposedly has lost his intersect power -- having a computer hard drive of US national security information in his head -- and I say supposedly because Ava and C.I. are tight-lipped but I've seen their reactions to questions and I'll stick with "supposedly." So did Chuck lose his power? Is Sarah going to be reassigned as a result? If reassigned, does she go along with that? Will Ellie walk down the aisle? There's a lot going on at this wedding.



Wally: I like Chuck, the show and the character, but my favorite on the show are probably Morgan and Ana. They're secondary characters but I really love them. I do want to object to a scene with them from last Monday. Ana asked Morgan what his dream was early on and he said to be a chef in Hawaii -- I'm giving the very brief summary. He didn't think that would ever happen, thought he was too old, etc. His work at the Best Buy like store called the Buy More has gone down the toilet and his ending was him deciding to quit and he and Ana walk off with the clear impression that they're off to Hawaii. Is that a fair recap, Mike?



Mike: Yes. And I know where you're going.



Wally: Ana was called a whore by the guy who just took over the Buy More. Not when she and Morgan left but the episode before that. She was called a whore by the manager. Now she and Morgan are walking off and the gang -- a gang she's supposedly a part of -- are cheering Morgan -- and only Morgan -- for having the courage to walk out. Where's Ana's cheer? If the thing was supposed to play like the Debra Winger film --



Ava: An Officer & A Gentleman.



Wally: Thanks, that "Way to go Paula!" scene, then Ana should have been carrying Morgan like [Richard] Gere carried Debra Winger. I just thought that was really insulting. These co-workers are supposed to be her friend as well and they don't say a word to applaud her.



Mike: I'd agree with you on that. But Ana's really been ignored all year long. She's been great when they've tossed her a scene or two but she's really only been at the heart of one episode this year. She needs as much, if not more, airtime as Jeff and Lester get. Those are her co-workers and this year has been all about Jeff and Lester who aren't that great. They're funny in small doses. But Ana's always funny. She is funny when she's breaking your heart. She's just really great in the role and they have enough male characters and already sideline Ellie so they really need to start beefing up Ana. If there's a season three, Ana needs to play a much larger role.



Jim: If?



Mike: Chuck's had lousy ratings. It goes to what Ava and C.I. pointed out. First off, Chuck wasn't on all last summer. It was a brand new show for fall 2007. It ended in the spring of 2008 and the network didn't repeat it all summer long. Then boom, it was suddenly time to put it back on the air with new episodes. As I've noted at my site and Ava and C.I. noted here, the first episodes of the second season sucked. It was guest-star city and the guest stars were taking all the action and the characters we know and love were reduced to extras. Chevy Chase hasn't been that way. His character's written better -- and he plays the character better than the start of the season guest stars.



Dona: I like Chuck. The show and all the characters. But this season has been off in terms of Ana and Ellie and not only have Jeff and Lester gotten way too much time -- it's like when everyone had to stop watching Moonlighting because Booger was getting more time than Agnes and Maddie -- but for Chuck to finally tell someone he was working for the CIA and for it to be Devin and not his own sister? There's no reason for that. If Devin had immediately realized that this meant he was drugged and he didn't make out with that woman at his bachelor party, I could have let it slide. It would mean he wasn't going to be eaten with guilt anymore. But that's not where it's gone and it just seemed one more time where the show could have utilized a character, a female one, but instead went with the male. Devin's marrying Chuck's sister. Chuck doesn't need to bond with his sister's husband. They need to get along but if someone needed a bonding at that moment, it was Ellie whose whole life was falling apart with her father disappearing again and Chuck as well.



Mike: Ellie did a lot more in the first season. What's happened is Jeff and Lester are on TOO much. They take up TOO much time. You've got more guest stars and they require time as well. And because all spare time gets tossed to Jeff and Lester, Ellie and Ana aren't doing hardly anything. And Jeff and Lester aren't as funny if you're exposed to them all the time.



Jim: So Mike, prediction?

Mike: I really don't think we'll have answers at the end of the finale. Maybe I'm wrong. I think we'll be left with more questions and I'm sort of wondering if Chuck's going to end up disappearing at the end of the episode.



Jim: That's NBC's first hour of prime time on Monday. Heroes follows it and Heroes will also have a season finale. It's also had lower ratings than last year. Rebecca, bring us up to speed.



Rebecca: The last three episodes were largely soap opera. I mean they were backstory with flashbacks and I mean that for two episodes in a row, you had Angela, Peter, Nathan, Claire, Claire's adopted father, all sitting at the same table in a dive eating lunch and watching television. You honestly felt like it was a soap opera that you could turn on a week later and nothing would have happened. The pacing has been awful.



Elaine: I watch Medium and plan to speak during that but I'm not sure how many watch Heroes? How many are planning to speak?



Cedric: I am.



Elaine: Okay, then I'll be silent until Medium. Go ahead Cedric.



Cedric: Niki-Jessica died. Now her other character died this year. The actress is just being wasted at this point. She had a bi-racial son, Micah, who is back on the show finally. And maybe that's why I liked her. Seeing her with her husband, Micah's father, who was the first African-American with powers on the show. They killed him off as well. But I looked forward to Nikki-Jessica. And then when she became Tracy, I was still interested. They've killed her characters off one too many times. I'm losing interest and I'm so damn sick of all the garabge. It has become so sexist. If a woman has a power, it's rarely an active one, an 'offense' one. She can play defense but that's all she's usually got. And the women die over and over. The runner died.



Stan: Daphne.



Cedric: Yeah, Daphne. Nikkie and Tracy died. Clair's biological mother died. Veronica Mars was on the show --



Rebecca: Elle.



Cedric: Thank you, Elle. And she died. And I've never seen Sylar use her powers after he killed her and took them. Has anyone seen it? All the women die. And each year, with all these women dying, the show wants to bring on more and more males. Syler's got a sibling. It's a male! Over and over where a role could have gone to a woman, they introduce a man. And let's be really honest, I know Rebecca will watch a show for a guy she finds good looking and I will watch a show for a woman I find good looking. But Tim Kring apparently doesn't know that. So Nikki-Jessica, Tracy and Jessica's niece, Micah's cousin, all die or just disappear. Over and over. Or we get the Mexican woman who makes it into this country and boom, time to kill her off so Sylar can get her power. Over and over. I can't stand that doctor and his goony and goody-two-shoe ways. And I've had enough of Matt Parkman as well. I've had more than enough of Hiro and Ande or whatever his name is. And Nathan's gotten on my last nerve this season. About the only characters I can stand right now are Peter and Clair. And they never give Clair anything.



Ruth: I watch all three shows at different times during the week with my grandchildren. On Heroes, I will note that they appear to have written themselves into a corner. The next season, if there is one, either has everyone working to destroy Sylar or there is not much point because, at this point, Sylar has pretty much every power anyone could have. He has killed off how many people now to steal their powers?



Rebecca: That's a good point, Ruth. I hadn't thought of that. But they've pretty much made him indestructable now. Hiro did get back his powers at least. Although I must have missed how. But Baby Parkman had the ability to, if Hiro held him, allow Hiro to still access his powers. Now Hiro can do that without Baby Parkman in his arms or at his side. And Cedric's right, I will watch a show just because I think a guy on it is hot. That's a normal response. And we do want to see people we think are hot on TV.



Marcia: I will use all my time here and not speak elsewhere if I can go Heroes-related. No one objected. Beyonce does not film pretty. In her videos, she can look gorgeous. No film, not the Austin Powers one, not Dreamgirls, none of them, find her looking good. But this new one, which co-stars the actress who played Tracy and Jessica-Nikki, Beyonce looks so bad, I didn't know that was her. I saw that ol' big head and thought it was Gina from Martin.



Cedric: Please note that I'm laughing at that.



Marcia: So she's not looking good and then there's the other thing. Which is? She's ending her film career. She doesn't realize it now but two years from now, no one's going to want to pay to see her. Same thing happened with Angela Bassett who can actually act. Angela played Tina Turner and got rave reviews and ended her career. She was 'too strong' for some people. In this new film, it's Fatal Attraction only the married couple is African-American. And the commercial is all about, "I'm one tough Black Bitch, woman, you messed with the wrong Black Bitch." That's not what she's saying but that's what the advertisement's supposed to convey. There is a difference between a doormat and the role she's playing. The role she's playing is too strong and it will hurt her in future films.



Betty: Because?


Marcia: I know the African-American community. It's very homophobic. I'm an African-American and a lesbian, for any drive-by's passing through. And the implication is going to be Beyonce's a lesbian. She's too strong. She must be a lesbian. I've heard that over and over about Angela Bassett and I know we're going to hear about Beyonce. Whether she is or not, I have no idea. I assume she's straight. But in the African-American community, that is how they put the kiss of death on a woman, start spreading she's a lesbian. And she looks bad in the commercials and she's coming on way too strong.



Betty: I agree with what Marcia's saying and I'll use my time on this instead of on Medium. I was conflicted by the commercial. On the one hand, I was glad that a woman was fighting back -- and the way the commercial plays, Beyonce fighitng non-stop. But I was also thinking about how when it's a White woman, they go out of their way to show how 'feminine' she is. Think Anne Archer in Fatal Attraction or any number of women in those "the gilfriend from hell," "the boss from hell," etc movies. The good girl always has an emphasis on 'girl.' So I do agree with Marcia that Beyonce's coming on way too strong in those advertisements. And I also agree with her -- drive-bys, I'm Black -- that Beyonce will find herself the victim of rumors that are not going to die and are going to insist she's a lesbian because she played a strong woman. It is not a good role for her and I don't know why she took it. She looks bad in the scenes they show on TV, she's apparently 'kicking ass' in a film where her husband appears to do damn little. Does he at least cheat on her? If he doesn't do that and they've built a movie around it, you better believe the homophobia in my community will run wild and not only will Beyonce be dubbed a lesbian but the actor playing her husband will be seen as weak and be called gay because it will be seen as the ulitmate insult. And Marcia's right about Angela. But it's not just Tina, it's setting the car on fire in Waiting To Exhale also. Angela becomes a focal point for a lot of women, replacing a lot of Set It Off references. And guys here that, in my community, and they start really hating Angela Bassett. They start talking trash about her. And the same thing's going to happen with Beyonce. Back to Heroes, I was so glad Nathan got a hair cut. He looks so much better with it close to the scalp on the sides. I'll be silent now.



Jim: Okay, Nathan got a hair cut. Rebecca, is it involving?



Rebecca: It's hard to get too involved. If you do, you're begging for your character to be written off. Especially if it's a woman. I get e-mails since I write about the show at my site. And there is so much fear that Claire is going to die in the cliff-hanger. Logically, they can't kill her off but that's what this pattern of killing off one woman after another has done to the fan base of the show.



Jim: Prediction?



Rebecca: I don't know. I have no idea. And no one's telling me anything.



C.I.: Tim Kring works from an outline, a bible; however, even he's not sure what's going to happen next fall.



Jim: Okay. Jess and Elaine will probably talk during this. In fact, I predict they will since Elaine's already said she would and since Jess hasn't spoken during this roundtable. Predicting is what Medium's about. Patricia Arquette plays a psychic. Allison. Allison is married to Joe and they have three children. Elaine and Jess?



Jess: I'll toss out that the kids are really great. There are three daughters and the young actresses who play them do a very good and very realistic job. I'm saying that, me. I know Ava and C.I. don't comment. They don't comment good or bad. Not on children. And the reason being if they only commented when there was something good to say about child actors, then when they didn't comment, everyone would know they didn't think those actors were any good. So Ava and C.I. just do not comment on child actors. But I will and I will say that those three young actresses bring so much to the show. My favorite's Bridget by the way. She's completely wacky. She always cracks me up because she's always got a scam going to get something out of her parents. She's funny. And when she gets a dramatic scene, it's all the more dramatic because it's coming from the one who's usually the clown and jokester in the family. But all three of them are wonderful and if you had a sibling or two or more growing up, you're going to relate to those morning scenes where everyone in the family makes it into the kitchen.



Elaine: They really are something. They do deserve praise. And the entire show works so well together. The cast. One thing that does worry me is Manny seems more distant to Allison this year. Especially in the latest episodes. He can be pretty cold to her lately and I'm really not understanding where that's coming from. But other than that, high praise for the show and, of course, Patricia Arquette is the glue. She's truly amazing in the role and each year just goes deeper and deeper into Allison. No other actress could have done this part and made it a success. This was a unique victory for Patrica. She deserves so much praise. And what an eye. The episode she directed, help me out, C.I.?



C.I.: The one with the flashback to the eighties where a bomb was built to destroy a government building.



Elaine: Thank you. That was some intense work. From the angle choices in the kitchen where a father burns a son's hand on the stove, etc. That was just a really powerful episode and was so well done. There's a scene where Allison goes over to the now grown man's home as he's preparing to leave town in shame and that's probably the best blocked and shot scene I saw all year on any program. That was the first episode she's directed, right?



C.I.: Right.



Elaine: That was just pretty amazing especially for it to be her first time.



Jim: Prediction on how it's ending this year?



C.I.: Well --



Jim: You're going to give spoilers? You?

C.I.: No. I was going to say regardless of where it goes next year, it has been the heavy hitter for NBC on Monday nights. It has regularly been NBC's top rated Monday night show. And Medium has repeatedly been putting on the chopping block by NBC and saved at the last minute. Or spared at the last minute. But no one's expecting that to be a problem this year because this year it has out performed every other show the network's had on Monday nights. So predictions aside, what is known is that Medium had an incredible season ratings wise.



Jim: Okay, well let me bring in Ava and then we'll end the roundtable. Ava, C.I. noted Medium should be back next year based on ratings. What of Heroes and Chuck?



Ava: NBC has too much money invested into Heroes to pull the plug now. They will let it ride out and, for the same reason, there will be a fifth year of the show regardless of next season's ratings. So that's season four next year and season five starting in the fall of 2010. Chuck? Chuck costs much less per episode than Heroes and it also kick starts the night. So you'd think it's ratings wouldn't need to be as high for it to survive. But there are some who are tired of the show -- I'm talking at NBC. And there are some who gripe about this season's lousy ratings. But the problem with the ratings was that NBC didn't promote it during the summer. They didn't air it all summer long. So you had their small-ish audience aware of the show and some came back last fall and some didn't. If NBC wants Chuck to be a hit, they'll need to start airing it this summer.



Jim: Okay and that's the roundtable. The illustration is by Betty's kids, Kat and Wally. We thank them for it.

Chris Hill breaks his first promise

hillchris



Chris Hill is the new US Ambassador to Iraq. At his March hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, it was stated that Hill, upon being confirmed, would leave immediately for Iraq.



John Kerry chaired that committee hearing March 25th, and Kerry declared Hill had stated he would leave for Iraq "within a day of his Senate confirmation."







Tuesday Chris Hill was confirmed as US Ambassador to Iraq. AP reported Friday that the ambassador had arrived in Baghdad. "Within a day of his Senate confirmation"?



Three days after.



He's already breaking promises.



John Kerry: "The committee will move to quickly discharge Ambassador Hill, who has committed to depart for Iraq within a day of his Senate confirmation."



We now know what Chris Hill's word is worth. Make a note of it. He is, as Isaiah dubbed him, "The Pig-Pen Ambassador."

The Pig-Pen Ambassador

Mailbag

mailcall

Ty: This is a mailbag and we've confined it to The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Jess, Ava and me, Ty, as well as C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review. We did that in order for everyone else to get some sleep. We appreciate their help each week, but we do know they're not responsible for every word up here and don't need to wreck themselves each weekened. So first up, Miley notes this comment she saw at the top of The Futon Critic: "Please note: As a courtesy, please do not reproduce these comments to newsgroups, forums or other online places. Links only please." She writes she's sorry because she's quoted Ava and C.I. at various forums online.



Ava: She doesn't have to be sorry. C.I. and I have no problem with that. We're not the AP. We're not making idiots out of ourselves the way the AP and, apparently, The Futon Critic is. I understand that Miley was apologizing specifically to C.I. and myself so I'm stating in response that there's nothing to apologize for, she's not done anything wrong and she doesn't need to do anything differently. But, having said that, I'll toss to Jim because this is an issue he covers regularly in e-mails.



Jim: Yeah. First off, anyone being quoted somewhere else only adds interest and only increases their potential audience. Which is why AP and The Futon Critic are assholes and idiots. In terms of what we do here, anyone who wants to can quote from it. A link is nice but credit is necessary. You may be a right-wing site that doesn't want to link to a left-wing one. That's fine, you can just say "The Third Estate Sunday Review writes in ____" and not provide any link. If anyone's interested, they can Google. But you need to credit. And credit can be "Read this" or whatever with a link. In some way you need to credit. In terms of reposting in full, if it's our stuff, we've been fine with it when it's happened at some sites. What sites? Sites that aren't commercial sites. If you raise money from ads or for from pledges or begging, you're making money. So you should be asking us before you repost. If you're a website or a blog, and you're not making money or trying to, and you repost our stuff, we've never been offended. We hear about it sometimes and it's no problem. By the same token, we're not responsible for people reposting without our permission. We've been attacked for a Soros site reposting us -- reposting Ava and C.I. -- and how we must be in the bag for Soros. We had nothing to do with that. We were not informed we were being reposted -- in full or partially -- and were as surprised as our readers complaining that a site with a budget decided to repost Ava and C.I. in full without asking us. The other problem issue has been when erotic or pornographic sites have reposted us. We've not given permission to them either, we've never heard from them, they never asked. We're not responsible. Take up your issues with them.



Dona: This is a Third mailbag composed of the six of us who make up Third. We're speaking for this site and this site only. And as Jim noted, "in terms of what we do here." Isaiah, for example, retains the rights to his comics. If we repost his comics here, we do so with permission. If you take something of ours, "something of ours" does not include Isaiah's illustration. That's his. Now if it's one of our illustrations, it's either something we created or public domain. In which case, if you're reposting in full, you could include it.



Ava: Exception.



Dona: Right. Exception being if it's from C.I.'s personal collection. We've done a few illustrations here that were from C.I.'s personal collection of photos. But, take last week's "Tea Parties " which features three amazing photos taken by the daughter of a Common Ills community member. If you credited that to Third, she'd be fine with it. Some of the illustrations we have here are done by Kat and Betty's kids and sometimes Wally as well. They are of the opinion that if it's credited to Third, it can be used. Ty gave me a heads up to this as a topic so I spent Thursday going over this and only forgot the exception Ava just noted. If it's a celeb or a politician, you might want to check first to make sure it's not from C.I.'s private collection. You can check by e-mailing us at thirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com or by checking our "A note to our readers" each week. When we dip into C.I.'s private collection, we note it in the note. Private collection photos we don't give permission to reproduce. And you may ask why? The minute permission is granted, AP's grabbing it and calling it "news" and announcing that they have the rights to it. There was a photo that Wikipedia displayed of Abeer. It was a government photo on a government document -- Iraqi government -- and AP insisted they 'owned' that. They didn't own it. That's ludicrous. But it's for that reason that C.I.'s private photos are not 'released' with our permission. If they were, the AP and others would then rush them over a wire and indicate that, as a result of publishing, they now owned them.



Jim: Dallas i.m.ed me while Dona was speaking to note that Wikipedia has the same photo back up only via Reuters. Go here for Wikipedia's explanation.



Jess: If you go back to our August 2006 article on Abeer, you'll find a place for an illustration but none. We used the Wikipedia one and then Wikipedia deleted it. It's amazing that a news outlet wants to claim they 'own' something. We wanted to cover an Iraqi cartoonist's plight, for example. But we need the cartoon. An example of one of the 'offensive' cartoons. The New York Times reprints the comic -- with no payment to the cartoonist -- and does so calling it 'news'. If we post it here, we're supposedly breaking a copyright law. Not of the artist, of NYT. It makes no sense. People like The Futon Critic -- who I've never heard of before this discussion -- really piss me off because they're justifying the same thing the AP is doing and they're promoting it. We're not giving that site a link.



Ty: That's a good place for me to jump in with another e-mail issue. What does it take to get censored forever -- blacklisted, asks another -- by this site?



Dona: Every site has its own policies. Marcia, for example, regularly asks her readers for input on this topic. So before anyone speaks, I want to note that we're referring to the policy at The Third Estate Sunday Review only.



Jess: We're a site for the left and we will include a wide variety from the left. We're not afraid to do that. But we do draw the line at certain things. We will never, ever, link to TruthOut again because the editor of that website called for a candidate to drop out of a race. That's not espousing democracy. Telling a candidate to drop out of the race does not espouse or promote democracy. We will never again link to that site. The second it ran that editorial, we weren't interested in it. That's not a minor point. The editorial was on Hillary Clinton, that she should drop out. I'm a Green and I had to see two intense campaigns of "Ralph Don't Run" in 2000 and 2004. I did not appreciate those. As a community member of The Common Ills in 2004, I was very grateful that C.I. made clear that TCI would never endorse a "don't run" or "drop out" move. We started this site in 2005 and we're not interested in anyone saying, "You can't run!" That's undemocratic. As a third party member, I'm aware that it's not just presidential races, it can include local races where Greens are told to drop out. I do not agree with that. So when Truth Out pulled that nonsense, they lost any chance of a link.



Ty: There are a number of White women -- too many to list -- that I've used my power to blackball here because they attacked either African-Americans or gays. I fall into both categories. We have an article on one such woman this week and no link to her garbage site. I exchanged e-mails with her repeatedly explaining why her remarks about Senator Roland Burris were factually incorrect and racially offensive. She didn't care. We'll never link to her. I'm not calling her a racist, by the way, I'm stating her remarks were racially offensive. And adding that, based on the e-mail exchange, she didn't care that they were racially offensive. Another blogger, who is a racist, we don't link to. We didn't realize he was a racist until Roland Burris became a news story. All of the sudden he spewed the most racist garbage. It was not one post. But at one point, Stan left a comment, not a mean one, noting the importance of affirmative action and that just set the racist off at which point there was no more, "Well, maybe we're reading him wrong . . ." At which point, he was a racist. We do not link to him. And to be clear, I'm not saying White women are any more racist or homophobic than are White men -- or than people of any color. But the PUMA-sphere is notorius for writing at length while knowing so very little and when the Burris attacks started, the PUMAs happily fingered their inner racists. The kinder lies included that Burris and Barack were friends and that Barack wanted him to be senator. That's a flat out lie. But they saw an African-American man and it made their blood boil. They let their inner racists come out and play in the front yard. It was a very ugly moment and made very clear to many of us who had defended PUMA -- those of us in the African-American community -- that we didn't need to waste our breath anymore, they weren't worth defending.



Dona: I don't think the woman has a website, she may. But the only one I'm thinking of that I've blacklisted is a journalist -- frequently quoted in The New York Times but she's never worked for them -- and I blacklisted her because she's a damn liar. She spoke at our college in New York and she's such a 'truth teller.' I asked her three specific questions and Ava had another. She knew our campus press was covering the event and refused to go on record but told me to e-mail her so she could 'think' about it. I did and she had more excuses for not replying. She's a damn liar and my questions were on journalism. They were about ethical issues then in the news. Now Ava's question was more timely and do you want to talk about that?



Ava: Sure. Ms. Bravery, Ms. Big Newspaper woman, she was there 'to tell it like it is' she said in her opening remarks to applause and laughter. So try answering my damn question about why we don't see the media calling out the sexism in their own ranks? This was 2003 or 2004, I can't remember. But you should have seen her recoil from the question and she wouldn't answer it. She offered some vauge bulls**t and tried to move on and I stood back up and said, "Excuse me, you didn't answer my question. Was that intentional?" She then said it would take hours to answer that question. Well she doesn't have hours now, not at the media outlet my father works at because I didn't just get her blackballed her . . .



Dona: We hate that woman. We, really, really hate her. To be clear, it's not Dr. Kathy from Annerberg. But the woman we hate, we refuse to allow her name to ever be mentioned here. Even if we're discussing a book she blurbed or one she's quoted in, we never mention her name. And we never will. She was a media apologist for the pre-war coverage and she refused to tackle serious issues while wanting applause as a truth-teller. We'd believed the woman's hype and it's really important to me that I never hype that woman.



Jim: I don't know that I've blackballed anyone. I would be the one to do it. And I'm sure I did back when we lived in New York. But I'm much more mellow since we moved.



Dona: He really is.



Jim: I really am, I'm not just joking. But I'm sure, before we all moved out here to C.I.'s, you can find some that I banned. Oh, there are blogs that we won't link to because my brother was one of the early bloggers and refused to take part in the circle-jerk, he stopped blogging long before this site started. Because of his tales of the inner-workings of the sexist Blogger Boyz -- I'm not talking Corrente, I'm talking the big sites, we don't link to them. He was their friend and their contemporary and they repulsed him. I've talked about that here before and we've got an article about it. C.I.?



C.I.: I've got The Common Ills so I generally don't ask for anyone not to be mentioned here or linked to. The pig with the skin rag that Goody hobknobs with and used to contribute to, I will not mention him by name and I won't be connected with anything that does. There's The Ego Of Us All who fits that as well. In both cases, I'm asking that someone not be named. In terms of linking, Newsweek is the last place I would ever want to link to but if I make that objection known and it's judged not important, I'm not going to say, "No!!!!!" If someone hurts a community member, I'm done with them. That's if they're a community member with a site or without. If you go after anyone in this community, I'm done with you and I will not link to you. At The Common Ills, we don't link to right-wing websites. At this site, they are linked to from time to time. Jim's usually the one pushing it although I pushed for Adam Bitely (in "Tea Parties --"). I think we do it case-by-case. There's a new one, for example, and I think Ty's going to talk about that.



Ty: We're not linking to No Quarter anymore. Susan UnPC has been the topic of mean remarks for some time with people insisting she used to play left and really wasn't. Due to that, we didn't want to say anything, we just weren't going to link. But her rants have become infamous. I'm not going to say she pretended to be something once upon a time because that predates my familiarity with her work. But she's crossed our line which is we support democracy and open societies. She's foaming at the mouth about how the memos -- the torture memos -- should not have been released. We can't support No Quarter and we can't be silent on that. It's non-democratic to argue that a people do not have a right to know what their government does. We will not be highlighting them again. We often disagreed with No Quarter and Elaine and C.I. would generally note that Larry Johnson was more of a law and order type than they were. Note that in a nice way. We didn't attack Larry Johnson when everyone piled on. In fact, C.I. and Rebecca went out of their way to make clear that Johnson was not inventing the story on the videotape. They explained that they'd heard it and Rebecca's first husband is huge in GOP circles and Rebecca went out of the way to explain that the rumors were the tape existed and that Rudy G's campaign had unearthed it and were planning to use it in the general election -- which Rudy G assumed he'd be the presidential candidate in for the Republican Party. Larry Johnson got attacked over his postings on that tape. We have let a lot of things slide that have ticked us off at No Quarter because we felt Johnson was attacked unfairly -- he never claimed to have seen the tape. But when Susan UnPC and other contributors to No Quarter are regularly arguing that the people don't have a right to know, and that is their argument, that's not anything we can endorse. So we won't be linking to No Quarter again.



Jim: I just need to add that it is a rare week that goes by that they're not mentioned in e-mails. They have, for example, attacked one of Hillary's biggest supporters and attacked the woman in the most sexist manner. And the blogger, who wasn't named in Ty's comments, was too stupid to know the woman had campaigned for Hillary repeatedly. They've got a whole crew like that, people who don't know what they're writing about. They also have some very strong writers but, more and more, they come at it from a right-wing point of view. Some of their comments about Latinos have been less than enlightened and I had to deal with e-mails on that topic and was going to move for them to be blackballed the next time we had the time for a discussion -- which is never. However, the e-mails came in on the "people don't have the right to know" argument Susan UnPC is making and Ty told me, "They're not linked to anymore." If Ty says it, it's pretty much law. If Ty says it, C.I. backs him up. Because Ty so rarely asks. So you've already got two votes there. And if C.I. votes some way, Ava does to. So you've got three votes and then there's the fact that Ava and Jess are a couple and Jess isn't going in the dog house. I'm laughing. But that's four votes.



Ty: Jim's mentioned before that C.I. "always" backs me up so I'll toss to you, C.I., to see if you want to make a comment on that.



C.I.: Jim does always bring that up. I'm wondering if he feels that I don't back him up enough? Ava and I always vote the same because we bonded long ago and did so because we see things very similar. That goes back to the first edition. It's true that Ty rarely asks for someone to be banned and that's part of it. But it's also that it takes a lot to tick Ty off period. So if he's upset, it's for a reason. Jess is the only one with less of a temper than Ty. I think Jim, Ava and I are probably the quickest to explode and Dona's exactly the center of the seven of us.



Jim: I'd agree with all you said including that I may feel you don't back me up enough. I'm laughing. But really. We are often at loggerheads for the editorials intentionally. Or often have been. And we had questions about that in the e-mails and I wanted to bring that into this mailbag. For those late to the party, a lot of the *editorials* the first three years are pretty much me attempting to upset C.I. and C.I. responding. And we write that up. It's emotionally truthful and gives us some very powerful editorials. Our editorials haven't been like that in some time because it upsets a number of people to watch it. It's been noted in the e-mails that our editorials are strong or funny or both but they're not like they once were. I just wanted to note that here so people e-mailing will feel listened to.



Dona: I can see what they're saying. We have lost the rawness and it is because a lot of people aren't comfortable with that process. That was never the only way we wrote editorials but it was the way we wrote a number of them each year. Those were usually the most powerful ones. And usually, C.I. would be a wreck at the end. I don't think we've reached the point where we're just going through the motions but we have moved away from that.



Jess: And that is something we worry about. Going through the motions. It's why we originally planned to go dark, back in the summer of 2005, when the 2008 presidential election rolled around. I don't think we've hit the wall yet but it is something we all worry about.



Ty: Which brings me to Amber's e-mail. She notes we had an anniversary back in January and didn't even note it.



Jim: Most weeks, we're just trying to get through the writing edition. For Amber, I'll look back on 2008 at this site. What am I most proud of? I think the fact that we didn't swallow the Kool-Aid. We didn't take part in telling Ralph Nader not to run or to drop out. We covered Ralph -- we endorsed him in fact, everyone but Ava and C.I. -- and we covered Cynthia McKinney and we covered John McCain. I think we did a good job of that. We also covered Barack but I think we did a good job with the political race coverage and did it in such a manner that it wasn't horseracing. I think we covered some actual issues. And I include our roundtables after each Democratic Party primary in that mix, by the way. We covered it in terms of roundtables, articles, feature stories --



Dona: Ava and C.I.



Jim: I was getting to them. They were at the DNC convention and I think they did an amazing job in the TV commentary with that. They weren't at the RNC convention but I thought they did a strong job there as well. But, leaving aside the conventions, they did some amazing work throughout 2008 on politics while covering TV. Jess will probably grab some of that. So I'll just say they did an amazing job. And I'm proud that we stood up for things we believed in and didn't hide our head in the sands because it was an election year.



Jess: Jim's pointing at me. Ava and C.I. did a better job, in TV commentaries and other things here featuring just their byline, of covering the Green Party than did Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! They regulary covered the way Cynthia McKinney was shut out and silenced. And they were a stronger critic of that than any Green Party blogger. They were just amazing and they wrote things that I'd noticed but couldn't have written about because it was too upsetting and they wrote things that I hadn't even sussed out. People still e-mail to ask did they vote for Ralph or Cynthia? They still can't figure it out by what's written and that's because Ava and C.I. handled it fairly. They did what others wouldn't. I'm very proud of them.



Jim: If I can jump back in, Republicans and independents and crossovers who supported the McCain-Palin ticket were and are pleased with their [Ava and C.I.'s] writing as well. Because they noted -- often -- that they weren't voting for McCain, his supporters don't wonder about that but we always hear about how fair Ava and C.I. were and how unfair the media was and I would agree with that call.



Jess: Except for C.I., we all majored in journalism as under graduates. Jim and Dona are in grad school and still majoring, I'm in law school. Ty's working in the film industry. Ava's on the road every week with C.I. speaking out against the Iraq War. And of course, Ava and C.I. are from journalism families. So this isn't just speculation or mere opinion, the media behaved horribly in their political coverage in 2008. Conservatives were rewarded with some of the strongest examples they could ever hope to point to. The media was clearly in the tank for one candidate, they were in the tank for him when he was one of many competing for the Democratic Party nomination and they were in the tank for him in the general. The media system was not fixed from years of online criticism. The media system is just as corrupt as ever but a lot of people seem okay with that as long as their candidate won. I'm not okay with that. I'm appalled by it and ashamed of the media. Glad I'm no longer planning to go into it. Like Jim, I'm glad that we refused to ride the bandwagon, I'm glad that we held onto our independence and I'm glad that the things that mattered to us in 2005, the very beliefs we hold close and dear, were not tossed aside in 2008.



Ty: I think what Jim and Jess said is very valid. I'd signal out other things as well. I'm glad, as an African-American, that we didn't become the two most common sites in 2008. The first is, "African-Americans can do no wrong!" The second is, "African-Americans aren't really people!"
We criticized people who needed criticizing and we praised those who needed praising. I'm glad that we never stop considering things. I'm talking about the process and I know Dona's going to grab one issue, so I won't. But we're always talking about what we could do that we're not doing. And the attacks on Iraq's LGBT community has resulted in us doing a feature, a serial, where we write a little each month and I do think it's worth doing and I'm really glad the response has been so positive to it from readers. I think we stretched in 2008 and I think we're continuing to stretch. Dona?



Dona: As Ty probably suspected, I'm going with the visuals. If you consider that our first year had very few visuals, I'm proudest of the visuals we now have. I have a thing I don't like on that as well. And I explain that to readers who complain about it that I agree with them. Our photos or illustrations are all placed in the same place. It would be better if we could move them to the left or right. We can't when using Flickr. Flicker demands that you use their code. If you don't, they kick you out. To position them, I don't think you use Flickr. But I do like that we have visuals. And I know we continue attempting to figure out ways to do more there. Of course, I love Ava and C.I.'s writing.



Ava: And Dona wrote her first solo piece here in 2008. That was a high. Jim does the "A note to our readers" feature. For those who don't know. That's him and the rest of us may shout out some stuff. Ty does Ty's Corner. Jess would honestly drop out if he had to do more because law school takes up a lot of his time. But he and Elaine are talking about a joint-piece -- to debut at her site, Jim. So it was a big deal for Dona to write something solo. To write two? They were amazing pieces. Dona and Jim act as the supervisors of the writing edition and they contribute all the time but Dona's the one really making sure the editions get done and that doesn't leave a lot of time to step out on her own so I was really thrilled she had two pieces and that everyone could see how wonderful and amazing she is. C.I. is of course very wonderful and I'm very lucky to have C.I. as a co-writer each week.



C.I.: And the same for me. Ava's wonderful and smart and funny and astute. I wouldn't be doing it if it weren't for her --



Ava: Right back at you!



C.I.: Yeah, well, we're so tired. And it's gone on so long and so much longer than we planned. Ty was talking about calling people out. Cedric deserves some credit for that. I know Rev Jesse Jackson and had Cedric not called out Jesse Jr.'s nonsense in a roundtable one week, Ava and I would've taken a pass on his nonsense. Instead, we tackled it the same week. But when we'd watched that, we'd decided to just ignore him. Then came the roundtable and Cedric brought it up and he also had questions for us after the roundtable so credit to Cedric on that. And Betty's never shied from that topic nor has Ty. Stan and Marcia would deserve credit here if there was a noticeable shift from 2007 to 2008 because they both started blogging in 2008 and participating here in 2008. In terms of the group writing up here, I'd also note that Ruth regularly makes the most delicate of contributions, these whispers that appear to be asides, that really end up being at the crux of the matter. Everybody brings something to the table -- Kat, Wally, Mike, Elaine and Rebecca. I'd go for big theme like Jess and Jim and say I'm glad we didn't sell out. I'm glad we didn't suddenly flip on public financing or FISA or any other issue that we supposedly gave a damn about until the Democratic presidential nominee elected to go another way.



Jim: Agreed. Transcript piece. Rush transcript at that. In addition to those participating, we mentioned Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, Ruth of Ruth's Report, Wally of The Daily Jot, Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ and Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends.

[Dona note, 4-29-09: Thank you to reader Joyce who e-mailed about a remark of Jim's. It's now rendered "*editorials*". Jim had said "e-mails." He meant editorials. To clear up any confusion, I've changed it. Thank you, Joyce.]

2009's Jason Leopold

Spanish prosecutors will seek criminal charges against Alberto Gonzales and five high-ranking Bush administration officials for sanctioning torture at Guantánamo.
Spanish prosecutors have decided to press forward with a criminal investigation targeting former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and five top associates over their role in the torture of five Spanish citizens held at Guantánamo, several reliable sources close to the investigation have told The Daily Beast.




So began Scott Horton's "The Bush Six to Be Indicted" (The Daily Beast) on Monday, April 13th. He went on to say the charges would come down the next day. It is now April 26th and, Scotty, in the words of Diana Ross, "I'm still waiting . . ."



This wasn't the fish that got away, this was the wolf no one else saw.



But we saw this play out before. In 2006. Jason Leopold stated Karl Rove would be indicted. That never happened. Columbia Journalism Review called him out, Alexander Cockburn called him out (riding a high horse, Alex seemed unaware that CounterPunch had published Jason's stories online many, many times), Crooks & Liars, and the list was endless.



So, the question is, when will this year's Scott Horton be called out?



Are people waiting to see if charges come along? They haven't in the time frame he told us they would.



Translation, Scott Horton's a liar.



He said they'd be charged on April 14th and they weren't. That makes him a liar. Or a weatherman and, while he's packed on the pounds, he's not yet in Willard Scott's division.



We saw the way this played out with Leopold. We're not in the mood to wait around and we don't have to. April 14th was the day Horton said it would happen and April 14th came and went with nothing.



If you read Horton's increasingly disjointed writing at Harper's, you'll grasp why he's become so unmoored. He's going to all the Kool-Aid sites, all the propaganda sites, watching all their programs and he's caught up in their non-stop hate.



He fed on it, he ingested it and now it's in him.



It's why he's become completely unhinged.



And here's the thing.



He's worse than Jason Leopold. Scott Horton's a practicing attorney. He knows how the criminal justice system works and he knows better to say someone's going to be charged before they are. He can say they will supposedly be charged or allegedly but to say that they will be charged? No sane attorney would make such a statement and present it as fact.



Scott Horton, this year's Leopold. Only worse.

Why does Barbara Ehrenreich hate women?

Back in May, professional hate monger and stooge Barbara Ehrenreich demonstrated that the stupid child doesn't fall far from the stupid parent as she ranted against Susan Faludi (among others) and foamed, "But did we really need another lesson in the female capacity for ruthless aggression? Any illusions I had about the innate moral superiority of women ended four years ago with Abu Ghraib. Recall that three out of the five prison guards prosecuted for the torture and sexual humiliation of prisoners were women. The prison was directed by a woman, Gen. Janis Karpinski, and the top U.S. intelligence officer in Iraq, who also was responsible for reviewing the status of detainees before their release, was Major Gen. Barbara Fast. Not to mention that the U.S. official ultimately responsible for managing the occupation of Iraq at the time was Condoleezza Rice." ("Hillary's Gift To Women," May of 2008)



Poor Barbara Ehrenreich's lived her life as though it were an alternative Laura Nyro song: "No one hurries home to ugly women . . ." And you don't get much ugly than Democratic Socialist Babsie. No, folks, that's not a form of a Democrat. It's a Socialist and as a non-Democrat, Babsie really didn't have a reason to endorse in a Democratic Party primary but that's a whole other layer of ugly.



So unable to tackle Faludi's points, Babsie tried to switch the topic and bring up Abu Ghraib. Why? Not because she gives a damn about Iraq. She doesn't. Any more than that ugly daughter of Babsie's cares about a free press. (Rosa Brooks left LAT as they were about to fire her and took up with Barack's White House where she's issued the cry for licensing of all journalists. What a proud moment for Babsie.)



We'll get to Karpinski. Let's start with Babsie's claim Recall that she claimed three out of the five prison guards prosecuted for the torture and sexual humiliation of prisoners were women.



Babsie always felt facts worked best when 'improved' on. What others might call lying, Babsie (and Rosa) terms "journalism."



Three of the five guards prosecuted?



1) Charles Graner



2) Joshua Lee Betts



3) Ivan Frederick



4) Javal Davis



5) Jeremy Sivits



6) Armin Cruz



7) Sabrina Harman



8) Megan Ambuhl



9) Lynndie England



10) Santos Cardona



11) Roman Krol



12) Michael Smith.





We're counting twelve. Joshua Lee Betts was tried . . . and found innocent of all charges. He was prosecuted. So there were 12 prosecuted and one of the 12 was found innocent. There are three women on this list and, no, Babsie, they do not make up half the ranks. Three out of twelve. Our confusion was her "prosecuted for the torture and sexual humiliation." If you look at the charges when they faced their court-martial, you'll see that "sexual humiliation" didn't always make it on to the list. We're not disputing that sexual humiliation took place, we're just attempting to understand Babsie's cracked mind. Looking over which each was charged with (forget convicted of -- except Betts who was found innocent), you won't find that listed for all. Also no one was charged with "torture." We don't disagree that torture took place. But we're attempting to enter Babsie's cracked head.



Three out of twelve is not half, it's a third.



As usual, when the facts aren't good enough for Babsie, she gets creative. Which is how she gets "three of the five." She's not done being creative, though.



Remember, she also wrote, "The prison was directed by a woman, Gen. Janis Karpinski, and the top U.S. intelligence officer in Iraq, who also was responsible for reviewing the status of detainees before their release, was Major Gen. Barbara Fast." Yes, Janis Karpinski was sort of in charge. She wasn't in charge of the section of the prison where abuse took place (military intelligence was in charge of that). It's amazing that in 2009, Babsie didn't 'know' that. It's amazing she wasn't aware of what Major General Geoffrey Miller did and ordered in Iraq. Or that she wasn't offended that while Gen Karpinski was busted down to Col, Miller retained his rank. Last week, the chair of the Senate Arms Committee, Carl Levin released a report entitled [PDF format warning] "INQUIRY INTO THE TREATMENT OF DETAINEES IN U.S. CUSTODY." Miller is featured in it a great deal. He wasn't the saint he (and the Bush administration) claimed. (Start reading the report on page 76.) What the report finds backs up what Karpinski has maintained all these years.



April 5th, retired Army Col and retired State Dept diplomat Ann Wright told Cindy Sheehan on Cindy's Soapbox that Janis Karpinski was made the fall person for Abu Ghraib. (Wright also spoke of how Karpinski fought back, like no one she'd seen do, refusing to be silent while the military did their 'investigation'.) Last week, Karpinski appeared on The Early Show (CBS) and repeated that the torture was brought in and not something the people serving under her came up with on their own. Samira Simone (CNN) observed, "She said was a scapegoat. She said she was just following orders. She said she was demoted unfairly. Now, retired Army Col. Janis Karpinski can say: I told you so. . . . Today, Karpinsi has found validation in a few Bush-era memos released last week by the Obama administration." While Ruth asks, "So are they going to restore her rank? They should. They busted her down when she was innocent," Babsie falsely smears the woman.



That's really all Babsie ever does. The next sentence is equally appalling: "Not to mention that the U.S. official ultimately responsible for managing the occupation of Iraq at the time was Condoleezza Rice." The buck stops with the person occupying the Oval Office. More importantly, the person under the president who would be in charge of Iraq would be the Secretary of Defense. At the time of Abu Ghraib, that was Donald Rumsfeld. Condi did not become Secretary of Defense after him. She did become Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is not over "managing" any occupation, Babsie. But, most importantly, when Abu Ghraib's torture took place and when it was revealed, Condi was the National Security Advisor. Of the US, not Iraq's National Security Advisor.



In other words, she was never an official "responsible for managing the occupation of Iraq" at any time during her White House career.



Babsie loves to 'create' facts. But, if you paid attention, all the creation went to attacking women. So it's past time Babsie was asked why she hates women so? Equally important is asking The Nation and The Progressive why they run Babsie factually challenged ravings?



The Nation ran that garbage and, click here for Google cache, you'll note they never ran a correction to any of Babsie's 'errors.' We zoomed in one paragraph, that's far from the only problem. The question is how did The Nation miss noting these obvious factual errors? Remember that the next time you read something at The Nation.

The Dumbness Hurts

Since the elections, we've seen Gloria Steinem and Kim Gandy called out for endorsing Barack Obama in the Democratic Party primary. No, they didn't endorse Barack. They endorsed Hillary but facts are facts and it's so much more fun to 'invent'!

Corn flakes



Why are some on the left so damn stupid? Because they're truly uneducated. They think they aren't, they think they are so smart that they apparently don't feel they need to do any of the actual work to be informed. Case in point: "Need I say that The Nation was one of the hopium pushers during last year's primary? But at least they didn't trash Hillary the way some others did.-Caro" That's the voice MakeThemAccountable and, lucky for The Nation, Caro's stupidity never will.



They didn't trash Hillary?



Is Caro unfamiliar with Betsy Reed's little screech against Hillary? With Laura Flanders' non-stop trashing of Hillary? With the one-two punch of John Nichols and Katrina vanden Heuvel when Barack made an ass out of himself in 2007 so they -- in one of the first illuminating moments of "the sun is green because we says so" power of the Cult of Barack -- attacked Hillary. (The squabble had seen Nichols squaring off with David Corn. Corn served him his lunch. At which point, Barack supporter behind the scenes Katrina vanden Heuvel disregarded the fact that, as editor and publisher for the magazine, it wasn't her place to say "X is right and Z" is wrong. She said Corn was wrong. Corn now reports and investigates for Mother Jones and The Nation has nothing to offer but bad columnists with bad musing.) Is Caro unaware that The Nation led the war against Hillary? Is she unaware that they began their 2008 presidential campaign coverage before the 2006 mid-term and that they printed one lie and smear against Hillary after another?



Has Caro ever read the work of The Two Aris? Does she not know the way they trashed Hillary?



Is she unfamiliar with the fact that Jeremy Scahill wrote a dumb ass article about Hillary and Barack not calling for an end to contractors in Iraq? An article where he REFUSED to attempt to speak to Hillary's campaign but spoke with Samantha Power (unnamed in the article) who explained Barack 'needed' the contractors if any US troops were to leave Iraq. Is Caro unaware that the article was 'updated' because Hillary did make a promise and so Jeremy did a second installment for The Nation where he again . . . attacked Hillary.



When you're that dumb, it doesn't just hurt you, it hurts everyone. It needs to stop.



Bob Somerby always teases out about how the war on Al Gore was started by the likes of vanden Heuvel and her ilk at The Nation. But he never really bears down on it. He never really takes these liars to task.



And they keep coming back, each election cycle, determined to do more damage. In "2008: The Year of Living Hormonally," it's noted that in 2003, John Nichols went on Democracy Now! and he predicted Wesley Clark wanted the nomination in order to lose, in order for the Democratic Party to lose, so that Hillary could win in 2008. Amy Goodman offered her own 'information' which was that Hillary would strong-arm people at the 2004 convention and force them to make her the nominee. John Nichols and Amy Goodman's fear and hatred of Hillary Clinton, their willingness to engage in right-wing crackery, was on display in 2003 so what the two pulled in 2008 is not at all surprising in retrospect.



And you can read that year-in-review (filled with links) to find out more of John Nichols lies and of the lies of his Nation magazine co-horts. You can find out how when Samantha Power was telling the BBC that Barack didn't intend to stand by his 16-month pledge (which he didn't stand by), John Nichols was distracting (and with lies -- claiming Hillary and Samantha were friends when they had only met once by Sammy Power's own words).



A magazine with a woman as editor and publisher (and with so many women in 'power' positions, as The Nation informed us) might be expected to call out the sexism spewing from MSNBC towards Hillary. Didn't happen. Katrina, to her credit, called out David Shuster's "pimping" remark. She was the only one who did (the magazine has multiple blogs, not just Katrina's). Katha, of course, confessed in one of her own blog posts that 'as a feminist,' she was doing the 'good thing' and not calling out sexism.





"Need I say that The Nation was one of the hopium pushers during last year's primary? But at least they didn't trash Hillary the way some others did.-Caro"



You need to say a lot of things, chief and foremost, "I don't know what the hell I'm talking about, I'm just blowing it out of my ass right now."



Bob Somerby spends forever on cable television. He hints from time to time that he's going to expose the sewer of Panhandle Media but he never does.



What's not being grasped here is that it was the one-note echo chamber of FAIR, The Nation, The Progressive, CounterSpin, Extra!, Democracy Now! and on and on that ripped apart Hillary and pimped Barack.



It was 'the women of The Nation,' Katrina's phrase, who ripped Hillary apart as a feminist, who repeatedly insisted she wasn't one. Every time women showed up for Hillary in a primary, it was time for The Nation to send out one of their so-called 'feminists' to explain how Hillary really wasn't one. "The women of The Nation" never called Keith Olbermann but they claimed to know all about feminism.



"Need I say that The Nation was one of the hopium pushers during last year's primary? But at least they didn't trash Hillary the way some others did.-Caro"



Did Caro ever read the primary and caucus blogging The Nation did?



The Nation needs to be called out for what they did. They are far from alone in needing to be called out. And Caro needs to grasp that if she's not informed on a topic, she doesn't need to weigh in. It is exactly this "Oh, it's The Nation, I don't read it, but it's The Nation, so it must have been good for the left and good for all of us on the left" which allows it to pull the stunt it does repeatedly.



Is Caro unaware that when nutty Barbara Ehrenreich wanted to trash Hillary for religious practices, she did it at The Nation website? She also did it at Aging Socialite's Cat Litter Box which is where Bob Somerby saw it and he offered this, "There ought to be a special circle in hell for hustlers like Barbara Ehrenreich."



And it ought to be right next to the ring of people who peddle stupid.

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, Ruth of Ruth's Report, Marcia of SICKOFITRADLZ, Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends and Wally of The Daily Jot. Unless otherwise noted, we picked all highlights.


Coming up


"Iraq snapshot" and "I Hate The War" -- That's C.I.'s Friday snapshot and Thursday night entry. Ty told us there was one vote's difference between the two as most requested highlight to those e-mailing in to this site (thirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com). We would agree so. We'd in fact, go even further and toss in some other snapshots. Which we in fact are doing.



"Iraq snapshot" and "Iraq snapshot" -- Tuesday and Wednesday's snapshots. Our picks for favorites of the week. In each of them, C.I.'s reporting on a Congressional hearing. You didn't read about those hearing anywhere else. [Ty note added Monday, 4-27, they meant C.I.'s Wednesday and Thursday snapshot, here's the link to Thursday's snapshot.] Except maybe . . .



"Subcommittee hearing" -- Kat attended Tuesday's hearing with C.I. and she, Ava and Wally attended the Wednesday hearing as well. Here she writes a few impressions of the Wednesday hearing.



Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Court-ordered" -- The media's lost but Nelson gets it in this comic by Isaiah. And at his own site, Isaiah dipped into the comic archives to highlight "The 'Fashionable' Condoleeza de Vil."



"Quick post" and "Diary entry" -- Betty's folks are visiting so we're all being cleared extra early. (Betty's folks should visit more often!) She explains some of her hopes and fears in these posts.



"Austism" and "Autism" -- April is Autism Awareness Month and Ruth did two posts on the topic to do her part.



"THIS JUST IN! STRUMMING HIS FATE!" & "Good thing he didn't face Simon Cowell" -- Cedric and Wally on Fidel's review of Barry.



"Fudge Brownies in the Kitchen" -- Trina ways in on the torture memos and offers an easy brownie recipe.



"Ban Ki-moon's homophobia" -- Marcia notices that while Ban Ki-moon issues statements of outrage over nearly every death in Iraq, he never expresses outrage over the murders of gay men. Never.





"The Harman trap," "Jane Harman" and "e-mails" -- Marcia, Stan and Rebecca. Rebecca kicked it off by answering e-mails. One was about Harman and Rebecca offered her take and asked C.I. for a take as well. The next day, Stan and Marcia offered their own. What they covered stands for all of us. Is charges are dropped or the transcript or wire tap is released, we might have something to say. Right now it is just unsourced allegations on something that, if true, would be criminal. We'll wait and see.





"We need prosecution" -- Elaine on torture.



""Matthis Chiroux," "clive james," "Clive Jones," "4274 killed since the start of the illegal war," "Iraq & Clive James," "The say anything Danny Schechter," "War widows" and "Clive Jones" -- the Tuesday night theme post. And questions came in. Ty passed some on. First off, what book did we drop at the last minute? A book of essays by Robert Fisk. Why? Turns out the Nation Books published it. We're not in the business of supporting Katrina. Second, who didn't want to participate? A number of you felt someone was opposed and most of you guessed Rebecca. We can't imagine why you'd guess Rebecca. The person who didn't want to do it was also the woman who got his name wrong. It is Clive James. In fairness to Ruth, Mike also went with Jones. Why didn't Ruth want to do it? She'd read a book she loved as part of our non-fiction theme and was eager to write on that. She did write on it and slid it over to Hilda's Mix.





"The pervs sniffing Eliot Spitzer" -- Marcia, she makes us laugh! :D Well said, Marcia.





"He doesn't understand the law" & "THIS JUST IN! THE LAW CONFUSES BARACK!" -- Cedric and Wally on Barack's inability to grasp things he allegedly taught. (Though Robert Gibbs recently snapped in a White House press briefing that Barry wasn't, in fact, a Constitutional Law professor. Maybe Gibbs was having another one of those bad days.)

Sunday, April 19, 2009

Truest statement of the week

The Obama mantra on crimes of the Bush administration since before he was elected has always been, “We're looking forwards, not backwards.” This is why people think Obama is arrogant, because he must think we are all idiots. Pointing out the logical absurdity of this statement is not enough when the intent is clear: Obama is arguing for immunity for his own continuation of the crimes he is trying to cover up.

-- Adam Kokesh, "Obama Looks Forward, Sees More Torture" (Revolutionary Patriot).
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
 
Poll1 { display:none; }