Spotlight: The Bush Commission Part 1

What do we call this spotlight? You know C.I. calls The Common Ills a "resource/review." So we can't call it a blog spotlight. We'll just call it a spotlight -- on an important organization doing work you should know about.

The Bush Commission Part I

When we first got there, the people that we were relieving, they gave us a training. They said that those who were in charge were three spooks. For those of you who don't know what a "spook" is -- a spook is someone who belongs in a highlly specialized unit. Could be CIA, perhaps FBI, civilian contractor, maybe special forces. Nobody knows who they are. They wear no name tags, no unit badges. They're basically untraceable. They go by codenames. The ones we had, for instance, were Rabbit, Scooter, the other one, I think, they called him Artie
[. . .]
When we were receiving this training we saw that there was this soldier who was yelling at the detainees telling them to stand up and sit down, telling them to turn around, to roll, to get up, to sit down again. And we asked how come these people understood? Because they did not speak English. And they said "Well if you yell at them enough, they're kind of like dogs, you yell at a dog enough, and the dog will get it. And its the same with these people. You just yell at them enough and they'll get the point."

The above is from Camilo E. Mejia's testimony to the Bush Commission conducting. Mejia gave that testimony in October. Huh? The Bush Commission just happened, right? This was the second of three planned hearings. The first was in October. The second was this month. In fact the verdicts for the second hearing will be announced this week: Thursday, February 2nd.

What's the purpose of the Bush Commission? It's a citizen's tribunal much like the World Tribunal on Iraq. It gathers testimony, it raises awareness. It does so without the aid of the press, in case you missed that. The New York Times hasn't been interested in covering the tribunal, but they weren't interested in covering the Bertrand Russell World Crimes Tribunal in 1967. If they had been, Americans would have been less shocked when ugly truths about Vietnam were later revealed.

Camilo Mejia, a name well known in this community, in the first hearings of the Bush Commission underscored this with his own testimony about what he saw in Iraq as well as in detailing his Conscientious Objector application:

In that application I spoke about the abuse of prisoners, I wrote about the abuse of prisoners, and this application was submitted to the commanding general of the 3rd Infantry Division which was in Ft. Stewart, Georgia. No investigation was conducted at that time. There was no Abu Ghraib scandal back then.

This is an echo of a time before, a time when it was possible to know what was happening but the press wasn't interested. Which is why we need to be interested. But to underscore a point Mejia made, let's note that Congress was aware of what Mejia saw. Their reaction (in the pre-Abu Ghraib days)? They "declined" and and preferred "to wait for the Pentagon to conduct an investigation."

So what do you gain by being aware of the Bush Commission? You gain information, you gain
insight and you raise your own awareness.

You know that Mejia testified, "We started conducting mission in cities. There's no such thing as a trench line in Iraq. This war is being fought in every corner of that country, not in the desert not in the vallies not in the mountains but next to schools, neighborhoods, mosques."

In the most recent set of hearings (January), independent journalist, Dahr Jamail testifited about "War Crimes and crimes against humanity in Iraq committed by US forces, acting on orders from their commander-in-chief, George W. Bush."

We'll focus on some of his remarks regarding Falluja because Dexter Filkins may have won an "award" but he seems to have missed everything that happened in his rah-rah reporting (a journalistic war crime).

Jamail: Collective Punishment. I'll use Falluja for the model city for Bush policy in Iraq. The US caused actions to be taken in Falluja in violation of the laws of war. For example,
targeting by snipers of children and other civilians, targeting of ambulances, the placement of snipers on the roofs of hospitals and prevention of civilians from getting there for medical attention and also illegal weapons used. Article 48 of the Geeneva Conventions states that the basic rule regarding the protection of the civilian population provides QUOTE "in order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects the party to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives." Article 51 on the protection of the civilian population provides "the civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law shall be observed in all circumstances.
It also notes the civilian populations, as such, as well as individual civilians shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited. It also notes indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. It should also be noted that the US military, again following orders from their commander-in-chief, declared the entire city of Falluja, a city with a population of over 350,000 civilians, a "free fire zone" meaning once that operation began in November of '04 anything in the city was to be targeted by the US military. [. . . ] It should also be noted that approximately 70% of the entire city of Falluja was bombed to the ground during the US assault on that city in November of '04 which left dead estimates of between four and six-thousand civilians. Water, food and medical aid were cut off from Falluja both before and during the seige of that city. This form of collective punishment, which I've seen first hand in Ramadi and Sumara as well has even led the UN to declare in October of last year that this was QUOTE "a flagrant violation of international law.

Barbara Olshansky, who testified at the first installment, focused on two areas in her testimony for the second round in January. Speaking of Alberto Gonzales' involvement in devising the torture loophole, she noted that:

What becomes torture in the eyes of the administration, if they follow this memo, is really only that which brings a person to the brink of complete organ failure and/or death. So everything that they know, in their mind that does not accomplish that end, is not torture. So even the water boarding torture technique where people think they are about to drown and it's done repeatedly [isn't torture] because from the point of the view of the intent of the torturer they know they are not about to bring about the immenent death or organ failure of the individual and so therefore it does not constitute torture. That is the understanding of that memorandum.

So are you interested? You should be.

Speaking on the first day of the second rounds of hearings, Michael Ratner addressed Bully Boy's signing statement of the torture amendment:

It makes three points and I'll paraphrase. First, speaking as the president, 'My authority as commander in chief allows me to do whatever I think is necessary in the war on terror including use torture. Second, the Commander in Chief cannot be checked by Congress. Third, the Commander in Chief cannot be checked by the courts.' There it is. There you have it. That boring stuff I learned, as a junior high school student, about checks and balances or about limited law or about authority under law? Out the window. Gone. In other words, the republic and democracy is over. In Germany, what did they call that? They called that "the fuhrer's law." Why? Because the fuhrer was the law. That's what George Bush is saying here.

Interested? Grasping the importance?

The Bush Commission is something that the community's interested in (and something some members have already been following). We're going to cover it it a series of installment. The plan was to do it in one entry but I'm running behind due to depression over Coretta Scott King's passing. So we'll focus on getting a series of entries up to explain the importance of the commission.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

bush commission
camilo mejia
dahr jamail
barbara olshansky
michael ratner
iraq

---

Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.

Blog Spotlight: Cedric on Coretta Scott King

Cedric shared his thoughts on the passing of Coretta Scott King which is more than The New York Times has done at present. From Cedric's Big Mix:

Coretta Scott King, 1927-2006

Civil Rights Icon Coretta Scott King, 1927-2006
The Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rev. Joseph Lowery and Herb Boyd reflect on the legacy of freedom fighter Coretta Scott King, the widow of Martin Luther King Jr.

That's from today's Democracy Now! and they did a strong job organizing it basically while they were on the air. Juan Gonzalez filled in for Amy Goodman who's somewhere overseas. They announced where but it's been a daze day due to the news of the passing of Mrs. King.

1927 seems so long ago and that may be due to the fact Mrs. King aged well. My cousin pointed out that Jack Nicholson and Jane Fonda are only a decade younger. (He pointed that out when someone trying to be silly on a sad day said, "Black don't crack!" No one was in the mood for yucks and ha-has today.)

It is so strange and distant to think of Mrs. King not being in this world with us any longer. I grew up hearing about her, reading about her and, honestly, kind of feeling her. There's a sadness that sort of falls today and it's really sad.

Dr. King was taken from us before people my age were even born but we had Mrs. King and she just always seemed like this smiling, kind giant, so strong and so comforting. They killed her husband and she still found her way to love the world. Growing up, I got angry and mad about Dr. King being assassinated and I'm sure she did as well. But she was just this ocean of gentleness.

You knew she could stand up to anyone and would do it. But she just radiated sweetness and kindness. I can't believe she's gone.

I looked at The Third Estate Sunday Review today because I knew she'd been brought up in discussions there and I found these two things in November.

First, "Five Books, Five Minutes:"

Rebecca: C.I., Elaine and I have all been joking back and forth with each other at our sites about books we give to each other. One book that C.I. gave me that I've always meant to read but never gotten around to was Alice Walker's In Search Of Our Mother's Gardens.
Ty: This was a great book. These are essays, the subtitle to the book is "womanist prose," and they are some outstanding essays. Like most people, I knew Walker's fiction. And we've read some of her poetry for discussions here. But this was my first time reading any of her essays.With a lot of writers, you read one genre and that's their solid footing. Walker's really able to work in various genres and do strong work throughout. My favorite was "The Unglamorous but Worthwhile Duties of the Black Revolutionary Artist, or of the Black Writer Who Simply Works and Writes."
Cedric: I'd agree that's a good one but for me the one that stood out was "Coretta King Revisted" due to Coretta Scott King's recent health problems.
Betty: I actually skipped that one because her stroke still saddens me. She's someone who's always been larger than life to me, someone to look up to and, since her stroke, the tears well up too easily so I took a pass on that essay. Her essay on Buchi Emecheta's Second Class Citizen was the one that had me thinking the most.


Second, a later "Five Books, Five Minutes:"

Cedric: One thing that puzzled me was why the host of the discussion between Malcolm X and Rustin wasn't identified except as "HOST"? I'm also wondering who you found yourself siding with in the discussion?
Jess: For me, it was Malcolm. I know his writing and his story, so I may have been filling in details that I wasn't able to with Rustin but I got the impression that Rustin grew more cautious with age.
Betty: I'd agree with that except for the issue of sexuality. That reads cautious today but for the time period, that is a big deal. And I'll add that he was known within the civil rights movment as gay and, in fact, within the nation since an arrest was used by a White senator to force Rustin out of the movement. But in terms of discussing his sexuality publicly, that's in the eighties. And it was a big deal.
Cedric: And you can say it still is a big deal because Rustin is one of the civil rights pioneer, very essential to the movement, and he's not someone that is stressed when you hear of the civil rights movement.
Betty: I'd agree with that. I'd add that it's part of our community's, I'm speaking of the Black community and directing the "our" to Cedric, refusal or reluctance to address the issue of sexuality and orientation. I think it's embarrassing. Of course some do address it. But we've allowed it to be a something that can turn against each other. Bully Boy's been able to use it with some Black churches, sexual orientation, to turn them against their own interests. In my church we had to deal with it, we had too many members and families of members who were dealing with AIDS. It's one of the healthiest things we've done. With the empahis on family in the Black community, I look skeptical at any Black person that tells me they've never met a gay or lesbian. They are in our families, they are in our churches and it distresses that a White Bully Boy has been allowed by some "Black leaders" to turn us against each other. There's some idiot. and I use that term by choice, Cedric's also heard him, his "sermons" get passed around in e-mails. And for someone so supposedly opposed to gays and lesbians, he sure knows a lot about gay sex and he sure seems to enjoy talking about it in terms that I can't imagine sex being talked about in my church.
Cedric: Yeah, that guy is an idiot. And every month or so, it'll pop up in an e-mail forward to someone in the office and they'll be giggling at it. They say, if you ask them, they're laughing at how stupid he is. Well that doesn't help the race either, flaunting ignorance. I really do not have respect for people who pass that around, either out of their own beliefs or to giggle over.Ty: And this goes to what erases Rustin for history and how a race whose leaders want to fuss and fret over language don't want to address serious issues. I mean, where is Bill Cosby on this issue? Where his speech on the need for us to embrace one another?
Betty: Exactly, you can list the leaders who've addressed this topic in any form and it's a small list. Coretta Scott King and Julian Bond would be on the list but a lot of other so-called "brave" voices wouldn't be. I like Jesse Jackson but I don't respect his opinions on this issue.Rebecca: Which is interesting that you cite him when Rustin cites him as one of the people working to turn MLK against him.
Ty: And it's forty years later and he still hasn't changed his tune.
Cedric: I don't know if Dona wants to call time or not, I know we've got Betty's pick still to do.
Dona: No, this has been an interesting discussion and we can extend. We actually have two more books.
Cedric: Well I'll make my comment and try to be brief about it. Some African-Americans are offended when sexual orientation is likened to race. And it's not just that. You heard some nonsense about "Cindy Sheehan is no Rosa Parks!" As though allowing someone else to build on a very powerful movement will erase Ms. Parks. It won't. It will only extend her reach and future generations' knowlege of her. I hear, everyone hears, modern day comparisons to George Washington or Thomas Jefferson or whomever. They become points of reference. I can understand the fear here because any minority group risks being stripped of whatever place in history they've earned. But while realizing that, we should realize that part of what makes Whites such a point of history, besides who got to draw it up, is that it is a short hand. Most people couldn't tell you where Thomas Jefferson was born. But they can use him as a point of reference. When the civil rights movement is used as a point of reference, I think it extends the movement, keeps it alive in history and increases knowledge. Otherwise it's going to be confined to one time, one period, one group and it will be ghetto-ized in terms of how history is taught. I'm thrilled that we have our African-American heroes but I want to see them be heroes for all. They fought as hard as anyone else and they are a part of American history. I was thrilled to hear some people calling Cindy Sheehan the Rosa Parks of the peace movement. I see it as a huge improvement over years of someone being "the Black __" who ever. We have heroic figures and their struggles are heroic. If they inspire people that's a great thing, regardless of race. The point of teaching Black History is to get it back into our understanding of history. It's a part of American history and hopefully it will be worked into American history more and more with each generation. I'm done.
Ty: I'll add that I agree with Cedric. I've attended predominately African-American schools and predominatley White ones. And I've seen a "Oh, it's Black history" type collective groan at some of the White schools. In standing up for her race, Rosa Parks stood up for a better nation.I didn't always hear that point in made in school.

If you were talking about civil rights then or now (and civil rights is still a battle to be fought today), you couldn't have much of a conversation without mentioning Mrs. King. She really was something special and that's going to have be it because this is upsetting to write about.

---

Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.

Blog Spotlight: Betty on NYT's continued editorial silence re: Coretta Scott Kin

This week, C.I. posted an entry by Rebecca in full. Due to the late hour and not wanting "to deal," C.I. e-mailed it to The Common Ills site. Which led to C.I. suggesting that we do the same to avoid all the nightmares involved in copy and pasting (all lines run together). So that's what we'll do tonight and hopefully it will work. (We do have a backup plan.) We should add that there have been problems with the Blogger website/program nonstop since Friday. Remember to check the mirror site for The Common Ills if they persist. We're going to try to do an edition despite the problems. This is Betty's latest. She wrote it on Friday and it wouldn't post due to Blogger's problems. It debuted at the mirror site tonight (see, you should check it) and an hour ago went up at her site. However, she's still having publishing problems and Blogger's still not working correctly for her site. Just FYI. C.I. adds another FYI. Betty wrote this on Friday. Saturday's New York Times continued the "sad tradition" of not one editorial or column devoted to Coretta Scott King or her passing.

The Pig Is Racism, The Pig Is The New York Times

Thomas Friedman, Gail Collins, Nicky K and all the rest can go to hell wearing a white sheet over their White heads.

Wednesday, Gail Collins phoned. She opened with, "How are you, Betinna, I'm not good. This death has upset me so. I'm questioning life and death, purpose and intent, da funk and da noise."
I replied that the death had destroyed me.

"Really?" Gail asked in a curious tone. "You knew of her?"

"I kind of think the whole word did," I replied more than slightly irritated to find Collins seemed shocked that a woman of so much meaning, so much passion, so much drive would be known worldwide.

"I knew her," Gail said.

"Was she as wonderful as she seemed?"

"Much more. You know she really changed people's lives."

"I know!" I agreed.

"Women are so often written out of history, Betinna. Their achievements minimized, their work overlooked. I've written about this topic in book form."

Oh, yeah. That. It reads like it's from the mouth of Cokie Roberts; however, that may be lending its superficial tone too much weight. However, the book is perfect for smacking the bugs that have been crawling around since Thomas Friedman decided that since "someone" was sneaking into his supply of canned cheese and Ritz crackers, he needed to hide them throughout the apartment. "Someone" is clearly Thomas Friedman, something he might realize if he stopped pointing the finger at me and used that hand to shake his ever increasing jelly belly.

"Well Wendy was a good friend," Gail said softly.

Wendy?

"Who's Wendy?"

"Wendy Wasserstein! Hello, she just passed away! Don't you read the paper!"

Oh yeah, I saw that. I saw that front page story on a playwright and the editorial Gail Collins wrote about her. She was big on "the theatre belongs to all!" and, as part of that strategy, she helped low income children, who were 'gifted & talented' see plays. It struck me as another White Ladies Who Lunch program. I mean, if you believe the theatre belongs to all and you really want to help low income children, what the hell are you doing going to the 'gifted & talented' set who will, more than likely, see a play at some point on their own if they want to?
Wouldn't the point be to show struggling students the theatre, to open them up to a new world?
The whole thing struck me as a bunch of overly groomed matrons wanting to reward the 'exceptions' -- not to share the theatre.

I remembered reading the editorial Gail wrote (and signed) and thinking, "Oh, that's how it works. If you're a friend of Gail's and you die you get an editorial."

Meanwhile, what struck me as nationally, globaly, important news was that Coretta Scott King passed away.

1) Coretta Scott King, 79, Dies
In Georgia, Coretta Scott King - the widow of Martin Luther King Junior - has died at the age of 79. She had spent her life fighting for civil rights and preserving her late husband's legacy. In April of 1968 she led a march through Memphis just days after Martin Luther King Jr. had been assassinated. Later that year she led the Poor People's March in Washington, D.C. She continued working for equality, peace and economic justice for the remainder of her life, both in the United States and abroad.

2) Civil Rights Icon Coretta Scott King, 1927-2006
The Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rev. Joseph Lowery and Herb Boyd reflect on the legacy of freedom fighter Coretta Scott King, the widow of Martin Luther King Jr.

I made the mistake of saying that to Gail. She sputtered, she raged and then she hung up.

And I waited. I waited for the editorial on Coretta Scott King. I waited for op-eds on her by the regular columnists (like the fat monkey Thomas Friedman). Surely Nicky K who's always acting like he's the only voice speaking out for injustice would note Coretta Scott King's passing. The woman gave her life to fighting injustice.

And surely Gail Collins, the feminist, would bring in some guest writers to note the passing of Coretta Scott King, right?

No.

On Tuesday, Wendy Wasserstein made the front page as a playwright who died of cancer at the age of 55. We're told "Her Plays Spoke to a Generation." Presumably a White generation and the same sub-set that Sex and the City speaks to and of. Did Wasserstein have any Black characters in her plays? While reading the long article, I felt like every minor actress (plus Meryl Streep) in Hollywood was listed. I didn't see any Black names. On the editorial page of the same edition, Gail Collins went on about Wendy for ten paragraphs.

Coretta Scott King made the front page on Wednesday for her passing. Now Coretta never wrote a play starring Swoosie Kurtz (who I last saw in the teen exploitation rip-off of Dangerous Liasons). Is it Mrs. King's skin color or is it that she was known for politics?

Here's Wasserman's politics:


"My work is often thought of as light-weight commercial comedy," she told The Paris Review in 1997, "and I have always thought, No, you don't understand: this is in fact a political act. 'The Sisters Rosensweig' had the largest advance in Broadway history," for a play (not a musical). Therefore, she continued, "nobody is going to turn down a play on Broadway because a woman wrote it or because it's about women."

Well gee, thanks for paving the way for Lillian Hellman, Jane Wagner, Lorraine Hansberry and assorted others who were there on Broadway, as playwrights who happened to be women, long before 1997.

Success as a political act? Well the paper didn't see it that way when August Wilson died. But maybe his plays couldn't be easily compared to Sex in the City? Maybe if they'd been accused of being "light-weight commerical comedy" and he'd replied, "No, my success is a political act!" the paper would have cared about him?

But I read the long article. The type usually reserved for a head of state, not a playwright whose best days were behind her -- and they were. When you define your power as "success" and when success (ticket sales) begins to fail you (as it did her in 1997), then you're not cutting it. Was failure also a political act? Did it prove that women couldn't be playwrights on Broadway?

There'd be no reason to compare the two women. One was politically and historically significant and it wasn't the one doing watered-down Philip Barry. But the paper begged readers to compare the two women by the manner in which they were treated. Wasserstein dies and gets a front page article and an editorial. Coretta Scott King dies and just gets a front page story.

That's really it. Wednesday the editorials were devoted to "The State of Energy" and "Westward Into War With the Soviet Novelist and Reporter Vasily Grossman." On the op-ed page, two guest writers wondered "Can junior management end the transit wars?" Two other guest writers wrote of "Russia's Sweetheart Deal for Iran." One guest writer wrote "The State of the Union: A Citizen's Rebuttal." Maureen Dowd wrote of whatever she writes about in that attempt at wisecracking-gun-moll she's so fond of (but Ann Sheridan and Eve Arden did it so much better) while Thomas Friedman, the pig, wrote of "Addicted to Oil." Try "Addicted to In Between Meal Snacks," lard butt.

That was the day Gail and I spoke so I expected that Thursday, Coretta Scott King would get an editorial or op-ed devoted to her because Gail, who sees herself as educated, would surely want to right a wrong, right? Wrong.

"When You Wish Upon A Merger" wrote one guest columnist of the earth shattering issue of Walt Disney. Davy Brooks wrote of "The Nation of the Future" which apparently requires no looking back to note a historical passing. Bob Herbert quoted Coretta Scott King (three and a half lines) and actually mentioned that she'd died in his final two paragraph (three lines devoted to her and MLK) in "An American Obsession" or, as I liked to think of it, "Not About Coretta."

And the editorials? "Hamas at the Helm" because anyone a darker shade than beige scares the hell out of the New York Times. "The March of the Straw Soldiers" dealt with Bully Boy's spying even though the reporting in the paper continues to treat it as a non-issue, head-scratcher. And "Seducing the Medical Profession" gave Gail the chance to do what she was hired for, to self-congratulate the paper. ("Reed Abelson reported in The Times on Jan. 24 about a whistle-blower's lawsuit . . ." Yeah, he saw the court docket and somehow that's brave reporting, Gail.)

I thought, "Well maybe Gail considers these important topics for editorials?" Then I saw "Oh, Oscar!" about the Oscar nominations. The Oscar nominations? The Times needs to editorialize about Oscar nominations? But has no time for Coretta Scott King?

"Oh, Oscar!"? Oh, Gail.

I was fuming. I was raging. Thomas Friedman was kvetching, "Who the hell knew I married Angela Dickinson!"

"Angela Davis!" I corrected.

"Oh yeah," Thomas Friedman snorted. "One played Police Woman, the other was hunted by the police."

I just stared him until he stopped laughing.

"Um," he said staring at the ground. "Um, it's, see it's funny because it's juxtaposition."

"And funny because a Black woman is the butt of the joke? Or maybe you thinking Blacks should be hunted down?"

Thomas Friedman retreated to his office where, no doubt, he continued surfing online for fake nudes of the male cast from Saved By The Bell.

This morning, Thomas Friedman hands me the paper and tells me I'll be happy with it today.

Knowing the New York Timid too well, I finish my coffee before opening and flipping to the op-eds and editorials. Editorials? Four. None on Coretta Scott King. Opinion pieces? Paul Krugman writes of the "State of Delusion" which does not cover the paper's own delusion that they're somehow inclusive. Thomas Friedman writes about Bully Boy (he's got a poster of Bully Boy in a onesie nailed to the bedroom closet door) and oil in "Will Pigs Fly" (sooner than Lard Butts, Tommy, sooner than Lard Butts). Graphic designer Barbara Blauber does "Op-Art" about judging books by their cover. (Why not judge papers by what they choose to cover?) And not one, but two guest columnists are brought in to write two separate columns on Pope Joseph Ratzinger who, for the record, didn't die.

I guess Coretta Scott King doesn't matter to the paper. I guess her passing doesn't matter. She's known globally at least as well as Mother Teresa was. She dedicated her life to fighting for equality and peace. She was known around the world as a leader and her husband was as well -- her husband who was targeted by the FBI and who was assassinated. She fought for civil rights, for women's rights, for peace. She fought against poverty, against homophobia. On the national stage, she was certainly as graceful as Jackie Kennedy and she never felt the need to draw the veil and retire from public service.

So I found myself wondering, "Exactly what didn't Mrs. King do? What should she have done to have her death noted by the editorial and opinion staff of the New York Times?"

At first, I thought, "Well she should have written a play length version of Designing Women!" But then I remembered how August Wilson's passing was down played.

Then I thought, "She should have befriended Gail Collins!" Because women with unibrows are too often the butt of the jokes. Gail Collins should not be laughed at for her unibrow. There are plenty of other reasons to laugh at Gail Collins, trust me.

Which left only one thing that Coretta Scott King 'forgot' to do: Be born White.

If Coretta Scott King had been born White, you better believe Gail Collins would have dashed off an editorial to her.

Just as that hit me, Thomas Friedman came lumbering in, grinning, and obviously pleased with himself.

"Did you see it, Betinna?" he asked beaming at me.

"You didn't mention Coretta Scott King, you fat jerk!" I snarled tossing a waffle at him.

I think his feelings were hurt. But it was hard to tell as he had lifted the hem of his shorty robe up to his face in order to lick off the syrup from where the waffle landed.

When he was done with that task, he pointed to his column.

"I've got my readers saying, 'You should have listened to your wife!' about Iraq! I mentioned you! A Colored woman. See I'm not a racist."

That's when I realized the pig is racism, the pig is the New York Times. Thomas Friedman, Gail Collins and the rest are just the sop that gets fed to the pig.

the new york times
the common ills
democracy now
coretta scott king
mlk
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
thomas friedman is a great man
thomas friedman
gail collins
racism

A Note to Our Readers

Another Sunday and it ran pretty smoothly for a change. We missed Rebecca's participation. But otherwise, it was a pretty smooth edition. We think that's in part because people had very tight schedules outside of the edition and we stayed focus.

Let's start with the obvious, Ava and C.I.'s latest TV feature, "TV Review: Crumbs or Morsels?"
Prepare to laugh. We did when we read it and didn't expect the left turn in the conclusion. It's an Ava and C.I. piece because of those left turns. By the time we were reading it, C.I. had already bailed. So we have only Ava's word on this, but this was the review that they had the least time to discuss (let alone write after discussing -- they watched the show while on the phone together but hadn't even compared notes until right before they grabbed time to write it) and it was also the easiest to write.

(If C.I. has a different opinion, we'll note it next week. We'll also note that in a piece last week when we jokingly repeated C.I.'s comment in jest about our book collections, the books that made the feature weren't being insulted. C.I. was, jokingly, making fun of how sparse our collections were, not insulting the books that we were able to include. A number of e-mails came in asking about that.)

What else you got? What else you want?

All features for this edition, with the exception of the TV review, were written by:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim;
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man;
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review;
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills);
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix;
Mike of Mikey Likes It!;
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz;
and Wally of The Daily Jot

The State of the Union is TUESDAY [see note added]. That led to us noting a few states as well. "State of the Democratic Party" addresses the disappointment that the party was in 2005. "The Campus Report" provides a look at some of the political moods at colleges. "The real State of the Union Address" is what Bully Boy would say if he had any honesty. (Confession's good for the soul, Bully Boy.) We also offer up "Music soundtrack: Hair" which wasn't the Broadway musical whose soundtrack we were planning on reviewing. But readers assumed it was and were very excited by the prospect. Why musicals for our music piece (we're intending to do at least two more over the next few months)? Because Kat doesn't review them and doesn't intend to. Why try to do contemporary music when Kat does it so well? So we'll be reviewing at least two other musical soundtracks.

Leaving music, we return to a "State of the Uninformed." We want to be clear here, C.I. wasn't sure that we were in the article, we love Laura Flanders. We think she hosts a wonderful radio program and is smart, funny and insightful. We hated one guest. We hated him because he didn't seem to want to engage. He seemed to want to do his own talking points and didn't appear too interested in Flanders' questions or, even, to be listening to her at times. We also didn't like that he repeated false spin (the same nonsense Bill O'Reilly recently trotted out).
We listen to RadioNation with Laura Flanders (we'll be listening tonight when she has on Dave Zirin, among other guests), we love the show. Our criticism is directed at one guest, not at Flanders who attempted to engage the guest but he didn't seem to interested in a conversation. (He did seem really interested in pontificating on his book.) C.I.'s not participating in this note because it's back to speaking about the Alito nomination but C.I. had expressed concern about the feature and how it might be read. So let's clear that up. We love the show, we love Flanders, we listen each weekend. We didn't care for a guest who didn't seem to engage or know his facts.

What's left? "Editorial: Will the Dems Stand Up or Stab Us in the Back?" We really like this editorial. We weren't sure how it would go. C.I. had exactly thirty minutes before bail time. Ava and C.I. did the TV review and then joined us for the editorial (already in progress). Ava made some suggestions and we knew we wanted to end with NOW's action alert but we were honestly stuck. Tick-tock, tick-tock. "Oh for God's sake, this is Shampoo!" C.I. said. Huh? "It's the big scene where Jill and George officially end it." We're still going, "Huh?" while C.I. asks Ava (C.I. and Ava being the only reliable note takers) to "take this down" and then dictates a portion of the scene. "Gotta' go."

Will it work? We're skeptical (and we've all seen the film and enjoy it tremendously). Then Ava types into it into the editorial and we see it. It's like the entire piece was working up to that point. Will the Democrats be faithful to the base? They haven't been thus far, not the "leaders."
We think this is our favorite editorial of the year. Jess dubs it "organic."

Hopefully, you'll find something to enjoy, something to scream about, something that makes you think. We'll see you next weekend.

-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava

C.I. phoned and asked, "How tired were you?" Real tired. The State of the Union is Tuesday (not Monday as this originally stated) and there are protests. From The World Can't Wait:


TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 8pm EST:
In large cities and town squares across the country, we will rally one hour before Bush's address. At 9:00 PM let the world hear us as we symbolically drown out Bush's lies bring your own noise - drums, pots and pans, musical instruments - your voice. Let taxi horns blare and church bells ring, as we bring our own state of the union message: BUSH STEP DOWN!
Find a protest in your area.

Easiest way you can get active. Do it.

Editorial: Will the Dems Stand Up or Stab Us in the Back?

So we go through the e-mails this week and one stands out. Sharon, 21 years-old, lives in Nebraska. Sharon's got a job, she's got college classes, she's maid of honor at her best friend's wedding (two weeks away) and she really doesn't have "time to waste."

She wrote about how she believes in reproductive rights, supports reproductive rights and is sick of the Democratic Party backing away from the pro-choice position, she wants a filibuster, "but what's the point? They're not going to do it."

What's the point? That's actually a good question.

We don't know Sharon's exact time schedule but we do think it's worth letting as many senate offices as you can call on Monday know that you want a filibuster.

Here's why.

We believe in the filibuster as an option to be used by the opposition party (that includes when Republicans are once again in the minority). We believe in using the filibuster on the Alito nomination.

Do we believe that senators will use the filibuster for this?

Some of us are hopeful, some of us are guarded and some of us are flat out disgusted with the party's "leaders" and don't think there's a chance of a filibuster.

But we're all doing our part to insist upon a filibuster.

Is that because those disgusted are such good friends of the others that we'll freely give of our time for something we doubt will happen? No.

It's because the base is calling the leadership out. The people are saying filibuster.

What's the party going to do?

We know what they should do, fight. Listen to the base's cries of "Fight!" and fight.

We believe in fighting for what you believe in. We believe in standing up.

And we also believe in knowing who won't fight.

If the Dems don't filibuster, the spineless will be on full view.

We'll know they can't be counted on.

There's a scene in Shampoo where Goldie Hawn's Jill confronts Warren Beatty's George on his infidelity throughout their relationship.

JILL: So who else was there besides Jackie? Huh? . . . huh?
GEORGE: Baby, don't do this. I do love you.
JILL: Obviously there were others, weren't there?
GEORGE: Obviously.
JILL: How many?
GEORGE: What do you wanna know for?
JILL: I just want to know, that's all.
GEORGE: What difference does it make?
JILL: I just want to know while we were seeing each other . . . I just don't want girls looking at me and knowing and me not knowing . . .
GEORGE: Baby, please don't . . . I love you.
JILL: I don't want to be a fool! . . . I want to look them in the eye and say, I know!
GEORGE: Baby, don't do this --
JILL: -- it'll help me if you'll tell me.
GEORGE: -- please, baby --
JILL: -- no, it'll help me, really --
GEORGE :How?
JILL: I'll know you've lied to me . . . all along. I'll know you're incapable of . . . love . . . that'll help me . . . not now, but eventually.

(From the script by Robert Towne and Warren Beatty)

That's really where we are right now. The loyal voters are Jill. We've been willfully blind to what's gone on (and continues to go on) behind our backs. We've believed the sweet talk. We've accepted the excuses.

Why demand Democrats filibuster? Because you believe in reproductive rights. Because you believe in standing up. And because you believe in knowing the truth. It'll help you. Not, if they take a dive, the morning after, "but eventually" (as Jill says). It will open our eyes.

Early in Shampoo, Jill has an offer for a modeling job that will take her to Egypt. She's interested in the job but putting her life on hold because she thinks George is with her, by her side. When she realizes that George is in it for George, she takes the modeling job and gets on with her life.

Knowing who will fight and who will cave will help the loyal base get on with their lives too. It will certainly make it easier to toss those mass mailings begging for donations into the trash without a second thought. It'll make us rightly skeptical of certain Dems who, when they campaign for president in 2008, speak of how they will fight for us.

What it will be is a very revealing moment.

We hope it doesn't come to that. We hope the Dems filibuster (and we hope the filibuster is successful). But it's time to call them on it one way or another. It's time to know if they're going to fight or continue to roll over.

Need help getting active? We'll note this from NOW:


Support the Filibuster - Defeat Alito
After all your calls, emails and action, two senators are taking the lead in defeating ultra-conservative Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass) are organizing the filibuster of Judge Alito and they need the support of 39 other senators in order to block a straight up or down vote.
Please make as many phone calls as you can before Monday at 4:30pm, when Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist will call for a vote to end debate on Alito. Of the self-proclaimed women's rights supporters in the Senate, more are announcing public support for the filibuster every hour. Hillary Clinton and Dianne Feinstein have just signed on in support, and more of those who have offered private support need to give it publicly. Others are on the fence, and need to hear from us that their support for women's rights is hollow unless they back the filibuster and vote NO on cloture.
NOW has put together a list of senators (self-described women's rights supporters) who need our firm encouragement to come out publicly and join the filibuster (and some, like Chafee and Snowe, haven't even said they'll vote NO on the nomination!).
Remember, without a filibuster, Judge Alito WILL be confirmed. In a straight up or down vote, we need 51 "NO" votes to defeat Alito, but in a filibuster, we need only 41 votes to block Frist's effort to end debate.
We've asked for a lot from you over the last few months, and together we've made great progress—just a week ago a filibuster seemed out of the question! Now that we've come this close, we need your help with this final push. If Judge Alito takes a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court—replacing Justice Sandra Day O'Connor—all of our hard-fought rights are in danger.
Please call one or more of the Senators below, especially if you live in their state (click on the Senator's name for district office numbers). Please share this alert widely and ask friends to join the fight!
Senators to call (list as of 1/27/06 4:30pm) - an updated list is available on our website:
Mark Pryor (D- AR)
202-224-2353
Blanche Lambert Lincoln (D- AR)
202-224-4843
Ken Salazar (D- CO)
202-224-5852
Joseph I. Lieberman (D- CT)
202-224-4041
Thomas R. Carper (D- DE)
202-224-2441
Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D- DE)
202-224-5042
Bill Nelson (D- FL)
202-224-5274
Daniel K. Akaka (D- HI)
202-224-6361
Daniel K. Inouye (D- HI)
202-224-3934
Tom Harkin (D- IA)
202-224-3254
Barack Obama (D- IL)
202-224-2854
Evan Bayh (D- IN)
202-224-5623
Barbara A. Mikulski (D- MD)
202-224-4654
Carl Levin (D- MI)
202-224-6221
Mark Dayton (D- MN)
202-224-3244
Max Baucus (D- MT)
202-224-2651
Byron L. Dorgan (D- ND)
202-224-2551
Robert Menendez (D- NJ)
202-224-4744
Frank Lautenberg (D- NJ)
202-224-3224
Jeff Bingaman (D- NM)
202-224-5521
Charles Schumer (D- NY)
202-224-6542
Lincoln D. Chafee (R- RI)
202-224-2921
Patrick J. Leahy (D- VT)
202-224-4242
Maria Cantwell (D- WA)
202-224-3441
Patty Murray (D- WA)
202-224-2621
Herb Kohl (D- WI)
202-224-5653
John D. Rockefeller, IV (D- WV)
202-224-6472
SUPPORT NOW:Support NOW's Work for Equal Rights Join NOW Shop Online Member Benefits
LEARN MORE:NOW.org TheTruthAboutGeorge.com NOW News Releases
TAKE ACTION:Get Involved Legislative Action Center Find Your Nearest Chapter Tell a Friend

[This editorial was written by The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim; Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man; C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review; Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills); Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix; Mike of Mikey Likes It!; Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz; and Wally of The Daily Jot.]

TV Review: Crumbs or Morsels?

Nobody explodes like Jane Curtain. The pressure builds, she contracts bodily and, just when you don't expect it: Boom!

Though too often overlooked, she's one of the original Not Ready For Prime Time Players (Saturday Night Live). Contrary to conventional wisdom, she did do characters. And that went beyond the Coneheads. She was "Mrs. Loopner" (Ined Loopner) with an accent, a humped over posture and a fully developed character. But a lot of the time, she used her own voice and no character make up, so her contributions are frequently not noted. One of her most prominent skits was as the Weekend Update anchor (she soloed as well as co-anchored). It was there that her comedic skill at explosions first drew attention. Exploding at Emily Litella or, later, Roseanne Rosannadanna, you only forced your laughter to stop in order to savor Gilda Radner's reaction to the explosion. (Radner played both Litella and Rosannadanna.)

Movie stardom's always a tricky thing. And movies haven't been interested in starring SNL women. Some would argue it's the box office returns. They'd do well to check out the returns on some of the males who starred repeatedly in films that failed to turn a profit. Curtain's shot at movie stardom came with How to Beat the High Co$t of Living. She provided laughter, alongside Susan St. James and Jessica Lange, in this caper comedy. And that's really pretty much it for movie stardom.

Fortunately, she's always had a home on TV. In the seventies, that was at Saturday Night Live for the first five years (to some, the best years). In the eighties, CBS reteamed her and Susan St. James for Kate & Allie. Though often overlooked, the sitcom was a success, lasted six seasons and helped dispell the "Death of Sitcom" talk. (Yes, kids, though your water cooler critics fail to tell you, we've been through this all before.) In the nineties, she returned to NBC -- in prime time! -- with the hit series 3rd Rock From the Sun (which also lasted six seaons). Now, in this decade, she moves over to ABC with Crumbs.

There's a tendancy on the part of the some to downgrade what Curtain does. An assumption, by some, that she just plays herself repeatedly. That assumption ignores the fact that she's known for her sense of privacy and "introvert" is the word that many feel best sums up the actress. Onscreen, Curtain usually doesn't play introverts. It also overlooks the fact that some of our finest TV comedians played more or less the same character in various sitcoms. (Lucille Ball, for starters, and, after you note Ball, you really can rest your case.)

In Crumbs, Curtain plays Suzanne. Suzanne's starting life over. Her husband left her for a younger woman -- who's pregnant, one of her children died, and Suzanne had a nervous breakdown. She's now out of the mental institution (where she had an affair with an orderly) and trying to cope. The therapy group of divorced women didn't help her too much (though it was hysterical watching her squirm as one woman shared and shared and . . .) so she ended up joining a crystal meth rehab group (they had better snacks).

If any of that strikes you as funny (and it does us), you should check out Crumbs (which currently airs Thursday nights on ABC). Crumb is the family name. William Devane plays Billy Crumb and you really, really want to hate him, but Devane manages to make you care. There two sons are Jack, played by Eddie McClintock, and Mitch, played by Fred Savage.

Savage, of course, starred in the Wonder Years and some gentle souls are shocked by the fact that Mitch is a gay character. Oh, get over your shock and ignore the obvious, the way you did all those years you enjoyed Mr. Belvedere.

Jack and Mitch are at odds. Jack runs an eatery and Mitch has returned from Hollywood where he was a screenwriter. Was. If Mitch's nature runs more the along the lines of Devane's laid back style, McClintock plays Jack in such a way that he truly seems like the son of Curtain.
Jack's rage is always on a simmer (in an amusing manner because McClintock, unlike Seth Green, can act) and ready to boil at any moment.

Mitch is your designated tour guide. But, to compare Crumbs to a similar show, unlike CBS' Out of Practice, the people behind Crumbs know what to do with their young male lead caught in the middle. Mitch isn't just observing, he's providing funny moments (moments Christopher Gorham could provide -- and Out of Practice is on hiatus while they attempt to deal with some issues, the problem's not the cast). Savage has enough weight that he doesn't come off as whiny when he plays scenes that others would turn into vintage Woody Allen. Such as when Curtain suprises him one morning by bringing the paper, and herself, into his bedroom. "Oh look, Morning Wood" says Curtain to an embarrassed Savage. (She's referring to getaway, avertised in the paper, named Morning Wood.)

The difference between Out of Practice and Crumbs is that, while both programs have strong casts, Crumbs has talented writers. When a sitcom fires on all cylinders, it's a pleasure to sit back and enjoy. Sandwiched between Dancing With Stars (or whatever the "BBC production" is called) and Prime Time Live, Crumbs lacks the reinforcement that a strong lineup could provide. Teaming it up with Life According to Jim and other sitcoms would be a smart move.

After we watched My Name Is Earl last week, we felt as if all the life had been sucked out of us. Flipping channels, we happened to catch the last ten minutes of Crumbs. It restored the laughter. Was it a fluke? Not at all. How good is the show? So good that our "research" was confined to hunting down whether or not ABC still intends to stand by it? (Some offer an optimistic "of course!" but we're more inclined to believe a friend in programming who stated, "When has ABC ever stood by anything?")

So who knows how long the show will be on? You'd be smart to catch it next week -- when Devane experiences a career change.

Currently, Devane's character is attempting to get his massage license (he's many hours short).
His career path's about to change. Will it be good for the show?

Possibly, but wanting to provide "trend stories" like all the other lucky guys and gals who went to Water Cooler U, we're a bit sad by the change because it may mean no more massages for Mitch. While watching Thursday, we realized there was a trend story emerging in this season. Fred Savage and others have been able to do what Ben Affleck couldn't, make body hair fashionable.

Call this season: the Year of the Furry Pecs. That's right, stop the waxing, chest hair is the new trend. Fred Savage is sporting it, two of the Four Kings are sprouting it (Josh Cooke and Todd Grinnell), Michael Weatherly of Navy NCIS isn't afraid to let his hair-shirt fly, it's here a sprout, there a swirl, everywhere a tuft, tuft.

How could the water cooler set fail to note this mind blowing development. An entire sub-industry of the body waxing could be about to go under! And what are the implications for the WB! Yes, it's merging with UPN but what will they have to offer without their freshly plucked boys? And what impact will it have on the body wash operettas? We'd hate to think they might wash down less easily now as a result of hair clogs.

Who will cash in on the new trend? We shudder at the thought of Burt Reynolds schilling for chest wigs just to make a few quick bucks, but it may come to that. The implications boggle the mind. If men stop waxing, might women realize that the little, Hitler-like mustache so many now sport, below the waist, is both comical and disgusting? Might Ingas and Lucindas across the nation have to find other forms of torture by which to work out their own frustrations?

We don't know. We just know it's a trend. 2006: The Year of the Furry Pecs.

State of the Democratic Party

Lethargic and lost. That characterizes the Democratic Party today. Howard Dean's passionate speeches are a thing of the not so distant past. Yes, even Dean seems like he's taking heavy doses of Lithium. Or maybe, while no one was looking, there was an Invasion of the Lieberman People?

It's as though the spirit of dissent is silenced from Bully Boy's ass to Joe Lieberman's mouth and then throughout the rest of the party.

2004 seems a lifetime ago. During the campaigning, we heard lots of big talk about fighting and standing up and then came election day. We're supposed to take comfort, to hear some spin it, in the alleged belief that John Edwards was opposed to the ticket throwing in the towel and that Edwards had serious questions about the Ohio vote. It's funny because we don't remember him standing with Barbara Boxer or Stephanie Tubbs Jones. What's the point of concerns if you don't express them publicly?

We've seen a few individuals in the party speak out such as Boxer and Tubbs Jones, Barbara Lee, John Conyers. Lynn Woolsey and Maxine Waters. We've also seen a lot more than we'd care to see of Ben Nelson who seems to be understudying Joe Lieberman's role in the party (useless idiot) in case Lieberman loses his Senate seat.

Hillary Clinton seems to be both inspiring & studying Geena Davis' Commander-in-Chief character to prove just how macho she is. Lately, you get the idea that if Bully Boy went wobbly, Hill would be perfectly happy to take a few Green Berets to Iran and kick some butt all by herself. We get your point, Hillary, a woman can be anything a man can be. You've demonstrated that a woman can be as vile, as craven, and as sicken with the blood & war lust as any man. You're what the industry trades used to call "a break through." Now that you've broken hopes and dreams could you quietly exit the stage?

How does a Democratic get good mainstream? Not by taking brave stands. The Gang of Fourteen (killing the filibuster in their own right) found Dems and Republicans working together praised by the mainstream press. It was almost a McCain moment for the mainstream press as they gushed over the hybrids. Dems seem to have internalized that and seem to think that the press is on their side. Like the battered spouse who tells herself things really will be different now, spineless Dems cover up their bruises and force a smile.

The truly brave get ignored publicly and, by the way, is there any reporter at Newsweek who can utter John Conyers' name without a facial grimace? Seriously, is there one reporter at the publication that can? And when did it become so fashionable for reporters (not op-ed writers or columnists) to flaunt their political bias?

Though some wanted to tell you that it wasn't happening, 2005 was the year the Democratic Party turned away from the strong support for reproductive rights. Remember the uproar over Hillary's remarks early in the year? Well, there really wasn't that much of an uproar. In fact, there was more of an uproar over people calling her out for (yet again) repositioning herself. "Hillary's always been there for reproductive rights!" was the response to those who dared point out the obvious. Still think so? As Hillary goes so goes the conventional wisdom of the party.

2005 was the year Bill Clinton made nice with Poppy Bush and denied even knowing of the Downing Street Memos on David Letterman (long after everyone was talking of them -- and Bill's always had his ear to the grapevine). Hillary's main office in New York struck a similar pose when constituents phoned in asking that she speak out on DSM. Callers were repeatedly asked what they were speaking of? Apparently not only had Hillary not heard of them, but her staff suffered from a severe short term memory loss.

Nancy Pelosi seemed shocked when protesters greeted her recently demanding that she stop voting to fund the occupation. But, she argued, if we didn't fund it, then what would happen? The troops would have to come home, Nancy. And you're smart enough to know that.

What's the biggest Democratic name providing any hope/leadership/sense of direction? Al Gore. The man the party and the press have disowned. We can't figure out if he's "the outsider as insider" or if it's the other way around. But you don't get the idea that Gore wakes up each morning wondering what pollsters are pushing as "electable" that day.

Want to know what Hillary and similar Democrats fear most? That Al Gore will run for president in 2008. They know they've burned bridges. They also know that Hillary can't really debate Al in a public forum the way she can others. What's she going to call him on? One of her husband's policies?

Al Gore, our elected but never sworn in president, isn't offering mealy mouth fine tuning. He's sounding alarms over and over. That's leadership.

We're not sure what to make of John Kerry's late call for a filibuster. Is it genuine? We don't know. We'll watch closely to see what follows. It packed more punch than any of John Edwards fuzzy talk. He still seems convinced that he can play it like he's "The Man from Hope" and that, if he could pull that off, the country's in the mood for a retread at present.

Those inside the Senate wanting to be President (including Russ Feingold and Ron Wyden) really haven't led the way. We've seen each come out strong an issue but we haven't seen leadership. We haven't seen a strong desire to break from the pack and speak truth to power. Time and again, it's been left to Al Gore to demonstrate how much America lost out on when the Supreme Court decided that they were more important than voters in an election. There really were differences in the two major parties in 2000.

If the Democrats had any guts, they'd have Al Gore deliver the rebutal to the State of the Union speech Tuesday. But instead they're still stuck in the myth that "values voters" decided the election (and loathe to address the realities of the Ohio vote). The fact of the matter is that the votes (counted) didn't provide Bully Boy with a "mandate" (unless, possibly, Bully Boy meant some evening plans he had with Jeff Gannon).

For those who've forgotten the tallies were:

Bully Boy: 62,040,610
Kerry: 59,028,111

That's not a mandate, that's not a landslide. That's a close election. The totals should have led Democrats to strengthen positions and winning platforms. Instead, they acted as though the party was in crisis. They rushed to hop on the non-existant "values voters" bandwagon.

A record turnout was ignored and those who had supported the Party were pushed aside as Dems postured and preened. Women voters , who consistently provide the Party with the largest number of votes, found themselves dismissed the same way the party dismissed union members and African-Americans before. Though the party membership is overwhelmingly pro-choice, the anti-choice Harry Reid was made Senate Minority Leader. A slap in the face to the voters and a strategic mistake since Reid has shown no desire to impose party discipline himself (as he all but bragged to Elsa Walsh of The New Yorker while also revealing that on the use of the filibuster he consulted Karl Rove).

A further slap in the face came when telecommunications lobbyist Simon Rosenberg nearly was installed as DNC chair. "Man of the people" Slimey Simon was known for making public noises about the need to address the Hugo Chavez problem (Chavez is a "problem" for non-libs), for being trained by mentors like Joe Lieberman, for his failure to address issues pertaining to African-American voters and for his sudden discovery (post-election) of Latino voters. (With which he attempted to stab John Kerry in the back -- "period." -- only to have his claims refuted when the data he based his claims on was disproven.) It's no real surprise that Simon slimed on over to the telecommunications industry after he wasn't installed as DNC chair. It is amazing that he managed to fool so many for a short time.

But the people rallied. And if there's one consistant sign of hope in the Democratic Party, it comes from the people not the media designated leaders. The people got behind Howard Dean and told the Party loudly and clearly that they weren't taking a Lieberman protegee. The people sent out the message that they wanted the troops home when pols were still talking "fine tuning." The people embraced Cindy Sheehan despite the efforts of many to water down her position (and claim that she wasn't for bringing the troops home now). The people marched and rallied throughout 2005. They included Dems, they included Greens and even some conservatives. That's an electorate that could win national elections.

But the Democratic Party wasn't interested in that potential electorate. Instead, of addressing issues like universal health care, they mistook themselves for clerry and not lawmakers. 2005 was the year of Republican-lite for the Democratic Party as the attempted to ape the Republican Party as closely as possible. They took a dive on the confirmation of John Roberts and they seemed to think they could take another dive on Samuel Alito. The people weren't having it. So the Party's staging a fight in some form. (We'll soon find out how sincere they are.)

Does the Party have any goals or objectives or just a severe case of 'vangical-voters-envy? The answer may emerge in 2006.

The Campus Report

This week, C.I. twice noted the mood on campuses. Since you've got a number of college students (Ty, Dona, Jim, Jess, Ava, Wally, and Mike) working on each edition, Kat visiting one campus to speak to students and C.I. going all over the country, we think we can offer a little more insight than gas bags from NPR or the Sunday chat & chews.

What's the mood of the country? The "mood"? Have you mistaken us for Adam Nagourney? We're a diverse nation and that's reflected on campuses.

You do have two poles, one on the right, one of the left. In the middle, you have students who don't generally participate in politics for a number of reasons including, for some, lack of time to follow the twists and turns of the nation.

From the right, those of us who are students can recall at least one "Okay I'm worried" moment this week. We've all encountered it as someone who disagrees with us in every class on every issue felt the need to approach and reveal serious concerns about the Bully Boy's warrantless spying.

The Why We Spy spin (nod to Amy Goodman for coining that phrase) must be aimed at the center of the population because it's not going over well with conservative students who've followed this developing story. Some feel that Bully Boy had the right to do what he did but cloaking it in spin weakens his case. Like Bully Boy, they favor a system with less checks and balances. Some have been truly concerned since the use of the NSA to spy on Americans was revealed and had hoped that Bully Boy, when he started talking, would provide some reasoning.

"Conservatives do not back this policy," one conservative student leader stated. "This goes against everything we stand for and is the sort of thing Slick Willie would pull."

Yes, the right still loathes Bill Clinton even though some of them were 12 and 13 when he was last in office. If you're expecting that the converse is true, that those students on the left are cheering Bill Clinton, you're mistaken. Those who even bother to mention him speak of their embarrassment that he fails to speak out against the war and on any number of topics. Is Hillary Clinton his proxy?

If so, she is spoken of. It's not good. She's seen as backing off reproductive rights, she's seen as a war supporter, she's seen as someone who will say and do anything to become president. We're speaking of the way she's viewed here and this isn't from whispered conversations as one person approaches (or, in three cases, where conservatives actually made their statements against Bully Boy's spying to an entire class, and good for them). There's no prompting needed in the New York area, she's topic number one. Around the country, she's a popular topic as well and on the verge of the kind of negatives only Joe Lieberman could possess.

Who is popular? Al Gore. Forget Bully Boy's Why We Spy campaign, the most talked of speech is Al Gore's MLK address. The facts are fuzzy for some students who aren't old enough to remember a great deal about Vice President Al Gore, but they do remember he supported Howard Dean, they do remember he spoke out against the war, there's a vague awareness of his new network, and there's the MLK address.

Will he run in 2008? If the presidential primaries were held today and decided by the students, he'd be the one to win the nomination. We're honestly surprised by the way he's been adopted by so many students. But it goes to the point that people want to see bravery and they want to see leaders who stand up. At this point in time, Al Gore's the one. For most people, he's the only one. That has a lot to do with a mainstream media that ignores the work of people like Barbara Lee and John Conyers. They ignore Gore as well, for the most part, and it's at their own peril. Ask for an example of media bias and the most cited example in recent times is the clampdown, the refusal to cover Al Gore's speech by the mainstream media.

The media? If you're not Democracy Now! the score card's not good. As a student in North Carolina stated, "The only thing I can count on the mainstream for is to make a mockery out of reporting."

Which goes beyond Al Gore. Democratic Senators should know that they are loathed on the left for not immediately advocating a filibuster of Samuel Alito. If it's any comfort, the mainstream media is loathed more.

What's happening on campuses, is that people are realizing that the media didn't do their job. Again. The media failed to explore Samuel Alito. Some can point to strong editorials after the hearings, but before the hearings they did soft coverage failing to examine the nominee's record.

As Senate Dems shrugged and said "Oh well," this became a big topic on campus and has caused the sort of enthusiasm we haven't seen on any issue other than the war. It's approaching the election fever in the lead up to the 2004 elections.

The moods? Wavering support of the Bully Boy by some conservatives due to the NSA warrantless spying. (Again, we've heard some speak against the criminal nature of the program and we've heard some complain about Bully Boy's soft sell/spin.) On the left, strong disappointment in the Democratic Party (intense anger might be more accurate). And those who are apolitical due to temperament or circumstance? That is, after all, what the press focuses on (and the bean counters in both parties), so where are they?

They're coming to the left. They're opening with, "Explain to me how that man [Alito] can be a sure thing for the Court when he's opposed to Roe v. Wade."

Students who were uncomfortable with participating in an anti-war rally months ago are now asking if there's a rally, any rally, coming up. They're wanting to know what they can do.

The mainstream media looks down on "activist journalists" but they've activated a healthy portion of the youth of this country with their superficial reporting on Alito.

The mainstream media that couldn't cover the Downing Street Memos is now all over Oprah Winfrey's book club (front paged on The New York Times Friday). And they wonder why they have less viewers, less readers, and declining faith and trust from Americans?

Democrats may be tempted to see all of this as a win. "Well, our side's rallying! This will be good in 2006!" "Our side"? Maybe if you're Al Gore. If you're one of the weak willed Democrats that can't speak against the war or utter the word "impeachment," you'd probably be better off realizing that you're seen as about as useful as a Greenpeace sticker on a S.U.V.

2006 should be the year of the Easy Win for Democrats. (Electronic voting machine issues set aside.) But 2002 should have been that as well. And it wasn't. It wasn't because Democrats failed to distinguish themselves from Republicans.

"We agree with them on all the topics but here's how we'd handle the situation" was the theme of 2002. That didn't work out too well but somehow a number of people missed that and what we're hearing thus far is a repeat of the losing slogan.

"What does it take for them to stand up?" asked one sophomore, the frustration in his voice clearly evident.

There is real disappointment and anger over the so-called opposition party's lack of opposition to one power grab after another, one lie after another on the part of the Bully Boy.

Students are tired of waiting for leadership that never comes. And they're taking ownership of their power instead of waiting for the Democrats to decide what's easiest to do.

On Tuesday, The New York Times noted this (buried in Eric Lichtblau's "Gonzales Invokes Actions of Other Presidents in Defense of U.S. Spying"):

More than two dozen students in the audience responded by turning their backs on Mr. Gonzales and standing stone-faced before live television cameras for the duration of his half-hour speech. Five protesters in the group donned black hoods and unfurled a banner, quoting Benjamin Franklin, that read, "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

The same day Democracy Now! covered it with the scope fitting of news:

AG Gonzales' Defense Of U.S. Domestic Spy Program Draws Protests and Criticism from Law Professors, Students
On Tuesday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appeared at Georgetown Law School to deliver an address defending the NSA domestic spy programs. During the course of his address, nearly 30 students stood up one-by-one and turned their back on Gonzales in protest. A panel of law professors addressed Gonzales' speech, calling it illegal. We play excerpts of Gonzales' speech and law professor David Cole responding. [includes rush transcript]

And Saturday, Laura Flanders interviewed one of the protesters, James Lyle, on RadioNation with Laura Flanders. Lyle, a second year law student, was part of the group that turned their back on Gonzlaes.

Lyle noted that the protest was put together in less than 24 hours. (Lyle himself found out around five p.m. that Gonzales would be visiting the campus the next morning.) A group of people got together to brainstorm because they realized the visit wasn't for the law school, "it was for the media," a photo-op to get the Georgetown logo behind him to make it look like the law was behind him. Lyle noted that Gonzales was flustered by the protest but continued reading from his prepared text.

Noting that "national security" is repeated over and over in the Why We Spy spin, Lyle compared it to the constant invoking of the mythical WMD in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq.
On campus the reaction to the protest has been "overall" favorable and we're not surprised by that. As Lyle noted, "We're facing a Constitutional crisis . . . Unlmited war powers, unlimited war," and the nation doesn't look like the country we know.

Lyle's remarks reflect one of the moods on campus. It's a growing mood that was strong before but has only grown stronger as Bully Boy's found himself in yet another scandal and as the press has been busy spinning "Sure Thing Alito" since day one.

Lyle noted that there was support on campus for dissent "but the media really doesn't support it." (More information on Lyle's group can be found out Stand Up For The Law.)

On campus the center is pooling/flowing to the left. Though Cokie Roberts wrongly stated the youth had no impact on election 2004 (we'd call her a liar but that would imply that she'd done any research or reading before spouting off in the midst of her bad gas attack), the youth turnout in 2004 was huge. If Democrats wish to benefit from that, they're going to have to learn how to stand up.