From Ruth's Public Radio Report, her coverage of Law and Disorder

We're highlighting this section from Ruth's latest Ruth's Public Radio Report.  (If she needs a break next week -- and she may -- we'd be perfectly happy if she just covered Law and Disorder.)  For the full report click on the link.  Here's our excerpt:

 

Friday, Willie Brown was executed by lethal injection in the state of North Carolina. Mr. Brown's case and the death penalty were discussed on WBAI's Law and Disorder Monday with Sue Gunawardena-Vaughn who is the Director of the Program to Abolish the Death Penalty for Amnesty International USA.

Mr. Brown's history of mental illness was not addressed in the trial nor were witnesses brought into court that could have countered the prosecution's case. "His attornies did not present any of this" mental illness history "as a mitigating factor," Ms. Gunawardena-Vaughn explained. Brown's jurors were given improper instructions as well. In terms of their decision, they were told that they must all agree on mitigating factors which brought up the issue of mitigating and aggrevated factors that co-host Heidi Boghosian suggested they define. Thank you, to Ms. Boghosian for that because I was treading water as a listener at the point and sure I was about to go under. As I understood it, listen to the episode, a mitigating factor is a detail that should allow for a lesser sentence. Mental illness and child abuse were given as examples and Ms. Boghosian put them under the easy to understand umbrella of "human factors." These are factors that add to the total picture of the crime. Aggrevating factors, again as I understood it, were issues such as torture, rape, etc. Another factor is "future dangerousness" which would suggest that the person charged, if found guilty, commmitted the crime in such a manner or with a pattern, that, in convicting, these factors needed to be noted such as whether remorse is shown, the number of victims, etc. My mind immeditately went to the Tate-Bianaca murders. Certainly, a seriel offender, murderer, rapists, etc, would have the issue of future danger raised in their case.

The issue of medical ethics was raised due to the fact that the lethal injection is not as "tidy" as people are led to believe. As more doctors have become aware that it is not necessarily a painless procedure, some, such as in California, have stated that they will not participate. Judges are now ordering that a doctor participate.

After the discussion, the hosts explored aggrevating and mitigating factors in further death.
Jurors are told "your decision is not final, there can be appeal after appeal," Ms. Boghosian noted, which can confuse the issue and leave a jury with the impression that they are not, in fact, making a final decision. In addition, they are not briefed on all the findings they may make such as life without parole. Michael Ratner brought up jury disqualification and how, in jury selection, you start out with a huge pool that gets "funneled" into a smaller pool which favors execution since you are excluded from the jury if you are someone who says that you are opposed to the death penalty "until by the end you're getting people who favor the death penalty, and then you're getting a series of factors that actually hit them over the head and say 'Give this guy the death penalty.'" Michael Smith offered that it was not all that long ago when they used firing squads in Utah. Other forms such as electrocution and gas chambers were moved away from as well because they were seen as brutal. The idea is that lethal injection is more "humane." Which is why the courts are ordering doctors to participate and some doctors are resisting because lethal injection is not the smooth procedure that people are led to believe it is.

For more on this discussion, you can read Mike's "Law and Disorder, Nepal, Guantanamo and more" which includes a rare example of Hillary Clinton being pressed on the death penalty issue by a journalist. Cedric's "Law and Disorder addressed PBS and Armenia" does a wonderful job of covering the segment on the show where the genocide in Armenia was discussed.

Charlie Hay-Mestre, member of the board for the Center fof Contitutional Rights and a civil rights attorney in San Juan, Puerto Rico spoke of an issue C.I. and Ava have been writing about in the round-robin: Puerto Rico after the assassination of Filiberto Ojeda Rios. Eddie e-mailed that this was his favorite segment of Monday's show. "Domestic terrorism" is the cover for what is going on in Puerto Rico and this has come about in the post-9/11 period. "I'm getting a sinking feeling, Charlie, that what's happening to people down there could be happening to people in the United States next," Michael Smith stated.

Mr. Hey-Mestre: It's very frightening because essentially what's going on is A shift in the use of this apparatus of the federal government to quell dissent and to use the boogey man of terrorism to persecute political minorities. That tactic will be transferrable to many organizations and we've seen what's happened with warrantless searches, electronic searches in the states which is really on the front burner of the ongoing debate about whether that's legal -- this is another aspect of the same tactic.

Which lead to the last guest, Shane Kadidal of the Center for Constitutional Rights, and Sara Miles co-wrote an article with Mr. Ratner that goes into the background. Mr. Kadidal noted the Center for Constitutional Rights case attempting to determine whether or not the government has been listening in to attorney-client phone calls. FISA and other laws regulate privaliged calls. To "prepare an aggressive defense," innocence until proven guilty are among the reasons for the privilege. As Ms. Boghasion and Mr. Kadidal pointed out, the result is that lawyers must think twice before addressing sensitive issues in e-mails or phone calls. Mr. Kadidal noted that in reply to written questions from the Senate, the Justice Department refused to rule out whether or not they were listening in on lawyer-client phone calls.

---

Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.

Blog Spotlight: Cedric addresses fluff and Hawaii

Cedric addressed the things that become popular conversation when they're pushed nonstop by the corporate media, Hawaii and much more.  Watch for the second part of Amy Goodman's interview with Stephen Kinzer this week on Democracy Now!

 

Hawaii and we're overrun with Fluff

Did you catch "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq" on Democracy Now! Friday? That's the first of a two-part interview. The second part will air sometime next week. If you missed it, you can listen or watch online and you can read a transcript of it online as well.

If you need an overview, here's a piece from the opening of the interview that sets up the topic really well:

AMY GOODMAN: Well, you are looking at 14 coups that the U.S. was involved with. What was the primary reason for the U.S. government's involvement in overthrowing other countries' governments?
STEPHEN KINZER: A lot of these coups have been studied individually, but what I'm trying to do in my book is see them not as a series of isolated incidents, but rather as one long continuum. And by looking at them that way, I am able to tease out certain patterns that recur over and over again. They don't all fit the same pattern, but it's amazing how many of them do.

I always start with the assumption that everyone in the room knows more than I do, so most people are probably aware of the history of Hawaii. I wasn't aware of any of it. I was reading Maxine Hong-Kingston's The Fifth Book of Peace and came across a point that puzzled me. So I asked for clarification (which we all need to do but a lot of times are too afraid to so we just nod and act like we know). Well this was covered Friday on Democracy Now! and it ties in to current news plus it's something that you may not know about. (I honestly didn't until last month). Here's one of the sections from the interview about Hawaii:

AMY GOODMAN: The queen called in ambassadors from other countries for help?
STEPHEN KINZER: The queen was a little bit shocked by all this, as were her cabinet ministers. In fact, they appealed to the United States and asked, "What instability is there? Who's in danger? Tell us, and we'll protect them." The queen had about 600 troops at her disposal. That was the whole Hawaiian military force. And her cabinet ministers actually called the ambassadors from foreign countries in Honolulu -- there were about a dozen of them then -- and said, "What should we do? Do you think we should fight the Marines?" And the ambassadors quite prudently told her that that would be foolish. "You should just accept it and then try to regain your throne by some other means." That never proved possible. But even then, it was clear to the ruler of this small, weak country that there was no hope in resisting U.S. military intervention.
AMY GOODMAN: It still took a few years before Hawaii was ultimately annexed.
STEPHEN KINZER: It's a very interesting story. Immediately after the revolution, the revolutionaries went back to Washington and, sure enough, President Harrison, as he promised, submitted to the U.S. Congress a law to bring Hawaii into the U.S., but there was a great resistance to this when it was understood how the coup was organized and on whose behalf it was organized, so the Congress did not immediately approve the annexation of Hawaii.
And right at that time, the presidency changed. The Republican, Benjamin Harrison, was out of office, and the new president, a Democrat, Grover Cleveland, came in. He was against annexation. He was an anti-imperialist. He withdrew the treaty. And that meant that Hawaii had to become an independent country for a few years, until the next Republican president came into office, McKinley. And then, at the height of the Spanish-American War, when the U.S. was taking the Philippines, Hawaii was presented to the U.S. as a vital midway station between California and the Philippines. And it was at that time, five years after the revolution, that Hawaii was actually brought into the United States.

I was feeling pretty good about myself while they were discussing that because I'd just found about it recently. But then I saw something online and thought I really should note it.

This is from Friday and it's by Chris Newmarker, of the Associated Press, the article's entitled
"Native Hawaiians Honor Grover Cleveland:"

When it comes to Grover Cleveland, many Americans, even residents of his home state of New Jersey, have trouble recalling anything about him except that he is the only president ever to serve non-consecutive terms.
But 5,000 miles away, Native Hawaiians credit Cleveland with sticking up for their rights and sovereignty in the 1890s, when sugar plantation owners overthrew their queen and asked for annexation by the United States.
So it was on Thursday that three Native Hawaiians landed at New York's LaGuardia Airport, carrying about 20 leis, and found themselves getting lost on New Jersey roads as they searched for Cleveland's birthplace in Caldwell and the town's First Presbyterian Church, where his father was a pastor.
The Hawaiians are in New Jersey this weekend to pay their respects to Cleveland in Caldwell and at his grave site in Princeton.

Friday morning, I hear Grover Cleveland's name for the first time, I didn't know about his part in it (or in stopping it), and then I saw this online. I really know nothing about Grover Cleveland other than that he was a president and, as of yesterday, that he stopped the empire from grabbing Hawaii. Possibly, that's why he served only one term?

But I know we have members from Hawaii in The Common Ills community and I know C.I. shouldn't be the only one noting them. Which is one thing I wanted to write about last night but was too tired. C.I.'s holding this morning's entry at The Common Ills so that shout outs can be done to me and Kat for our entries. If that weren't the case, I'd go in detail about the subject (even though C.I. would say, "There really are other things to write about"). Instead, I'll just note that week in and week out The Common Ills is a site that goes far beyond the "White" or the "Male." This week, I laughed so hard at C.I.'s take on this person who wrote into The Nation to say that MLK 'won' and Malcolm X 'lost.' The guy didn't know anything about either man. C.I. responded with "Young, Ignorant and White" which was one of my favorite commentaries this week. So let me note that.

Let me also note Kat's "Both Sides of the Coin -- Ben Harper's Both Sides of The Gun vs. The Living Room Tour" which is great and, if you haven't already gotten Ben Harper's Both Sides of The Gun, you need to. My cousin says he'll be hosting NBC's Last Call all next week, so check that out and if that and Kat's review don't make you think, "I need to get Both Sides of The Gun," I don't know what will.

Last night, Three Cool Old Guys had a mixer at their nursing home. There were some people brought in from another nursing home. And the guys were really bummed for the first half-hour. It was depressing. I asked what was going on and got an earful.

They pointed to one group of women as an example. Right then, they were on couches, talking. This is the thrust of the conversation.

Woman 1: Girl, I love me some bread!
Woman 2: I have to have bread with every meal. I couldn't have a meal without some bread.
Woman 3: I have to cut my ice cream because I'm diabetic. I have to cut it or it's too rich for me.
Woman: Milk and cream and bread, I could live on it.

It went on and on like that forever. I got Three Cool Old Guys' point. I get depressed when I'm around people my age and all they want to do is talk about nonsense. (Big topic at the end of the week was Ace -- whoever that is -- getting voted off American Idol.) It must be even worse, when you're older and wiser and you have to hear that. The conversation on milk, cream and bread went on for fifteen minutes while I was listening and it was taking place before I was standing with Three Cool Old Guys. They're going to write about it for next Friday's gina & krista round-robin so check for that.

I'll just point out that we can talk about fluff or we can talk about the world around us. There's nothing wrong with bread (unless you are on a low-carb diet) but if you're not sharing recipes, I'm not sure why you'd go on and on about it like that. It was never even, "___ is the best loaf of bread" or anything like that. It was always "bread." It made me wonder exactly what I'd be talking about when I was older. Because, and Three Cool Old Guys believe this too, when you're older, you should have a little bit more to offer to a conversation than superficial.

I mean, if bread's your topic, talk about the best loaf you ever had or maybe someone in your family makes great bread or whatever. But to just go on and on with "Oh, I like bread too" seems like a waste of time.

I feel like a lot of time gets wasted with people my age. I hear way too much about American Idol and that dance show that's off right now. But especially with those contest shows, it's like people are so focused on who might win (and it's not them) that they don't care a thing about what goes on in the world. I went to lunch with some people at the office on Thursday and I felt like we'd all taken a stupid pill. The entire conversation was American Idol. And will Fantasia have a career? What about Kelly? What was the name of the guy who lost that year?

Justin. I don't even watch the show, never have, and I know his name. Honestly, I preferred it when the people I worked with were obsessed with soaps. It was stil fantasy but at least something was happening on them. I didn't watch them either but I knew Carly and Sonny and Jax's name and could follow the conversation. At the end of the lunch, one guy pointed out that I hadn't said anything. (Other than "Justin!" when they went on for several minutes trying to remember the guy's name.) I said I don't watch American Idol.

He apologized and said we'd talk about something else on the trip back to work. Guess what it was? Survivor. Which I also don't watch. But it was coming on tonight and . . .

Is that what we're coming to? A bunch of boring conversations about psudeo-reality? Sometimes I wonder. And I blame the corporate media which offers nothing but a headline on one story and then on to the next one. When the follow up, which is usually a kidnapping or some other White woman in tragedy story, it does get talked about. But they won't follow up on important stories. They won't say, "Yesterday, ___ spoke out against the administration's handling of pre-war intelligence and today ___ came forward to offer additional information. For that story, we go to ___."

There are two people I usually go out to lunch with but one's off on vacation and the other had an appointment so I ended up with the Fluff Crowd (who'll read this if they can tear themselves away from American Idol and its website long enough). We'll all listen to Democracy Now! and we can talk about things at lunch. Not just what's going on in the world but maybe someone's brother or whatever. But it seems like a lot of people aren't getting any reality/spinach in their media diet and they've come to the conclusion that obsessing over American Idol for hour upon hour (and they were talking about it after lunch when we got back to the office) is somehow going to enrich their lives.

At the start of the week, this woman came over to my desk and says she heard I follow the news. I say I try to. She says she was busy this weekend and needed to know did Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie get married?

I thought, "How do I respond to that?" Do I tell her, "They issued a statement that says: Live your own lives and quit living their life!" Do I tell her that, since she was well over forty, she was a little old to be obsessing over movie stars' private lives? I just told her that I try to follow news. She replied, excitedly, her too and said she's always surfing E! and The Star. She doesn't care for US weekly because it can be "a little too mean." If US weekly is a grown woman's idea of hard hitting journalism (and she turns from it), what does that say about the country?

Because it's not just this one woman. It's a lot of people at the office. When I got back from California, people at the office wanted to know about the trip. So I was excited and talking about protests and activists and they just wanted to know (except for the two I lunch with and the boss), did I see any movie star homes? That's saying something about the state of the country.
And more importantly about the state of distraction corporate media encourages.

My rant for the morning.

Check out Betty's "When friends are awarded, Thomas Friedman goes fugue," C.I.'s "NYT: A columnist can tell it's news -- why can't the reporting section?" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! ALBERTO GONZALES IN THE MIDST OF MADONNA UP!" but read Elaine's "My pacificism isn't a cloak I wear some days and others put on war drag" immeditately. Mike's got good reasons why in "US number four on execution, Guantanamo prisoners, strong voices."

---

How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.

Blog Spotlight: Kat on music and Guns and Butter

Kat addressing music and highlighting KPFA's Guns and Butter.  We have more on music (and more than the highlight that follows in two).

 

Ben Harper, Carole King, Carly Simon and Guns and Butter

Busy week. I finally wrote the review of Ben Harper's Both Sides of The Gun -- "Both Sides of the Coin -- Ben Harper's Both Sides of The Gun vs. The Living Room Tour" -- and I finished the project I was working on. (So bills will be paid!) Jess, Ava and C.I. forwarded some of the e-mails on that from non-members of the community. Some Carole King fans are offended -- in the review, I contrast Harper's Both Sides of The Gun with Carole King's The Living Room Tour -- and, of those, my favorite has to be one where the woman tells me that King had a limited amount of space and "couldn't get to everything." A limited amount of space? She had two discs. There are 21 tracks. She does a medley on one track that contains seven songs. So, in fact, the album has 27 songs. It was Carole King, not me, who wrote:

I remember a time gone by
When peace and hope and dreams were high
We followed inner visions and touched the sky
Now we who still believe won't let them die.

She wrote that. Music and lyrics. (Not just music as it sometimes the case.) She wrote many songs like that, throughout her career. By the point some critics were grumbling that she was a "Pollyanna," it was because you knew each album would have at least one (sometimes more than one) song about peace.

We need peace now. Where is Carole King?

If 9/11 changed everything for Carole King, she needs to say so.

Or if all of those songs were just jerking off, she needs to say so.

But she doesn't need to ever put out an album (let alone one with 27 songs) without weighing in on the need for peace if she believes in it. In the sixties, working for Kirshner, et al, she wasn't he socially conscience one. That was generally thought to be Cynthia Weill and Barry Mann. They were political and aware of the world around them.

(Ex-husband Gerry) Goffin and King were just trying to rewrite the last hit a group or artist had and come up with a new one. They ended up with some amazing songs. That could be the end of it were it not for the fact that Carole King has made her solo career about singing songs of peace, calls for universal brotherhood. So I don't think it's out of bounds to point out that she's suddenly silent.

"War Got Your Tongue?" is disgusting when anyone suffers from it. It's all the more disgusting when you've spent over three decades singing about peace and suddenly suffer an outbreak.

She had little to offer musically, beyond vague statements, while Vietnam raged. Now here we are in another quagmire, she's older, she should be wiser and she can't say a damn word about peace?

She's on a small label (and I think a good guess would be to assume that she may be the label in some way). There was nothing preventing her from weighing in with a new song or dusting off an earlier song. "Peace in the Valley" wasn't overlooked by me, as one e-mail wondered. I know the song. I note it in the Harper review and the original review of King's live album.

It's the weakest choice she could have made. It's not a "peace" song and people rolled their eyes when it came out the first time (1973). It was embarrassing then. I defended her at the time, as Vietnam raged, saying to my friends, "She just wrote a dopey song." Now? Now, it goes to pattern. When our nation is not officially involved in a war, she's happy to toss out peace songs like flowers. When we are, she's got nothing to offer.

So which is it? Is she for peace or not? We've been lied into an illegal war and people are dying, Carole King has no pressure from a corporation telling her what she can or cannot record, and she offers that weak ass song?

"Love the ones I can" was seen, in 1973, as weak enough to allow "universal appeal." You could be a hawk wanting to nuke Vietnam but hear the song and nod along. "Yep, can't love them Vietnamese!" you could tell yourself. It was so weak. It was weak then and it's even weaker now.

So where's "Time Gone By" or any of her stronger efforts? When this live album was recorded, the United States people had already experienced a "Change of Heart, Change of Mind" (to put in Carole terms). There was nothing risky about including an old song (and that's if she was unable to or scared to write a new one). That's not even going into the very rare interviews that she has given over the years.

So I think it's fair to ask what's happened? Did 9/11 change her opinions? If not, were her opinions real to begin with or was it just marketing? If she believed it then and believes it now (in peace), then she's a coward for not speaking out in song at a time when others already have and when the nation's mood is against the war.

Which brings us back to Vietnam and all the criticism some gave her then. She was considered the anti-Janis, the soft woman who was pliable. A lot of that criticism was based upon sexism (she wasn't seen as a "good time" gal -- putting out). But some of it did have validity. And now that we're once again a nation at war, where is Carole King?

C.I. noted that one person wrote in complaining and stated that I wouldn't do that to Carly Simon. C.I. wrote "check with Kat" but C.I. was correct. Carly Simon's career has not included a song on every album about peace. She's written some great songs. And some have been the sort that could be read as peace songs. But she's not big on the "universal," the way Carole King is (or Bono, or Cher, or go down the list). Simon writes introspective, personal songs. (Not a complaint, I enjoy Carly's work.) But the thing is, Carly put out an album at the same time Carole put out this load of crap.

Carly's album was a dual disc -- one side was music, one side DVD. So we can say they both put out double disc albums. On Carly's DVD, she's rather clear about where she stands on the war (no suprise, against it). Why Carole King can't do the same is beyond me.

In terms of "corporate pressure," Carly's album came out on Sony. That's a huge corporation. But that didn't stop Carly from noting the war. Carole's on a tiny label (that, like others she's recorded on in the last 15 or so years, may disappear before the next CD comes out). From a marketing stand point, speaking out against the war may have actually gotten Carole some press. Instead of just counting on those TV buys (the ads), she might have gotten some press.
But either a change in belief, a desire not to offend or the fact that she never believed in peace, allowed her to release a double album with 27 songs while the nation is at war and the people have turned against it, without ever commenting on the war. That doesn't cut it. Not when you've presented yourself, year after year, album after album, as the Peace Queen.

Joni Mitchell hasn't had new material in sometime. But she's been repackaging her work. If you listen to any of those CDs, you grasp quickly that she's pulling them together to comment on today. In repackaging only, Joni Mitchell can make more of a commentary on the world today than Carole in recording a new, double disc, album.

By the way, I disagree with C.I. on one thing regarding the uproar all of this has caused among visitors. C.I. wrote that Elaine and I were the writers of our pieces. (Elaine's "My pacificism isn't a cloak I wear some days and others put on war drag" is wonderful, read it.) That's true and it's false. I understand why C.I. is saying that -- people are too often stripped of their accomplishments and, as the most visible writer in the community, C.I. doesn't want to take any credit away from what Elaine and I wrote. Check with Elaine for her thoughts, but she and I typed each word ourselves, thought about them and went through a long process, that is true. It's also true, at least for me, that C.I. was there to offer input of, "I can follow that" and "You lost me there." But it did go beyond that. Not in terms of co-authorship. But certainly in terms of sparking an idea or new line of thought. Elaine did the same for me. It was a contribution that I appreciate and want to think them both for. It wasn't co-authorship, and I think that's what C.I. was trying to get across. (I know from Ava, C.I. hit the roof over visitors saying that Elaine and I had, basically, taken dictation. C.I. felt that robbed us not only of what we'd done -- written our pieces -- but also implied that we couldn't think for ourselves.)

But both of them made contributions. That might have just been in discussions, it might have been in helping me rework a phrase. C.I. wanted to be sure that Elaine and I received the credit for what we wrote. I want to be sure that C.I. and Elaine get the credit for the help they provided me with. I wrote it, it's my name on it, it's my thoughts. But I did have input from both. Elaine and my discussion early Wednesday, she was on lunch, it was earlier here. I think I called her . . . I'm trying to think why I called her. I know I was feeling blocked on the project I was working on. And I know I was just not in the mood to stay with it at that second. (I would have destroyed it out of frustration.) So I walked away, picked up the phone and dialed her. I looked at the clock and remember thinking, "She's on lunch" or should be. But I really don't know why I called her. Fate.

But I complained about feeling blocked in the first few minutes and she spoke of the guy writing the Force Wagon piece. She spoke about how that offended her -- the idea that there we must act RIGHT NOW and that there is only ONE option. And we spoke of how peace is the first thing that gets tossed out the window when some people come up against a choice. After that, I called C.I. and I was really angry. I was angry about what the man had written and, when C.I. said "Peace In The Valley," I realized I was angry about Carole King as well. That's when it all started clicking in my mind that Ben Harper's album, which I love, was the album Carole King could have recorded. That's when I went back to work on my project and then on the review (which I finished before finishing the art project).

There was no "plan" among the three of us. But the conversations among the three of us did spark me. (I'm sure they did Elaine as well.) So I thank them both and don't understimate their contributions. I do grasp C.I.'s fear that some will read a thank you and acknowledgement and say, "Oh, Kat didn't write that!" I wrote the review. But the assistance provided by Elaine and C.I. isn't something I'll underestimate. (I'll also note that C.I. pushes away credit for everything including things C.I. writes at The Common Ills.)

Now let's talk about Guns and Butter. I was on break from everything to listen to that. I listen to KPFA or music all the time but for Guns and Butter, I sit down and listen. I'd gotten up to go to the kitchen and put my plate and glass in the sink (I'd been eating lunch while I listened) because the show was over and I come back in and Bonnie Faulkner's doing announcements in a shaky voice. I thought, "Oh my God, something's happened!" I thought maybe she was about to be evicted from the studio (a leap long term listeners of KPFA might make) or, worse, that the government was shutting her down.

I was calling around trying to figure out what was going on when I got Sumner and he told me that while I was in the kitchen, I'd missed Bonnie's statement that she'd had to run upstairs to grab her notes for the announcements and that's why she was out of breath.

The episode was a rebroadcast of an interview Bonnie had done with Ted Gunderson who is a retired FBI agent and has worked with Jerry Brown and others. Gunderson believes that the 9/11 attacks were a government plot. He felt that way when he first heard the news and his research since has only strengthend his belief. Gunderson was in charge of a division in Los Angeles, FBI, before he retired, over 700 employees. Now Lee Hamilton and others don't want to hear from him. Suddenly, he's not credible.

He walks you through the government's history, with emphasis on Oklahoma City and the original attack on the WTC, to show you how he backs up his beliefs. He believes that bombs brought down the towers on 9/11.

Guns and Butter airs each Wednesday on KPFA at one o'clock Pacific time. Hopefully, it's a show you'll check out. Bonnie Faulkner's the host and, if you can take something outside the standard line, you'll enjoy the fine work she does.

Check out Betty's latest "When friends are awarded, Thomas Friedman goes fugue," C.I.'s "NYT: A columnist can tell it's news -- why can't the reporting section?" and really all the sites. I'm rushing because C.I.'s holding an entry so that Cedric and I can post and it can be noted.

---

Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.

Humor Spotlight: Betty on Thomas Friedman's reaction to Nicky K's prize nomination

Betty's plan was to polish a chapter she's been working on and post it today.  Forget that, we're all tired.  But here's her latest chapter.  You'll note she's no longer italicizing titles.  Why?  The last letter runs into a letter in plain face.  So she's going to stick to parenthesis from now on.

When friends are awarded, Thomas Friedman goes fugue

It was shaping up to be a peaceful period. I'm nervous about starting classes in June so I've already bought my books and started reading one, Iraq: The Logic of Withdrawal, which is wonderful. I've been reading a little, stopping to think. All that went out the window when my husband Thomas Friedman had a crying jag/fugue state that was so bad, I had to write a few of the columns.

That, itself, wasn't a problem. All I had to do was sit at the computer and ask myself, "WWID?"
(What Would Idiot Do?) I got to work in a reference to Riverbend of Baghad Burning. Otherwise, I just acted the stooge. (P.S. Even Gail Collins didn't notice that Thomas Friedman wasn't writing the columns.)

What caused the fugue? What caused my pleasant ride to screech to a halt?

At first I thought he might have ripped his silk shorty robe. He'd tossed it to the floor and collapsed next to it. I picked it up. It was dirty but otherwise, no problem. Okay, it was going to be hard getting the foundation off the neck. When did he start wearing foundation?

I asked myself that and then remembered the Friday night he spent peering the mirror examing his pores and not-so-fine lines. All that thinking must have tired him out because he stumbled to the bed and fell asleep face down. Since then, he sneaks a little on here and there. When Showtime aired "Liza With A Z!", he was in evening make up including mascara. He complained it was hard to hear "Miss M." over my laughing.

So it wasn't the shorty robe. Had we run out of canned cheese and Ritz crackers? No, that couldn't be it. The pantry was stocked with both. Had someone gotten possed on "Passions"? He's obsessed with that show lately. You can't call it a soap opera because he claims it has "global implications." He's obsessed with Whitney and the monk and torn over Sherridan's choice of Chris instead of Luis. Sounds like a soap opera to me.

So he's flat on the floor and I point out that if he were really hurting he would be curled into a ball.

He opens one eye and glares at me.

Then he snaps, "Like a ball? Like a globe? "The World Is Flat," Betinna, flat!"

Even at high drama, he has to plug his crappy book.

Bored, I sit on the couch and turn from "Saved By The Bell" which causes him to struggle to get up from the floor. When you're soft, flabby and large, it's not easy to go from prone to upright. It is, however, amusing to watch.

Thomas Friedman blamed it on his hot pink thong which he claimed was riding up.

Turning back to Screech and Slater, Thomas Friedman told me that the worst thing in the world had just happened.

"Oh my God," I think out loud, "we just nuked Iran."

"Worse, Betinna, far worse."

I'm trying not to picture doomsday scenarios and remember that this might have to do with his soap opera -- like Sherridan finally made a decision and stuck to it -- when he blurts it out.

"Nicky won the Pulitzer!"

"Well, good for him."

"Betinna, you are not grasping the situation. He won!"

"I'll call his wife and we'll have them over for dinner. But you are wearing more than a thong and short robe, no one needs your full moon every time you bend over in the middle of dinner."

He grabs me roughly by the shoulders and presses his face into mine. He's so close I can see the bags under his eyes that the foundation doesn't cover. I'm smelling the canned cheese on his breath and wondering if I need to give him make up lessons.

Hygene never took but maybe make up lessons will?

"He won! That means I lost!"

"Oh, Thomas Friedman," I sigh. "It's not a competition."

"It is! It is! It's a competion and I lost!"

Then he collapses to the floor for real, curls into a ball and doesn't speak for days.

Those were some of the best days of my life.

Then, Tuesday night, he snapped out of it.

He sprung from the floor with a speed and agility not characteristic of his girth.

Immediately, he began spinning a yarn of how he had lobbied the Pulitizer committee on Nicky K's behalf. He felt it was the least he could do for his protege. As his fantasy world unfolded, I started thinking, "My life is a really bad soap opera. With no sex and no hot guys taking off their shirts. Just a fat ass with both cheeks flapping in the wind, curtain cheeks that drape all over everything."

He sat down to write his column for Thursday (without thanking me for covering for him).
But nothing came. I figured this was like when we are bed and I know how that limp story ends, so I headed to the bedroom and went to sleep.

I awoke the next morning to find him in full crisis mode. He was puffing away on an unlit cigarette. A 100 so he wasn't exactly butching it up.

I could tell he'd been crying from the mascara patterns that had dried on his face. Very Tammy Faye despite what he was saying.

"I've come to a conclusion, Betinna. The world doesn't like manly men!" he shrieked, pacing back and forth, shorty robe flying in the wind.

"The world has turned agains the Bully Boy and now me!" he continued.

I tried picturing the two "manly men" in a mano-mano fight but all I could picture was him getting to third base with Bully Boy and I loathe Bully Boy but . . . I mean Thomas Friedman is kind of like the death penalty -- you don't wish him on your worst enemy.

This hatred of manly men was all the doing of the nonstop critiques by the likes of Gloria Steinem and two TV critics named Ava and C.I. It was a plot to destroy the last of the manly men, Thomas Friedman.

Well he would not be destroyed! No, he would beat them at their game. They wanted wimpy? He'd give them that. On the last point, we were finally in agreement. Which led to Thursday's column which is kind of anti-war in a sort of cover your own ass way -- which may be the only way he can write. Fine, but if he's going to cover his own ass in print, who's stopping him from doing the same in real life? (I know I'm not.)

Having finished it, all was good in the world again and he was ready for me to play Peggy Noonan (I hate the wig!) and him to play William Safire. I spent about two hours diapering him and rediapering him.

And that has been pretty much the last few days. If William Safire requires Depends, if -- big if, I find it hard to believe he'd greet Noonan with, "Peggy, Willie made boom-boom. Change my nappy." But every time I turned around, that's what I heard. That and how his no-war-on-Iran made him the sensitive type (among the neocons?) and he just knew the Pulitzer committee would now pull Nicky K's award and give it to "the great Thomas Friedman."

I'm waiting for the explosion that's sure to follow when another of his fantasies implodes. It won't be pretty. Things seldom are with Thomas Friedman.

the new york times
thomas friedman
the common ills
baghdad burning
the third estate sunday review
thomas friedman is a great man

 

---

Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.

Blog Spotlight: Rebecca covers Flashpoints and notes women better not count on the lisper

Rebecca picked this entry when we were arguing over which one to include.  As she pointed out, it covers Flashpoints and we need more attention for Pacifia Radio programs.

 

answer to who will save us and recap of flashpoints

another 1? that's what i wrote about quickly last night. blogger was going down. i was rushing and had less than ten minutes to write - you don't just finish, put a period and are done. you have to click on 'publish post' then on 'index' then on publish site or something. unlike c.i., it doesn't take me forever to do that. the last step alone takes c.i. over 15 minutes. it takes about 3 minutes for me. so i started that at ten minutes 'til blogger went down and had to be done 3 minutes before. it was a 7 minute post. but every 1 who wrote that i read this morning (i had volunteer work this afternoon), enjoyed it. i'll be (briefly) continuing it tonight.

who will save women from eric alterman? that's what i asked last night. 1 name i'd like to add, that eric alterman doesn't mention, is janeane garofalo who was speaking out before the invasion and speaking out after. but she doesn't get a mention because no woman is considered worthy of mention.

that's the way it goes with the lisper, always trying to big boy up. always trying to fit in with the boys. you saw it in that wretched book, what liberal media, that repeated the lie about naomi wolf. not only did he repeat the lie that she did fashion for al gore, he offered that the slams were fair, he guessed. the slams weren't fair and they weren't true and that should have been the 1st tip off that the effite elite is a little too convinced of his own opinion to do any research. but then intellectual gods don't need it and the mental midget seems to think he walks on clouds.

what you notice in all of his writing in total is how proud eric alterman is of himself. he's like his own stage mother waiting back stage and saying, 'isn't he wonderful?'

play his own stage mother maybe the only women enter his world. they are ignored in his writing.

i'm counting 13 men he names on his honor roll (that includes his 'honorable mentions') and, as i pointed out last night, no women. this despite his use of the word 'people':

. . . i've picked a short (representative) honor roll of people in a variety of fields . . .

'people'? it's a list of men, a baker's dozen. 'representative'? well maybe he thinks the nod to valerie plame ... she pops up not by name but as 'his wife' - him being joe wilson. she's an unnamed extra - she's sissy spacek in jfk. rather amazing considering that the outing of her has resulted in scooter libby being indicted in the ongoing investigation.

at a time when naomi klein and katha pollitt are on leave (to finish books), the nation can't afford to have no woman on staff. get ruth rosen or some 1 else to write a column. eric alterman's not interested in writing about women - thinks it might make him look 'soft' probably (so he's left looking like sal mineo's plato in rebel without a cause).

when he wrote his column, he probably thought 'what a man i am.' he's something. it probably didn't even occur to him that he left out women. women never enter his mind.

i've named 3 (naomi klein, janeane and arundhati roy) and those aren't the only 1s. there's kim gandy, there's susan sarandon, there's laura flanders, there's alice walker, there's maxine hong kingston, there's barbara lee ... there are plenty of women. but they don't register to a sexist like alternman. that's what he is. he gives space in his lame book for ann coulter's attacks on gloria steinem but never bothers to point out that they're wrong.

why? he's too delighted that a woman's being slammed?

he's a creep. he presents himself as a savior but women need saving from him.

and, the point i didn't have time to make last night, the answer to the question: women will have to save themselves. the boys lining up with him or scared to call him out (and we can all think of 1 man who's made it a point to correct every 1 who repeated the lie on naomi wolf but can't bring himself to note that eric alterman lied) won't save us.

as usual, women will have to carry their weight and some half-assed man who's ego is larger than his ability to make a coherent argument. his view of the country (he lacks a world view or else keeps it hidden) is 1 that only sees men.

we'll have to save ourselves and 1 way to do that is not to mistake him for a friend to women. he's not. we don't register with him. he can't even relate to janeane as an adult. he has to fall back into little school boy mode and do the sort of crap that might be mildly amusing from a third grader but is b.s. from a grown man. (he insults her and does so in a voice he thinks is sexy. for any 1 who ever wanted to have sex with sylvester the cat, the voice may be sexy. i can't imagine that's many women though. maybe men fantasize about having sex with sylvester?)

so we need to know the enemy and we need to not get taken in by claims that he's a brave voice for the left. he's dismissive of women and he doesn't even have the excuse of coming of age in the dark ages. he didn't come up with norman mailer. he has no use for women so women should have no use for him. if he comes on the radio, turn him off. if he's pushing his new book, don't buy it. (since he has no concept of layout, you'll be helping your eyes as well as your brain by avoiding it.)

we don't exist in his writing so we shouldn't support it. put your money and word of mouth behind someone who can acknowledge women and their accomplishments. we can save ourselves - thank god, since i'm not seeing a lot of men rushing to call him out for his sexist writing.

it's thursday so let's talk about flashpoints which airs monday through friday on pacifica radio. flashpoints had a strong week. yesterday, there was a great interview with dahr jamail where dahr talked about how the mainstream media keeps missing the story (intentionally?) and gave an example of edward wong's straight-from-the-pentagon details. (wong writes for the new york times.) the interview was done by a woman and i'm still learning names, so give me time.

tonight, phyllis bennis was a guest dennis bernstein interviewed tonight. she spoke of the need to stop the war on iran and to send a message that we were against it. you can go to united for peace and justice and sign a letter that she recommended. the un security counsel meets april 28th so if you're wanting to sign the letter do it soon. bennis spoke of a number of issues involved including the fact that the fallout from a war on iran would be immense.

tonight also offered some strong reporting from palestine. including noting that 1 child and 2 others were killed. who by? well if was mainstream media, you'd never know would you. that coverage acts as though palistinian children just hop on a gun, held by no 1, and it accidentally goes off. with phyliss, dennis asked about palestine and the ongoing occupation there. i think 1 thing the iraq war is doing is making us wake up to realities of occuapation.

maybe i'm kidding myself? but i think people are beginning to realize self-rule and to realize that under an occupation, no 1 is free. (or safe.) israel needs to leave the occupied territories and the wall is much worse than a joke. chris hedges has written of that and how the wall will, we're all sure just by chance, veer here and there to take the best lands. that's 1 reason for the wall. here's another reason, once they get up a physical barrier, they'll truly be claiming the land in an end-of-story way. talk of returning to pre-1968 borders will go out the window because 'well ... there's a wal there now.'

this is an important issue to dennis bernstein. it's important to me as well but since i'm going to be noting flashpoints, if you're not able to deal with it, you may want to bow out on this site.

tuesday had an intersting report with iraqi voices. that's not something you hear very often on corporate radio (even when it appears to be public like npr - dennis may be more irritated by the fluff on npr than i am.) if none of the above has grabbed you yet, monday's guest was
pratap chatterjee talking about how corporations in iraq profit in the blood bath. in addition, you heard voices from a demonstration speak of anthony soltero, the young boy who took his own life when his school's vice-principal reportedly told him he would be going to prison for taking part in the world can't wait walk outs, that he wouldn't go to the middle school prom and that his mother would face a huge fine. his mother spoke but so did a group of students. they spoke of how there were rumors being put out now that anthony didn't even walk out and that wasn't true because they were there. to me, those rumors are a really awful smear campaign because you're talking about a child and a child that is dead. to strip him of something he did that really mattered to him (and that he should have been able to take pride in) is to deny his very existance.

thursday's highlight is my attempt to raise awareness of pacifica radio. flashpoints is the show i'm going with. i like dennis' passion and the topics covered. if you're some 1 that's not covering your ears and screaming 'did he just criticize the israeli government!' this may be a show you should check out. but you should know about it. i need to learn every 1's name. including the woman who i believe is a co-host. there's also a man who does a report, i think his name is robert. so stick with me on thursdays and we'll try to learn about the show and note some of the topics and guests. but for those who've pledged their all to the israeli government, you aren't going to be happy. either skip thursdays or skip this blog all together. c.i. had a wonderful point (many, but i'm focusing on 1). during the whole uproar over the ports security, c.i. asked every 1 to remember that governments are 1 thing but that people are people. we wouldn't want the world to judge us by the bully boy. don't judge another people by their leader. their leader or their policies may have strong resistance from the people. that's an important point to make. there are israelis who oppose the occupation and the murders that go on in the name of 'security.' don't mistake the israeli government as a reflection on the entire country.

elaine wrote an amazing piece on the darfur screamer who tells you there is only 1 option (force, of course). what is going on there is hideous but screamers would do well to grasp that tragedies are going on every where. pretending that palestinians attempting to live with a gun barrel (or rocket launcher or tank) in their faces isn't reality. palestinians are being slaughtered. i think dennis made the point this week that this was genocide. it is and we need to stop avoiding the issue.

---

Celebrate Earth Day everyday! Discover 10 things you can do to help slow climate change. Yahoo! Earth Day

NYT critique -- still little to no interest in reporting on the peace movement

The only highlight C.I. would agree to is this one on how The New York Times still shows no interest in reporting on the peace movement.  Clyde Haberman made a trial the focus of his column -- his COLUMN -- but the reporters continue to shy away from the subject.

 

NYT: A columnist can tell it's news -- why can't the reporting section?

It's news. That's what Clyde Haberman tell us via "What Did You Do In The War, Grandma" in this morning's New York Times. It's news that the Granny Peace Brigade got busted in October. He paints a visual of grandmothers in the court room yesterday, photos hanging from their necks of grandchildren and great grandchildren, but his news judgement is about the arrest, about the women being hauled off in a paddy wagon:

Grandmothers being hauled away in a police wagon is what we in the news business call a story.

I'm not disagreeing with his call. He's correct, it was a news story. Where was the Times? The arrest was in October. If it was big news (and it was news, we agree on that), why didn't the Times have a story on it when the arrest happened? It took place in Time Square, so where was the Times?

It was a one pargraph brief . . . on March 3, 2006. That was the arraignment. Eighteen women, ranging in age from fifty to in their nineties. Arrested on October 17, 2005. The brief appears, what, over sixteen weeks after the arrest? (Do the math, I'm too tired this morning to even try.)

So Haberman and I can both agree it was news then. I'd assume we'd agree it was news today (I could be wrong). Haberman's a local columnist for the paper. Why is the he the only one covering it? He appears to cover it the way anyone at the Times would: phone calls -- as Ava and I enjoy commenting in our TV pieces at The Third Estate Sunday Review whenever we can remember too, after working the phones to call people we know, "what the Times would call reporting."

If that was the 'method,' that might explain why the name Amy Miller isn't in the article. Who is Amy Miller? The Assistant District Attorney prosecuting the case in court. I'm trying real hard to be fair here and would prefer not to cover the columnist at all. We try to stay away from the columns here. But when that's the only news of a story that is news (Haberman admits it and anyone with any grasp of news would as well), that's all we're left with.

Haberman gets a column out of it. It's good that it's in the paper. It's too bad it's not reported as news. I've avoided commenting on Haberman's tone and point of view since it is a column. But this was news. The arrest was news. The court appearance yesterday was news. (CNN carries an AP report here.) The arrest took place in Time Square, the trial's taking place in their own backyard -- as opposed to all the way across the country the way a trial that resulted in in five articles each week (frequently front paged) did -- the Michael Jackson trial. Yesterday, I said we could grade the paper by how they covered it and noted that it was news (it is) and that it could also be a feature story. It's neither today. It's a column, a local column that most will never see. (In the country, yes, but I'm referring to readers of the paper -- print and online.) Haberman's column is appreciated but it doesn't make up for the fact that the paper's failed.

Presumably, Haberman made his own decision to turn it into a column because he (rightly) realized the topic was good for a column. It's too bad the reporting section (as well as the features section) couldn't grasp that it was actually news. The paper fails.

The facts? The women turned down a plea proposal that would have dismissed the charges if they weren't arrested again in six months. They want to make their case in court (as they should). It'll be interesting to see how they can make their case if the paper of record continues to ignore the case. Yesterday, KPFA's Evening News covered it and went to it right after news of Iraq (including David Enders' report). They grasped (like Haberman) that it was news.

Walk on, walk on.org.

Iraq snapshots. From Kirk Semple and Richard A. Oppel Jr's "Shiite Drops Bid to Keep Post as Premier:"

On Thursday, gunmen in camouflage in six pickup trucks stormed two bookstores in Baghdad and kidnapped six people, according to an official in the Interior Ministry. Seven bodies were also found around the capital, the official said.
American and Iraqi security forces continued to come under attack on Thursday. An improvised bomb exploded near a police convoy in the Yarmouk neighborhood in Baghdad, killing a civilian and wounding four policemen, the Interior Ministry official said. An American military convoy in Baghdad was hit by a homemade bomb, wounding two soldiers and seriously damaging a tank, the official said.
In Kirkuk, a convoy belonging to an electricity company traveling between Kirkuk and Tikrit was ambushed by insurgents firing machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, killing five people, all foreigners, and wounding three others, a police official in Kirkuk said.
In Basra, a car bomb killed two civilians and wounded five others, including three traffic officers and a border guard, the police said.

Though it's left unstated, Iraqis continued to come under attack on Thursday. Including from security security forces. Martha notes this snapshot, from Nelson Hernandez, Bassam Sebti and K.I. Ibrahim's "Iraq Leader Cedes His Nomination As Premier" (Washington Post):


While the talks drag on, Sunnis and Shiites have continued killing one another on the streets. At least 11 Iraqis died Thursday in shootings and bombings across the country, according to police officials and news reports.

Rod notes the scheduled topic for today's Democracy Now!:

Democracy Now! broadcasts live from Chicago: Author Stephen Kinzer joins us to discuss his new book, "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change From Hawaii to Iraq"


the new york times
clyde haberman
kpfa evening news
the washington post
nelson hernandez
bassam sebti
k.i. ibrahim
democracy now
stephen kinzer
the third estate sunday review

 

---

Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.

Blog Spotlight: Elaine takes on the Force Wagon

Elaine laid it on the line last week and got more responses on a post than ever before.  We also got e-mails saying, basically, that if we had to twist her arm until she screams, we better convince her to let us highlight it.  (She's always reluctant to be highlighted.)  We're highlighting it.  Elaine notes that she's not correcting any typos or inserting words (in at least two sentences a word is missing).  Rebecca calls it "naked, raw and honest."  We call it amazing.

 

 

"My pacificism isn't a cloak I wear some days and others put on war drag"

Blogger was down for a little under an hour so I'm starting late. I have something I want to address at length so I may have little to offer on the Democracy Now! items. Please visit
Mikey Likes It! for a discussion on the topics by Mike.


"Bush Refuses To Rule Out Nuclear Strikes on Iran" (Democracy Now!):
At the White House Tuesday, President Bush refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in the impasse over Iran's nuclear program. "All options are on the table," Bush said. "We want to solve this issue diplomatically and we're working hard to do so. The best way to do so is there for (sic) to be a united effort with countries who recognize the danger of Iran having a nuclear weapon. And that's why we're working very closely with countries like France and Germany and Great Britain. I intend, of course, to bring the subject up of Iranian ambitions to have a nuclear weapon with Hu Jintao this Thursday. We'll continue to work diplomatically to get this problem solved."

He lies beautifully. He must have been taught at an early age. Oh, I'm sorry. I need to "get with the program," right? I need to join the shouting for more war, more force, all the time. That's what some of the left are doing right now and it's really disgusting me. No, not on Iran, but on other issues. I'll get to that after the next item.

"FBI Seeks Files of Deceased Investigative Journalist Jack Anderson" (Democracy Now!):
The Chronicle of Higher Education has revealed the FBI is seeking to search through the files of the late investigative journalist Jack Anderson. Anderson, whose legendary career included exposes of the Iran-contra scandal and the CIA's attempts to kill Cuban leader Fidel Castro, died in December at the age of 83. Federal investigators say they want to access Anderson's files to recover classifed documents and seek out evidence that could be used in the current prosecution of two pro-Israel lobbyists. Anderson's family has turned down the FBI's request. During his lifetime Anderson was viewed with derision by several administrations. He earned a spot on President Nixon's infamous "enemies list", and was reportedly the subject of a poisoning operation ordered by a White House aide.

Classified documents? Where does that end? Will they attempt to grab them from others? What if you were a victim of government abuse under an earlier Bully Boy and you were passed documents proving that? (Anderson did pass them on to one citizen who sued the government.)
Will the FBI show up to demand those as well. They have no right to them. But under a Bully Boy (or Gal since two female bullies seem interested in becoming president), right doesn't enter into it. Only the claim of "mine!"


Just yesterday we were talking about what? The Darfur screamers. Here comes another one.

"What to do about Darfur?" (Amitabh Pal, The Progressive):
What should be done to stop the mass killings in the Darfur region of Sudan? All progressives should be trying to answer this question.

All of us? Well how much time should all of us devote to it? If you're going to instruct us on what we must be do, could you also tell us how much time we should spend on it?

He continues:

The scale of the mass murder in Darfur boggles the mind. Africa Action, one of the foremost groups in the United States working on issues related to that continent, has compiled numbers on the tragedy. An estimated 400,000 people have died since 2003, when the Sudanese regime started unleashing its Arab militia proxies on the inhabitants of the area as a way of putting down a local rebellion. More than 2 million people have been made refugees either within their own country or have had to flee to neighboring Chad.

Since 2003, almost a half a million people. In Iraq, Robert Fisk and others estimate that we're near or at half a million dead. Refugees? You've got the brain drain, you've got people fleeing. You've also got little "gated communities" like Falluja where people may have to give retinal scans and carry i.d. They must prove to the foreigner fighters (that would the United States) that they're who they say they area. But apparently, Darfur is a "must." Top of our lists.

Now check out this point and note the Bully Boy tone:

I can anticipate objections to my support for NATO intervention. But if Security Council members impede the deployment of U.N. peacekeepers, what else can be done to stop the slaughter? I am a big admirer of Gandhian nonviolence and of peaceful resolution to conflicts, but in this particular situation, reality has shown over the past three years that such approaches will get us nowhere in saving innocent lives.

In this particular situation? So you should have principles but you should toss them out the window when given the chance?

Reality, Pal claims, has shown us that "peaceful resolution to conflicts" -- "over the past three years" -- "will get us nowhere in saving innocent lives." What is he speaking of? We didn't use peace in Iraq. We didn't use it in Afghanistan. We didn't use it in Haiti and peace never "broke out" in the occupied territories. Exactly what example from the last three years is he referring to because I apparently missed it?

I've never read such nonsense in my life from a left site.

Another way to deter the Sudanese regime is to try to bring those responsible to justice. There was a fascinating cover story in the New York Times Magazine earlier this month on the attempts of the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, to do this, and how even his preliminary efforts are striking fear in Sudanese government officials.

You know what I read? I read "Blah, blah, blah." He's criticized Thomas Friedman in the past. Otherwise I'm not remembering any criticism of the paper in recent months. What's my point? I'm tired of these shouts outs by alternative media to corporate media. Are you telling me that The Independent and The Guardian (to name only two foreign papers), haven't covered the situation? Are you telling me that independent media in this country hasn't covered it?

I'm also real tired of our "realistic" doves who transform to hawks when things get tough.

We are not the cops of the world. Bully Boy plays that game. The left doesn't need to.

Pal goes on to tells us that a legal approach was stymied by Bully Boy so it's not an option. So that just leaves sends in military force in the form of NATO (or possibly a "coalition"?). Those are his options after he dismisses peace options (that I'm not aware of our government excersizing) which failed, according to him, in the last three years.

Upfront, I don't put a lot of weight behind Pal's conclusions. I didn't like his Dalhi Lama piece which was pure puff. I didn't care for him when he was on KPFA and he seemed uninformed (as I recall it, the topic was India), the guest from Corporate Watch seemed to know what he was speaking of. I'm not alone in feeling that way. It was raised by members in the round-robin so I made a point, a week later, to listen to that discussion. (The comments seemed to contradict Arundhati Roy's reports in other outlets and also a friend of mine who got constant updates from his relatives in India.)

I'm even less impressed with him now. "Unless something is done fast" he warns later in his piece . . . Unless something is done fast, what? We might see the sort of slaughter that goes on the occupied territories?

If Darfur is someone's issue, fine. But quit trying to scare everyone in order to force them to work on your issue and get behind your one-solution only. I'm really getting sick of it. Pal offers the most limited range of options (all is ruled out except for NATO, that's not even from Colin Powell to Bully Boy -- A to B) and tell you that you must act now! Must! I'm not acting on anything.

Excuse me, Darfur is an area that our government would covet. As a feminist who never got on board the Afghanistan war, I'll be damned if I'm bullied by some on the left into hopping on board for more war.

Feminists didn't discover Afghanistan after 9/11. We were speaking out against the oppression of women long before 9/11, for years. Bill Clinton wanted to cozy up to them, so did Bully Boy. Then 9/11 happens. Suddenly, they're harboring a terrorist and Colin Powell says we have proof. Their government refuses to extradite Osama bin Laden without the US providing proof of his involvement in 9/11. At that point, proof should have been provided. It wasn't. Not only that, the American public never got proof. You can read that as more arrogance on the part of the administration (and disdain) or you can read it as there was no proof (which can be read as Osama wasn't involved or as more proof that basic evidence is no longer needed in this country for the Bully Boy to 'convict' -- just his 'gut').

What I do know is that they sold that war on the backs of feminists. Feminists were calling out the Taliban but where were these "Something must be done!" voices then? Laura Bush delivers a radio address (something Hillary would have been strung up for) to say that we're doing this war to liberate women.

Now a lot of people bought into the nonsense. Forget that Bully Boy had no record of liberating anything but corporate monies. So we bombed the hell of the country. That didn't help women or children or men. But we did it. The results? Besides death, nothing really. Osama bin Laden escaped. Things are as bad, if not worse, for women in Afghanistan now. Things are a little brighter in the tiny corner of Kabul but that's really it. There has been no liberation.

With Iraq, we've turned back the progress for women. (As well as killed "thousands!") Now Iraq and Afghnistan was the Bully Boy doing it his way. I'm not prepared to give him a blank check. Pal is. Even had he gotten behind the UN, UN forces in Haiti not only do not appear to help the people but some reports have them hurting the people.

You want me on board your project, come up with a solution that doesn't have Bully Boy written all over it. Don't tell me that there can be no peaceful resolution since that's failed the last three years (what world was Pal living on that he observed efforts for peaceful resolutions?). Don't then tell me that my choices are legal or force but we can't use legal because Bully Boy's circumvented it. So after screaming at the country to do something, Pal wants to tell everyone that the only thing to do, the only option, is send in NATO forces. (Shades of Kosovo?)

We are not the cops of the world. Every time we fall for that nonsense, we back up the Bully Boy and every other imperialist. What Pal proposes hasn't worked but he wants to let that reality escape him.

After Rawanda (after), Bill Clinton said "never again." I'm not Bill Clinton. Newsflash, he's no longer president. I'm not bound by some statement he makes to escape guilt.

If Darfur is your issue and you want people on board, it's incumbent upon to provide a plan. It's incumbent on you to know your facts. There's nothing Pal's written that convinces me that he does. He wants to create a sense of urgency. So did Judith Miller. Well, there's urgency going on all around the world. You want me on board, find a way to address the problem that doesn't make it worse. In the meantime, this government has created problems in Iraq and Afghanistan. There's Guantanaom that we're responsible for as well. Those are problems "we need to address!" and might need to before we go nosing around elsewhere if the only "solution" is to continue doing what has failed repeatedly.

Putting the same Bully Boy in charge (and we would be even if we didn't try NATO or a "coalition" but went with the UN) isn't an answer. After Kosovo, Pal should be embarrassed to scream that we respond in a knee jerk manner. Considering the resources, he should be embarrassed to advocate a "solution" that puts DC in charge of the region -- or are we to believe that what was done in Iraq was some aberration?

He wants to talk about the last three years and doesn't appear to have been awake during them.
He also appears to have no grasp of any form of involvement other than force.

I'm really sick of the George Packer "left" who scream force at the drop of a hat.

Newsflash, people are dying all over the world. They're dying in Nepal. They're dying in Columbia. Going to the same response, because it's quick and easy (if not succesful), isn't an answer. Trying to shame people into jumping on board your Force Wagon is ridiculous.

The world's seen enough of the Bully Boy administration. It's time for America to return to its beliefs and principles. Unleashing force on a situation that's already out of control isn't addressing it. Screaming and attempting to shame people to rush into a "just do something" mode is foolish. You want help? Come up with your plan. Don't try to shame people.

"Get over there now! With NATO!" isn't a plan.

Sidebar, I read every issue of The Progressive. Where is the Darfur coverage in print? Did I miss it? I'm not recalling it. I'm sure there must have been at least one article, maybe two. But for Pal to play Paul Revere (or Judith Miller), one would assume he'd need a number of articles he could point to. Or maybe, like Cheney, he feels he can justify invasion just on the basis of the New York Times?

There is more than enough going on in the world (and more than enough that our government has actively caused) to address. But if Pal's so sure that force is the answer, here's a bit of advice, be the first to sign up, Pal. Leave your arm chair, warrior, and you go out and "do something."

I'm sick of this nonsense. It's the equivalent of Pat Robertson saying Hugo Chavez should be taken out. It operates under the same prinicple which is "force is the answer."

The George Packers played that card trick with Iraq. "Do something!" That's how we ended up over there in an illegal war with no exit plan. When everyone's trying to rush to the easy solution, no one stops to think. I've seen how this administration handles "liberation" and I will not support or advocate more of the same.

People are dying all over the world. Come up with a plan or accept that whomever is on board is all you will have on board. Or maybe you can up with propaganda like a death camp that wasn't, but I guess we're not supposed to talk about that. Alexander Cockburn never shies from the topic but maybe Pal's unaware of it?

What Pal tells us, as opposed to what he screams at us, is that a New York Times piece moved him. Considering the track record of that paper, I'm not sure that's something to acknowledge when you're trying to make a case for intervention.

This isn't a case of burn out. This isn't a case of lack of compassion. This is a grown woman looking at the destruction the Bully Boy has already brought about and saying that I'm not getting on board with any one-answer-only scheme some screamer wants to market. (Speaking of marketing, I'm fully aware of how the "mission" would be marketed and used to justify more of the same.)

If the answer is always burn the village to save the village, find someone else to carry the gas can and matches because I'm not getting on board. Pal's become The Progressive's Nicky Kristof -- full on bluster if short on facts and ideas. My pacificism isn't a cloak I wear some days and others put on war drag. I do not support endless war which is all the current administration knows. Backing a NATO show of force means putting the Bully Boy in charge. Endless war and endless occupation are what he knows and practices.

By all means, screech at the top of your lungs about whatever topic you want. But if you're expecting support from a less trusting (more wise) public than you appear to be, don't be surprised when no one wants to join you on the Force Wagon that you drive for the Bully Boy (knowingly or not).

Be sure to check The Common Ills tonight because Kat has completed her latest CD review and will be posting it. Thanks to Kat and C.I. for listening to portions of this as I wrote it.

---

Yahoo! Mail goes everywhere you do. Get it on your phone.

Humor spotlight: Wally on the death of free speech

Wally can be counted on for a humorous take, even from depressing news.  See if this doesn't make you laugh.

 

 

THIS JUST IN! FREE SPEECH DIED TODAY!

BULLY BOY PRESS - DC.

 

THIS JUST IN!

 

FREE SPEECH DIED TODAY!

 

THURSDAY, AT A JOINT APPEARANCE BY BULLY BOY AND UP AND COMING BULLY BOY WANNA' BE HU JINTAO, A WOMAN

 

WANG WENYI WAS CHARGED TODAY FOR THE CRIME OF HECKLING.  AMONG THE OFFICIAL MISDEMEANOR CHARGES LODGED AGAINST WENYI ARE "WILLFULLY INTIMIDATING, COERCING THREATENING AND HARRASSING A FOREIGN OFFICIAL."

 

INTERNATIONAL BILLIE JEAN KING LOOKALIKE WINNER AND ATTORNEY GENERAL ALBERTO GONZALES IS REPORTED TO HAVE DECLARED,  "FREE SPEECH ONLY BELONGS TO THE GOVERNMENT!  DIDN'T YOU PEOPLE PAY ATTENTION TO THE SUPREME COURT CASE ON RECRUITERS!"

 

TERRORISM BY HECKLES IS EXPECTED TO BE ENFORCED AT ALL APPEARANCES BY THE ADMINISTRATION AS WELL AS IN SOME OF THE SEEDIER LOUNGES IN LAS VEGAS.

 

JACKIE MASON WAS REPORTED TO HAVE SHOUTED, "ABOUT DAMN TIME!"

 

WITH HECKLING NOW ON THE LIST OF TERRORISM CRIMES, LEGAL EXPERTS EXPECT IT IS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE PARODY, SATIRE AND KNOCK-KNOCK JOKES ARE ALSO BANNED.

 

AT A PLAYGROUND NEAR FOGGY BOTTOM TODAY, ATF AGENTS COULD BE SEEN OBSERVING THE KIDS AND ISSUING STERN LOOKS TO ANY CHILD WHO DARED TO SAY "KNOCK-KNOCK."

 

THE CHILLING INTIMIDATION LED TO NO RESPONSES OF "WHO'S THERE?" 

 

AS THE KNOCK-KNOCK JOKE GOES, SO GOES AMERICA.

 

Recommended: "NYT: A columnist can tell it's news -- why can't the reporting section?"
"US number four on execution, Guantanamo prisoners, strong voices"
"answer to who will save us and recap of flashpoints "
"When friends are awarded, Thomas Friedman goes fugue"

---

Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.