In the face of cheerleading over the loss of a Congressional race, questions weren't being raised. Thankfully, Elaine and C.I. were there to raise the questions. Just as we asked Rebecca (Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude) to write an introductory paragraph to Elaine's entry, we've asked her to speak on this entry as well. (Hey, if we're lucky enough to have her assisting while she's on her vacation, you know we're going to run with that lucky break!)
Rebecca: First off, C.I. wants it noted that the Laura Flanders' phrase is "Don't leave politics to the politicians" and that Mike remembered it. C.I. also wanted Matthew Rothschild's "Edwards Flops" and "Kerry Clips the Wings of Liberalism" because e-mails came in saying, "At last!" and C.I. wants people to be aware that there was reasoned, real time criticism of the Kerry campaign. Now that I've dispensed with that, let me focus on this entry. When you read Elaine's entry and C.I's together, you get this huge overview. They aren't afraid to go to the issues no one's tackling. I'm really glad that these two entries are being highlighted here because I'm sure they aren't getting a great deal of attention outside the community. When you say what needs to be said, there's a tendency for a clampdown. That might be out of fear of being blacklisted or it might be out of a desire to not raise the issues no one's talking about. This issue prompted more e-mail than anything that's gone up at The Common Ills ever. In the public e-mail, Jess counted 682 e-mails the day after the entry went up and notes that they continue to come in with 80% of them being positive. From members e-mailing to the private e-mail address, Ava says the response was well over a thousand. That's because this is the sort of the entry that The Common Ills exists for. This entry doesn't just take on the fact that the Bully Boy's fought a war badly, it takes on the fact that the Democrats are still attempting to play it safe and avoid the difficult questions. It bucks conventional wisdom and C.I. wouldn't have it any other way but, as I've noted before when talking about The Common Ills, C.I. can do that. There's no career being promoted via the site, no attempt to parlay it into something else, no attempt to profit off of the site. As Kat would say, "It is what it is." And at the heart of The Common Ills is the fact that issues need to be raised and they weren't in 2004 and they still aren't being raised loudly in enough places. The Common Ills audience was built peer to peer. A telecommunications lobbyist attacking independent and small media will not be promoted at The Common Ills as a "brave voice." The grassroots won't be silenced or told to go along. Third party members are welcome there. There's no attacks on "women studies" majors or on people who don't want to go blindly down whatever path they're being steered. If someone e-mails, out of "concern," that Grace Lee Boggs or Howard Zinn or whomever shouldn't be quoted, C.I.'s response is not to stop noting them but instead to note them more often. The entry reminds me of why I wish C.I. would toss aside The New York Times and just focus on other things. C.I. would be the first to note that "information" from the daily papers doesn't go to the theory or needs. When an entry like this goes up, we're seeing the sort of thing C.I. does in a speech and, while I understand the need to keep the community informed of breaking news, I think this has more value and really wish C.I. would leave the daily stuff to sites that are better suited to offer that (and only that) and instead focus on the strengths that only an activist and someone with mulitple degrees and a larger understanding can address. You won't find this sort of entry everywhere else and it's exactly the reason that the community developed and continues to develop.
Impunity leads to further silence
Yet this administration defies the truth that comes forth every day; it continues to flaunt its will before the world as it demands acquiescence to its arrogant policy of pre-emptive strike based on its determination of what nation might threaten the United States' control of atomic weapons, military superiority, and economic Capitalistic dominance across the globe. That arrogance breeds contempt for other nations and other people. That arrogance propels a sense of superiority that gives license to control, even to gain that control by torture. That arrogance gives rise to an intransigent, deeply embedded racism that finds fault with others who attempt to thwart its dominance. That arrogance has pitted America's perceived acceptance of torture as acceptable acts of an innocuous kind, as explained away by the Republicans, against the conscience of the world's communities that find it barbaric and contradictory of the very values Bush claims to bring to the world.
It's the American people that are maligned; it's our values that are desecrated; it's our nation that has been placed under this horrific pall by an administration willing to subvert its most cherished ideals. But now truth has boiled to the surface, evidence accumulates daily, the people stir: "Wisdom cries aloud in the streets; in the market place she lifts her voice."
The above is from William A. Cook's "Words Without Meaning" (CounterPunch).
It's an important article. (And an intelligent one.) We're at a place where we should be forcing issues and questions. That didn't happen in 2004's presidential campaign.
Cook walks [you] through the reactions to John Conyers and Dick Durbin's truth telling and the violent reaction to both.
Cook argues we need to be making the most of this moment to press the issues that aren't going to be raised on their own.
Which recalls the points that Naomi Klein made in "Kerry and the Gift of Impunity:"
Impunity--the perception of being outside the law--has long been the hallmark of the Bush regime. What is alarming is that it appears to have deepened since the election, ushering in what can best be described as an orgy of impunity. In Iraq, US forces and their Iraqi surrogates are assaulting civilian targets and openly attacking doctors, clerics and journalists who have dared to count the bodies. At home, impunity has been made official policy with Bush's nomination of Alberto Gonzales--the man who personally advised the President in his infamous "torture memo" that the Geneva Conventions are "obsolete"--as Attorney General.
This kind of defiance cannot simply be explained by Bush's win. There has to be something in how he won, in how the election was fought, that gave this Administration the distinct impression that it had been handed a "get out of the Geneva Conventions free" card. That's because the Administration was handed precisely such a gift--by John Kerry.
In the name of "electability," the Kerry campaign gave Bush five months on the campaign trail without ever facing serious questions about violations of international law. Fearing he would be seen as soft on terror and disloyal to US troops, Kerry stayed scandalously silent about Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay. When it became clear that fury would rain down on Falluja as soon as the polls closed, Kerry never spoke out against the plan, or against the illegal bombings of civilian areas that took place throughout the campaign. Even after The Lancet published its landmark study estimating that 100,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the invasion and occupation, Kerry repeated his outrageous (and frankly racist) claim that Americans "have borne 90 percent of the casualties in Iraq." His unmistakable message: Iraqi deaths don't count. By buying the highly questionable logic that Americans are incapable of caring about anyone's lives but their own, the Kerry campaign and its supporters became complicit in the dehumanization of Iraqis, reinforcing the idea that some lives are insufficiently important to risk losing votes over. And it is this morally bankrupt logic, more than the election of any single candidate, that allows these crimes to continue unchecked.
Is this how 2006 will play out? Is this the landscape we're stuck in? Or are we going to ask the hard questions and tackle the real issues?
Elaine has an incredible entry that we'll repost here after this goes up. Are we going to continue to repeat the mistakes of the Kerry campaign or are we going to expect more from people running for office?
Are we going to demand that we're treated as adults and offered serious discussions or are we just going to accept bumper stickers, jingoism and easy applause lines?
Ignoring the realities of what we've done (rendition, torture, etc.) won't make them go away. Pretending Falluja has been "improved" or unharmed by our policies won't change the reality of the slaughter that went on or the police-state conditions that continue.
There are tough conversations that we need to have because they go to the heart of what kind of a country we are, what kind of a people and what sort of government will represent us.
We aren't having those conversations as a national dialogue. We won't until we drop the knee jerk "answer" that we can "win" by being just like the other side with slight modifications. Whether you accept the results of the 2004 election or not, the fact that we were left without a moral or ethic to stand on shouldn't be surprising. As Naomi Klein has pointed out numerous times, in numerous forums, torture wasn't an issue. We could have the Bully Boy in the Oval Office right now (as we do) but we could have a strong discussion on torture if the issue had been raised. It wasn't.
"Vote for me because I've seen war" isn't an platform, isn't an answer especially when the candidate pushing that cred has no answers. Fine tuning isn't an answer when so much is at stake.
Even with Bully Boy in office, we'd be better off as a people if the campaign of 2004 had been some real issues and asked us to consider, seriously, what had gone on in the last four years and what direction we were headed. The Kerry campaign could have led on that. Win or lose, they could have made inroads. But it was a "safe" campaign and as the tide has turned regarding America's opinion of the invasion/occupation's value, it would be great if we had some real issues (whether they were mocked by Fox "News," et al or not) that were put to us.
"John Kerry reporting for duty" is not a platform. When CODEPINK tried to address the elephant in the room, they were escorted out of the hall (during the Democratic convention). We didn't want to look "weak" on terror.
Instead of challenging events and decisions, the campaign wanted to say "I'd do the same but I'd do it smarter." Never was the issue raised of whether or not the planning (such as it was) was appropriate.
We'll point out these mistakes in planning and strategy and we'll look strong was the conclusion of the campaign. The right pushes jingoism and our response is to attempt to our imitation of it?That's not an alternative.
The car's run out of gas. Everyone in the car's looking at Bully Boy behind the wheel. John Kerry's saying, "I would've stopped at the gas station five miles back." Good for you but should we have headed down this road in the first place?
All the fads and crazes won't change the fact that to a large number of people that argument will come off as coulda', woulda', shoulda'. Offering a patch, a quick fix, isn't dealing with the issues that people are hungry for. We need to demand more. Not just from our press, but from our politicians and would be politicians.
At a time when "we were lied into war" isn't a shocking notion (thanks to the Downing Street Memos and all the people -- elected officials and citizens -- who raised the issue repeatedly) the idea that candidates should be questioning the invasion itself shouldn't be controversial. When people are ready to say we were taken down the wrong road, candidates need to be able to provide something more than "I would've stopped to refuel five miles back."
We're not hearing that and we won't until we demand it. Democracy doesn't begin and end with the voting in an election or with supporting a candidate. (A point Laura Flanders makes repeatedly and has a great statement on that which I'm unfortunately forgetting right now.)Short term measures to run an easy election don't improve the state of our nation. Nor do they put any pressure on our officials to do more than quick fixes and easy lip service.
Before we start handicapping the next races based on "electability" we need to think about what candidates are standing for. "I'll do the same thing but I'll do it smarter" keeps us on the same road. It doesn't raise the issue of whether we should have gone down it in the first place.As is usually the case, the people are ahead of the politicians. And when we're considering whether or not to support someone, we need to ask what they're standing for. Not what their Oprah friendly narrative represents. Not whether or not there's some great reel footage to be shown.
What's happening in Iraq now? From "Bush's Exit Plan: Fomenting Civil War in Iraq?" (Democracy Now!):
AMY GOODMAN: Pushing a civil war?
ARUN GUPTA: Well, I think that if you look at the situation in Iraq, there are indications that this is what the Bush administration may be attempting, because the whole occupation has been a disaster from the beginning. The disbanding of the army and the security forces, the failure of reconstruction effectively alienated the Sunni Arab population. And then, since then, what we have seen, such as like the blatant theft of Iraq's oil money, the use of various militias has increased the sectarian conflict.
Now, at the beginning of the year, few people considered a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites a possibility. There has been a lot of speculation all along that between Sunnis and Turkmen and the Kurds, that it was a much greater possibility because the Kurds run their own state.But over the last six to nine months, the political process has intensified. The sectarianism in Iraq, rather than bringing the country together, the elections that were held in January solidified the sectarian lines. That was because the U.S. pushed the strategy that parties should run on slates, that they should cobble together these large groupings. And because the elections were held in this atmosphere of intense violence, very few parties could actually campaign in the open in much of the country. So, what that meant was that most Iraqis who participated in the election voted their ethnicity, such that the Shiite slate, the United Iraqi Alliance, and the Kurdish slate walked away with most of the votes.
There are serious issues to be raised and they won't become part of the national dialogue if we're posturing and trying to prove our "bonafides" on national security by accepting as valid actions that should never have been taken.
Sunday, August 07, 2005
Blog Spotlight: Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Elaine on campaigning and Iraq
As most of our readers know, Elaine is substituting for Rebecca at Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude while Rebecca's taking a vacation. During her vacation, Rebecca found time to partipate in a roundtable at The Common Ills. She's rejoining us to help out tonight and so we thought we'd get her to write an introductory paragraph to an entry of Elaine's that we're highlighting.
Rebecca: Well, you read it, and it's perfectly obvious why I wanted Elaine to fill in for me. There are huge problems with the campaign Paul Hackett ran and instead of people on that campaign pointing them out, we had silence. We saw silence from supporters who promoted the campaign and gave him a pass on not having a platform. I'm not sure what qualified him to run or what exactly he planned to do if he got to Congress other than point at other Congress members and say, "Chicken hawk, chicken hawk, nah, nah, nah!" As Elaine notes, she spoke with C.I. about this before writing the entry and they would both address the issue but even with knowing that someone else is going to be addressing a topic, it takes a lot of guts to put yourself out there. Elaine didn't shy from that. Conventional wisdom was completely wrong and Elaine wasn't afraid to buck it. Something needed saying, something obvious if someone was willing to look beyond conventional wisdom, and no one was saying it. Elaine's not afraid to lay it on the line. She's been that way for all the years I've known her. She's also firmly committed to peace, not just peace during peaceful times and then she tosses out her beliefs because all the cheerleaders are saying, "We gotta prove that patriotism!" Her beliefs are strongly held and she's spent years exploring them. She knows where she stands. Sadly, there's a not a lot of people you can say that about. It's for those reasons that C.I. and I have been on her case to blog for months now. I'm really proud of the work she's doing at my site and feel like I could stay on vacation until after Labor Day and Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude would be in good hands. She's incredible.
Casualties continue to mount and the Democratic Party needs to find some ideas and a platform that's not "more of the same"
Elaine back again while Rebecca's on vacation. For those who missed it, there's a roundtable up at The Common Ills that's worth reading for a number of reasons but Rebecca participated in it so check it out.
Mike asked me to note this from Democracy Now!
21 Marines Die in Iraq Over Two-Day Period
Fourteen Marines and a civilian interpreter were killed early today in western Iraq making it one of the deadliest days for U.S. forces in months. Seven more Marines died on Monday.I can remember when the invasion started in 2003. It was probably a week in and someone noted that it wasn't a "big deal," that it wasn't like the casualities in Vietnam. In that first month, 65 American soldiers died. One month of losses didn't seem to matter to this woman because it didn't compare with the years and years of the Vietnam conflict.
We're at 1822 right now. And we've got Donald Rumsfeld saying we could be over there for ten more years. You've got too many Democratics elected in Congress who don't want to address the problem and now Bully Boy's doing the Nixon dance of "I have a plan" as the next election cycle approaches. The plan is a Vietnam retread and it's not much of a plan.
So where does that leave us? Paul Hackett ran for Congress in a special election yesterday and he did pretty well. But there's something that bothered me about the way the election was pushed by Democrats.Vote Hackett because he's a war hero. Vote him because he's been over there.
There were probably many reasons to vote for Hackett. And he did pretty well. He lost, but he did pretty well.
But the thing that bothered me was the fact that we're still trying to do the 2004 election. Hackett wasn't for bringing the troops home now. He was going to fight a smarter war. Does that sound familiar? He was a war hero.
At some point Democrats are going to have to be able to offer a true alternative.
Bully Boy received no mandate. (Lizz Winstead would say "Mandate my ass!") But when you tried to point out a) how high turnout was, b) how many votes Kerry got, the "thinkers" would dismiss that. They would say only the results matter.
Now the talk isn't that it only mattered who won.
I don't think winning is the only thing matters and I certainly don't believe that we only learn based on who's declared the winner. But it's interesting that we're operating under a different principle now.
I also think it's interesting that we're still not presenting alternatives.
As a people, we're in favor of bringing the troops home. It's only our elected officials, with few brave exceptions, that won't enter that dialogue.
What's more worrisome is that we seem to be resorting, repeatedly, to the idea that only war heroes are worthy of office. We need ideas from our leaders. And the Democratic Party needs to offer some.
Military service is not a requirement for public office. It shouldn't be a liability either.
But it's not a platform. Jingoistic cheerleading, and we heard that as Hackett was pushed, doesn't take the place of ideas.
The party needs to get it together between now and 2006. That means offering plans and being an alternative to more of the same.
Hackett didn't have a platform and if you have trouble accepting that, listen, watch or read his interview with Amy Goodman today:
AMY GOODMAN: Well, it's hard to say congratulations on your defeat, but it has astounded many. Can you talk about what happened and the platform that you ran on?
PAUL HACKETT: Well, I mean, I had first confessed that I did not sit around and (quote/unquote) "come up with a platform." There are many issues that I believe in, and believe very passionately in, and those issues, as they came up in the campaign, I shared with the citizens of the Second District. So, it's funny, when I hear the term "platform," I sort of think as though that there was a committee that sat around and said, 'Okay, this is what we believe on this.' I mean, I just felt that in this district there had not been a choice. There had not been an alternative, and that many like me were not being represented, our voices were not being represented regarding many issues in the U.S. government, foreign policy to name a big one that was certainly spoken a lot about in the election campaign, and so forth. And then many social issues, as well. I mean, I just -- I'm just not happy with the state of politics in southern Ohio and, frankly, across the nation.
He feels that the district hadn't had a choice. He didn't offer them any choices in terms of ideas or inspiration. He speaks of having no idea what a platform is. Now the anti-government faction might like that or some factions might see it as "keeping it real," but in terms of a strategy for the Democratic Party, a platform's pretty important.
Also from the interview, he speaks of the importance of dissent but then goes on to offer this:
And the only criticism that I have heard about my comments regarding this administration are usually of those who have never served in the military. And a very, very small percentage of people have come up to me and said, "I was in the military. That wasn't right." And usually then, when I then ask them, "Have you ever been in combat?" the answer is "no." I have yet, and, you know, I am not asking -- this is not an invitation, but I have yet to have somebody say, "Hey, you know, I was in combat, and what you said was wrong." That I have not heard. Almost unanimously the word from the veterans that have contacted me by email, by telephone, and come to work with us in person have been overwhelmingly supportive, and so --
Those who disagreed hadn't served in the military. So Hackett doesn't value their opinion. Is that a Democratic message? More importantly, as he did throughout the campaign, he then goes further. Not seconds later, he's saying that actually some did serve and their opinion doesn't matter because they didn't see combat.
The message behind those statements was never examined. No one can disagree with Hackett if they didn't serve and if they didn't serve in a combat zone. Statements like that came out of his mouth constantly. I didn't note it because I didn't want to blow his chances.
But the election's over now. And people need to look at what went down because he didn't have a platform and his public statements often contradicted statements made moments before.
But what's really bothersome is the fact that there's this attitude that was pushed by others and by him which is only those who served in the military can weigh in. That's not democracy.
Back to the interview:
AMY GOODMAN: So, you would return to fight a war that you think is unjust?
PAUL HACKETT: Well, I've not said it's unjust. I have said that it's been mismanaged by the administration. I have said it was a poor use of our military. I'm not quite sure the implication of the label of unjust, so I'm uncomfortable using that. I have been critical of it up and down, but to me, that's not inconsistent with my desire to want to serve and my desire to want to lead marines and be with them in the field.
He's not sure whether it's a just war or an unjust war. He ran for office. He ran on his military record. But he can't weigh in on a very obvious question, one raised by the Pope in 2003. Amy Goodman wasn't bringing up an obscure theory and the election was over. But we can't get an answer on that question from him.
He has "no empathy or sympathy" for Camilo Mejia and that's bothersome. Mejia made a moral choice. And Hackett doesn't want do the work to determine whether the war is just or unjust.But he's perfectly happy to talk about consequences. Whose consquences?
Mejia has to take consequences for his actions, according to Hackett, but he won't weigh in on the consequences of the war itself.
What is Hackett's plan?
From the interview:
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think that the U.S. should get out of Iraq?
PAUL HACKETT: I'm not there yet. I think that -- let me step back and say, when you say, 'Should the U.S. get out of Iraq?' Yes. Eventually, yes. The question is, are we going to do it tomorrow, or are we going to accomplish the bare minimum and allow the Iraqis to survive within their defined government and social structure? And right now, I don't think that any form of security force in Iraq is capable of providing that for the people. And, while it may seem difficult to comprehend on this side of the world, at this point, I believe that Iraq will spiral out of control. And even though it's in a terrible condition today as a result of the insurgency phasing into civil war, perhaps, I don't think it's currently today as bad as it will be if we were to pull out tomorrow. I think that the administration has got to permit the American military over there to fight that fight and train the I.S.F., the Iraqi Security Forces, in a manner acceptable to our military, which I argue they're not -- the administration is not allowing that, so that the I.S.F. can be up to speed and we can get out of there. I think that, as a citizen of the United States, setting aside, you know, my uniform and so forth, I think we need to turn up the heat on the administration and demand some sort of oversight, as citizens, as to what successes the administration is having in training the Iraqi Security Forces.
There is nothing inspiring about that and nothing you couldn't read in a Thomas Friedman column. Or, for that matter, in a William Safire column if Safire was still writing op-eds. This was a campaign based on "We're not pulling out now. At some point we'll leave, but not yet." That's the Bully Boy's plan.
A lot of people, including Hackett, invested time and energy on his run for office but there was no real campaign. There was no plan, no proposal. Instead it all came down to "He served in Iraq!" Democrats need to find a way to offer proposals, plans and alternatives.
If this was a try out for the 2006 races, Democrats need to realize that we need real voices, with real ideas and real plans. We didn't get that from Hackett and the cheerleading and the applause that greeted his constant use of the term "chickenhawk" didn't provide any solutions or alternatives.
If the party wants to seriously try to win some elections, they're going to have to do better than presenting poster boys and thinking that a chorus of rah-rah cheers replaces real ideas and real thoughts. (Thanks as always to C.I. for acting as a sounding board and offering encouragement.)
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center)
The only thing that's been a worse flop than the organization of nonviolence has been the organization of violence.
Joan Baez
Rebecca: Well, you read it, and it's perfectly obvious why I wanted Elaine to fill in for me. There are huge problems with the campaign Paul Hackett ran and instead of people on that campaign pointing them out, we had silence. We saw silence from supporters who promoted the campaign and gave him a pass on not having a platform. I'm not sure what qualified him to run or what exactly he planned to do if he got to Congress other than point at other Congress members and say, "Chicken hawk, chicken hawk, nah, nah, nah!" As Elaine notes, she spoke with C.I. about this before writing the entry and they would both address the issue but even with knowing that someone else is going to be addressing a topic, it takes a lot of guts to put yourself out there. Elaine didn't shy from that. Conventional wisdom was completely wrong and Elaine wasn't afraid to buck it. Something needed saying, something obvious if someone was willing to look beyond conventional wisdom, and no one was saying it. Elaine's not afraid to lay it on the line. She's been that way for all the years I've known her. She's also firmly committed to peace, not just peace during peaceful times and then she tosses out her beliefs because all the cheerleaders are saying, "We gotta prove that patriotism!" Her beliefs are strongly held and she's spent years exploring them. She knows where she stands. Sadly, there's a not a lot of people you can say that about. It's for those reasons that C.I. and I have been on her case to blog for months now. I'm really proud of the work she's doing at my site and feel like I could stay on vacation until after Labor Day and Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude would be in good hands. She's incredible.
Casualties continue to mount and the Democratic Party needs to find some ideas and a platform that's not "more of the same"
Elaine back again while Rebecca's on vacation. For those who missed it, there's a roundtable up at The Common Ills that's worth reading for a number of reasons but Rebecca participated in it so check it out.
Mike asked me to note this from Democracy Now!
21 Marines Die in Iraq Over Two-Day Period
Fourteen Marines and a civilian interpreter were killed early today in western Iraq making it one of the deadliest days for U.S. forces in months. Seven more Marines died on Monday.I can remember when the invasion started in 2003. It was probably a week in and someone noted that it wasn't a "big deal," that it wasn't like the casualities in Vietnam. In that first month, 65 American soldiers died. One month of losses didn't seem to matter to this woman because it didn't compare with the years and years of the Vietnam conflict.
We're at 1822 right now. And we've got Donald Rumsfeld saying we could be over there for ten more years. You've got too many Democratics elected in Congress who don't want to address the problem and now Bully Boy's doing the Nixon dance of "I have a plan" as the next election cycle approaches. The plan is a Vietnam retread and it's not much of a plan.
So where does that leave us? Paul Hackett ran for Congress in a special election yesterday and he did pretty well. But there's something that bothered me about the way the election was pushed by Democrats.Vote Hackett because he's a war hero. Vote him because he's been over there.
There were probably many reasons to vote for Hackett. And he did pretty well. He lost, but he did pretty well.
But the thing that bothered me was the fact that we're still trying to do the 2004 election. Hackett wasn't for bringing the troops home now. He was going to fight a smarter war. Does that sound familiar? He was a war hero.
At some point Democrats are going to have to be able to offer a true alternative.
Bully Boy received no mandate. (Lizz Winstead would say "Mandate my ass!") But when you tried to point out a) how high turnout was, b) how many votes Kerry got, the "thinkers" would dismiss that. They would say only the results matter.
Now the talk isn't that it only mattered who won.
I don't think winning is the only thing matters and I certainly don't believe that we only learn based on who's declared the winner. But it's interesting that we're operating under a different principle now.
I also think it's interesting that we're still not presenting alternatives.
As a people, we're in favor of bringing the troops home. It's only our elected officials, with few brave exceptions, that won't enter that dialogue.
What's more worrisome is that we seem to be resorting, repeatedly, to the idea that only war heroes are worthy of office. We need ideas from our leaders. And the Democratic Party needs to offer some.
Military service is not a requirement for public office. It shouldn't be a liability either.
But it's not a platform. Jingoistic cheerleading, and we heard that as Hackett was pushed, doesn't take the place of ideas.
The party needs to get it together between now and 2006. That means offering plans and being an alternative to more of the same.
Hackett didn't have a platform and if you have trouble accepting that, listen, watch or read his interview with Amy Goodman today:
AMY GOODMAN: Well, it's hard to say congratulations on your defeat, but it has astounded many. Can you talk about what happened and the platform that you ran on?
PAUL HACKETT: Well, I mean, I had first confessed that I did not sit around and (quote/unquote) "come up with a platform." There are many issues that I believe in, and believe very passionately in, and those issues, as they came up in the campaign, I shared with the citizens of the Second District. So, it's funny, when I hear the term "platform," I sort of think as though that there was a committee that sat around and said, 'Okay, this is what we believe on this.' I mean, I just felt that in this district there had not been a choice. There had not been an alternative, and that many like me were not being represented, our voices were not being represented regarding many issues in the U.S. government, foreign policy to name a big one that was certainly spoken a lot about in the election campaign, and so forth. And then many social issues, as well. I mean, I just -- I'm just not happy with the state of politics in southern Ohio and, frankly, across the nation.
He feels that the district hadn't had a choice. He didn't offer them any choices in terms of ideas or inspiration. He speaks of having no idea what a platform is. Now the anti-government faction might like that or some factions might see it as "keeping it real," but in terms of a strategy for the Democratic Party, a platform's pretty important.
Also from the interview, he speaks of the importance of dissent but then goes on to offer this:
And the only criticism that I have heard about my comments regarding this administration are usually of those who have never served in the military. And a very, very small percentage of people have come up to me and said, "I was in the military. That wasn't right." And usually then, when I then ask them, "Have you ever been in combat?" the answer is "no." I have yet, and, you know, I am not asking -- this is not an invitation, but I have yet to have somebody say, "Hey, you know, I was in combat, and what you said was wrong." That I have not heard. Almost unanimously the word from the veterans that have contacted me by email, by telephone, and come to work with us in person have been overwhelmingly supportive, and so --
Those who disagreed hadn't served in the military. So Hackett doesn't value their opinion. Is that a Democratic message? More importantly, as he did throughout the campaign, he then goes further. Not seconds later, he's saying that actually some did serve and their opinion doesn't matter because they didn't see combat.
The message behind those statements was never examined. No one can disagree with Hackett if they didn't serve and if they didn't serve in a combat zone. Statements like that came out of his mouth constantly. I didn't note it because I didn't want to blow his chances.
But the election's over now. And people need to look at what went down because he didn't have a platform and his public statements often contradicted statements made moments before.
But what's really bothersome is the fact that there's this attitude that was pushed by others and by him which is only those who served in the military can weigh in. That's not democracy.
Back to the interview:
AMY GOODMAN: So, you would return to fight a war that you think is unjust?
PAUL HACKETT: Well, I've not said it's unjust. I have said that it's been mismanaged by the administration. I have said it was a poor use of our military. I'm not quite sure the implication of the label of unjust, so I'm uncomfortable using that. I have been critical of it up and down, but to me, that's not inconsistent with my desire to want to serve and my desire to want to lead marines and be with them in the field.
He's not sure whether it's a just war or an unjust war. He ran for office. He ran on his military record. But he can't weigh in on a very obvious question, one raised by the Pope in 2003. Amy Goodman wasn't bringing up an obscure theory and the election was over. But we can't get an answer on that question from him.
He has "no empathy or sympathy" for Camilo Mejia and that's bothersome. Mejia made a moral choice. And Hackett doesn't want do the work to determine whether the war is just or unjust.But he's perfectly happy to talk about consequences. Whose consquences?
Mejia has to take consequences for his actions, according to Hackett, but he won't weigh in on the consequences of the war itself.
What is Hackett's plan?
From the interview:
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think that the U.S. should get out of Iraq?
PAUL HACKETT: I'm not there yet. I think that -- let me step back and say, when you say, 'Should the U.S. get out of Iraq?' Yes. Eventually, yes. The question is, are we going to do it tomorrow, or are we going to accomplish the bare minimum and allow the Iraqis to survive within their defined government and social structure? And right now, I don't think that any form of security force in Iraq is capable of providing that for the people. And, while it may seem difficult to comprehend on this side of the world, at this point, I believe that Iraq will spiral out of control. And even though it's in a terrible condition today as a result of the insurgency phasing into civil war, perhaps, I don't think it's currently today as bad as it will be if we were to pull out tomorrow. I think that the administration has got to permit the American military over there to fight that fight and train the I.S.F., the Iraqi Security Forces, in a manner acceptable to our military, which I argue they're not -- the administration is not allowing that, so that the I.S.F. can be up to speed and we can get out of there. I think that, as a citizen of the United States, setting aside, you know, my uniform and so forth, I think we need to turn up the heat on the administration and demand some sort of oversight, as citizens, as to what successes the administration is having in training the Iraqi Security Forces.
There is nothing inspiring about that and nothing you couldn't read in a Thomas Friedman column. Or, for that matter, in a William Safire column if Safire was still writing op-eds. This was a campaign based on "We're not pulling out now. At some point we'll leave, but not yet." That's the Bully Boy's plan.
A lot of people, including Hackett, invested time and energy on his run for office but there was no real campaign. There was no plan, no proposal. Instead it all came down to "He served in Iraq!" Democrats need to find a way to offer proposals, plans and alternatives.
If this was a try out for the 2006 races, Democrats need to realize that we need real voices, with real ideas and real plans. We didn't get that from Hackett and the cheerleading and the applause that greeted his constant use of the term "chickenhawk" didn't provide any solutions or alternatives.
If the party wants to seriously try to win some elections, they're going to have to do better than presenting poster boys and thinking that a chorus of rah-rah cheers replaces real ideas and real thoughts. (Thanks as always to C.I. for acting as a sounding board and offering encouragement.)
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center)
The only thing that's been a worse flop than the organization of nonviolence has been the organization of violence.
Joan Baez
PSA: The Cass Elliot collection: The Solo Sessions 1968-1971 available via Hip-O Select
Knowing that many readers are fans of Cass Elliot (and the Mamas & the Papas), we're running this announcment that Ava and Jess posted at The Common Ills Thursday night.
Cass Elliot The Solo Sessions 1968-1971 (heads up to new double CD collection)
Ava and Jess here and we're doing this entry together. Last week, we received an e-mail about an upcoming Cass Elliot collection and would have been happy to link to it but it's only come out this week.
It's entitled The Solo Sessions 1968-1971 and it's a double disc set ($39.98) offered by Hip-O Select. There are 5,000 copies so if you're interested, you should consider checking it out.
"Different" is one of the songs on the collection and that's the song that C.I. noted in a "Five CDs, Five Minutes." That's not been on a CD before. In addition the collection contains "three tracks that had never been released in any form: Cass' cover of Joni Mitchell's 'Sisotowbell Lane,' a version of John Sebastian's 'Darling Be Home Soon,' and the Cashman, Pistilli & West tune 'For As Long As You Need Me.' They are revolutionary, and stand proudly with anything Cass released."
The first disc contains twenty-three tracks and the second disc contains fifteen. If you've bought a Cass collection (and Jess has many), you don't have a collection like this. You get "Dream A Little Dream Of Me," "California Earthquake," "Make Your Own Kind of Music," "I Can Dream, Can't I," "The Good Times Are Coming," and all the rest you know from other collections. But you also get tracks that aren't available in the CD format elsewhere.
There are no live tracks. The set focuses on Cass' singles from 1968 to 1971.
The Mamas and the Papas and Cass, herself, are very popular with community members so we wanted to do a heads up. And if there's a visitor who stumbles upon this entry and wonders, "What does music have to do with anything?" you're at the wrong site. Music is very important to the community. (And here's but one example of Cass and the Mamas & Papas popping up in an earlier entry.)
We'd asked C.I. if it was okay to note the set here when it came out because The Third Estate Sunday Review only publishes on Sunday and were given permission (actually, what we got was, "Why are you even asking? Of course.").
So that's your heads up.
If you're interested and can afford it, great. If you're interested but might need to save up (understandable), hopefully this gives you some time to do that. If you're a Cass fan or a Mamas and Papas fan you'll probably get a kick out of checking out the album online even if you're not planning to purchase it.
Cass Elliot The Solo Sessions 1968-1971 (heads up to new double CD collection)
Ava and Jess here and we're doing this entry together. Last week, we received an e-mail about an upcoming Cass Elliot collection and would have been happy to link to it but it's only come out this week.
It's entitled The Solo Sessions 1968-1971 and it's a double disc set ($39.98) offered by Hip-O Select. There are 5,000 copies so if you're interested, you should consider checking it out.
"Different" is one of the songs on the collection and that's the song that C.I. noted in a "Five CDs, Five Minutes." That's not been on a CD before. In addition the collection contains "three tracks that had never been released in any form: Cass' cover of Joni Mitchell's 'Sisotowbell Lane,' a version of John Sebastian's 'Darling Be Home Soon,' and the Cashman, Pistilli & West tune 'For As Long As You Need Me.' They are revolutionary, and stand proudly with anything Cass released."
The first disc contains twenty-three tracks and the second disc contains fifteen. If you've bought a Cass collection (and Jess has many), you don't have a collection like this. You get "Dream A Little Dream Of Me," "California Earthquake," "Make Your Own Kind of Music," "I Can Dream, Can't I," "The Good Times Are Coming," and all the rest you know from other collections. But you also get tracks that aren't available in the CD format elsewhere.
There are no live tracks. The set focuses on Cass' singles from 1968 to 1971.
The Mamas and the Papas and Cass, herself, are very popular with community members so we wanted to do a heads up. And if there's a visitor who stumbles upon this entry and wonders, "What does music have to do with anything?" you're at the wrong site. Music is very important to the community. (And here's but one example of Cass and the Mamas & Papas popping up in an earlier entry.)
We'd asked C.I. if it was okay to note the set here when it came out because The Third Estate Sunday Review only publishes on Sunday and were given permission (actually, what we got was, "Why are you even asking? Of course.").
So that's your heads up.
If you're interested and can afford it, great. If you're interested but might need to save up (understandable), hopefully this gives you some time to do that. If you're a Cass fan or a Mamas and Papas fan you'll probably get a kick out of checking out the album online even if you're not planning to purchase it.
Sunday, July 31, 2005
A note to our readers
We think this is a pretty strong edition and that it will make you laugh or make you angry. We're covering a few things here.
We have a roundtable that's using the framework of the Mamas & the Papas to comment on many other issues. We have an interview with Mike to note the fact that his site is now one month old. We have an essay and an editorial.
Thanks to Francisco and C.I. for permission to reprint the collection of news from Democracy Now! this week. And Ava and C.I. address Veronica Mars in their TV review. Thanks to Cedric and Kat for allowing us to reprint their work. We also thank Dallas for always hunting down our links.
And we thank Elaine who's subbing for Rebecca at Sex And Politics and Screeds and Attitude for participating in the roundtable, the editorial, the essay and the interview. We thank Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man for her help in the four features as well. And Kat for the same Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills). With Mike, we thank him for participating in the roundtable, essay and editorial and for granting us another interview, Mike of Mikey Likes It!
We thank Ava and our unofficial Third Estate Sunday Review member C.I. (The Common Ills) for their excellent TV review.
And we thank the readers who keep us sane and the ones who drive us crazy.
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava
We have a roundtable that's using the framework of the Mamas & the Papas to comment on many other issues. We have an interview with Mike to note the fact that his site is now one month old. We have an essay and an editorial.
Thanks to Francisco and C.I. for permission to reprint the collection of news from Democracy Now! this week. And Ava and C.I. address Veronica Mars in their TV review. Thanks to Cedric and Kat for allowing us to reprint their work. We also thank Dallas for always hunting down our links.
And we thank Elaine who's subbing for Rebecca at Sex And Politics and Screeds and Attitude for participating in the roundtable, the editorial, the essay and the interview. We thank Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man for her help in the four features as well. And Kat for the same Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills). With Mike, we thank him for participating in the roundtable, essay and editorial and for granting us another interview, Mike of Mikey Likes It!
We thank Ava and our unofficial Third Estate Sunday Review member C.I. (The Common Ills) for their excellent TV review.
And we thank the readers who keep us sane and the ones who drive us crazy.
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava
Editorial: On Guantanamo, Carter, Falluja, Fonda and the "moderates"
Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter said Saturday the detention of terror suspects at the Guantanamo Bay Naval base was an embarrassment and had given extremists an excuse to attack the United States.
Mr. Carter also criticized the U.S.-led war in Iraq as "unnecessary and unjust."
"I think what's going on in Guantanamo Bay and other places is a disgrace to the U.S.A.," he told a news conference at the Baptist World Alliance's centenary conference in Birmingham, England. "I wouldn't say it's the cause of terrorism, but it has given impetus and excuses to potential terrorists to lash out at our country and justify their despicable acts."
The above is from the Associated Press' "Ex-president goes on the attack" (The Globe and Mail) and we couldn't agree with Carter more. We're glad he said it. It needed saying. He'll be attacked for it, but it needed saying.
Here's something else that needs saying -- Jess' parents sent us a Mother Jones article by David Enders' entitled "We Regard Falluja As a Large Prison" and we're just wondering if we'll have to wait three or so years before Falluja can get some serious attention. From the article:
Eight months after the second invasion of Falluja, there is hardly a street that does not still feature a building pulverized during the assault. I had not been in the city since last July, when I was escorted out by three cars of mujahedeen — that's when things were still relatively nice — and though I had expected it, the destruction was still shocking.
[. . .]
I have heard Iraqis make comparisons between their occupation and the Israeli occupation of Palestine, but it wasn't until I saw families walking through the kilometer-long checkpoint, from a parking lot outside Falluja to one on the other side, that it seemed apt. Once inside, seeing the life continuing amidst the rubble, it was harder still to ignore the physical similarities.
This is the city that we've invaded twice now. (The first time Dexter Filkins turned the deadly and destructive invasion into a "Way Cool, Dude!" video game.)
Is there any chance that we'll get a serious examiniation of Falluja? At any point in the near future? Or will we just continue to act as though what has gone down there hasn't happened.
Jane Fonda's about to begin a speaking tour. We need it. As a nation we need it. And to the "moderates" who have started the trash talk on her, how about you see if you have the courage to address the issue of Falluja? And address it in something beyond the bromides of "Things happen in war time."
Instead of predicting sure failure for the Democrats in 2006 because Jane Fonda's speaking out, why don't you do some speaking out too? If you really think she, or Carter, isn't up to addressing the topics, why don't you lend your voices to them?
Of course that would mean dropping the war postures you've adopted. And maybe that's what goes to the core of your trashing of Fonda? You've adopted postures and any reality could shatter your pose.
The news will shatter that pose. With Bully Boy pulling a page from Nixon because Americans have grown weary of Operation Happy Talk, it's time for truth.
And as Elaine rightly pointed out, truth isn't "jokes" that Ted Kennedy will be Fonda's bus driver. We got to hand it to you "moderates," you "rescued" that lame joke. Maybe now you can get to work on rescuing the truth? But if that's too hard, you just continue trashing the people who will speak out and making yourself less and less revelant not only to the Democratic Party but to the issues we are facing today.
Mr. Carter also criticized the U.S.-led war in Iraq as "unnecessary and unjust."
"I think what's going on in Guantanamo Bay and other places is a disgrace to the U.S.A.," he told a news conference at the Baptist World Alliance's centenary conference in Birmingham, England. "I wouldn't say it's the cause of terrorism, but it has given impetus and excuses to potential terrorists to lash out at our country and justify their despicable acts."
The above is from the Associated Press' "Ex-president goes on the attack" (The Globe and Mail) and we couldn't agree with Carter more. We're glad he said it. It needed saying. He'll be attacked for it, but it needed saying.
Here's something else that needs saying -- Jess' parents sent us a Mother Jones article by David Enders' entitled "We Regard Falluja As a Large Prison" and we're just wondering if we'll have to wait three or so years before Falluja can get some serious attention. From the article:
Eight months after the second invasion of Falluja, there is hardly a street that does not still feature a building pulverized during the assault. I had not been in the city since last July, when I was escorted out by three cars of mujahedeen — that's when things were still relatively nice — and though I had expected it, the destruction was still shocking.
[. . .]
I have heard Iraqis make comparisons between their occupation and the Israeli occupation of Palestine, but it wasn't until I saw families walking through the kilometer-long checkpoint, from a parking lot outside Falluja to one on the other side, that it seemed apt. Once inside, seeing the life continuing amidst the rubble, it was harder still to ignore the physical similarities.
This is the city that we've invaded twice now. (The first time Dexter Filkins turned the deadly and destructive invasion into a "Way Cool, Dude!" video game.)
Is there any chance that we'll get a serious examiniation of Falluja? At any point in the near future? Or will we just continue to act as though what has gone down there hasn't happened.
Jane Fonda's about to begin a speaking tour. We need it. As a nation we need it. And to the "moderates" who have started the trash talk on her, how about you see if you have the courage to address the issue of Falluja? And address it in something beyond the bromides of "Things happen in war time."
Instead of predicting sure failure for the Democrats in 2006 because Jane Fonda's speaking out, why don't you do some speaking out too? If you really think she, or Carter, isn't up to addressing the topics, why don't you lend your voices to them?
Of course that would mean dropping the war postures you've adopted. And maybe that's what goes to the core of your trashing of Fonda? You've adopted postures and any reality could shatter your pose.
The news will shatter that pose. With Bully Boy pulling a page from Nixon because Americans have grown weary of Operation Happy Talk, it's time for truth.
And as Elaine rightly pointed out, truth isn't "jokes" that Ted Kennedy will be Fonda's bus driver. We got to hand it to you "moderates," you "rescued" that lame joke. Maybe now you can get to work on rescuing the truth? But if that's too hard, you just continue trashing the people who will speak out and making yourself less and less revelant not only to the Democratic Party but to the issues we are facing today.
Essay: Just a few questions
As the press coverage on the IRA's announcement last week played out, we saw repeatedly one notiong, "Bad IRA! You and you alone have brought tragedy on a people." We saw no efforts to explain the roots of the conflict, such as a desire for self-rule or the partioning off of the country or the long term patterns of discrimination.
What we saw was that the problems, if the press is to be believed -- and would they lie to you? -- were all the fault of the IRA. Occassionally, in passing, you might discover that the 1994 peace process was derailed by someone, someone who's not of the IRA but there were no real efforts made to address that or to explore it.
Today we get David Mckittrick's "US presses IRA over foreign operations" (The Independent) commenting on the White House's position:
Confirming this, the White House said: "Consistent with the IRA's commitment, we understand that the IRA and its members will no longer have any contact with any foreign paramilitary and terrorist organisation." The Bush administration is strongly supportive of the conduct of the peace process by London and Dublin, but IRA contacts abroad are seen by the US as potentially an American national security issue.
Let's turn now to "Man shot over 'paramilitary feud'" (BreakingNews.ie):
A man was shot today at a house in north Belfast, in an incident which locals claimed was connected to a loyalist paramilitary feud.
There were unconfirmed reports that the victim was dead. The man, the third victim of a loyalist paramilitary feud, was gunned down at a house in Wheatfield Crescent.
Locals identified him as Stephen Paul.
The Ulster Volunteer Force was being blamed for the attack.
There have been tensions between the Ulster Volunteer Force and the rival Loyalist Volunteer Force which have resulted in two people being killed already this month.
Let's Gomer Pyle it: Weeeelllll goooollllyyyyy.
The UVF? Excuse the heck of out of us, New York Times, but you didn't inform us about the UVF this week, did you? Who are they?
They are the Protestant paramilitary group that's committed more killings "than any other Protestant paramilitary" group (according to Wikipedia).
Well golly gosh darn, wasn't the IRA the only paramilitary group? Wasn't that the tag from our press for weeks and months . . . You mean to tell us that while a dope named Paisley is quoted at length in The New York Times about how he doubts that the paramilitary IRA will disarm, there are armed paramilitary groups that are Protestant?
Geez, how did that detail get missed? And weren't they offered up in the paper. It's all so confusing to those of us who think we're getting complexities and realities from The New York Timid. But we trust The Timid because outside of a few "printing errors," they always get the facts right. Right?
But as C.I. noted Saturday morning, the letters section of Saturday's paper contained more information and context than anything making it into The Timid during the week:
Unionist party members have said they will believe the statement when there is evidence that the I.R.A. has destroyed its stores of arms. But nothing has been said about disarmament of loyalist (Protestant) paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland: the Ulster Defense Association, the Ulster Volunteer Force, the Ulster Freedom Fighters and others.At various times since 1968, members of those groups were killing more people than the I.R.A. was.
and:
But I am disappointed that Prime Minister Tony Blair's comments and the White House statement, as reported, make no mention of the need for loyalist paramilitary groups to follow suit.
Did you know paramilitary groups other than the IRA were armed in Ireland? Times readers did, if they read the letter page. If they counted on "reporting" to tell them about it, they missed out on that very important angle.
But hey, it's not like petrol bombs were hurled at a Catholic Church in Ireland and The Timid forgot to tell anyone about that, right? Oh wait, it is exactly like that. Three of them. Hey Timid, what does it take for your editorial staff to use the term "bully" because it seems like you're more than eager to trot it out for Catholics. You just seem reluctant when Protestants are the ones acting like bullies.
But hey, it's not like the UVF and LVF were in the news last weekend, right? Oops, wrong again. They were in the news, if not in The Timid. MLA Naomi Long said:
If they are openly and brazenly stating that that they are no longer engaged in moving away from paramilitarism and criminality and instead are intent on escalating their killing spree with the LVF, Peter Hain (Northern Ireland Secretary of State) is now under a moral obligation to declare their ceasefire to be at an end. If he fails to do so he jeopardises the basis of the entire political process.
Woah! That sounds like something The Timid might say about the IRA. That Naomi Long has to be off her rocker, right? Because if something like that was happening in Ireland, we'd hear about it in The Timid. They wouldn't leave us hanging because they're very interested in telling us about bullies and terrorists in Ireland and covering threats to the ceasefire, right?
When you start thinking about it, actually no. Actually it looks like The Timid has spent a great deal of time sweeping the activities of Unionists under the rug while decrying the IRA as the only "bullies" in Ireland.
Now why do you suppose that is?
Not The Timid will care about this because the source is Catholic World News, but we'll note it anyway, July 27's "Wave of attacks on Catholics in Northern Ireland:"
Police on Tuesday called a recent spate of attacks on Catholics in and around Ballymena, a mostly Protestant town northwest of Belfast a wave of intimidation attacks.
The Associated Press reported that loyalist extremists planted a homemade grenade outside a Catholic family's home in Ballymena. The bomb detonated, causing minor damage. Arsonists badly damaged one Catholic-run pub in the village of Martinstown, and caused minor fire damage to the outside of another pub in nearby Rasharkin with two gasoline-filled bottles. In addition, two Catholic churches in Ballymena were vandalized with paint-filled balloons and painted-on anti-Catholic slogans. No injuries were reported.
Here's The Globe and Mail's July 27 Associated Press article "Protestant extremists strike in N. Ireland:"
Protestant extremists attacked two Roman Catholic-owned pubs and a Catholic family's home Tuesday in Northern Ireland while defacing two Catholic churches, police said.
No injuries were reported in what police called a wave of intimidation attacks in and around Ballymena, a mostly Protestant town northwest of Belfast. Catholic leaders appealed to the area's Protestant politicians to do more to challenge the extremists, who frequently threaten Catholic homes, businesses and churches in the area.
A homemade grenade detonated outside a Catholic family's home, causing minor damage and forcing police to empty about a dozen nearby houses in Ballymena, police said. Arsonists badly damaged one Catholic-run pub in the village of Martinstown, while two gasoline-filled bottles caused minor fire damage to the outside of another pub in nearby Rasharkin.
Two Catholic churches in Ballymena were struck by paint-filled balloons and daubed with anti-Catholic slogans, the police said.
But that didn't make The Timid this week. Why is that? These are questions people have been asking about the paper for months. At some point The New York Timid might want to consider addressing them.
What we saw was that the problems, if the press is to be believed -- and would they lie to you? -- were all the fault of the IRA. Occassionally, in passing, you might discover that the 1994 peace process was derailed by someone, someone who's not of the IRA but there were no real efforts made to address that or to explore it.
Today we get David Mckittrick's "US presses IRA over foreign operations" (The Independent) commenting on the White House's position:
Confirming this, the White House said: "Consistent with the IRA's commitment, we understand that the IRA and its members will no longer have any contact with any foreign paramilitary and terrorist organisation." The Bush administration is strongly supportive of the conduct of the peace process by London and Dublin, but IRA contacts abroad are seen by the US as potentially an American national security issue.
Let's turn now to "Man shot over 'paramilitary feud'" (BreakingNews.ie):
A man was shot today at a house in north Belfast, in an incident which locals claimed was connected to a loyalist paramilitary feud.
There were unconfirmed reports that the victim was dead. The man, the third victim of a loyalist paramilitary feud, was gunned down at a house in Wheatfield Crescent.
Locals identified him as Stephen Paul.
The Ulster Volunteer Force was being blamed for the attack.
There have been tensions between the Ulster Volunteer Force and the rival Loyalist Volunteer Force which have resulted in two people being killed already this month.
Let's Gomer Pyle it: Weeeelllll goooollllyyyyy.
The UVF? Excuse the heck of out of us, New York Times, but you didn't inform us about the UVF this week, did you? Who are they?
They are the Protestant paramilitary group that's committed more killings "than any other Protestant paramilitary" group (according to Wikipedia).
Well golly gosh darn, wasn't the IRA the only paramilitary group? Wasn't that the tag from our press for weeks and months . . . You mean to tell us that while a dope named Paisley is quoted at length in The New York Times about how he doubts that the paramilitary IRA will disarm, there are armed paramilitary groups that are Protestant?
Geez, how did that detail get missed? And weren't they offered up in the paper. It's all so confusing to those of us who think we're getting complexities and realities from The New York Timid. But we trust The Timid because outside of a few "printing errors," they always get the facts right. Right?
But as C.I. noted Saturday morning, the letters section of Saturday's paper contained more information and context than anything making it into The Timid during the week:
Unionist party members have said they will believe the statement when there is evidence that the I.R.A. has destroyed its stores of arms. But nothing has been said about disarmament of loyalist (Protestant) paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland: the Ulster Defense Association, the Ulster Volunteer Force, the Ulster Freedom Fighters and others.At various times since 1968, members of those groups were killing more people than the I.R.A. was.
and:
But I am disappointed that Prime Minister Tony Blair's comments and the White House statement, as reported, make no mention of the need for loyalist paramilitary groups to follow suit.
Did you know paramilitary groups other than the IRA were armed in Ireland? Times readers did, if they read the letter page. If they counted on "reporting" to tell them about it, they missed out on that very important angle.
But hey, it's not like petrol bombs were hurled at a Catholic Church in Ireland and The Timid forgot to tell anyone about that, right? Oh wait, it is exactly like that. Three of them. Hey Timid, what does it take for your editorial staff to use the term "bully" because it seems like you're more than eager to trot it out for Catholics. You just seem reluctant when Protestants are the ones acting like bullies.
But hey, it's not like the UVF and LVF were in the news last weekend, right? Oops, wrong again. They were in the news, if not in The Timid. MLA Naomi Long said:
If they are openly and brazenly stating that that they are no longer engaged in moving away from paramilitarism and criminality and instead are intent on escalating their killing spree with the LVF, Peter Hain (Northern Ireland Secretary of State) is now under a moral obligation to declare their ceasefire to be at an end. If he fails to do so he jeopardises the basis of the entire political process.
Woah! That sounds like something The Timid might say about the IRA. That Naomi Long has to be off her rocker, right? Because if something like that was happening in Ireland, we'd hear about it in The Timid. They wouldn't leave us hanging because they're very interested in telling us about bullies and terrorists in Ireland and covering threats to the ceasefire, right?
When you start thinking about it, actually no. Actually it looks like The Timid has spent a great deal of time sweeping the activities of Unionists under the rug while decrying the IRA as the only "bullies" in Ireland.
Now why do you suppose that is?
Not The Timid will care about this because the source is Catholic World News, but we'll note it anyway, July 27's "Wave of attacks on Catholics in Northern Ireland:"
Police on Tuesday called a recent spate of attacks on Catholics in and around Ballymena, a mostly Protestant town northwest of Belfast a wave of intimidation attacks.
The Associated Press reported that loyalist extremists planted a homemade grenade outside a Catholic family's home in Ballymena. The bomb detonated, causing minor damage. Arsonists badly damaged one Catholic-run pub in the village of Martinstown, and caused minor fire damage to the outside of another pub in nearby Rasharkin with two gasoline-filled bottles. In addition, two Catholic churches in Ballymena were vandalized with paint-filled balloons and painted-on anti-Catholic slogans. No injuries were reported.
Here's The Globe and Mail's July 27 Associated Press article "Protestant extremists strike in N. Ireland:"
Protestant extremists attacked two Roman Catholic-owned pubs and a Catholic family's home Tuesday in Northern Ireland while defacing two Catholic churches, police said.
No injuries were reported in what police called a wave of intimidation attacks in and around Ballymena, a mostly Protestant town northwest of Belfast. Catholic leaders appealed to the area's Protestant politicians to do more to challenge the extremists, who frequently threaten Catholic homes, businesses and churches in the area.
A homemade grenade detonated outside a Catholic family's home, causing minor damage and forcing police to empty about a dozen nearby houses in Ballymena, police said. Arsonists badly damaged one Catholic-run pub in the village of Martinstown, while two gasoline-filled bottles caused minor fire damage to the outside of another pub in nearby Rasharkin.
Two Catholic churches in Ballymena were struck by paint-filled balloons and daubed with anti-Catholic slogans, the police said.
But that didn't make The Timid this week. Why is that? These are questions people have been asking about the paper for months. At some point The New York Timid might want to consider addressing them.
TV Review: Veronica Mars is from Mars
Feel for Kristen Bell. Really feel for her. She's twenty-five and stuck playing a headstrong and plucky high schooler. On TV -- which means her character, Veronica Mars, is a real drip. As if a 25 year-old trying to portray Shirley Temple sans curls isn't difficult enough, it gets worse, oh does it get worse. Sexual tensions flies all around Veronica, but none of it is aimed at her. She's like a straight woman hoping for a hook up at a Cher concert.
Veronica Mars, for those who've missed it, airs on UPN although Friday night an episode we like to call the "Knock Down That Closet Door, Mary!" aired on CBS. Since this is no Joan of Arcadia, you can forgive viewers who were caught unaware and left to wonder if same-sex flirting is the new machismo for the young male set?
Like a less disrobed version of Oz, Friday night was all about the boys. The episode offers a poker game before the main titles which allows the fellows to get to know each other. Weevil catches your attention early on. (No, we're not making that name up.) Played by a 22 year-old Francis Capra, all we can say is he's a long, long way from his great-grandfather's It's a Wonderful Life. Right away, Weevil sets the tone telling a cigar sucking Logan, (23 year-old Jason Dohring) "You look pretty comfortable with that thing in your mouth."
We're imagining the usually staid CBS Friday night viewers asking one another, "Honey, did I hear that right?" Yes, you did. And hold onto the bran, there's more coming. Banter, the type one may be more used to coming from the mouths of Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell, gets tossed around quicker than the cards in said poker game. The climax to the scene, or maybe just more intense foreplay, is Weevil winning only to find that the five thousand dollars is gone. He's starts making noises about turning the other boys upside down ("and inside out?").
Weevil's supposed to be bad ass. He works hard to establish that point and possibly he could frighten a few on Rodeo Drive -- which must be the "street" he hails from. Here's a tip for Weevil, a pout is not a sneer no matter how many times you utilize it.
So this "bad ass" has just learned he's out five thousand dollars. Thinking things are about to get nasty? Maybe, but not in any traditional way that the CBS viewers are used to. No fista-cuffs, no blood shed. But clothing, that gets shed.
Weevil insists that the four boys strip. And naturally, none of them have any objection to that because Straight Outta Malibu might get all . . . what exactly? on their asses.
The camera's on their asses. Or on two of their boxer clad asses -- Logan's and Duncan's (Teddy Dunn, age officially unknown but we're told he's 24) . The camera really lingers on the cheeks before pulling back to note all four boys standing in boxers (apparently they phoned one another that morning in a "Boxer or briefs?" conference call) while Weevil pouts at them, making noises about how he will get his money out of them one way or another, and Sean (Kevin Sheridan, 23 years old) moans, "This is the worst game of strip poker ever!"
Before you get your hopes up (or other things) calm down and remember it's not HBO, it's broadcast TV.
But don't get too disappointed, all that's happened before the credits will be relived repeatedly in flashback as various boys get to retell their version of Chippindales Poker.
Take for instance Logan, who we see, in Weevil's flashback, on his knees before Weevil at school.
The opening line to this curiously staged scene? Logan to Weevil, "If you're asking me to the prom again, the answer is still no." Weevil's explains this -- and much, more more -- to Veronica who's obviously on The Case of the Homoerotic Subtext.
All she need do is keep her eyes and ears open. Because shortly after Duncan suspects Logan of being the thief (it's very Postman Always Rings Twice as the fellows turn on one another) the drama flares up as Duncan ends it with Logan:
Duncan: And I'm over it.
Logan: What, are we breaking up now? You want your best friend charm back?
Apparently tired of the boys having all the fun, Veronica hunts down the fifth hand in Chippindales Poker, Connor (Travis Schuldt, 31 in September but he's playing a non-high schooler) on the set of the movie he's starring in. A lot of talk is wasted by Logan and Veronica about Connor's "six pack" -- there's not one. So we're guessing that what has Veronica slack jawed is Connor's erect nipples -- nipples which seem to greet her as she bends and leans her head towards his torso for a closer look.
We're trusting that you're getting the point so we're leaving out the whole narrative of how when Logan was ten, Rosie Perez came to his birthday party to wish "Lauren" a happy birthday and brought a purse as a gift for "Lauren." The boys may have only one thing on their minds but we're not guessing it's "girls."
We're not knocking it, we just wish they'd upfront it. We're expecting that the CBS viewers were deeply, deeply confused when this show popped up Friday night.
It's hard not to be confused. Veronica's mother is dead. In this episode. Later it will turn out that she's still alive. Logan's parents have a whole Cheaters melodrama brewing and his father Aaron (Harry Hamilin) is a movie star while his mother Lynn (Lisa Rinna) is fond of boozing it up as Aaron beats Logan with a belt. Considering that Rinna's lips appear to have swollen up even more than when she was last spotted on Melrose Place, we're wondering if there's an as yet unrevealed subplot where Aaron uses the same belt on Rinna's mouth?
"This is confusing!" we hear some of you saying. We're not done yet. Duncan's parents? Somehow involved in Veronica's mother's death. (That's not a death, but you don't find that out until after this episode.) While Veronica's chasing down The Case of The Jock Itch Blues, her father (Enrico Colantoni) is actually a private investigator and Lynn's hired him to find out which one of Aaron's extra-marital affairs has resulted in death threats.
Veronica will figure out the twists and turns of her case before her father susses out his. At lunch, she'll announce that she knows who the thief is and all she needs to prove it is for another poker game to be called. All boys will keep their pants on in this one, but then, there is a lady present.
Prior to Veronica's announcement, Logan will join Sean and Duncan at the table. As Logan grabs a slice of pizza, Duncan will stand and huff causing Sean to ask, "Will you guys kiss and make up already?" The impish Logan will blow Duncan a kiss. And, later on, Veronica will note of Duncan's iced tea, "How very musical theater of you!"
Is your mind reeling? Let's cut to the chase. Before the episode comes to a close, we'll learn that rich boy Sean isn't rich and that he stole the five thousand (Weevil will disappear with him briefly -- presumably to work out some payment agreement despite the fact that Sean is dirt poor and has shoplifting charges), Veronica will scream at Duncan's father about the fact that he had something to do with her mother's death (or "death"), Duncan's father will confront his wife and pull her out of the party. Rinna will grin throughout all of this (she paid a lot for those lips, people!) up until Alex is stabbed, Logan will watch his father bleeding and hesitate before calling an ambulance.
"Woah!" you sigh thinking you've digested it all. Not really.
See the whole season, Veronica's on the trail of the person who killed her best friend Lilly (who, unlike Veronica's mother, will stay dead) as well as trying to determine who date raped her ("her" being Veronica, not the friend -- we know, it is confusing).
If you're thinking that it's all very Lace ("Which one of you bitches is my mother?") and Lace II ("Which one of you bastards is my father?") let's underscore that by noting that the date rapist is revealed to be . . . Duncan! Drugged with GHB by Logan! And that Duncan broke up with Veronica because of the fact that she may be . . . his sister!
Paternity is solved by the finale which also informs us that Logan's dad Aaron (Hamlin) was the person who killed Lilly! Veronica also, in that episode, will kick her mother (remember, she's come back from the "dead" by then) out of her life because Mom can't lay off the booze! As though this life and death and back to life thing were easy!
What was CBS thinking when they made the decision to spring this show on Friday night viewers only recently weened off Nash Bridges? And what is Bell thinking with the hair style?
It works for Patricia Arquette on Medium because she's playing a busy mother of young children. On Bell, it never quite works.
Nor does the wants-so-bad-to-be-Twin-Peaks vibe when it's combined with the sort of knowing, insider commentary by "high schoolers" last heard on Dawson's Creek. It's honestly as though they attempted to combine everything they could think of ("they" starting with creator Rob Thomas -- no not that Rob Thomas) starting with the banter of screwball comedies, the pulp of film noir, the scandal of a page turner you're embarrassed to be caught reading, "topical," "teenagers" (played by adults) and a heaping dose of homoeroticism. The latter was the only thing that actually held our interest.
Bell didn't. On the episode we watched, it wasn't that she was too glum which would, all things considered, make sense. She was, after all, the victim of a date rape with a then still dead mother, a dead best friend and suffering from questions of paternity. What we couldn't take was Little Miss Plucky seeming to forget any and all long running sub plots from scene to scene. Yes, it's a hell of a lot to keep with up but Bell didn't seem able to and the character lacked a gravity that recent events seemed to dictate that she should have.
Too many plot lines and too little attention mars Veronica Mars. On UPN it may develop a cult following but if it wants to play on the big three, it needs to work on reigning in the hyper activity and Bell needs to work on creating a character whose suffering plays like something more than "I so cannot believe he sprung a pop test on us!"
Veronica Mars, for those who've missed it, airs on UPN although Friday night an episode we like to call the "Knock Down That Closet Door, Mary!" aired on CBS. Since this is no Joan of Arcadia, you can forgive viewers who were caught unaware and left to wonder if same-sex flirting is the new machismo for the young male set?
Like a less disrobed version of Oz, Friday night was all about the boys. The episode offers a poker game before the main titles which allows the fellows to get to know each other. Weevil catches your attention early on. (No, we're not making that name up.) Played by a 22 year-old Francis Capra, all we can say is he's a long, long way from his great-grandfather's It's a Wonderful Life. Right away, Weevil sets the tone telling a cigar sucking Logan, (23 year-old Jason Dohring) "You look pretty comfortable with that thing in your mouth."
We're imagining the usually staid CBS Friday night viewers asking one another, "Honey, did I hear that right?" Yes, you did. And hold onto the bran, there's more coming. Banter, the type one may be more used to coming from the mouths of Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell, gets tossed around quicker than the cards in said poker game. The climax to the scene, or maybe just more intense foreplay, is Weevil winning only to find that the five thousand dollars is gone. He's starts making noises about turning the other boys upside down ("and inside out?").
Weevil's supposed to be bad ass. He works hard to establish that point and possibly he could frighten a few on Rodeo Drive -- which must be the "street" he hails from. Here's a tip for Weevil, a pout is not a sneer no matter how many times you utilize it.
So this "bad ass" has just learned he's out five thousand dollars. Thinking things are about to get nasty? Maybe, but not in any traditional way that the CBS viewers are used to. No fista-cuffs, no blood shed. But clothing, that gets shed.
Weevil insists that the four boys strip. And naturally, none of them have any objection to that because Straight Outta Malibu might get all . . . what exactly? on their asses.
The camera's on their asses. Or on two of their boxer clad asses -- Logan's and Duncan's (Teddy Dunn, age officially unknown but we're told he's 24) . The camera really lingers on the cheeks before pulling back to note all four boys standing in boxers (apparently they phoned one another that morning in a "Boxer or briefs?" conference call) while Weevil pouts at them, making noises about how he will get his money out of them one way or another, and Sean (Kevin Sheridan, 23 years old) moans, "This is the worst game of strip poker ever!"
Before you get your hopes up (or other things) calm down and remember it's not HBO, it's broadcast TV.
But don't get too disappointed, all that's happened before the credits will be relived repeatedly in flashback as various boys get to retell their version of Chippindales Poker.
Take for instance Logan, who we see, in Weevil's flashback, on his knees before Weevil at school.
The opening line to this curiously staged scene? Logan to Weevil, "If you're asking me to the prom again, the answer is still no." Weevil's explains this -- and much, more more -- to Veronica who's obviously on The Case of the Homoerotic Subtext.
All she need do is keep her eyes and ears open. Because shortly after Duncan suspects Logan of being the thief (it's very Postman Always Rings Twice as the fellows turn on one another) the drama flares up as Duncan ends it with Logan:
Duncan: And I'm over it.
Logan: What, are we breaking up now? You want your best friend charm back?
Apparently tired of the boys having all the fun, Veronica hunts down the fifth hand in Chippindales Poker, Connor (Travis Schuldt, 31 in September but he's playing a non-high schooler) on the set of the movie he's starring in. A lot of talk is wasted by Logan and Veronica about Connor's "six pack" -- there's not one. So we're guessing that what has Veronica slack jawed is Connor's erect nipples -- nipples which seem to greet her as she bends and leans her head towards his torso for a closer look.
We're trusting that you're getting the point so we're leaving out the whole narrative of how when Logan was ten, Rosie Perez came to his birthday party to wish "Lauren" a happy birthday and brought a purse as a gift for "Lauren." The boys may have only one thing on their minds but we're not guessing it's "girls."
We're not knocking it, we just wish they'd upfront it. We're expecting that the CBS viewers were deeply, deeply confused when this show popped up Friday night.
It's hard not to be confused. Veronica's mother is dead. In this episode. Later it will turn out that she's still alive. Logan's parents have a whole Cheaters melodrama brewing and his father Aaron (Harry Hamilin) is a movie star while his mother Lynn (Lisa Rinna) is fond of boozing it up as Aaron beats Logan with a belt. Considering that Rinna's lips appear to have swollen up even more than when she was last spotted on Melrose Place, we're wondering if there's an as yet unrevealed subplot where Aaron uses the same belt on Rinna's mouth?
"This is confusing!" we hear some of you saying. We're not done yet. Duncan's parents? Somehow involved in Veronica's mother's death. (That's not a death, but you don't find that out until after this episode.) While Veronica's chasing down The Case of The Jock Itch Blues, her father (Enrico Colantoni) is actually a private investigator and Lynn's hired him to find out which one of Aaron's extra-marital affairs has resulted in death threats.
Veronica will figure out the twists and turns of her case before her father susses out his. At lunch, she'll announce that she knows who the thief is and all she needs to prove it is for another poker game to be called. All boys will keep their pants on in this one, but then, there is a lady present.
Prior to Veronica's announcement, Logan will join Sean and Duncan at the table. As Logan grabs a slice of pizza, Duncan will stand and huff causing Sean to ask, "Will you guys kiss and make up already?" The impish Logan will blow Duncan a kiss. And, later on, Veronica will note of Duncan's iced tea, "How very musical theater of you!"
Is your mind reeling? Let's cut to the chase. Before the episode comes to a close, we'll learn that rich boy Sean isn't rich and that he stole the five thousand (Weevil will disappear with him briefly -- presumably to work out some payment agreement despite the fact that Sean is dirt poor and has shoplifting charges), Veronica will scream at Duncan's father about the fact that he had something to do with her mother's death (or "death"), Duncan's father will confront his wife and pull her out of the party. Rinna will grin throughout all of this (she paid a lot for those lips, people!) up until Alex is stabbed, Logan will watch his father bleeding and hesitate before calling an ambulance.
"Woah!" you sigh thinking you've digested it all. Not really.
See the whole season, Veronica's on the trail of the person who killed her best friend Lilly (who, unlike Veronica's mother, will stay dead) as well as trying to determine who date raped her ("her" being Veronica, not the friend -- we know, it is confusing).
If you're thinking that it's all very Lace ("Which one of you bitches is my mother?") and Lace II ("Which one of you bastards is my father?") let's underscore that by noting that the date rapist is revealed to be . . . Duncan! Drugged with GHB by Logan! And that Duncan broke up with Veronica because of the fact that she may be . . . his sister!
Paternity is solved by the finale which also informs us that Logan's dad Aaron (Hamlin) was the person who killed Lilly! Veronica also, in that episode, will kick her mother (remember, she's come back from the "dead" by then) out of her life because Mom can't lay off the booze! As though this life and death and back to life thing were easy!
What was CBS thinking when they made the decision to spring this show on Friday night viewers only recently weened off Nash Bridges? And what is Bell thinking with the hair style?
It works for Patricia Arquette on Medium because she's playing a busy mother of young children. On Bell, it never quite works.
Nor does the wants-so-bad-to-be-Twin-Peaks vibe when it's combined with the sort of knowing, insider commentary by "high schoolers" last heard on Dawson's Creek. It's honestly as though they attempted to combine everything they could think of ("they" starting with creator Rob Thomas -- no not that Rob Thomas) starting with the banter of screwball comedies, the pulp of film noir, the scandal of a page turner you're embarrassed to be caught reading, "topical," "teenagers" (played by adults) and a heaping dose of homoeroticism. The latter was the only thing that actually held our interest.
Bell didn't. On the episode we watched, it wasn't that she was too glum which would, all things considered, make sense. She was, after all, the victim of a date rape with a then still dead mother, a dead best friend and suffering from questions of paternity. What we couldn't take was Little Miss Plucky seeming to forget any and all long running sub plots from scene to scene. Yes, it's a hell of a lot to keep with up but Bell didn't seem able to and the character lacked a gravity that recent events seemed to dictate that she should have.
Too many plot lines and too little attention mars Veronica Mars. On UPN it may develop a cult following but if it wants to play on the big three, it needs to work on reigning in the hyper activity and Bell needs to work on creating a character whose suffering plays like something more than "I so cannot believe he sprung a pop test on us!"
Mike of Mikey Likes It!: One Month of Blogging
C.I. pointed out that Mike had just celebrated his first month of blogging. Besides being worthy of note, we also thought it merited checking in with Mike. Mike started blogging on June 20th. We first interviewed Mike on July 3rd so as we close out the month of July, we sit down with Mike again.
One month and what have you learned?
People like to talk about sex. Seriously. Even if they say they don't like sex, they want to weigh in and all. This comes up because the middle half of my posts are usually where I dip into the e-mails and note something someone's written.
Sometimes you provide an immediate reply and other times you just note the question and open it up for people to weigh in. Is this because you're uncomfortable with a question or because you're not sure you can weigh in?
Sometimes but sometimes it's also, honest, because I've got to get out the door for a date. Cedric's attitude is if he's got a date, he's got a date, so the blog can wait. I try to blog Monday through Friday and some on the weekends. Usually what happens is I've worked and gone to school that day and I come home and eat dinner, then hop in the shower, towel off and sit down and type up an entry. If I'm moving quick, it's a longer one but if I'm slow, it's a shorter one.
And honest, a lot of times, it's tossed out just because I don't have time to deal with the question because it deserves more thought than I have had time to give it and all.
What's been the biggest surprise?
From readers or like a technical thing?
Start with readers?
That they share so much. I summarize their e-mails when I note one but they go into real detail and stuff. I'm glad they feel comfortable sharing stuff with me.
Technical?
How much work the whole thing is. I mean like links. You've got to find what you're linking to, copy and paste the quote or quotes, then make the hyperlink and if you've got several in one entry that can take a lot more time than I ever thought it would.
We're lucky because Dallas helps out every weekend by looking up our links. The other thing that takes up a lot of time are fixing the spacing or punctuation on something you copy and paste.
Right because like punctuation, if they use a certain font, you fix it or you end up with little blocks or question marks where quotes should be. And like spacing gets completely tossed out the window a lot of times when you carry something over with a copy and paste.
Which is why we understand Cedric's decision to use Blog Spot and not Blog Drive.
Yeah, like he post one of Isaiah's cartoons and he just has to run the mouse over it and hit copy, then goes to his page and click paste. It's up. But like in Blog Drive, we have to either e-mail it to our site or use the thing where we insert it in an entry which means finding out the web address, clicking on the image icon, waiting for the next page to load and it always drags on my computer, then putting in the web address, then clicking done and waiting and waiting for it to pop up in the post. And it's the same for Cedric with text. He just has to copy and then paste. He doesn't have to fix it up or anything.
Cedric's talked about how his starting blogging meant you were no longer the newbie. Do you feel that way?
Yeah cause I mean I was always asking C.I., Jim and Rebecca questions, for instance. And it's nice to be on the receiving end some. A lot of the questions I would ask weren't technical and that's how it is with Cedric. He'll be like, "Can I run something by you?" and that's cool. I really consider him a bud. I know he runs stuff by C.I. too and I'm really glad that he wants my input too which is mainly just saying, "'Yeah, I can follow that' or 'Wait, you lost me.'"
You'd spoken before about how your parents read your blog and how your mother was fine with any topic if you made it funny. We noticed that this week she weighed in with some advice to your readers.
Oh yeah, that was so cool. It was on crotch rot. (Laughs.) That was an issue that had been raised twice by readers and I'd dealt with it and all but like Ma had another point of view on it that I'm glad she shared. Like the smell factor can also be caused by your drawers. And I didn't even think about that because I live at home and we got a washer and dryer. But like if you're living on your own and you're having to pay every time you wash or dry a load, you may be tempted to scrimp and just pull the clothes out when they're done. Ma's point was that sometimes underwear's not dry. This really applies more to guys because their underwear is usually thicker, I guess. I mean y-fronts and boxer briefs and stuff like that usually have more layers than say a thin pair of boxers or most women's panties. So like the pouch can take a little longer to dry. If it's not dry and you're tossing it in the basket and heading home, you really need to hang those up to dry all the way out or they will mildew and they will smell. You might not even notice it. But I love that Ma weighed in.
You're also noting Democracy Now! each day.
Yeah, that came up here and I thought, you know I should do that. Because we do have the power over our own sites. So like I can complain about how this mainstream thing or that got it wrong and give them a link which adds to their traffic or popularity or I can steer traffic and help the popularity of something I believe in like Democracy Now! and even if people don't go there, they're aware of it and it does add to their online popularity. But that point really made sense to me and I try to do that. If I believe in a site, I want to make sure that people know it. I don't want to be one more blogger going, "ABC News reported today" or something. That's cool if someone likes ABC News but I don't.
You're also noting other community sites a lot lately.
Yeah, Rebecca called me and asked me to do that while she was on vacation and I'm happy to do it. She did that at her site and she believes in it so I'm doing it. She knows that links can be a pain in the butt and she didn't want to put more pressure on Elaine. So I told her sure thing. C.I. wrote about feeling bad this week that it wasn't happening over at The Common Ills but I mean, the computers got screwed up, C.I.'s got work and volunteer stuff on issues and there's only so much time in the day. So I'm happy to fill in for Rebecca.
What are your feelings about Kevin Benderman's sentence?
Private Benderman cause they busted him down from Sgt. which was disgusting in and of itself.
I think Elaine called it right two Fridays ago when the larceny charge was tossed and she noted that this didn't mean to get excited. They, the military and the administration, wanted to make an example of him and they did. But the thing is, he'll get through this and he's the one setting the example. The administration just looks petty and vindictive.
Other than sex, what do you readers like to talk about?
Recruiters. I don't think a lot of people get how mad people my age and younger are about them being on their college and high school campuses. And like this past week, the DLC was calling for something like unfettered access for the recruiters. It's hard for me to believe that they're that unaware because most of that group's so old that they can remember the protests from the sixties over recruiters on campus. I think it's just that, as usual, the DLC is out of touch. And they honestly don't care about actual people, just about how they look, you know? But my readers are really bothered by recruiters and there have been some blistering e-mails about the DLC this past week. Which is good because that group's dying out and when they do something idiotic like they did, it just makes it even more obvious to people my age that the DLC stands for nothing.
We got positive feedback on the "1 Book, Ten Minutes Amy & David Goodman's The Exception to the Rulers" from last week.
Me too. You know I posted it over at my site and people were really interested in that book. Hopefully, that means a few more people read it. And great if they bought it because the money goes to support Democracy Now! but the message is so important that it's great if they just pick it up at the library and read it.
You really enjoy participating in the discussions.
Yeah. Even if I'm just listening. I just like the give and take and how someone sees something that somebody else might not notice or when someone builds on a point that someone else's has made. I just really enjoy that. They're fun to do and fun to read when they go up. I know they take up a lot of time and it's a lot of work for Dallas to hunt down the links and for Ava and C.I. who are doing transcriptions. And then there's the editing and all. Like tonight that whole point that C.I. had about The Times that got taken out --
C.I. took that out.
Right. Thought it was way off topic. But I really liked that and thought those were strong points. I wish C.I. would speak more and all but I know there's the "I don't want to dominate the discussion." But it's like there's thought behind it and all. And like, I'm a Common Ills member and there's stuff that comes out in the roundtables and all that won't make it over to The Common Ills. That's another thing about the give and take. Because there are other people present, I think everyone's a lot freer in their comments. When we're doing our sites and stuff and writing stuff, there's this attitude of, "Wait, am I being clear?" Or "I need to make sure to point this out." But when it's a group, you can usually count on someone else clarifying something if you've been confusing or making a point you might have forgotten. So that's really cool. But I did like C.I.'s comments about The Times and I know they won't make it over to The Common Ills. I was also expecting Jess to make his point that we're all like the Mamas and the Papas of the internet in his opinion.
Jess: I completely forgot about that, Mike. Sorry.
It's cool. But I really liked that point because we do believe in peace and like Cass Elliot was political and a lot of people don't seem to know that. But she was and so were the others. And I like seeing us like that, you know? We're just doing it our way and if someone likes it great, but if not, we ain't sweating it. And Kat would say we're very "organic."
Kat: (laughing) I'll get you for that McKinnon!
But we are. We're just doing our own thing. And I mean Elaine's really a strong voice.
Elaine: Thank you.
I'm serious. You are bringing up issues like war lust and peace and you're just so focused on that. I really respect what you're doing. And I think your voice makes a difference. And like if you put all of us together as a group, we're covering so much and all. Like Cedric's post that you're highlighting and all. I mean Cedric just let it hang out and I respected that. And like Betty's offering that humorous, ongoing critique about neoliberalism and colonialism. I mean there are just so elements that, as a group, we cover. So I really do like the idea of us as the Mamas and the Papas of the internet, keeping it real and standing for peace. It's like you got a bunch of Beach Boys or somethings trying to make justifications for the war and doing all this blind flag waving and then you've got us over here the hippies and peace lovers. And like how dare anyone trash people like Jess's parents cause they stood for something and stand for something. And Jess is so cool today because he was raised with some real values. So yeah, put me in with the Mamas and the Papas because I think that's a supreme compliment.
When you spoke of the documentary, renting it with your sister, you said that you ended up dreaming you were in a band. The documentary on the Mamas and the Papas.
Yeah. That was a pretty cool dream. I wish I'd have it again. It was Jess on guitar and stuff. Kat was doing keyboards. Me and Ty were drummers. (Laughing) The band had two drummers! Jim was on bass. And like Rebecca, C.I., Betty and Ava were singing.
Jim: What about Dona?
She was producing the album.
Jim: I can see that.
Now Cedric's joined the "group" so if I have the dream again, I'll need to figure out what he's doing. But it was a pretty cool dream. One of those dreams where you wake up with one eye and since you don't have to get up right away, you shut your eye and try to go back to the dream. Pretty cool.
Well before we close, we need to discuss the Chinese Zodiac because we've found out more about your sign the Ox.
For real?
No, we're joking.
Thank God because that really did freak me out last time.
One month and what have you learned?
People like to talk about sex. Seriously. Even if they say they don't like sex, they want to weigh in and all. This comes up because the middle half of my posts are usually where I dip into the e-mails and note something someone's written.
Sometimes you provide an immediate reply and other times you just note the question and open it up for people to weigh in. Is this because you're uncomfortable with a question or because you're not sure you can weigh in?
Sometimes but sometimes it's also, honest, because I've got to get out the door for a date. Cedric's attitude is if he's got a date, he's got a date, so the blog can wait. I try to blog Monday through Friday and some on the weekends. Usually what happens is I've worked and gone to school that day and I come home and eat dinner, then hop in the shower, towel off and sit down and type up an entry. If I'm moving quick, it's a longer one but if I'm slow, it's a shorter one.
And honest, a lot of times, it's tossed out just because I don't have time to deal with the question because it deserves more thought than I have had time to give it and all.
What's been the biggest surprise?
From readers or like a technical thing?
Start with readers?
That they share so much. I summarize their e-mails when I note one but they go into real detail and stuff. I'm glad they feel comfortable sharing stuff with me.
Technical?
How much work the whole thing is. I mean like links. You've got to find what you're linking to, copy and paste the quote or quotes, then make the hyperlink and if you've got several in one entry that can take a lot more time than I ever thought it would.
We're lucky because Dallas helps out every weekend by looking up our links. The other thing that takes up a lot of time are fixing the spacing or punctuation on something you copy and paste.
Right because like punctuation, if they use a certain font, you fix it or you end up with little blocks or question marks where quotes should be. And like spacing gets completely tossed out the window a lot of times when you carry something over with a copy and paste.
Which is why we understand Cedric's decision to use Blog Spot and not Blog Drive.
Yeah, like he post one of Isaiah's cartoons and he just has to run the mouse over it and hit copy, then goes to his page and click paste. It's up. But like in Blog Drive, we have to either e-mail it to our site or use the thing where we insert it in an entry which means finding out the web address, clicking on the image icon, waiting for the next page to load and it always drags on my computer, then putting in the web address, then clicking done and waiting and waiting for it to pop up in the post. And it's the same for Cedric with text. He just has to copy and then paste. He doesn't have to fix it up or anything.
Cedric's talked about how his starting blogging meant you were no longer the newbie. Do you feel that way?
Yeah cause I mean I was always asking C.I., Jim and Rebecca questions, for instance. And it's nice to be on the receiving end some. A lot of the questions I would ask weren't technical and that's how it is with Cedric. He'll be like, "Can I run something by you?" and that's cool. I really consider him a bud. I know he runs stuff by C.I. too and I'm really glad that he wants my input too which is mainly just saying, "'Yeah, I can follow that' or 'Wait, you lost me.'"
You'd spoken before about how your parents read your blog and how your mother was fine with any topic if you made it funny. We noticed that this week she weighed in with some advice to your readers.
Oh yeah, that was so cool. It was on crotch rot. (Laughs.) That was an issue that had been raised twice by readers and I'd dealt with it and all but like Ma had another point of view on it that I'm glad she shared. Like the smell factor can also be caused by your drawers. And I didn't even think about that because I live at home and we got a washer and dryer. But like if you're living on your own and you're having to pay every time you wash or dry a load, you may be tempted to scrimp and just pull the clothes out when they're done. Ma's point was that sometimes underwear's not dry. This really applies more to guys because their underwear is usually thicker, I guess. I mean y-fronts and boxer briefs and stuff like that usually have more layers than say a thin pair of boxers or most women's panties. So like the pouch can take a little longer to dry. If it's not dry and you're tossing it in the basket and heading home, you really need to hang those up to dry all the way out or they will mildew and they will smell. You might not even notice it. But I love that Ma weighed in.
You're also noting Democracy Now! each day.
Yeah, that came up here and I thought, you know I should do that. Because we do have the power over our own sites. So like I can complain about how this mainstream thing or that got it wrong and give them a link which adds to their traffic or popularity or I can steer traffic and help the popularity of something I believe in like Democracy Now! and even if people don't go there, they're aware of it and it does add to their online popularity. But that point really made sense to me and I try to do that. If I believe in a site, I want to make sure that people know it. I don't want to be one more blogger going, "ABC News reported today" or something. That's cool if someone likes ABC News but I don't.
You're also noting other community sites a lot lately.
Yeah, Rebecca called me and asked me to do that while she was on vacation and I'm happy to do it. She did that at her site and she believes in it so I'm doing it. She knows that links can be a pain in the butt and she didn't want to put more pressure on Elaine. So I told her sure thing. C.I. wrote about feeling bad this week that it wasn't happening over at The Common Ills but I mean, the computers got screwed up, C.I.'s got work and volunteer stuff on issues and there's only so much time in the day. So I'm happy to fill in for Rebecca.
What are your feelings about Kevin Benderman's sentence?
Private Benderman cause they busted him down from Sgt. which was disgusting in and of itself.
I think Elaine called it right two Fridays ago when the larceny charge was tossed and she noted that this didn't mean to get excited. They, the military and the administration, wanted to make an example of him and they did. But the thing is, he'll get through this and he's the one setting the example. The administration just looks petty and vindictive.
Other than sex, what do you readers like to talk about?
Recruiters. I don't think a lot of people get how mad people my age and younger are about them being on their college and high school campuses. And like this past week, the DLC was calling for something like unfettered access for the recruiters. It's hard for me to believe that they're that unaware because most of that group's so old that they can remember the protests from the sixties over recruiters on campus. I think it's just that, as usual, the DLC is out of touch. And they honestly don't care about actual people, just about how they look, you know? But my readers are really bothered by recruiters and there have been some blistering e-mails about the DLC this past week. Which is good because that group's dying out and when they do something idiotic like they did, it just makes it even more obvious to people my age that the DLC stands for nothing.
We got positive feedback on the "1 Book, Ten Minutes Amy & David Goodman's The Exception to the Rulers" from last week.
Me too. You know I posted it over at my site and people were really interested in that book. Hopefully, that means a few more people read it. And great if they bought it because the money goes to support Democracy Now! but the message is so important that it's great if they just pick it up at the library and read it.
You really enjoy participating in the discussions.
Yeah. Even if I'm just listening. I just like the give and take and how someone sees something that somebody else might not notice or when someone builds on a point that someone else's has made. I just really enjoy that. They're fun to do and fun to read when they go up. I know they take up a lot of time and it's a lot of work for Dallas to hunt down the links and for Ava and C.I. who are doing transcriptions. And then there's the editing and all. Like tonight that whole point that C.I. had about The Times that got taken out --
C.I. took that out.
Right. Thought it was way off topic. But I really liked that and thought those were strong points. I wish C.I. would speak more and all but I know there's the "I don't want to dominate the discussion." But it's like there's thought behind it and all. And like, I'm a Common Ills member and there's stuff that comes out in the roundtables and all that won't make it over to The Common Ills. That's another thing about the give and take. Because there are other people present, I think everyone's a lot freer in their comments. When we're doing our sites and stuff and writing stuff, there's this attitude of, "Wait, am I being clear?" Or "I need to make sure to point this out." But when it's a group, you can usually count on someone else clarifying something if you've been confusing or making a point you might have forgotten. So that's really cool. But I did like C.I.'s comments about The Times and I know they won't make it over to The Common Ills. I was also expecting Jess to make his point that we're all like the Mamas and the Papas of the internet in his opinion.
Jess: I completely forgot about that, Mike. Sorry.
It's cool. But I really liked that point because we do believe in peace and like Cass Elliot was political and a lot of people don't seem to know that. But she was and so were the others. And I like seeing us like that, you know? We're just doing it our way and if someone likes it great, but if not, we ain't sweating it. And Kat would say we're very "organic."
Kat: (laughing) I'll get you for that McKinnon!
But we are. We're just doing our own thing. And I mean Elaine's really a strong voice.
Elaine: Thank you.
I'm serious. You are bringing up issues like war lust and peace and you're just so focused on that. I really respect what you're doing. And I think your voice makes a difference. And like if you put all of us together as a group, we're covering so much and all. Like Cedric's post that you're highlighting and all. I mean Cedric just let it hang out and I respected that. And like Betty's offering that humorous, ongoing critique about neoliberalism and colonialism. I mean there are just so elements that, as a group, we cover. So I really do like the idea of us as the Mamas and the Papas of the internet, keeping it real and standing for peace. It's like you got a bunch of Beach Boys or somethings trying to make justifications for the war and doing all this blind flag waving and then you've got us over here the hippies and peace lovers. And like how dare anyone trash people like Jess's parents cause they stood for something and stand for something. And Jess is so cool today because he was raised with some real values. So yeah, put me in with the Mamas and the Papas because I think that's a supreme compliment.
When you spoke of the documentary, renting it with your sister, you said that you ended up dreaming you were in a band. The documentary on the Mamas and the Papas.
Yeah. That was a pretty cool dream. I wish I'd have it again. It was Jess on guitar and stuff. Kat was doing keyboards. Me and Ty were drummers. (Laughing) The band had two drummers! Jim was on bass. And like Rebecca, C.I., Betty and Ava were singing.
Jim: What about Dona?
She was producing the album.
Jim: I can see that.
Now Cedric's joined the "group" so if I have the dream again, I'll need to figure out what he's doing. But it was a pretty cool dream. One of those dreams where you wake up with one eye and since you don't have to get up right away, you shut your eye and try to go back to the dream. Pretty cool.
Well before we close, we need to discuss the Chinese Zodiac because we've found out more about your sign the Ox.
For real?
No, we're joking.
Thank God because that really did freak me out last time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
