The death of Our Modern Day Carrie Nations

Sammy Power died last Friday. It was a career death but a death none the less.


She committed a slow suicide that began when she reveled that she hated Hillary Clinton and the poor in America, continued with her revelation that Barack Obama's 'pledge' to withdrawl all combat troops from Iraq was just pretty words and finally ended with her Friday announcement that she was resigning from Obama's campaign.

Samantha Power is a War Hawk. She has never been about peace. She has been about destruction and lying. Since 2005, we have written of her and her ilk repeatedly. So we were more than a little interested in how this would play out in Panhandle Media.

On Friday's Democracy Now!, Tired Whore for the Bambi campaign, Amy Goodman reduced it to one senence, declaring, "Meanwhile one of Obama's top foreign policy advisors, Samantha Power, described Clinton as a monster in an interview with a Scottish newspaper." Apparently having another trick lined up, that was it for Goody -- rather surprising when you consider the fact that February 22nd, on WBAI in the midst of a pledge drive, Goody felt the need to gush that Power was "the woman who some have said if Barack Obama were to become president could be his Secretary of State." She'd raise that prospect again on the February 25th broadcast of her show. For any who have forgotten or don't know, Goody made a mini-name for herself March 3, 1995 when asking New Gingrich why he hadn't apologized to American women for calling Hillary Clinton a "bitch." But Friday, Goody was all grins and we seriously doubt that she'll ever press Power the way she did Gingrich. See when Republicans do something, Goody calls them out, when Dems do it, she looks the other way.

Just like she ignored it when Hillary was wrongly accused of "pimping" Chelsea. Goody never covered that. Goody cares about "American women" when it suits her. When it doesn't? She's publishing in Hu**ler skin magazine.

The Scotsman was the name of the newspaper and here's what they reported:


Ms Power told The Scotsman Mrs Clinton was stopping at nothing to try to seize the lead from Mr Obama."We f***** up in Ohio," she admitted. "In Ohio, they are obsessed and Hillary is going to town on it, because she knows Ohio's the only place they can win. "She is a monster, too – that is off the record – she is stooping to anything," Ms Power said, hastily trying to withdraw her remark.
"Interestingly, the people in her innermost circle seem to not mind her; I think they really love her." But she added: "There is this middle circle – they are really on the warpath. But the truth is she has proved herself really willing to stoop."
[. . .]
"You just look at her and think: ergh. But if you are poor and she is telling you some story about how Obama is going to take your job away, maybe it will be more effective. The amount of deceit she has put forward is really unattractive."

It was more than smearing than Hillary as a "monster." It was every stereotype in the book and Goody so quick to stand up to Newt didn't have s**t to say on Friday. She certainly didn't both to defend the poor whom Power implied were imbeciles.

In fairness to Goody, Sammy Power's revelations to the BBC about Bambi's non-binding 'pledge' to the American people regarding Iraq weren't receiving traction on Friday morning. By Friday evening that would not be the case. So we looked around at the usual suspects, the usual Whores For Bambi.

The Nation -- the allegedy wants to end the illegal war weekly -- had not a word to say about Sammy Power informing (British) audiences that Barack didn't mean what he said about Iraq. Golly gee, Americans Against Escalation (or whatever that do-nothing faux grassroots group was called) implodes and there's Tommy Hayden with an article the next day at The Nation (one that then gets pulled because of a phone call to the magazine but then goes back up in rewritten form and with an addendum). Sammy Power declares the Iraq talk hollow and where's Tommy? Or, for that matter, anyone else at The Nation?

Maybe they missed it? For any who did, here's one exchange that took place:

Stephen Sackur: You said that he'll revisit it [the decision to pull troops] when he goes to the White House. So what the American public thinks is a commitment to get combat forces out within sixteen months, isn't a commitment is it?

Samantha Power: You can't make a commitment in whatever month we're in now, in March of 2008 about what circumstances are going to be like in January 2009. We can't even tell what Bush is up to in terms of troops pauses and so forth. He will of course not rely upon some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or as a US Senator.

It's not "a commitment is it?" -- Power responds, "You can't make a commitment." Wow. No wonder they've hidden that point. It's kind of hard to get a crowd cheering to "No, I won't!"

John Nichols who allegedly cares about the illegal war (he allegedly cared about impeachment as well until his book didn't sell) rushed online Saturday to declare that poor Sammy Power had been the victim in all of this -- apparently the victim in her own attack of Hillary Clinton. He never noted her comments about the 'pledge' being lies, but he did make up the LIE that Power and Clinton had known each other for years. As C.I. pointed out, that was a lie: "October 16, 2007, Samantha Power declared to Charlie Rose, 'I have only met her once, and I find her very, very affable and actually very intellectually curious and not ideological.' According to Power herself, as of October 2007, she had met Hillary only one time but John's so busy lying for his ManCrush's campaign that he (wrongly) asserts that Power has 'known' Hillary 'for a number of years'."

One lie we heard repeatedly was that Sammy barely mattered to the campaign. She was unpaid! She was one of many foreign advisors! She barely knew Obama!

From The Harvard Crimson:

Power has been a member of Obama’s foreign policy kitchen cabinet since he was elected to the Senate in 2004. Before taking on the role of advising his campaign, Power worked for a year in his Senate office.

Oh no she didn't!

Katha Pollitt's been used to laughter since the first time she ever entered a room. So she shouldn't be too surprised that a lot of people are yet again laughing at her. The in-house 'feminist' and pet for The Nation magazine decided it was time to put aside her really bad poetry and pen a letter to The Washington Post last week.

It was badly written and far too many are just focusing on Pollitt's tired use of the 80s phrase "Gag me with a spoon!" Granted when a writer's as bad as Katha, it's hard to pin it down to just one passage but, for us, the one that had us howling was this little tip from Katha:

Fill more important jobs at The Washington Post. We should be half the assigning editors, half the writers, and half the regular columnists too (current roster of op-ed columnists: 16 men, two women).

Oh, Katha thinks it's important for outlets to publish women? Now, she thinks that? Now?

As Winona says to Ethan in Reality Bites, "Where were you!"

Where were you Katha, when we were calling out the systematic sexism at your own magazine (The Nation) throughout 2007? Maybe you missed the features as we tracked individual issues, but how could you stay silent in the face of our six-month study:

"Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you must have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," and "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis."

How could you continue to refuse to call out your own magazine publicly (the way you have The New York Times and now The Washington Post) after "The Nation featured 491 male bylines in 2007 -- how many female ones?" (The answer to the question is "194.")

You stayed silent because you're only loud and tough when you can finger-point at someone who doesn't sign your pay check. It's a weak sort of feminism that allows you to call out from a distance but never up close.

Katha, they were already laughing at you before we shared the above. Even our sharing that we term you the Charlotte Rae of the Mud Flap Gals didn't increase the laughter, only prolonged it. You made yourself a joke long ago and only confirmed it when you cyber-stalked your ex-boyfriend and then decided to embarrass yourself further by writing about it. We think the only thing sadder than being a dirty joke is being an old joke but we figure you'd know about that far better than we would.

Highlights

This piece is written by Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Kat of Kat's Korner, Betty of Thomas Friedman is a Great Man, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, Marcia of SICKOFITRADLZ and Wally of The Daily Jot. Unless otherwise noted, we picked all highlights.

"The Problem From Hell: Samantha Power" -- the seminal entry at any site this week. :D This is an entry by C.I. and Dona and we say "and Dona" because she went into make a quick note that she was adding links to what C.I. was writing about (due to the fact that e-mails were coming in saying, "Did not happen!") and ended up writing quite a bit in her "Added" note following "The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com." We love Dona's note and we really love C.I.'s entry. Dona told us that nothing has gotten more e-mails at the public account since she's been working it as this did on Friday "all in the matter of thirty minutes. This thing took on a life of its own and as the e-mails kept piling up, I called C.I. and said, 'If I add links to what you wrote, I can probably cut down on at least a third of the incoming e-mails.'"

"In the closet with John and Cathy" -- Betinna's still in the closet in Katrina's office. Betty says she read this to Kat and C.I. over the phone on Friday and they couldn't figure out what was wrong. Betty knew something was wrong but couldn't figure it out herself. "C.I. said, 'Give me a minute.' Called back ten minutes later and said 'stacatto.' Meaning to take the chapter and break it up into shorter sentences for a punchier rhythm and more of a Jack Webb feel. When I did that, it worked perfectly and is probably the only chapter I'm proud of." We think she has much to be proud of but are thrilled that she finally likes something she posted.

"Perogi Potato Casserole in the Kitchen" -- Trina's sharing a recipe and reviewing the death of Sammy Power.

"Mama Mia!" -- We loved this by Ruth but wondered who the Republican quoting Mia Farrow was? She couldn't remember. We just asked C.I. who's finishing the TV commentary with Ava and were told, "I'm tired. I don't remember. It was Thursday. Wolf. His last name is Wolf. It was the Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations of the House Committee on Appropriations, they met Thursday. Wolf was quoting Mia on Darfur and noting she had termed it the 'genocide olympics.' Frank. I believe it's Frank Wolf. Search it and make sure." It was Frank Wolf. Ruth's writing about how time has changed that Mia Farrow, a member of the Love Generation, can now be quoted in Congress, by a Republican. (For the record, we do not support the send the military into Darfur loonies. We also have stated many times that we feel Mia Farrow is very genuine in her work on the issue of Darfur and we do not include her in the list of nut-jobs.)


"Making history" -- We also loved Ruth's post on watching Tuesday night's return with her family.

"Dallas' precinct preview" -- community member Dallas (who helps out at this site every week) phoned in a precinct report from Texas to C.I. who posted it while the caucuses in Texas were ongoing.

"Barack needs 12 inches!" & "THIS JUST IN! OBAMA NEEDS 12 INCHES!" -- Everyone loved this. We were curious about the hilarious headline -- suggesting, when you read it, that Barack only looks like a real candidate from far away. Wally and Cedric say that (a) we can't bother C.I. again and ask but (b) as they understood it, Rolling Stone did a profile on Joan Collins back in the eighties and the title of the piece was "Joan Collins Needs 12 Inches . . . and the further back you get, the better she looks." Cedric: "We had the whole thing written but it needed something still. Wally called C.I. and read it and then calls me back and fills me in on the Joan Collins thing. We agreed it was just what was needed so we not only put it in the title, we made it a sentence in the joint-post." Wally: "And everyone's asking us why we didn't post on Tuesday. We were in Texas still and still campaigning for Hillary. We were supposed to leave after voting ended but a friend of C.I.'s said, 'Oh come on, you know you want to find out the results.' So we ended up staying and by midnight, when it was obvious Hillary had won, we were partying."

"Ruth's Report"-- Ruth's weekend report at The Common Ills that went up last Saturday a week ago and we missed it. We didn't know she'd done a report when we were doing highlights. This is a great report and the only thing we'd suggest would be to call it "Deadbeat Media." Read her report and see why.

"Ruth's Report" -- This is the one that went up late last night. Ruth wrote it and posted it right before we did the roundtable. She claims it's a "dashed off quickie." We think it's a hilarious shorter report from Ruth.

"Sammy go bye-bye" & "Sammy Power blows a gasket!" -- Mike covering War Hawk and Our Modern Day Carrie Nations, Sammy Power. Bye-bye, Sammy, bye-bye.

"Hillary and the nut-jobs of The Nation" -- Elaine tackles the whiney babies of the weekly magazine less and less people are bothering to pretend to read.

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Pinocchio Obama" -- Isaiah's hilarious comic from Monday. Bambi proved himself to be even more of a liar by week's end.

"hillary's back!" -- Rebecca going over reality.

"NAFTA-Gate" & "NAFTA-Gate and more" -- Elaine and Mike noting Bambi's lies on NAFTA.

"The economy" -- Kat on the economy including an overpriced book!

"THIS JUST IN! SAMMY POWER DOWN BUT NOT OUT!" & "Sammy Power's new war" -- Wally and Cedric reveal what Sammy Power's up to now: Look out Cambridge!

"Melissa Harris-Lacewell doesn't speak for me!" & "Pt. 2 of MH-L" -- Marcia covering why Melissa Harris-Lacewell shouldn't threaten a Black-Out.

"I Hate The War" -- and C.I.'s highly requested by readers of this site Thursday night entry.

Truest statement of the week

It is incomprehensible that The Nation magazine endorsed Obama after making the following statement. "This magazine has been critical of the senator from Illinois for his closeness to Wall Street; his unwillingness to lay out an ambitious progressive agenda on healthcare, housing and other domestic policy issues; and for post-partisan rhetoric that seems to ignore the manifest failure of conservatism over these past seven years."

If The Nation has so many qualms about Obama, why endorse him at all? The editors could have simply made a statement of non-support for Obama or Clinton. The sad plight of progressives is all too obvious. "While his rhetoric about ‘unity' can be troubling, it also embodies a savvy strategy to redefine the center of American politics and build a coalition by reaching out to independent and Republican voters disgruntled and disgusted with what the Bush era has wrought." The Nation should explain to readers why Democrats ought to "redefine the center" with independents and Republicans instead of having their own agenda and fighting to make it a reality.

If even The Nation bows down in thrall of the over hyped "center," then all hope for true change is gone. In other words, capitulation is the order of the day, and Obama makes it more palatable than Hillary Clinton does.



-- Margaret Kimberley's "Progressives Cave to Obama" (Black Agenda Report).

Truest statement of the week II

About this issue of the Iraq war, as I know there's been much discussion about it and certainly on this show, we early on raised many of the questions in terms of the justifications for the war. But it does seem to me that it's a little bit different being a state legislator in Illinois from a district that's probably very much antiwar and having him being in the US Senate. If he had been in the US Senate and taken the same position at the time, I think that would have been a much firmer stand, that he could say, 'I was against the war from the beginning.' But when you're in a district in Illinois, you're along with about one-third to 40 percent of the American people who at that time were questioning of the war to a large degree, and I think that it was a tougher situation for those who were in the Senate. It still doesn't mean that Hillary Clinton was right in her judgment, but I find it hard to equate the two positions because of the relative differences in where they were at the time.



-- Juan Gonzalez, continuing to tell the truth even when face to face with Our Modern Day Carrie Nation, on Democracy Now! last Monday.

A Note to Our Readers

Hey --
Sunday night now. Everything's up except the note I (Jim) am writing now.

Here's who worked 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,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
and Marcia SICKOFITRDLZ.

We thank all of them and we thank Dallas. Here's what we've got:

Truest statement of the week -- Margaret Kimberely calling like it is. If you don't yet grasp the importance of Black Agenda Report, ask yourself who else had the guts to take on that editorial?

Truest statement of the week II -- Juan Gonzalez, like Kimberley, remains a truth-teller and a land of go-alongs. We may revist Gonzalez' comments next week.

A mini-note to the readers -- This is out of order. It's supposed to be further down. But while C.I. fixes that on another computer, this is where I explain that Ava and C.I. were sick. They were prepared to go on but they didn't have the flu and were sick from exhaustion. Dona wisely suggested we all get some sleep. Ava and C.I. hit the road every week to speak out against the illegal war (usually with Kat) and they end up flying home Saturday morning. They have a ton of personal things to catch up on, they have to help out with the all night writing edition which falls into Sunday and then, they're back out on the road again. C.I.'s just moved this down to right after highlights. It was just a mini-note saying we would be posting today and we posted two things that were complete and needed nothing else that we knew of.

Editorial: While You Were Distracted -- A lot of news happens. A lot of it doesn't get reported. Allegedly Panhandle Media is supposed to grab what falls between the cracks but that didn't happen here despite the fact that contractors remain the only Iraq issue Panhanlde Media can report on these days -- they certainly can't report on war resisters.

TV: Recyling the tired and the damaging -- Ava and C.I.'s commentary that has already had complaints from readers that if we were going to take a sleep break, couldn't we have at least posted this -- one missing paragraph (see mini-note) or not? Ty was attempting to help out Ava and C.I. They write this piece, they type it up, they do their own links. They were throwing at this point and Ty went into this to add a link for Johnny Test -- what they'd said still needed to be done. When he did, the paragraph the link went into was lost. They said they'd fix it later. They open with the Academy Awards and note that they were texting everyone about an opening monologue ripping off a seven-year-old episode of a sitcom. Among the people they texted were Elaine and Mike who note that in this joint-entry Sunday night where they filled in for C.I.

Roundtable -- This went the two hours planned even with the last topic coming up. We're still working on the kinks to figure out how to do a roundtable in a reasonable amount of time. Among the problems (as I see it) this week is that Betty didn't talk. Everything you see by Betty is everything she said. She was afraid she'd make us go over the limit. So that's something I still need to address. We're covering a number of topics and thanks to reader Duncan, Ty for picking the e-mail and C.I. for addressing Duncan's topic or we might not have Iraq in the roundtable. Stealing from Friday's snapshot: " Kimberly Wilder (On The Wilder Side) in a video produced by Terry Morrone (a typo yesterday, it is "Terry Morrone")." We've added that to the roundtable. We were going to note the Wilder interview in a separate feature dealing with Cynthia and Matt Gonzalez but time ran out so we've added it into the transcript of this piece and now into the note as well.

Why Marcia started her own blog -- This is generally a Q & A. When a member starts their own site, we do an interview with them. But, due to the fact that we had the lengthy roundtable, we didn't want two major transcript pieces. If you hate it in this format, let us know. We'll be happy to interview Marcia again. Be sure to check out her site.

Fool On The Hill -- Barack Obama breathes oxygen. Due to the touchy nature of the candidate and the campaign, will that be considered a smear as well? Or will it just be something we're not supposed to talk about? I have no idea but it's amazing how much is being tossed under the bus for the candidate supposedly bringing us all 'together.' Maybe he's just bringing together the last ones left standing? The Cockburn family is becoming an embarrassment.

Dumb Ass of the Week -- It's a tie! -- How do you tell Air Berman and Air Mebler apart? The world may never know. We're trying to figure out which one is the Heddy (Single White Female) of the pair but we're left the impression that they're both Heddy.

It's still called The Progressive, right? -- Thank you, Matt Rothschild, for seeing that more voices were needed in independent media and specificially in your magazine. It was so very wonderful of you to add two new columnists. And it was no surprise that you went with the most under-represented category, the voices least heard: Two White males. Thanks, Matty.

Highlights -- Kat, Mike, Rebecca, Betty, Wally, Cedric and Elaine wrote this and picked the highlights unless otherwise noted. We thank them for this. Dona, C.I. and I made an addition to this with one final highlight.

That's what we've got. Hopefully something that made you laugh, pissed you off or got you active.

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

Editorial: While You Were Distracted

"What law applied when you were commanding troops over there?"



That's the question Senator Jim Webb asked of General George Casey last Tuesday in the Senate Armed Service Committee meeting.



Casey is now the Amy Chief of Staff. From June 2004 through the start of February 2007, Cased was the Commanding General of Multi-National Forces -- the top US commander in Iraq.

The question Webb was asking applied to contractors.



The exchange that followed should have made the news, should have been the focus of editorials but that didn't happen.



Uniform Code of Military Justice is the code and regulations that US service members are prosecuted under and Casey declared that UCMJ was being used for contractors.



The reply was so shocking that Webb got him to repeat that he was telling the committee that "UCMJ applied to contractors?" Casey agreed that he was, that this is what happened when he was the commander in Iraq and then added that it was just for the contractors working for the Department of Defense. [Blackwater, not noted, has operated through the US State Department.]



This assertion by Casey flies in the face of everything the American people have been told and Webb pursued the topic during his allotted time for questioning. He wanted to know how many contractors UCMJ was applied to and Casey declared it was probably 20,000. When Webb pressed him to repeat the 20,000 number, Casey lowered the estimate ("I don't recall the number . . . I want to say the number was around 7,000 - 8,000.") and when pressed as to how many would have been "discharged under UCMJ" during Casey's command, the general replied, "I have vague recollections of a couple of cases, but I can't say for certain."



Repeating, UCMJ is the military code of justice. In September the mercenaries of Blackwater enacted another slaughter on Iraqi civilians. This time they were in Baghdad and this time it actually made the news. Yes, The New York Times waffled and undercounted the dead for over a full week after, but it made the news and there were eye witnesses. Blackwater attempted to lie and state that they came under fire. No witnesses saw that and, strangely we're sure, Blackwater had the cars 'touched up' so that they couldn't be use to back up Blackwater's laughable claim that they were under attack. What happened is Blackwater barrelled through Baghdad like they owned it, giving no warnings to anyone and expecting all Iraqis to immediately yield to their sudden appearance. Entering a busy section, they immediately began firing on civilians.



The fall out from that slaughter resulted in a for-show appearance by CEO Eric Prince before Congress but Congress idiotically agreed not to ask any questions about the slaughter while it was "under investigation." What they were told by US government witnesses was that no laws applied to contractors. The Iraqi government couldn't prosecute them. They were lawless mercenaries allowed to do whatever they wanted and one thing that came out during this period was that a drunken mercenary had shot-dead a bodyguard for one of Iraq's two vice-presidents and then been assisted out of the country with no charges filed by either the Iraqi or US government.



The excuse repeatedly given was that the laws -- US laws -- such as they were, didn't cover contractors. Last week, Casey maintained to a Senate committee that UCMJ had been applied when he was the top commander in Iraq (for Defense Department contractors) and this was the first Congress had ever heard of that claim.



Webb expressed some disbelief at the claim by Casey and noted that he was confused over "how you could have a proper court" for civilians "unde the UCMJ," that the Senate Armed Service Committee had been told in 2007 that there was a proposal the UCMJ might be extended to contractors but here was General Casey telling the Senate "that is was being used?"



This was news. Rather Casey was telling the truth or lying it was news. If he was lying to Congress is was especially news worthy because Casey (and Pete Geren, Secretary of the Army) were making the rounds to tell various committees how things were going in Iraq, how much money was needed to continue the illegal war, how much money was needed for military equipment to carry the US military into the 21st century (we're eight years into the 21st century) and much more. If Casey was lying on something so basic, something so easily disproven, it went to whether or not anything he was telling the House or Senate last week could be believed.



It was news.



But you probably didn't hear about it or read about. The factoids from the hearing, the talking points the press ran with, were simplistic and we'll note them at the end. But this exchange went to Casey's reliability and his honesty. If he was telling the truth, it meant that the White House selected witnesses late last year had not been honest with Congress.



Webb noted all the crimes contractors had committed that were known of and found it hard to believe that if UCMJ had been applied, no one had ever heard of any court-martial or hearing and that if any ("a few," Casey had maintained) were convicted, that no one ever heard of that either.



Realizing how momumental his statements were (which puts him one up on the press), Casey attempted to walk it back from the line with, "I am not 100% certain."



That didn't fly with Webb who noted he could remember, very well, his own time serving in Iraq and "I would think, quite frankly, if you were commanding you would know that" number because "it's not a difficult concept."



Casey hemmed and hawwed and back pedaled and Webb concluded by pointing out, "This came up in the personell subcomittee last year -- as a proposal. And I'm not aware of anyone, any civilian who was subject to UCMJ."



So was Casey lying. Were Department of Defense contractors prosecuted under UCMJ? If so, were they informed ahead of time, prior to going to Iraq, that this would be the case? Whether they were found guilty or innocent, if even "a couple" were prosecuted under UCMJ, there would be records of that? If they were subject to UCMJ, they should have been informed of that before arriving in Iraq and there should be a record of that. There should be a lot of records the government has on this . . . if it happened.



If it didn't happen, that casts a different light on everything Casey told committees and subcommittees last week. He was testifying and he was supposed to be truthful. We the People don't get to ask these questions. We count on our elected represenatives who are supposed to serve us. Webb took that obligation very seriously last week and the breakdown came from the alleged indepentent press which refused to cover the exchange.



Two points came out of that hearing (and others since the points were repeated by Casey and Geren throughout the week) in the news. The main point was that tours of duty would drop from 15 months to 12. Left out of the news cycle was that you couldn't pin Casey or Geren down on that and, on Thursday, when the duo appeared at the House Armed Services Committee hearing on the Fiscal Year 2009 National Defense Authorization Budget Request from the Deptartment of the Army, when US House Rep Patrick Murphy wondered if, to ensure that reduction in deployment tours, Congress should enact an law ("mandate that if you deploy for 15 months, you're home for 15 months, if you deploy for 12 months, you're home for 12 months"), Casey insisted that wasn't necessary and a law would tie the military's hands.



The second point in that drifted out from Tuesday's Senate Armed Services Committee revolved around the backdoor draft and, to read or hear press accounts, stop-loss was being moved away from and would drop from its current application to 8,000 service members -- drop down to 7,000. Stop-loss is referred to as a backdoor draft because what happens is that US service members who have completed their service contracts or are nearing the end of their service contracts are then informed that their contracts have been extended. It is most likely illegal. It is certainly unethical. And it is "drafting" people already serving in the US military. (If it extends a contract beyond seven years, it is illegal, courts have already decided that in contract law. It is also illegal if the person signed before they were of legal age -- even if their parents also signed. Again, that's contract law.)



So Casey and Geren just delivered the happy news to Congress that there would be a reduction (drawdown?) in stop-loss. That's how the press told it. The reality is that it was announced that there was a significant reduction planned for stop-loss and it took the committee chair, Carl Levin, pinning Geren down to obtain the admission that this significant reduction was only a reduction of 1,000.



Again, it is most likely illegal in all cases. It hasn't been tested in a US court of law but if it were to be tested, it should be found to be an illegal practice. You didn't read that or hear that from the press. You just heard the happy talking point that stop-loss was being reduced. And you heard that happy talking point that tours would be reduced (though Congress shouldn't mandate that!). Most of all, you didn't hear what appears to be an absurd claim by Casey -- once the top commander in Iraq for three years -- that UCMJ had been applied to contractors.

TV: Recyling the tired and the damaging

It was a week of surprises, most of them bad. It started with our attending the Academy Awards Sunday evening and being required to grab our cell phones and text everyone we knew that host Jon Stewart was ripping off a sitcom in his opening monologue.





Jon Stewart: I don't know if you know this but if you want to find out our your stripper name at home all you have to do is take your pet's name and the street you grew up on. So that makes my stripper name Olympia Dukakis. Hope I’m not stealing that from anyone.



Oh, but you were Jon, oh, but you were.



October 1998, season one of Will & Grace. On Halloween, Karen and Jack go out and dressed as Body & Soul (David Soul). They encounter some drag queens.



Karen: Oh. Oh, that's cute. Is that a drag name? Oh, I want a drag name. Give me a drag name!


Draq Queen: Ok, sugar, here's how you do it. Take the name of your first pet and the first street you lived on.


Karen: Shu-Shu Fontana! Oh, it's cute. Honey, I -- Honey, come here. What would your name be.



Jack: Glen 125th.



The writers strike was over, right? So why was Jon Stewart reduced to raiding a 1998 episode of a sitcom for material? It was all so very sad. Just like seeing every major award go outside the country. We thought we were at that Kodak Theater in Los Angeles, but somehow we'd been transported to the Cannes International Film Festival. Apparently, in 2007, the United States produced no Best Actor, no Best Actress, no Best Supporting Actor and no Best Supporting Actress. Maybe the studios should all shut down?



A friend who should have had an acting nom, but didn't get one and so skipped attending, told us the next day he'd gone grocery shopping instead, in East LA, during the middle of the broadcast and thought he could run in and run out without being recognized. He'd assumed, wrongly, that everyone was watching. He said he ended up signing autographs for a half-hour. That didn't surprise us. Tired monologues and all the awards going overseas doesn't build interest in a broadcast.



Tired monologues?



Oh, yeah, he still dominated the news. Mr. Pretty Speeches. In Tuesday's debate, Mr. Pretty Speeches flat out lied and despite 'journalists' supposedly covering it, no one caught it. Barack Obama was not in the midst of a US Senate campaign when he gave his 2002 speech. He lied. It sounded better to say it and Pretty Words is all he has to offer so he went with it. Where was the press?



Sound asleep on PBS. Friday's NOW on PBS offered up Joe Trippi to critique the campaigns of Barack and Hillary Clinton. We found that about as useful as if they'd grab a non-semi finalist from the Miss America contest as she was eliminated and asked her to critique the finalists. About as useful and about as fair. Even less fair was a "web promotion" of a January report the program did. "Obama Smear?" They asked on their home page noting that "Barack Obama is once againt he target of a smear campaign circulating on the Internet. This week, a photo of Obama dressed in the traditional attire of northeastern Kenya while travelin there surfaced on the gossip and news website The Drudge Report. The alleged source of the photo is the Clinton campaign, though campaign officials vehemently deny providing the photo to Drudge. In January, NOW reported on earlier efforts to smear Obama and other candidates in the 2008 race for president."



We think it's really sad that PBS has sunk so low as to cite Drudge as a 'news source.' We think it's pathetic that a photo is being referred to as a "smear." Once upon a time, in a smarter America, the only way a photo was a smear was if it was 'doctored' or taken without the subject's knowledge. Barack knew the photographer was there, Barack consented to the photo being taken. Now that it's out in public, suddenly it's a "smear." Used to a smear had to be a lie. Saying John F. Kennedy was Catholic wasn't seen as a smear. These days, noting that Barack Obama's middle name is Hussein leads the touchy-feely set to cry "FOUL!" A question for them: Who smeared? Was it someone noting his middle names or his parents for chosing to name him after his father? (He's a Junior.)



Don't expect to get any answers on that from PBS. Friday also saw Dr. Kathy return to Bill Moyers Journal and we again got interpretation. We honestly think this segment should be entitled: For Those Who Have Seen It But Are Unsure. Anyone paying attention was fully aware that Mr. Pretty Speeches dominated the segment, that John McCain and Hillary Clinton combined didn't equal the number of commercials of Obama's that were aired. Free advertising. And no critique. Thanks Dr. Kathy and Bill. What they couldn't show -- Obama's radio spots and, yes, "spots" because it was plural -- they yammered on about. Hopefully the Moyers program was reimbursed for the ad time they provided.




The week ended with Hillary Clinton making an appearance on Saturday Night Live. Apparently the last place where truth can be told. The show lampooned the soft questions and fawning Tim Russert and Brian Williams took part in as 'moderators' of last Tuesday's debate and Hillary walked on stage to joke about Amy Poehler's impersonation (with Poehler) and to open the show with the "Live from New York . . ." cry. Another moment of humorous truth involved a cartoon where Barack attempted to keep supporters Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton under wraps (Jackson himself has publicly noted this response). Remember that this is the second of four consecutive live and all new Saturday Night Lives in a row.

As the week ended, they provided the high points via sketch comedy and animation. Animation?

Kids WB. We're back to the lows. Teen Titans, in fact. We had no idea that the program was old. It's cancelled in fact. It ran primarily on the Cartoon Network and recently Kids WB decided to add it to the lineup. Watching this weekend's broadcast we had to wonder why?

We had wanted to review it for two reasons, at various times, we actually enjoyed the comic books and also because, in January, Geena Davis presented findings [click here for Sara Voorhees' "WMC Exclusive: Geena Davis Forum—Searching the Cels for Girl Mice and Ninjas" (Womens Media Center)] from Geena Davis Institute on Gender and Children in the Media:



Gender imbalance reigns across the media.
System wide, when females are presented they are shown in a hypersexualized way.
The highest concentration of this imbalance is in animated films and G-rated programming, where parents might assume their children are safest.



Those are serious issues and ones we've addressed before. The response to our February 2007 feature was a lot of parents e-mailing to say they hadn't noticed -- either because they weren't monitoring the TV when their children watched Saturday morning cartoons or because they didn't bother to register it when they watched with their children. A number of parents wrote in to say that they were outraged and had been for some time but didn't know what to do about. All agreed that it was ridiculous this late in the game that this was still a problem and all wondered what message was being sent to the children? For those who felt at a loss of how to effect change, we'd recommend you (a) continue addressing this problem in conversations with friends to raise awareness (as well as with children) and (b) visit Davis' institute.



Teen Titans is the big "add" to Kids WB (or, as we like to think of it, Boys WB) and there was no reason to add it. The series ceased production sometime ago. All the episodes had aired on cable but now they'll apparently all be unveiled week after week on broadcast TV. And it's not needed.



For those who remember Wonder Girl as a Teen Titan, forget it. The show focuses on a very late version of the comic book and, in addition, takes the Titans from late teenhood and early adulthood to the cusp of puberty. Which is why we wondered mainly about the panties?



Raven and Starfire, the two female leads, do not wear "panties." Their costumes have briefs. To emphasize their legs. Try to find briefs on the male leads and you're searching in vain even though Robin came to fame for many decades as Batman's brief clad sidekick. So why, especially when the characters are supposed to be so young (and aimed at seven-years-old and under) the need to sexualize the young girls by exposing their legs? That was especially a problem with the character of Raven and we'll get to that.



But let's offer up the basics. Teen Titans is a super hero team. They live in a big T shaped building with each other. The three male leads are Robin, Cyborg and Beast Boy. Those who know the comic book version where Starfire shows up are aware she's a mentor/leader. Not in the animated series. In the series, Robin is the leader. Robin is always the leader. And you really need to wonder why that is?



Second banana to Batman offered him some super power we missed? Or is it due to the fact that he's White? Cyborg is African-American, Raven is part human -- apparently White -- and part demon, Starfire could be termed White (she's 'voiced' blond) and from another planet Beast Boy is White and has his power due to being injected with monkey serum. So the 'pure' White born in the US is the natural leader? In terms of super powers, he's got the least of any of the five. Maybe we're missing something but that's how it played to us: Robin is White and male and therefore in charge.



Robin's also a bit of a smug prick in the series and that's when we started noticing that all the series really did was grab the five characters from The Breakfast Club and put them in costumes. Robin is Judd Nelson's character, Starfire is the pretty and chipper character played by Molly Ringwald, Beast Boy is the joking and self-esteem challenged Anthony Michael Hall character, Cyborg is the jock Emilio Estevez character and Raven's the dark Ally Sheedy character.



Which brings us back to her costume. When Raven's 'active,' you see her briefs. The rest of the time, like the Ally Sheedy character, she's basically covered. She wears what could be termed a shroud or cape with cowl. In Saturday's episode, she will be very upset that her privacy was invaded and cry of the villians, "They went into my room! No one should ever go into my room!" Yet, when she's 'active,' this same character's shroud parts to reveal her long legs and brief clad body. Apparently none of the males responsible for this series (Sam Register and Glen Murakami) saw it as problem.



They also didn't see it as a problem that the female characters do nothing active in the foreground but are mainly glorified extras shown from time to time during battle scenes.



Starfire will declare at one point that, "We must mend by the sharing of unhealthy junk food. I shall fetch them." That is probably the most action the character took part in the entire episode. Some who saw it may want to argue. In a battle with a trio of villians, Cyborg's sent hurtling into the air with a rocket strapped to his back and Starfire rushes after to rescue him. We've seen that before on Legion of Super Heroes -- also airing on WB -- where it's usually Lightening Lad or Superboy rushing off to the rescue. The big difference there is that the rescue is shown.



If what Starfire was doing was so damn important, maybe viewers should have seen it? Instead, they show up after the battle and Cyborg states, "I was half-way to Gotham City before Starfire zapped that thing off my back." Again, when the males do the rescuing, it is shown. Sending Starfire off to do the rescuing appeared to be about nothing other than getting her out of the battle scene.



During that battle, Robin will disappear into a hole in the ground. What's the message of that moment supposed to be as Starfire turns on the only other female, Raven, yelling, "He's got to be somewhere! So go there and look!" Really, what was the point in having one female turn on another. And what was the point of having Beast Boy smooth things over? Beast Boy was present when Robin disappeared so why isn't Starfire yelling at him as well?



There's a message that's being sent repeatedly and it's not a minor thing.


It's not a minor thing that, week after week, primetime's Family Guy on Fox makes a joke out of Meg who, if you believe all the characters on the show (including her own mother) is the most butt-ugly thing to ever grace the planet. (In one episode she will get a makeover and become a pop star. In all the rest she is ugly and fat despite the fact that no viewer should see her as either.) She will be asked if she plans to lick up puke, she will be laughed at by her father and mother. It will happen over and over and the point is never, "These people are damn rude to Meg." The point is ha-ha. Stewie, Brian the talking dog and her overweight brother Chris will all engage in Meg bashing in episode after episode. One ha-ha will include a boy in need of an excuse not to go out with her rushing off to shoot his own kid brother and coming back to explain that he can't make it because he has to attend a funeral.



Chris is grossly overweight and that's a hinderance in only one episode (apparently he gets one where he's uncomfortable for Meg's one where everyone finds her desirable). He doesn't want to take his shirt off at the swimming pool. That's the only time his obesity is ever seen as a problem. When he's beginning a relationship with his teacher (voiced by Drew Barrymore), it's not a problem. His father's (male) friends don't refer to him as a dog or make jokes about his looks the way they do Meg. You have to wonder where the idea that this was a message to send out came from? But you can certainly see it play out in what passes for coverage of the presidential campaigns, can't you?



When we were on this topic last year one (thankfully only one) e-mail came in complaining that, basically, "These are cartoons! It doesn't matter!" Cartoons -- even when allegedly aimed at adults -- are children's viewing and that's who they attract in large numbers. What message are young children being indoctrinated with -- boys and girls -- when they see this sort of thing over and over? We'd also wonder what effects it has on the supposed adults but, again, we think we've more seen the effect in the current actions of our modern day press.



Cartoons, where characters are not bound by gravity or any other mortal constraints, seem to be very happy transmitting stereotypes. The Simpons took live action stereotypes fromt he fifties TV shows and has been on so long (too long) that it's now the pattern for all the animated primetime cartoons except King of the Hill. In terms of daytime and primetime, count up the number of (male) talking dogs and then count up the number of active females -- humans -- and tell us that there isn't a problem.



Now it's too late for 'improvements' for Teen Titans -- the show ceased production in 2006. But it turns out that it's also too late for Kids WB. Fall 2008, it will be no more.



Variety reported last fall that CBS and Warner Bros (owners of the CW) had decided to drop the lineup and will instead farm the time out to animated product to 4Kids Entertainment:



Kids' WB! repped the last inhouse Saturday morning network block to air original kids' fare. Once a staple of the broadcast nets alongside daytime and latenight, the webs mostly eliminated the timeslot by the turn of the decade. ABC now runs repeats from the Disney Channel, while NBC, CBS and Fox have already farmed out the timeslot to outside licensees.



Our thoughts immediately went to Johnny Test, the only show on the lineup we enjoyed (we loved it) in 2007 or this year. It's competing, in Canada where it is produced, for a Shaw Rocket Prize as "best Canadian television programming for kids under thirteen" and is one of three nominees and the only one that's animated.



We thought our reaction perfectly captured the sorry state of animated, broadcast television today. Hours of programming are about to disappear and the thought of that didn't bother us in the least. Our only thought was, "Not Johnny!" There's a reason for that. The show is funny, it offers action and plots. The characters are engaging (and well drawn and voiced) and the females don't wait to be rescued. (Johnny's sisters are scientists.)



It's a sign of how awful animated programming on Saturdays has become (what little there is) that only one show would produce a panic. 4Kids Entertainment is currently responsible for what airs on Fox Saturday mornings so you can check out those cheap looking shows to get an idea of what the CW will be offering this fall. Kids WB premieres The Spiderman next Saturday in a hour long special and, parents, if you watch with your kids, they'll probably stand a better chance of being among the 500 who will win the free toys offered. It's a contest that requires you to identify things from the broadcast -- we believe it's the villains but aren't sure. When we called an aquaintence working for Kids WB he told us "I don't work there anymore. They laid all of us off. There are probably six people working for" Kids WB "right now and that's it."



We asked his opinion of the change and he said it makes any kind of pressure that much harder because parents would have to pressure the CW which would then have to pressure 4Kids Entertainment. "It's basically starting from zero," he explained, "if pressure doesn't come quick." CW will be leasing the time to 4Kids Entertainment and sharing the ad revenue. If this were a typical animated cartoon, right about now all the females would vanish. If we do that, you can kiss good-bye any chance of the fall 2008 - spring 2009 cartoon programming on CW. Window of time, that's all we're saying. And that the fallout from the damage will continue for years. If you doubt it look at the attacks on women today.