Empower yourself with WMD (the documentary)

The invasion of Iraq has invaded my brain. It's like I am under attack -- war is all I see. I dream of an endless desert dissolving into bombs falling, into tanks rolling, into soldiers shooting, into people dying, into reporters reporting -- if that is what they are really doing.
-- WMD: Weapons of Mass Deception

Those are Danny Schechter's first words in the documentary WMD which he directed and produced in 2004. The film won best documentary in Dever's 2004 film festival and in Autin's 2004 film festival. With no malice intended towards those who make documentaries, they can hit the stale lot quicker than anything else. That's because they're covering real life and, sometimes, issues may be resolved or advanced in such a way, that a documentary is so far behind it has nothing to offer. (Though, it should be noted, once it goes from 'current' to 'historical' it's value is quickly noted again.) We wish we could say that Schechter's documentary has gone stale and has nothing to offer. Maybe if the war had ended in 2005, that would be the case?

We don't think so. We've noted the film before and we've praised it before. But the 4th anniversary of the illegal, ongoing war is coming up and if you're looking for a film on Iraq to watch in a house party setting, we recommend this one.

We're also going to break form because there's a story we've been dying to share and we only now have permission. Dallas helps out on every edition. He finds links, he's a sound board and, when we can, we get him to participate in any way possible. In 2005, when we were writing about WMD, he told us of an experience at a screening of the film and we begged (and begged) to be allowed to include it. He's only now given permission.

This happened July 10, 2004. In Dallas, Texas at the Dallas Video Festival. WMD was shown and Danny was there and participated in a two-person panel, plus moderator. We're not sure if Danny Schechter knows this story.

The other participants was a "big whiner" who had directed a film about a local Texas polical thing and couldn't shut up (to the moderator) about how he was doing "serious films." Why, he was just praised in The Dallas Observer (Dallas says that's a weekly freebie) and it was bad enough that The Hunting of The President was shown but now this film which was nothing but a Michael Moore copy. The whiner was talking to the moderator before the panel began, seated in front of a packed and crowded room, where everyone could hear. "I do real films," whined the whiner, "I'm not an entertainer." Dallas was there with friends and none of them could believe what was being said, in front of the audience -- the room was too small to need microphones. (Note, Dallas is leaving out some of what was said. We think the guy's a jerk, we thought that the first time Dallas shared the story with us. We would gladly include all that was said to show you just what sort of jerks people trying to tell the truth are up against.) The whiner said he was a Democrat but he didn't try to skew his film. He just told a man's story, "straight down the middle." He offered that WMD, which he hadn't seen, was "sensationalistic" and not a "topic that anyone will care about tomorrow." (When the moderator asked him if he'd seen it, the whiner admitted he hadn't. Dallas said the moderator spent too much time soothing the whiner's ego.)

Putting this as nicely as we can, one man (whom Dallas swears wasn't anymore significant than most state policiticans in Texas), in the whiner's mind, was more important than exploring the way the media aided and abetted the White House in selling the illegal war? A film on Iraq was a topic not one "will care about tomorrow"?

The first time Dallas told us this story, we were amazed that anyone could be that stupid. We kept asking, "What else did he say?" Danny Schechter handed out postcards for MediaChannel.org afterwards and Dallas considered writing him about what took place before he showed up (we think Dallas should have and hope some in attendance did).

It's really easy, in 2007, to forget how many were going along with the illegal war for the longest and how many more chose to avoid the topic. The comments Dallas let us share really captured the ignornance (and, let's be honest, professional jealousy) at play.

So Danny comes into the room and takes his seat up front. The panel starts and the whiner is being rude, smirking and Danny says something along the lines of, "Well, what I was trying to do with my film . . ." and then pretty much gives up on directing his comments to the whiner and begins talking to the audience who was on his side. Dallas said you could just see the puzzlement on Danny's face as he tried to figure out exactly why this whiner was being such a priss.

So the whiner did a little film about a political race, a state race, (in Austin, Dallas says the closer to Austin, the more important those types think the race is -- Austin is the state capital) and to him that was much more important than exploring how the media acted as the megaphone for the Bully Boy's selling of the illegal war.

If you've seen WMD, you know it's a great film so consider this your reminder to share it (hopefully again) with people you know. If you haven't seen the film, consider purchasing it or renting it (Betty says she's seen it in her local Blockbuster -- she hasn't rented it, she owns a copy).

What do you get? You get a historical overview of the media and the military in terms of war coverage, how Iraq coverage was dictated from administration's fears of coverage similar to Vietnam. You'll get the timeline of the illegal war. (Including the UN wanting to continue inspections but Bully Boy ending that unilaterally.)

You get a lot straight talk, such as in this exchange between Schechter and John R. MacArthur (Harper's magazine) on the failure of the mainstream media to challenge assertions by the administration:

Schechter: Is it the news culture? Is it the lack of critical thinking? Is it economic interests? Is it all of the above?

MacArthur: Well, it's all those things, but it's mostly owners who don't care about journalism.

Journalists who were in Iraq (such as the BBC's Clive Myrie) share their take on the coverage. You'll learn about the wars (plural) -- the way it was covered in the United States and the way it was covered elsewhere. (Journalist Nim Abu Warda: On the Arabic TV stations I would see what war is really like, the blood and gore, the mess that really happens when a bomb hits a building. . . . On CNN you would see more of the strategic stuff.") You'll learn why Peter Arnett was fired from MSNBC and who orchestrated it. You'll see the attack on the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad, by US forces, and you'll see that no attack or attempted attack was taking place when US service members in a tank were given orders to fire (on a hotel the US military had insisted journalists move to) and some reporters were injured and one was killed.

The documentary concludes with these words by Schechter:

I joined the media to spotlight the problems of the world and came to see that the media is one of those problems. I believe in freedom of the press but not just freedom for those who own the press. What can we do to hold the media more accountable? Think about it. Now I've had my say, it's your turn.

But it's only your turn if you grasp how the war was sold. At this point, most of us opposed to the war probably think we do. That's not always the case. And the film zooms in on broadcast media which has been left off the hook by far too many people. On the fourth anniversary of the war, it's worth recalling exactly how the United States ended up there. (An argument can also be made, with all the war noises regarding Iran, that it's instructive on how the administration is attempting to sell another war.)

Danny Schechter and MediaChannel.org are launching a new campaign that bears noting:

It's Time to Make the US Media Accountable!
Are you willing to join and support Mediachannel's "TELL THE TRUTH" campaign? Help us press the press and move the media to tell the truth and report in more balanced manner, the way so many Canadian and European outlets seem to be able to do.
Click here to send an email to U.S. media outlets now!

The plan for this was to tie in the opening quote with Neil Young's "Living With War" and explain how that was going on. We think that approach is valid. But we've long wanted to share Dallas' experience during the pre-panel panel which we think typifies an attitude about the war. We don't think that attitude has vanished. We think you can find it among all the outlets that refuse to cover the war. The only thing that's really changed is that the people are no longer so open about how unimportant they think the war is -- now they hide behind, "Well there's just so many things to cover and so little time." Dallas recounting made us laugh (at the whiner) and made us angry. When he brought it up this edition (we didn't beg, plead or prompt), we thought it illustrated the need to see the movie (again, if you've already seen it). That attitude, that the war doesn't matter, that exploring how the media aided the administration is 'sensationalistic' was very present and very vocal not all that long ago. All reasonable people, those types would insist, accepted that the war had started and the whys no longer mattered.

That argument's been spit polished and tailored since then to make it sound a little better but it's still out there. If you want to confront it, you need to be aware of not just how the Bully Boy lied the nation into war but also how the media sold it. WMD will either enlighten you or remind you of what took place. Share it with others on March 19th.

DVD Extras:
Trailer (Narrated by Tim Robbins)
Interview with Danny Schechter
"News Dissector" news retrospective, 1968-2004
"Get Involved" Resources: Websites and books to make a difference.

Ann Coulter joins the cast of South Park

Ann Coulter stood in the school yard that is the public discourse and called former Senator, current Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards a f**got. Making reference to the actor Isaiah Washington's real life deplorable behavior that landed him in rehab (or be fired from the show), Coulter noted she would talk about Edwards but using the word these days meant going into rehab so her hands were tied.

Coulter thought she was a-funnin'. Her comments were cleary meant to be a joke. She was waiting for the laughter, watch the clip. And a funny thing did happen, Coulter found out that she wasn't as immune as she thought she was.

Coulter had to repeatedly reassure last week that she didn't hate gays. She explained her comment as a school yard taunt: She has nothing against gays and feels they should all become Republicans.

It was a really funny thing. Not what she said, but when some commentators said. There was an effort to liken her to Maureen Dowd (an effort by the left) because Dowd's called some Democratic males "girlie men" or called Edwards "The Breck Girl" or whatever else.

It was really interesting to watch that nonsense play out because what you got wasn't astute, on the money analysis, what you got was raging homophobia.

Dowd calling a male "girly" or feminine is Dowd calling a male "girly" or feminine. Coulter using hate speech is a completely different thing.

But some lefties got confused and we'll assume that's due to their own homophobia (though we're sure they've used the tired Jerry Seinfeld joke from here to eternity). Gay and "girly" are not the same thing. Some on the right may promote that false notion but it's a damn shame when supposed lefties promote that lie.

What the commentators were telling you was that, for them, gay was the same as unmasculine. We'd urge them to take a trip through Castro Street very soon.

Ann Coulter, speaking to a right wing crowd, used the f-word and everyone in her audience knew what she was getting at. She went into damage control but her audience laughed and lapped it up. (Her damage control was actually offensive to many who lapped up her statement.)

It's interesting and it actually reminded us of some of the same lefty commentators weighing in on David Geffen. Why? Well Geffen's an openly gay male. You didn't read that in their comments, but didn't it feel like they were biting their tongues so hard to avoid screaming the f-word when he offered a critique of the Clintons?

Didn't all the rules (except flaunting homophobia) go out the window? For instance, the online latter day Dylan prides himself on not 'peering in souls' and dealing with what's known. So it was hilarious to watch him peer into Geffen's soul -- and get it so wrong. For online, latter day Dylan's critique about Geffen to be correct, Geffen was not just expressing his opinions, but also putting them into coded language to reach an audience. What are we talking about?

Geffen called Hillary Clinton "ambitious." Clinton, running for president, is obviously ambitious. Geffen, a billionaire who wasn't born to vast sums of money, admires ambition. Geffen dropped clients, lectured others in his early days as an agent, because he didn't feel they were ambitious enough and that included women. (Geffen always felt Laura Nyro talked a good show but that she really wasn't ambitious enough.) So it was hilarious to read online, latter day tell the world what he just knew that Geffen meant by "ambitious." (That may have been the only note of praise Geffen gave Hillary Clinton in is interview with Maureen Dowd.)

So last week, they rushed in to tell you that Maureen Dowd and Ann Coulter were exactly the same. One used hate speech in an attempt to get a laugh, the other suggested some men weren't as masculine as they might want to be.

In the commentator's minds it was all the same damn thing.

Now homophobia comes from ignorance and it's not surprising that so many (especially straight males of a certain age) are so ignorant. Their ignorance makes them to squeamish to discuss gay and lesbian issues with people who could put them wise (such as gays and lesbians). So they're left with what passes for entertainment provides. As Ava and C.I. noted in October of 2005:

As the father of one of the children Freddie took to The Rocky Horror Picture Show arrived to confront Freddie, and to reveal his own homophobia, Prinze Jr. and Green tried to girl it up (which is the only way TV likes to portray gay men) and it was funny. It was offensive but it was funny because the actors had to really notch it up several levels since they weren't starting from a base of perceived straight masculinity but instead from an asexual base. (Oh the curse of teen boy pin ups.)

That's exactly how TV likes to portray gay men. It was a supposed advance when the prissy, frequently asexual Will Truman showed up. (Not since Tony Randall's Felix had a man cooked so much and fussed so over cleaning the apartment.) Now at the very core, the entertainment industry historically portrays gays and lesbians that way in response to the Hayes Code and other early witch hunts. The point was provide the campiest portrayals and telegraph "That's gay!" so that none of your stars can be mistaken for gay. It was as much a response to that period as were the efforts to get stars to pair up (boy-girl pair ups) in order to hide their same-sex sexuality in the 30s. Play the game and all is fine. That was the message then and not a lot's changed.

Now men of the same period could be butch or fem, camp or stoic, but the "Pansy Scare" and other incidents made it necessary that cover be provided. (Or some argued it was necessary.) And you've seen nothing but flouncing ever since in the majority of portrayals. (Lesbians portrayals don't allow for too much more diversity though there are two roles -- the butch, a long line of portrayals, and, in more recent times, the lipstick lesbian.)

If you're not grasping the connection, it's right there in your face.

Ann Coulter thinking hate speech is humorous is just a hop and skip away from the crap that Trey Parker and Matt Stone (to use only one example) have smeared onto America and, let's be clear, some of the left couldn't wait to roll around in that crap. The long list includes George Clooney and Norman Lear.

Does the phrase "That's so gay!" ring a bell?

It should. It's a stock phrase from South Park. It's not a compliment. It became a catch phrase and we all know supposed lefties who use it. The worst example is a woman who is fifty-years-old and will defend it as "not really being about gay people." Would she feel the same way if the catch phrase had been a sneering "That's so Black!" We doubt it.

Couldn't get a real job Joyce Millman is the perfect Water Cooler Critic possessing the mind of a 12-year-old. Writing in Salon in 1997, she first got in her slams at Ellen, then she moved on to tell readers that in her soggy, undeveloped mind, South Park was pro-gay (no link, we don't link to trash):

In the series' best-written and most focused episode so far, the Emmy-nominated "Big Gay Al's Big Gay Boat Ride" (it's available on video as part of the "South Park" collection), Stan is dismayed when his new dog Sparky prefers to hump other male dogs and rejects his macho studded collar for a pink bandanna. "Your dog is a gay homosexual!" taunts loutish Cartman. Saddened by Stan's disappointment, Sparky spends a dark night of the soul in the woods, until he comes upon "Big Gay Al's Big Gay Animal Sanctuary" ("The one place where gay animals can really be themselves"). When Stan tracks down Sparky, the kindly, swishy Big Gay Al explains to him (under the revolving disco ball) that Sparky is who he is and it's perfectly super. Then Big Gay Al takes Stan on a fantastic Disneyland-style boat ride depicting gayness through time ("Look! It's the oppressors! Christians and Republicans and Nazis, oh my!"). Stan returns to South Park to spread the word that being gay is OK, and leads the townspeople into the woods to be tearfully reunited with their cast-out homosexual pets.
The episode is unequivocally pro-gay . . .

Blah, blah, blah. Could someone buy Joyce a lollypop and send her in search of other things that interest pre-adolescents because everything she's described above is gay stereotypes. Disco ball? Swishy? The episode is unequivocally trading in homophobic stereotypes. If you have money left after buying Joyce a lolly, consider buying her a clue.

South Park was 'pro-gay', it was 'funny', and a whole host of other lies were told. It was offensive. It was offensive and it wasn't left. Nor are the creators lefties so why Norman Lear felt the need to give libetarians (who share nothing in common with liberals) an award and practically accompany them on a bus & truck tour was beyond the comprehension of many. (George Clooney? He's not that politically smart. For instance, if you have political aspirations, you get married. That's something he continues to fail to realize.)

Now Joyce, Lear and Clooney weren't the only idiots pushing South Park as a lefty show. (The audience always knew better.) And before the next lefty commentator takes Ann Coulter to task they might try checking out their own closets.

Make no mistake, we think what Coulter did was despicable and hate speech. We also think, as usual, she took what was accepted and raised it up several notches. Shows like South Park lower the ball on what is acceptable and what is humor.

In real life, there are campy gays, there are campy straights. It's only in small minds that everyone campy or "queeny" is gay. And it's only in small minds that calling someone a f**got and calling someone girlie are the same thing.

Last week demonstrated a number of things. It demonstrated that supposedly from the hip-shooting Coulter could be forced to defend herself (she doesn't want to lose her media privileges). It also demonstrated that for a number of straight males who self-present as left, feminine and gay are one in the same. It's certainly the same for Water Cooler Joyce who, in 1997, couldn't stop praising South Park or other 'queenly' portrayals of gay men. She also felt Ace and Gary were affirming gay humor. That would be The Ambigously Gay Duo. Since neither Ace nor Gary state that they're gay, we're having a hard time following Joyce's ever-weak logic. She's assuming they're gay (she's supposed to, that is the intent of the cartoon to get a few cheap laughs at gay people) so she must also be assuming that they are closeted. How she could see that, "The Duo gives 'SNL' a shot of the true gay humor it has always lacked -- despite the show's many tittering sketches over the years in which men have kissed men on the lips for hetero laughs" is a question in need of an answer. 'Tittering sketches' is all Gary and Ace offer and it's the same cheap laugh as when they had men kissing "men on the lips for hetero laughs." She further flaunts her ignorance (and homophobia) by praising The Simpson's gay portrayals. Apparently, she was unaware of how difficult it was to cast gay parts on that show because of the stereotypes the show wanted to portray?

Gays are funny, the Joyces tell you, when they're all campy and just so darn girly, why, the Joyces say, they're "pro-gay" portrayals. We would hope that the same sort of stereotypes about African-Americans would give the Joyces pause; however, we are fully aware that a number of White people still lament the fact that Amos & Andy was shut down. Then and now, it was never about humor. It was always about presenting stereotypes.

On KPFA today (use archives if you miss the broadcast) at 9:00 am PST:

On the Air: Sunday Salon
Hour 1: You weigh in on the immigration debate. Hour 2: "That is so gay." "F**got." "Darkies." "Scrotum." What does it mean when someone uses these words or phrases? What does it mean to limit their use?

Answer the questions

In the January 22, 2007 issue of The Nation, Victor Navasky offered up "Ford, Nixon, The Nation" all about the bravery involved in The Nation being handed a scoop (we wouldn't call beating the street date of a published volume "digging up a scoop"). Naval gazing at its most extreme. This was followed on February 25th by Katrina vanden Heuvel's "Suppressing News: Deja Vu" who left the 70s to Navasky and went to the 60s and Cuba when The Nation actually did have a scoop. If they're done self-stroking, we salute their past bravery. Past?

[Christopher] Ketcham took the story to a number of other magazines and got nowhere. Then, in the late summer of 2006 he took it to the Nation, whose editors said that yes, they wanted the story, but wouldn't schedule it till after the crush of political coverage in the run-up to the November elections. The target publication date was December 8. At the last minute, the Nation pulled the piece.

That's from Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Claire's "Ketcham's Story." If you missed the story, back on February 8th, Amy Goodman interview Cockburn and Christopher Ketcham (along with Marc Perelman) for "Cheering Movers and Art Student Spies: Was Israel Tracking the HijackersBefore the 9/11 Attacks?" (Democracy Now! -- read, listen, watch). In that interview, the fact that Salon took a pass on the article (after planning to run it) was addressed. The Nation?

Why did The Nation pull the article? Since both the "publisher emeritus" Victor Navasky (who is at CJR and needs to be off The Nation masthead -- it's really insulting when you grasp that no man had such a lofty title when he was publisher but make a woman the publisher and suddenly there's a need to create titles) and Katrina vanden Heuvel (editor and publisher) have recently self-stroked the magazine's no-hold-barred, we won't be censored past, they should be explaining to readers why it took CounterPunch to run the story that The Nation agreed to and then took a pass on?

Cockburn and St. Clair note:

When we first read it, we felt--and still feel--somewhat baffled at the difficulty this piece had in getting published. It's a report that deals with substantiated events that demand explanation, starting with the van on the New Jersey shore and the Israelis who were seen cheering as the planes crashed into the towers, and who on the afternoon of 9/11 were arrested following an FBI alert.

But The Nation, after agreeing to publish it, suddenly had a change of heart. Though not a "Sweet Victory" (we'd dub it "Cowardly Confusion"), it's something that needs to be addressed and the Editor's Cut blog is the perfect place to do so. The date for publication that Cockburn and St. Clair give is around the time that Christopher Hayes' article appeared, the one Katrina vanden Heuvel, in commmercials aired on Air America, breathlessly whispered was fully researched. Possibly, Ketcham's article was killed because of questions that it raised?

As editor and publisher, vanden Heuvel could answer why the piece was killed. Since navel gazing hasn't been a problem for the magazine this year and since this an issue that goes to censorship, the question of why the piece was killed should be answered.

It's really easy to point bravery in the past but it's a bit hypocritical to do so while you've recently engaged in censorship -- if that was the case. (We're not sure it was censorship. We're fully aware that The Nation is nothing but The Elector on page after page for most issues and it's highly possible that when the piece was read in full and they realized it included no shout out to Hillary or Obama, they lost interest for that simple reason.)

CounterPunch has published two article by Ketcham on this topic, "What Did Israel Know in Advance of the 9/11 Attacks?" and "The Kuala Lumpur Deceit: a CIA Cover Up." While Cockburn and St. Clair deserve credit for that, it's time people stopped saying, "I can't believe Salon killed the article!" and started asking why The Nation did the same?

On the issue of answering questions . . .

In the March 19, 2007 issue of The Nation, Clint Hendler contributes "TNR's New Owners" (pp. 6-8) and Nation readers are supposed to be concerned about the fate of The New Republic(an). The only real impact that the demise of TNR would have on The Nation is that it would allow many of the writers they publish more free time (since so many work for The New Republic). That's an important point to remember (Little Lee Lee is not the only one) when freelancer Hendler wants to instruct readers that "no matter what one thinks of The New Republic's politics, the public sphere will suffer if it becomes just another content provider in the CanWest media empire." It's already served as a content provider to The Nation (though TNR writers aren't generally identified as such when they pen the reviews for The Nation). Hendler's article appears to argue that even if TNR is a bad magazine (it is) we should all be alarmed because this might be the end of the road for TNR's independence.

We're not into wating our time fighting for unworthy causes. If The New Republic closes shop, it's not a tragedy. It should have happened long ago. (And their online 'model' is part of their problem though Hendler seems unaware of that.) The demise of Clamor (which The Nation couldn't bother to note) was a very sad thing. The magazine was producing real journalism, was doing so far from NYC, was producing pieces that made you think long after you closed the issue you'd be reading. The New Republic is a dopey magazine and, if it now goes under, the only real shame there is that it didn't do so before it did so much damage (and provided so much cover for attacking the left). We, in fact, think it's more than justice if the magazine which pushed the notion of "taking a bunker buster to Arundhati Roy" went under. [FYI, Christopher Hayes' still uncorrected error about John Kerry's DNC speech in 2004? The same point is raised in TNR -- don't think the publications are all that different. Although, in fairness, T.A. Frank doesn't get the citation wrong. It should also be noted that Frank contributes to Washington Monthly and that The Nation has an open door policy for those writers as well.] We also will note that, as usual, The Nation magazine shows a willing disregard towards violence against women by printing this sappy little piece that seeks to portray The New Republic(an) as some sort of Little Orphan Annie.

But it's interesting that The Nation has run a piece where the fretting is that writing by a publication will be farmed elsewhere considering that writers at another magazine are grumbling that this is exactly what's happening to pieces that instead of running in that magazine keep popping up in The Nation. Possibly, when the issue of why the decision was made by The Nation to kill the piece is finally addressed, the magazine might also want to address the notion of "sister publication"?

If those questions are ever addressed, we'd encourage the magazine to address why they are insistent upon watering down the magazine by including writers from publications that are supposed to be odds at with The Nation? The at odds got much slimmer when The Nation decided it was nothing but The Elector. John Mellencamp once warned, "You've gotta stand right up for somethin' or you're gonna fall for anything yeah yeah yeah" (Scarecrow). Who knew he was predicting the future of The Nation?

The Nation Stats

You know the photo (very popular in e-mails), Katrina vanden Heuvel surrounded by her Nation writing staff. A new issue arrives, March 19th, and proves that The Nation can actually improve their male-to-female byline ratio if they relegate women to the back section of the rag!!


EDITORIALS & COMMENT
"Rushed Primaries" (unsigned)
Robert L. Borosage's "When's The Idea Primary?"
David Cole's "There Is No Law"
Clint Hendler's "TNR's New Owners"

Three article signed, three male bylines.

Score: 3 males, 0 females

COLUMNS
Calvin Trillin's "Backsliders Try to Please the Right . . ."
Alexander Cockburn's "The Persecution of Sami Al-Arian"

Score: 2 males, 0 females

ARTICLES
Christian Parenti's laughable "Iraq: Who Will Get The Oil?"
Alex de Waal's "The Wars Of Sudan"
Ari Berman's "K Street's Favorite Democrat"

Score: 3 males, 0 females

CRITICS
Adam LeBor's "Blah, blah, blah" (really, come up with titles for the book reviews)
Maria Margaronis' "The Bastard of Istanbul"
Ange Mlinko's "The Children's Museum"
D.T. Max' ". . . With I Could Be There . . ." (see previous parenthetical)

Score: 2 males, 2 females

Total Score For This Issue: 10 males, 2 females

Year to date score: 112 males, 30 women

By offering less pieces this edition and by including a poem by a woman and a book review by a woman (they aren't too good at "Comment" apparently), the rag manages to get 3.7 males for every single female byline. Sadly, for them, that's a huge improvement.


The lack of women being featured in the magazine was brought to C.I.'s attention by a group of women late in 2006. For a column at Polly's Brew, C.I. went back and compiled the stats for that year. What we had discussed was following 2007's issues each time they arrived in the mailbox. Ava and C.I. were in charge of the December 24, 2006 edition and that was the first week that a 2007 issue had arrived (January 1, 2007 issue). They immediately started up "The Nation Stats." "The Nation Stats" ran again in our December 31st edition (covering the magazine's January 8, 2007 issue -- a "double issue"). January 21st, we covered the January 22nd issue in "The Nation Stats." Last week, "The Nation Stats" covered two issues since two arrived the same day for three of us participating in this feature. February 4th, we covered the Feb 12th issue in "The Nation Stats." February 11th we covered the February 19th issue in "The Nation Stats." February 25th, we coved the February 26th issue in "The Nation Stats." March 4th we covered the March 5th and March 12th issues of the magainze in "The Nation Stats."

Highlights

Selected by Kat, Betty, Cedric, Wally, Elaine, Rebecca and Mike.

"Ruth's Report" -- Ruth's latest and possibly greatest. We loved this report. Ruth's on the road and wasn't sure she'd be able to do a report but she did and you better read it. Honest. Go read it now.

"Linguini with Broccoli and Peppers in the Kitchen" -- We think Trina titled this wrong, it should be "Health Care in the Kitchen." Read it and you'll see why.

"It's about perspective and humanity" -- Kat's amazing piece.

"War resisters, Free Speech Radio News" -- Mike hitting hard on key points.

"Put if off for another day!" and "THIS JUST IN! NO PLAN! AGAIN!" -- Cedric & Wally's joint-post where they explain Bully Boy's plan for Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

"Cindy Sheehan, Patrick Cockburn, war resistance" -- Elaine explains the difference between e-activism and taking a stand.

"janet coleman, daniel ellsberg, wbai" -- Rebecca follows WBAI's impeachment special.

"Jumping Jerk Thom Friedman -- he's a gas, gas, gas" -- Betty's latest chapter.

"Agustin Aguayo" -- you're one stop for the court-martial of Aguayo. Ora asked that this entry by C.I. be noted.

"And the war drags on . . ." -- Danny Schechter's calling for action on the media coverage, C.I. goes through why it's needed.

"THIS JUST IN! BULLY BOY SHOCKED BY NEWT NEWS!" and "No, Newt!" -- Wally and Cedric tackle "I'm Just A Sex Machine" Newt.

"For Lou and Sanders" -- Ty told us Lou e-mailed and asked that this be included as a highlight. We agree it's worth noting. Kat giving some backstory for newcomers.

A Note to Our Readers

Hey --
Sunday! Another edition.

Here's who did writing on this edition:

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

We thank them and we thank Dallas for his help with links and for being a sounding board. We thank Rebecca for photshopping illustrations. On those, we have fewer illustrations than usual because, as Dona pointed out, Rebecca's on the road and using a laptop. Let's not overload her with illustrations (or her laptop). So we've used some public domain stills from films. (The Earthworm Tractors is the film the still of Joe E. Brown used to illustrate AlterPunk is from.) We did do an illustration of Agustin Aguayo.

New content:

Highlights -- Mike, Cedric, Elaine, Wally, Betty and Rebecca wrote this and selected the highlights.

Last Senator Standing -- We were trying to use Russ Feingold for truest statement of the week and instead went another way.

The Nation Stats -- 4 men for every woman? Why does The Nation hate and silence women?
This installment, we cover two issues and we also listen to Troy's point (thanks for the point and thanks for writing, Troy) that it will be a nightmare when the last 2007 issue is noted and we have to start finding links to include every feature we've done all year noting the statistics. Be sure to check out the "photo" of Katrina vanden Heuvel with the mag's writers.

AlterPunk needs a Net Nanny -- Oh that AlterPunky Brewester. That Cindy Brady of the Faux Left. He's grabbed Linus' blanket. placed it over his head, and is in vigilante mode! He's proposed a Council of Bloggers which only demonstrates that he needs to stop watching Survivor.

Mini-mailbag -- We just did that. We were in this entry thinking we were done when Dona looked at her notes and saw Ty wanted a mailbag this edition. The idea was to answer some questions that had come in and to share some e-mails. We didn't have time. Two things we did note, the response to last week's TV commentary (it may be on the verge of becoming the most popular one Ava and C.I. have ever done) and Jason's e-mail because it does note who our intended readers are and it also notes that, for those without cable but who do get the hideous I network, Charlie's Angels should be starting up the Farrah Fawcett episodes this week.


The Nation magazine goes in search of America's youth -- If you thought the way students were ignored by The Nation was bad, wait until you see how awful things get when they try to lure them in as readers.

Quick news catch up -- We wanted to do a lengthy feature on the NGO report. Ty and Dona were both exhausted (probably most of us were, but they admitted it). So when it was four o'clock (seven in EST time zones), Dona noted we could keep on and be up early or we could take a three hour nap, get some rest and be posting our articles at the regular time. We went with the latter. Mini-mailbag was written just by the core six (because it was done after everyone was gone). This was two quick features that we paired with the NGO report comments so, as a single feature, it was worked on by everyone.

War resister Agustin Aguayo to be court-martialed Tuesday -- This was the piece we were working on when Dona made the suggestion. We were at a loss for an end to it. That was one reason we agreed with Dona that we should get some sleep.

TV: In Case of Emergency, Laugh! -- Rebecca photoshopped this last year when Ava and C.I. were thinking of doing the review (that includes a stamp Rebecca put on it). We really enjoyed reading this one and we think you will as well. Next week, they're hoping to tackle another sitcom.

Editorial: The wrath of the jealous 'Big Boys' -- The tough talking military, acting like Alex in Fatal Attraction. Hide the bunny rabbits! And leave Kyle Snyder alone!

That's it for us. See you next week.

-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.

Editorial: The wrath of the jealous 'Big Boys'

And I know I'd never go back --

it's broken-hearted street

and a paranoid street lamp.

My only precious thing I had

has been broken.

But I'm soulful and grateful,

and gleeful

Hey, hey yeah

caught me in its ray ...

-- "It Hurts," written by Rickie Lee Jones and Peter Atanasoff, from Jones' CD The Sermon On Exposition Boulevard

US war resister Kyle Snyder served in Iraq, self-checked out and went to Canada (April 2005) after seeing that reconstruction wasn't an issue but targeting Iraqis was. He found work in Canada, got a job working with disabled children that he enjoyed and that paid well. He was making a life for himself up north.

Then, as the summer of 2006 became all about the war resisters (except in media, big and small), he became one of the war resisters in Canada thinking of returning to turn himself in.

He ended up doing that, in fact, on October 31st, he turned himself in at Fort Knox and quickly decided to self-check out again the same day (not, AP, in November 2006).

How come?

The same US military that had lied to recruit him, that had lied to him in Iraq, lied again. An agreement Synder's attorney at the time, James Fennerty, had worked out with the US military securing Snyder's return got tossed out the window shortly after Fennerty left the base. Now it wasn't about processing Snyder out, it was about shipping him off to Iraq, it was about, "No, you can't talk to your lawyer." It was about the usual b.s. that they've pulled with Snyder repeatedly. As Snyder told Gerry Condon, "I didn't leave Canada in order to go to jail -- just the opposite. I returned to the U.S. because the Army said they would discharge me with no jail time. But the Army lied to me -- again."

So he checked back out. Synder hung around the US (Fennerty was attempting to iron out the situation which was difficult when the military refused to return his calls) and did what he did in Canada, spoke out against the illegal war. He teamed up with Iraq Veterans Against the War and, still speaking out, went to New Orleans to help with the rebuilding (what he was told he would be doing in Iraq) in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Then he started a West Coast speaking tour and suddenly the police were very interested in Snyder. Suddenly, they were showing up at his scheduled stops. Like the Road Runner, Kyle Snyder always outsmarted him and then he returned to Canada.

During the Vietnam era, Canada had some beliefs they stood by. Not only did the government not send troops to that illegal war, they also granted US war resisters asylum. Things have changed (and not for the better). No US war resister has yet to be granted asylum in Canada.

(Even though Canada also chose to avoid this illegal war.) Everyone who has been heard by the immigration board (supposedly independent) has been denied and they have appeals outstanding. One thing that Canada does do is refuse to deport US war resisters back to the US while their appeals are being heard. And, of course, US forces can't come into Canada and grab the war resisters.

But never one to miss a chance to attempt to screw over Snyder, the US military decided that laws and customs don't matter all that much if they can get someone else to do their dirty work.

So they worked out a little back door deal with the local police in the area of British Columbia where Snyder was staying and soon enough the police were knock-knocking on his door Friday, February 23rd.

US war resister Ryan Johnson answered. He, his wife Jenna, Snyder and Snyder's wife to be, Maleah Friesen, share a residence. Snyder stepped out to speak to the police, in a robe and boxers, and was immediately grabbed and nabbed, refused the right to change into street clothes, and arrested. Lawyers Against War explain what went down here and pay attention to this:

Joci Peri, an Immigration official in Vancouver , later told Snyder he had been arrested at the request of the U.S. Army.
Being AWOL from another country's military is not an extraditable offense in Canada , nor does it have any bearing on immigrating to Canada , according to Vancouver lawyer Daniel McLeod, who is representing Snyder. "And the U.S. Army is not the boss of the Canadian police," says Gerry Condon of Project Safe Haven.

Oh, but they thought they were. Wife to be? Snyder was supposed to get married. That got postponed due to the arrest. (Which the Canadian press portrays accurately as an arrest but the US press tends to prefer the term "detained." They also prefer to not note the US military's involvement in the matter.)

Snyder plans to get married this month. The US military is probably dreaming up new schemes and conspiracies to ruin that moment. They can't get over the fact that Kyle Snyder outsmarted them. There's a bit another bit of reality they can't face, they outsmarted themselves. Snyder came back to the US, he turned himself in, the matter could have been resolved. They decided to screw with him again.

So if this "loose end" is just obsessing them, they have only themselves to blame. And you have to wonder how they have so much time to repeatedly plot against Snyder considering there is an illegal war for them to fight, considering there are high school kids for them to lie to and try to trick in order to meet their recruitment numbers, considering that the US military medical facilities are a source of national shame. So many things to do.

Kyle Snyder's getting on with his life. But the 'Big Boys' of the US military prefer to act like desperate ex-girlfriend in a really bad movie (such as Fatal Attraction), willing to do anything to hang on, refusing to let go! That's neither "mature" nor "macho." Something the Big Boys might want to consider the next time they gather to plot. Again, Snyder's getting on with his life. The 'Big Boys' would do well to remember some advice passed on to Lily Tomlin's Edith Ann: To get back, is to go back.

TV: In Case of Emergency, Laugh!

The punchline that started around 1987 and had a strong run throughout the 90s was "Watching Mary Page Keller." That was the response to, "What are you doing this weekend?" It was a running bit in some circles (not unlike the game of "If I had a Geffen . . ."). It was never a judgement of Page Keller's talents (she was often quite good). It was, however, a way of noting that she was in a number of shows that tanked. It started with Duets, continued through the likes of Baby Talk and began to refer to even her guest episodes. We bring it up because we hope that's not about to be the fate of Lori Loughlin.

Around the time Loughlin was becoming an audience favorite as Nicole's kid sister Jody on The Edge of Night, Page Keller was drawing some attention as Sally Frame on Another World. It's around the same period that Meg Ryan was an audience favorite as Betsy on As The World Turns and Demi Moore was one as Jackie on General Hospital. So it's easy to look at Page Keller's career, in comparison, and wonder what happened? But the reality is Janine Turner was a minor nobody on General Hospital around the same time, and who's seen her lately? Better question, who's missed her?

The point is, it takes a lot of work to make a post-soap career. (That reality may be why Susan Lucci's elected to remain with All My Children for over thirty-five years.) Lori Loughlin's got it. But can she get a hit?

Full House gave her one and she gave adult viewers of that show something to do besides groan. During that time and since, she's done enough women in crisis telefilms to fill a Lifetime marathon and numerous guest spots on sitcoms and dramas. Most of all she's done two series that should have brought her more attention than they did.

One was a sitcom, Wednesday 9:30 (8:30 Central) in which she played "Lori Loughlin" (a sitcom version of the famous actress, she wasn't playing herself) and did some outstanding work but, for some used to Rebecca on Full House, "Lori" may have been too much for them. A real shame because she really put herself out there in that role.

The other was a WB series and, along with giving a strong performance, her chief crime that led to the show's cancellation was her refusal (as star and producer) to make the standard body wash operetta all the netlets were offering then (UPN had One Tree Hill, Fox had The O.C.). The show was Summerland and, not only was it watchable, it was enjoyable. But it existed in a world where there were people of color and, on a soundstage, where there were actors of talent.

Now she's back on ABC (Edge of Night, Full House and Wednesday 9:30 et al aired on ABC) in a new sitcom called In Case Of Emergency that the Water Cooler Set sneered at as they deployed their deathly prose-praise to prop up the really disgusting The Knights of Prosperity.

How bad do you have to be to be slammed while trash is praised?

If that was your question, you still haven't grasped the Water Cooler Set. They're not interested in being entertained (or in facts, we're still laughing at a DVD review of Family Ties that shouldn't have passed a basic fact check). They need a show that provides them with room to pontificate and look trendy.

So In Case Of Emergency got snubbed because it's actually entertaining. Loughlin plays doctor
Joanna Lupone. The role could be a step backwards, but she's utilizing some of the freedom she explored in her last two series to provide quirks to the "Dream Girl" role and hitting some of the unexpected notes that made Rachel (played by Jennifer Aniston) so enjoyable on Friends.

Louglin's character is pursued/lusted after by David Arquette's Jason Ventress. Arquette has his own charm that you either like or you don't (we like) but it succeeds best when he's paired with a strong actress (such as opposite Courtney Cox-Arquette in the Scream films) so he's lucky to be opposite Loughin in this show as his character works off some community service hours at the hospital.

The main locale for the show is Harry Kennison's house. Kennison, played by Jonathan Silverman, lives there with his son Dylan (Harry's a single father) and more recently, friends from school, Jason, Sherman (Greg Germann) and Kelly (Kelly Hu). Jason worked at his uncle's company prior to its Enron-like meltdown. Sherman's a semi-famous self-help guru whose wife walked out on him. Kelly, the valedictorian of their high school, now works at a massage parlor (in the seediest sense -- what Frank assumed sister Phoebe did on Friends). All four have hit their first bump in life and the 'emerency' leads them to re-bond.

Germann's Sherman is prone to binges -- binge eating, binge spending and binge crying over the fact that his wife left him. For those who remember his Richard Fish on Ally McBeal and, have caught that show's Peter MacNicol's caricatured and overdone performance on NUMB3ERS, never fear -- Germann's created a character and not a psych case study. That may be a surprise because Sherman is a basket case, but the performance is grounded.

Kelly Hu became the first Asian-American Miss Teen USA in 1985. Since then, she's had to make her way in the world of entertainment. Her character, Kelly Lee, is an achiever who hasn't had the breaks and reunites with Harry in the first episode when they have sex during his "massage." The hooker with the heart of gold? Hu's too talented to play a stereotype and, fortunately, the writers have grasped that. Instead, Kelly's wounded like all the leads but also the most realistic.

Which brings us to Harry. We've never enjoyed Jonathan Silverman. We didn't care for his character on Gimmie A Break, we didn't care for his lead character in The Single Guy, we didn't care for his film work (including starring in the Weekend At Bernie's films), so our initial reaction to reviewing this show before it aired was, "We'll take a pass." But friends with it kept insisting so we gave it a chance. Silverman has always struck us a guy who is average enough to not threaten (male) network exec's (or Neil Simon) and got cast often for that reason and that reason only.

So one of our biggest surprises was the fact that we enjoy Silverman as Harry. He's very good. And that's partly the writing and partly the fact that Silverman's found a role he can excell in. (And, we're sure, also the benefit of many years of acting.) Harry's a less aware cousin of the character Jason Bateman played so well on Arrested Development. He spends the majority of his time caring for others which usually allows him to avoid addressing his own problems.

This can lead to some zany comedic highs such as multiple scenes with Hu and, more recently, some hilarious scenes with Jane Seymour as Donna Ventress, mother of Jason. Seymour demonstrated her strong flair for comedy (and will do so again on the episode set to air March 14th) as she seduced her son's best friend whose discomfort only aroused her more. In that storyline, Silverman had a lot to convey, often with little or no dialogue (and no "on the nose" dialogue) and probably hit one of his best moments when he volunteered to tell Donna her brother had died again. There was what his character was saying and what his character was thinking. In under twenty seconds, Silverman got it all across.

So you've got a strongly written show, a strongly cast show, one that produces actual laughs (often in unexpected places -- such as Loughlin's perverse expressions during a Barbi memory) and the Water Cooler Set sneered. Are we surprised?

The same set that pushes dull as an intentional sardonic commentary has lost the ability to appreciate real laughter. If you haven't, if you've watched the bulk of so-called sitcom offerings on display this year and longed for a show that could bring back the giddy highs that were once NBC's Thursday nights (highs only 30 Rock currently achieves), this is a sitcom for you. And if there are enough of you out there, Loughlin's got a well earned hit. If not, she'll move on to another project and be fine. The real concern is what this will mean for the immediate future of sitcoms. The standard used to be that you had to be funny. When the Water Cooler Set works themselves into self-amused laughter over whimsy or stoops to praising the tired proceedings on King Of Queens (as The New York Times recently did), it's completely up to the television viewer, at this point, to save the sitcom.