Toxic Barry

Last Sunday, he thought he still had power.



That's when he breezed through Massachusetts knowing -- just knowing -- he could pull out a win for Martha Coakley. (Coakley's problems started when she got too close to Barack.)

Like everything else he does, it was half-assed and too late.

And Scott Brown ended up winning shocking a media that had long ago become the Cult of St. Barack.

Now his 'health care' plan (BigBusinessGiveAway) is dead. And it's so dead that Norman Solomon could actually speak out against it last week.

Now he's having to work really, really hard on his upcoming State of the Union speech.

He's toxic.

He's already cost two governorships in the last few months and now a US Senate seat.

He's so toxic that everyone is laughing at a certain in-the-tank for Barry blogger who is now e-mailing people she banned two years ago asking them to please consider posting comments at her site again.

That little blogger dumped Hillary the minute she realized there was money to be made in the Cult of St. Barack. How very telling that now she realizes she can't make anymore money singing "Loving You" to Barry.

The ground didn't shift when Scott Brown won. It had already shifted. In fact, that's partly why he won.

The change -- the real change you can believe in -- was that the media saw a sucker draining them and decided they'd work less hard to hype him.

There is no such thing as rape (Ava and C.I.)

There is no such thing as rape.

Now before you rush to dash off an angry e-mail to us (Ava and C.I.), take a breath and grasp we're not making that argument, NPR did.



We firmly believe that rape and rape victims exist. We know they exist. We know women and men who have been raped. We also know that rape isn't "sex."

So we were appalled to learn that rape really doesn't exist as we listened to Morning Edition on NPR Friday -- specifically to this segment (link has audio and transcript).

The story was about what punishment film director Roman Polanski might or might not face for criminal actions in the seventies while in the United States. Criminal actions?


Renee Montagne introduced the segment explaining "a ruling [. . .] may put an end to the long-running sex case." Karen Grigsby Bates did a little better (not much) by explaining in her report that Polanski is "guilty to having had sex with an underage girl" over thirty-three years ago.

Grigsby Bates then brought on Loyola Law School professor Laurie Levenson. If Levenson said rape during her interview, it was edited out before broadcast. Grigsby Bates then noted that Polanski's attorneys portray "him as a victim." Robin Sax was then brought on as a legal expert but she also wasn't broadcast using the term "rape."

For over three minutes and thirty seconds, NPR repeatedly took a rape and turned it into "sex."

At Women's Web, Linda Lin explains the basics:

Rape has nothing to do with sex. Rape is purely an act of violence and control. Plain and simple, violence and control are the key goals of most rapists. The criminal wishes to control the victim and, most times, the criminal exerts that control through violence or threats or both at once. Only once one realizes that rape has nothing to do with sex can one finally come to understand what rape really is. Rape has never been about sex. When you hear a rapist claim that the act of rape was sex or consensual sex, right off the bat, you can pretty much guess that the criminal is fabricating a story. Rape is not about sex. Rape is not sex. There is nothing sexy at all about rape, and anyone can fall victim to it. Rape does not discriminate on the basis of physical appearance, clothing, nationality, age, religion, ability, status, class, or nationality. Rapists are criminals and they will rape anyone that they want to rape. However, there are things that you can do to lessen your chances of being that next victim. There are no guarantees -- just preparations and warnings.

Those are the basics but the basics repeatedly prove to be beyond the media. Over two years ago, Jennifer L. Pozner (Huffington Post) was decrying the media's refusal to grasp the difference between rape and sex:

On Thursday, in response to an unfortunately-headlined crime story, I wrote a blog post at WIMN's Voices titled, "Seriously, editors, how have you not gotten this yet? "Rape" is not "sex":

I am seriously tired of writing articles, op-eds and blog posts -- and arguing with reporters, editors, and cable news hosts -- about the journalistic responsibility to not describe non-consensual, criminal sexual assault as "rape" or "sexual assault," not simply "having sex."

And now it's our turn to point it out. Now we're not following the Polanski coverage, we skip it in the paper. If this hadn't aired on NPR, we'd probably be unfamiliar with it. But there it was Friday on NPR: Rape is sex.


After three hours and thirty seconds -- which included making the time to play a movie clip, Grigsby Bates finally ended her report with this, "A public outrage that a man who plied a 13-year-old girl with alcohol and drugs and then raped her might get off with only a few days served. It could all be decided today. Karen Grigsby Bates, NPR News."

It is rape. If you don't get that it's about power and not about sex, grasp that a young girl was given both booze and other drugs. Grasp that even after being drugged, she still said "no" -- repeatedly. It was rape.

And people will continue to confuse rape with sex until the news media makes real efforts to stop minimizing one (rape) by pretending it was the other.

Iraq

Last week, the Iraq Inquiry continued in London and, for a change, NPR actually included it in their top of the hour news headlines.

Monday, Jonathan Powell (Tony Blair's Chief of Staff) told the committee that it was shocking that there were no WMDs in Iraq. And if that wasn't the most embarrassing moment, it was only because Sec of Defence (2001-2005) Geoffrey Hoon testified Tuesday and explained really, it was the US' fault -- that whole war thingie -- because, you know, 9-11, it was just so big in the US and there was just this huge support for war as a result.

Iraq was not responsible for 9-11 and there was not huge support for going to war with Iraq. Hoon was a complete liar.

In the US, most are aware of the various lies that Bully Boy Bush used to sell the illegal war. In England, Tony Blair was fond of declaring that Iraq had WMD which they could launch on England in 45 minutes. (The Inquiry has already established that this assertion was known to be false prior to the start of the Iraq War and that Tony Blair should have been informed of that if information followed the chain of communication. Whether it did or not is a question the committee should ask Blair when he appears this week.) So when the Permanent Secretary Security and Intelligence Coordinator (2002 to 2005) testified, this was probably the most interesting exchange.

David Omand: I would interpret that as meaning people saying there isn't enough intelligence in substance, but this isn't going to look very convincing if we are not allowed to show more of it. That's my personal expression -- explanation of why, as it were, people fell on the 45 minutes. At least that was something the Secret Service would allow to be used. With hindsight, one can see that adding a bit of local colour like that is asking for trouble. But we didn't really spot that at the time.

Ormand declares of the 45 minute lie, it was "a bit of local colour."

Thursday the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (2001-2006) Jack Straw testified. It was a I-can't-believe-he's-saying-this-in-front-of-people moment. He claimed UN weapons inspectors had finished their inspections before the Iraq War started (they hadn't, they were forced out when Bush announced the war would start), he claimed "WMD" really didn't mean "Weapons of Mass Destruction." It just meant "missiles" and it was used by mistake. (Repeatedly used but no one challenged Straw.) Chris Ames (Iraq Inquiry Digest) attempted to fact check Straw's fact free testimony. Straw was so comfortable lying, he even cited a reference who could vouch for him -- one who couldn't. As Channel 4 News' Iraq Inquiry Blogger explained, "Odd too when Straw appeared to suggest that the panel take evidence from the late Robin Cook to confirm how he -- Straw -- had always insisted the war only proceed after parliamentary debate."

The Liberal Democrats issued the following after Straw testified:

"Given his central role and all we know about Blair's support for Bush's regime change plans, Straw's claim seems implausible," said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Foreign Secretary.

Commenting on Jack Straw's appearance at the Iraq Inquiry, Edward Davey said:

"Jack Straw's insistence that he used his 'judgement' rather than solid proof of the existence of WMD is a weak defence of his role in this disastrous war.

"Given his central role and all we know about Blair's support for Bush's regime change plans, Straw's claim seems implausible.

"It is clear that he is desperate to distance himself from Tony Blair's unrepentant belief that he would have got rid of Saddam whatever it took.

"Jack Straw's testimony today also shows that there is no problem with serving Cabinet ministers appearing before the Iraq Inquiry. There is no obstacle to Gordon Brown appearing before the General Election to talk about his role as Chancellor in the run up to and during the Iraq War."

Shortly after that was issued, Gordon Brown leaked that he would be appearing before the committee before England held elections. Friday's hearing began with the following statement from the chair.

Chair John Chilcott: Before I begin, I should like to make a short statement. The Iraq Inquiry that sits before you is an independent committee, dedicated to establishing an account of the UK's involvement in Iraq between 2001 and 2009 and learning lessons for governments facing similar circumstances in the future. Now, from the outset, we have made it clear that we wish to stay outside party politics. Ours is a serious task and we wish to collect our evidence in a way in which our witnesses will be open about what happened and give their evidence fully without the hearings beging used as a platform for political advantage by any party. It was for this reason that my colleagues and I made a decision announced before Christmas, that we would not call ministers currently serving in posts relevant to Iraq until after the election. The Prime Minister wrote to me earlier this week to say that he was preapred to give evidence whenever we saw fit. In my reply to the Prime Minister yesterday evening, I said that, as a matter of fairness, the committee concluded we should offer the Prime Minister, if he wished to take it up, the opportunity for him, for David Miliband, as Foreign Secretary, and Douglas Alexander, Development Secretary, to attend hearings before the general election. The Prime Minister replied to me this morning to say that he will be happy to agree dates from a range we have proposed over the next two months and this correspondece is now being published on our website. Thank you.

Chilcot apparently intended to break the news and he and the committee were not pleased that Brown had leaked the news the night before. Graeme Wilson (The Sun) explained, "The inquiry is believed to be furious that the move was revealed by No 10 sources before a planned announcement today." David Brown (Times of London) also noted the anger, "An exact date for the Prime Minister's appearance is yet to be set and sources said that members of the inquiry were absolutely furious that the information was released by No 10 before its planned announcement today. They complain that Downing Street is turning the invitation, which was extended by the inquiry in a letter last night, into a political issue."

The banning of candidates continued in Iraq but that's the topic of an editorial so we'll turn to last week's violence. Sunday 4 Iraqis were reported dead and four injured; Monday 11 were reported dead and 10 wounded; Tuesday no one reported dead or wounded; Wednesday 6 were reported dead and 11 were reported wounded; Thursday no one was reported dead or wounded; Friday 1 person was reported dead and 6 were reported wounded; and Saturday 3 were reported dead and 6 wounded. That's 24 reported dead and 39 reported wounded.

Thursday, the US military announced: "CAMP VICTORY, Iraq -- A U.S. Soldier assigned to United States Forces - Iraq died of non-combat related injuries as a result of a vehicle accident, Jan. 20. The Soldier's name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin. The names of service members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense official website [. . .] The announcements are made on the Web site no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member's primary next of kin. The incident is under investigation." The announcement brought the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4374.

The war on Social Security

Last week's "Editorial: The Haiti Distraction," included this: "The slashing of Social Security is being proposed (here for NPR's audio and transcript) and the left slept through that as they continued their drum beats for Haiti."

Did you use the link?

Did you find out about Senators Judd Gregg and Kent Conrad? The love slaves of Peter Peterson who drools at the prospect of finally doing away with Social Security. With Peterson pulling the strings, Conrad and Gregg want to set up the Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action.

December 15th, CNN reported, "CNN has learned President Obama is seriously considering an executive order to create a bipartisan commission that could weigh sweeping tax increases and spending cuts to popular programs like Social Security and Medicare in order to try slash the soaring federal deficit." Yesterday, Jackie Calmes (New York Times) reported US President Barack Obama publicly gave his support to the creation of a commmission and a Congressional vote is expected as early as Tuesday.

Where was Panhandle Media last week when they should have been alerting you, when they should have been sounding the trumpets?

Same place they were January 16, 2009: Nowhere. They ignored Barack's statements then as well. From that day's "Iraq snapshot:"

Turning to US politics, President-elect Barack Obama met with the Washington Post editorial board yesterday. Here for Michael D Shear's text article, here for the sixty-one minute audio. Warning for those listening to the audio, Barack's speaking abilities have not magically improved. Sample: "Uh, obviously military service is uh something we uh honor as a country [. . .] That's going to be something that we uh uh . . ." And four minutes, for those wondering, he takes his first swipe at African-American fathers. Yes, it's Barack singing all his well known tunes. And mixing in a few new ones such as, "It's not something I've said publicly . . . but spending money wisely is not easy." Mostly, the interivew will be remembered as the one where Barack declared War on Social Security. Barack's replied to questions and made vague statements. But, his Love Cult insists, that's just the Nice Guy Barry trying to make nice and get along. He doesn't want to say, "Stupid crooks, Social Security is not going to be chipped away!" Well, actually he does want to say that and he did say that. [. . .] He begins talking about his big "Fiscal Responsibility Summit" that will be held in February and include a motley crew that will "talk about waste." He then segues into Social Security during this response (at approximately 16:14) and states the following:

We're also going to have a discussion about entitlements and how we get a grasp on those. Uh and uh, you know, like i think everybody here is familiar enough with the budget problems to know that as bad as these deficits that we're running up over the next -- that have already been run up -- have been and despite the cost of both TARP and the stimulus, the real problem in our long term deficit actually has to do with our entitlement obligation and the fact that historically uh if our revenues ranged between 18 and 20% of GDP they're now at 16. It's just not sustainable so we're going to have to uh craft a uh what George Stephanopoulos called a grand bargain and I-I try not to use the word grand in anything that I say but uh but we're going to have to shape a baragain. This, by the way, is where there are going to be some very difficult choices and issues of sacrifices and responsibilty and duty are going to come in because what we have done is kick this can down the road. We're now at the end of the road and uh we are not in a position to kick it any further.

Those are right-wing talking points and only the most historically ignorant of Barack's Love Cult will fail to grasp the declaration of war.

But they refused to call it out then and they were awfully silent last week as well.

Go Gidget!

Uninformed Boob Juan Cole -- a War Cheerleader at the start who has been repeatedly allowed to revise his own 'historical' record -- declared last week that the Iraq War was over and that Barack Obama had won it.

Who knew the Princess from Hawaii had won a war?

There's been a change
Down by the sea
Since the Gidget went
To Waikiki
Cause when the Gidget goes Hawaiian
She goes Hawaiian all the way.
-- written by Stanley Styne and Fred Karger, performed by James Darren on the soundtrack of Gidget Goes Hawaiian


Well let's hear for Barack and his manboobs.

Juan Cole says he's ended the Iraq War.

But, thing is, Barack's not done s**t.

Even if you believe that, at the end of 2011, the SOFA (as presently written) will not be replaced with another agreement and that US troops will leave Iraq, there's still the fact that the SOFA . . . not Barack's plan.

George W. Bush is responsible for the SOFA. Barack wasn't president when the SOFA was rammed through the Iraqi Parliament.

Barack's done nothing.

He hasn't even kept his campaign promises. (Anyone remember his promise to withdraw one brigade a month as soon as he was sworn in? Twelve brigades should have come home. Despite Juan Cole's whoring ass, that hasn't happened.)

Juan Cole is uninformed boob whose position on the illegal war has shifted here, there and everywhere.

Our favorite Juanie moment will always be when, on CounterSpin (back when it was worth listening to), Steve Rendall nailed Juan on his revisionary tactics re: Iraq.

The Futility of Norman Solomon (Ava and C.I.)

Last week, Norman Solomon showed up on KPFA (Thursday's The Morning Show) and he was almost rational. He didn't spit on people and he wasn't hyping Barry O.

If you only half-listened, you might think he could be welcomed back into the house. But if you really paid attention, you grasped that he's still not house broken.

When a caller floated the idea that, with the most recent round of all the broken promises from the Democrats, maybe it was time to focus on building a new political party, Norman immediately dismissed it. To his credit, he didn't promote his organization (PDA) in the heavy-handed manner he usually does, but he did insist that the answer was to elect "progressives."

He insisted that the idea of a new party just wasn't feasible and that it had been kicked around forever. Instead, what needed to be done, Norman explained, was to "change the party from within."

And Philip Maldari didn't object (and the caller was off the line).

Normy shot down a new party saying that idea had been kicked around forever and wasn't feasible. But he wants to work on changing the party from within?

Though many may not know this, that's been the plan forever and a day. Back in FDR's time, he big tented and many Communists and Socialists hopped on board (not all) with the plan that they would change the Democratic Party from within. During Vietnam, the "New Left" was convinced that they could, yes, change the Democratic Party from within. People tried in the eighties, in the nineties and today.

It's actually been tried continuously, seriously and repeatedly for at least seventy years.

By contrast, a viable third party or new party has not had the same efforts or imagination applied.

We're not saying anything Norman doesn't already know.

And there's a lot more Normy's not saying.

For example, seniority rules in Congress. What does that mean?

Let's say that, over the next five election cycles, PDA managed to get 20 "progressives" into the House. Those are newbies. They won't be put in charge of committees.

But they can vote!

Uh, we saw that health care vote. Just like we saw the appropriations votes for funding the Iraq War.

Meaning?

We hear the big talk, see the press releases issued, watch people chew the fat with Amy Goodman and then?

And then watch them slink in for the vote and . . . do . . . exactly what Nancy Pelosi tells them to.

Want us to get on board with putting more PDAs in Congress, Norman? Then encourage the ones that are in Congress to give us a reason to send in reinforcements.

Until then, Norman can keep hopping his high horse but, reality, the caller was right and Norman's response was less than honest.

The Revolution will be streamed?

Revolution magazine ("Voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA"), is attempting a viral effort:


The REVOLUTION is real. Watch it. Spread it.
revolutiontalk.net, youtube.com/revolutiontalk

In the video, Bob Avakian covers a multitude of topics including police brutality, sexism, rape, history, imperialism, etc.

If you're a Communist, you'll probably enjoy the talk. If you're not a Communist? You need to hear the talk. You need to hear it to get another take on the issues. You may find yourself nodding along in agreement with many things (we did) or you may find yourself in disagreement. If it's the latter, good. It's good to know what you don't believe in and not just what you do.

And regardless of where you are on the political system, it is good to hear from an unapologetic Communist, from one who refuses to hide in a political closet. The US is only as vibrant as its people. When we all try to be the same (or to pretend we are) we do get conformity but we lose out on innovation.

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, Ann of Ann's Mega Dub. and Wally of The Daily Jot. Unless otherwise noted, we picked all highlights.

"I Hate The War" -- Most requested highlight of the week, C.I. on the demise of Air America Radio.

"Iraq snapshot," "Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Ft. Hood," "Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity," "Iraq snapshot," "Armed Services Committee Hearing on Fort Hood" and "US House Armed Services Committee" -- C.I., Kat and Wally report on Congressional hearings they attended. As Trina likes to point out, there is real reporting going on.

"Know the facts, Philip Maldari," "Out-FM, Joy of Resistance," "Social Security's attacked but news stays on Haiti," "Saturation destroys compassion," "Lila and Medea: Two old whores in love with war," "The constant sexism of Terry Gross," "Paul Krugman may do something maybe possibly," "Morning Show," "Philip Maldari leaves The Morning Show" and "KPFA doesn't like American People,"
"Homophobic KPFA," "Ron Jacobs, please, please" -- Media criticism from the community.

"Ego Mania vs. the United States" -- Isaiah dips into the archives.

"In Massachusetts, the view's far different than in... ," "Suck on it, Barry," "Toxic." "Scott Brown is the winner!," "Bad news served over Kool-Aid," "THIS JUST IN! BARRY O SOBS IN HIS KOOL-AID!" "Still buzzing,""The Democrats have a spine!,""Congress needs to get to work,""Health 'reform' and the happy Edwards couple" and "Brown's victory" -- Community coverage of the Senate race last week.

"John V. Walsh, Lance Selfa" and "Heroes (Wally)"-- Mike tackles Chuck and Wally, filling in for Rebecca, tackles Heroes.


"How does it smell down there, Jon Meacheam?" and "THIS JUST IN! THE ASS KISSERS!" -- Cedric and Wally on where Jon Meacheam stands.

"Gamer" -- Stan offers Friday night at the movies.


"THIS JUST IN! THEY REALLY DID DESERVE EACH OTHER!" and "Those lying Edwards!" -- Because some people are such a joke, Wally and Cedric don't have to work that hard.