We'll note upfront (again) that we don't support efforts to make the online world 'safe' from mean comments. We think many need to grow a thicker skin. But Ty passed us (Ava and C.I.) an e-mail by a woman who was outraged by something she found online. She wondered if she was wrong to be outraged by an exchange that took place on a site she visits?
Background, Alice Marshall is one of the ones supporting 'better manners online' (she'd describe it differently). We disagree with her on that and don't know her work enough to agree or disagree with the rest of it. We do know that in what a reader copied, pasted and sent to us, Monroe and other women were disrespected and we have no problem calling that out.
It started innocently enough when Matt Stoller decided to share his thoughts and they were the usual nonsense you'd expect. (Want to have an impact online? "Raise money for candidates.") The reader was somewhat concerned that we'd hesitate to take on Stoller. We already have. In fact, in his post he mentions that he's blogged "125-175" posts on net neutrality to little apparent effect. Possibly it helps to know what you're talking about?
Monroe opened with:
When over a hundred bloggers come together to blog about the same issue it is no longer a pet issue. It is a movement. To ignore such a blogswarm is, well, bad form.
Schaller is talking about the importance of women in the Democratic party. Without any reference to the recent blogswarm. As in they have ears but they hear not.
You cannot ask people to contact Steny Hoyer and support your work if you will not reciprocate. And really, if you do not prepare the ground ahead by enlisting the support of the local Democratic bloggers I really do not see you getting anywhere.
And how can MyDD be a specialist in talking about campaigns & elections without reference to those who actually vote Democratic?????
I respect all the hard and poorly compensated work you have put into this, but acting like a movement requires a certain mentality, and right now it is not clear to me that you have it.
Get it right out of your head that this has to do with site traffic. Most of us are not dependent upon blogging for our income, thank Jesus fasting. What some of us want is a sense that the conversation goes both ways. You cannot ask us to have your back if you don't have ours.
And Stoller quickly responded with:
To ignore such a blogswarm is, well, bad form...Schaller is talking about the importance of women in the Democratic party. Without any reference to the recent blogswarm. As in they have ears but they hear not.
The immediate assumption here is that I am ignoring this campaign out of malice. I had no idea that this was going on, and no one asked me to join or explained why I should. I don't really understand this campaign but I'm open-minded. I become closed-minded very quickly when I am insulted for not knowing something I don't know about just because a hundred blogs linked to it. A hundred blogs link to stuff all the time that I don't know about. I'm not omniscient.
Get it right out of your head that this has to do with site traffic.
What is your criteria here? A hundred blogs link to lots of stuff. Why is this different? Make the case.
We agree that Monroe was wrong to assume that Stoller had heard of something or, in fact, anything. That The Washington Post had covered this doesn't really matter. For many today, a paper is not read, just articles that get linked to. Consider it the equivalent for the crowd that prefers the Greatest Hits and Best Of.
However, reviewing what the reader passed on, we just rolled our eyes at Stoller's blame the victim mentality. We thought the offensive statement came from Pericles which we'll address in full.
The two of the last three comments are instructive indeed. The overarching meme of America today is:
Me...me...me...me....
My blog...
My candidate...
My ideas...
No sense that others might see things differently or that just because 'the other', in this case
The "me" may arise from a post that elects to share one person's opinion.
Stoller, is criticizing the 'Me' in question it does not follow that 'the other' is acting out of a nefarious and evil agenda.
This is what, theoretically, separates us on the progressive branch of the human family tree from the mouthbreathers. Sad to see that 'some' did not get the memo.
Community matters and if you cannot criticize in a manner that avoids corroding the ties that make up the community then you and your agenda will not be successful.
He uses a lot of words (it is a he) and says very little. But, we're sure, he does the goat dance very well.
Further, I now cringe whenever a woman enters the thread with a complaint. Valid or not the complaint always seems to proceed from the viewpoint that 'the white men' want to keep the women down.
Having dropped his thesaurus, Pericles now wants to get down and dirty. Use Gloria Steinem's parallel therapy and substitute "African-American" for "woman" if you have trouble determining how offensive the first statement is: "Further, I now cringe whenever an African-American enters the thread with a complaint." Pericles isn't done insulting women.
Many do, no question.
But I would ask, 'Why lead with your chin?' If you are, as you stoutly maintain, an independent progressive women why do you need anyone's assistance in making your ideas known? This from a man who hung out with the first generation of feminist women and who has seen this attitude do more to undermine feminism than any of the ravings of the ReighWing.
Pericles is struggling hard to keep his head above water here. We have no idea of his age but he did not hang "out with the first generation of feminist women." He did not even hang "out with the first generation of American feminist women." If he had, he'd long be dead and we'd be spared his endless ruminations.
He doesn't know what he's talking about but that may be due to the fact that women make him cringe. When complaining, he might add, but to these types, anything other than, "No, two inches is impressive," tends to come off as a complaint.
For Pericles, the apparent offense of a woman being independent means she doesn't "need anyone's assistance" and, for the record, Monroe wasn't asking him to zip up the back of her dress. She was addressing the silence on an issue that mattered to many. Apparently a man can be independent and still have assistance getting the word out on an issue but when a woman tries to do both the best thing is to justify your own inaction by snarling, "You asked for it, libertine!"
He's seen real destruction come from feminist attitudes, a certain sort, you understand, the sort that takes people to task for sexism or, as Pericles prefers to put it, offers "a complaint."
You get the feeling Pericles has heard a lot of complaints in his lifetime? Want to bet on how many were justified?
Ladies, it's your fight...
So fight it.
I support you but I've got my own agenda to work on.
"Ladies" adds to the insult before he even gets to "it's your fault." Ladies. Ladies who lunch? That is so insulting -- "Ladies." Possibly he feels it's a step up from "girls"? His use of the term further proves he didn't hang out with any group of feminists (of any generation).
It's your fight, he says, because (a) he's busy (with real issues, we're sure, manly ones), (b) you wanted to be independent!, and (c) for all his condemning of 'me-me-me,' he's really can't see beyond his own limited circumstances. Or as Monroe rightly put it, "You cannot ask us to have your back if you don't have ours."
The reader who passed this on is a dedicated MyDD follower or was. We think that's the best way to "Take Back the Net": stop visiting sites that allow women to be attacked en mass without moderators stepping in to issue their own opinion. We're not saying delete it or ban it, we are saying when a moderator allows Pericles sexist b.s. to stand without comment, the moderator has endorsed it -- intentionally or not.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Pencil it in
Today, at 7:00 pm EST, Amy Goodman and Greg Palast will be among the people on CSPAN's BookTV. If you do not get BookTV, but you can stream online, you have the options of listening or watching online live.
In addition, today (also beginning at 7:00 pm EST and lasting until 10:00 pm EST) you can listen to the Sunday broadcast of RadioNation with Laura Flanders (over Air America Radio airwaves, via XM satellite radio and via online streaming):
Heroes, anti-heroes and double-standards on terrorism: Cuba expert and journalist ANN LOUISE BARDACH on the release of the West's most wanted terrorist. Then FBI agent-turned-whistleblower MIKE GERMAN and ANGELICA SALAS of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles on home-grown groups targeting immigrants let go easy. And a return visit to some of our favorite Blue Grit grassroots heroes. This week, BOB FULKERSON and company from the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada.
And Flanders would be the first to note, don't just listen or watch, get out there in the world. If you're in the Bay Area you could attend one of the events of the speaking out tour that's bringing the realities of war resistance to the people:
Sunday May 13 - San Francisco
7pm at the Veterans War Memorial Bldg. (Room 223) , 401 Van Ness St, San Francisco. Featuring Agustin Aguayo, Camilo Mejia and Pablo Paredes. Sponsored by Courage to Resist, Veteran's for Peace Chp. 69 and SF Codepink.
Monday May 14 - Watsonville
7pm at the United Presbyterian Church, 112 E. Beach, Watsonville. Featuring Agustin Aguayo, Camilo Mejia, Pablo Paredes and Robert Zabala. Sponsored by the GI Rights Hotline & Draft Alternatives program of the Resource Center for Nonviolence (RCNV), Santa Cruz Peace Coalition, Watsonville Women's International League for Peace & Freedom (WILPF), Watsonville Brown Berets, Courage to Resist and Santa Cruz Veterans for Peace Chp. 11. More info: Bob Fitch 831-722-3311
Tuesday May 15 - Palo Alto
7 PM at the First Presbyterian Church (Fellowship Hall), 1140 Cowper, Palo Alto. Featuring Camilo Mejia. Sponsored by Pennisula Peace and Justice Center. More info: Paul George 650-326-8837
Wednesday May 16 - Eureka
7pm at the Eureka Labor Temple, 840 E St. (@9th), Eureka. Featuring Camilo Mejia. More info: Becky Luening 707-826-9197
Thursday May 17 - Oakland
4pm youth event and 7pm program at the Humanist Hall, 411 28th St, Oakland. Featuring Camilo Mejia, Pablo Paredes and the Alternatives to War through Education (A.W.E.) Youth Action Team. Sponsored by Veteran's for Peace Chp. 69, Courage to Resist, Central Committee for Conscientious Objector's (CCCO) and AWE Youth Action Team.
Friday May 18 - Berkeley
7pm at St. Joseph the Worker featuring Camilo Mejia.
If you're in the DC area Monday, you can join CODEPINK, Cindy Sheehan and others:
Mother's Day: Women Say NO to War!
Join us in DC to walk the halls of Congress with some of the most influential moms of our day! Plan your own local Mother's Day peace picnic, post your event here, or host a peace movie night.
More...
NEW! View the Mothers Day for Peace Video
More on Monday's action:
Camp Casey Peace Institute
MOTHER OF A MARCH
The time for being polite to our war-mongering politicians and organizations which support them is over. We mothers have to stand up and put our bodies on the line for peace and humanity. We must look into the best parts of ourselves that make us mothers willing to care for and protect all children of the world, not just our own. We need to access our hearts and souls to lead from a place of compassion and love not from war/fear mongering, hatred and disgraceful threats and use of bullying force. I am calling on Mothers of the world to join us in Washington DC for a "10,000 Mother of a March" on the day after Mother's Day, Monday, May 14th, 2007. Marches on the weekends are not effective, we need to shut the city of DC down! We will surround Congress and demand an end to this evil occupation and refuse to leave until the Congressional Leadership agrees with us, or throws us in jail!
Meet at Layfayette Park at noon. We will rally then march to Congress
I am calling on Mothers of the world to descend on US embassies all over the world that day. Imagine 10,000 Iraqi women marching on the Green Zone: marching in solidarity with us to end the slaughter of their children. I believe millions of mothers around the world are tired of their children being used as cannon fodder and political tools in the games of war and killer sanctions. Together we will stop the war machine.
Mothers united will never be defeated!
Sign up and let us know you are coming. Need a ride to DC? Have room in your Car? Go to our Rideshare Board
Need a Roomie? Have a spare bed? Housing Board
Those are only some events taking place around the country. Find something in your area or start something in your area. When your country's on the ledge, you don't just veg.
And because it's never too early to make summer plans
Press Contacts:
Kimberly Wilder, Green Party of Suffolk, Press Secretary
(631) 422-4702 votewilder@yahoo.com.
Roger Snyder, Green Party of Suffolk, Chair
(631) 351-5763 info@gpsuffolk.org
The Green Party of Suffolk will be holding a "Summer in Setuaket--Green Fundraising Party" on Friday, June 22 from 7pm to 10pm at the Setauket Neighborhood House, 95 Main Street, Setauket. (Main Street is north of 25A and 6/10th of a mile west of Nichols Road) http://www.setauketneighborhoodhouse.com/
The evening will include a potluck dinner, music, an art auction, and a display of the Green Party of Suffolk’s "Bring Home The Troops" poster contest entries. The winning poster from the youth category is on display now at http://www.gpsuffolk.org/.
Vegetarian and vegan dishes will be served. Admission is $15 (with a dish) and $20 (without a dish). Children are welcome. There will be a silent auction of work by local artists. Please note that political donations are not tax-deductible
Blacklisted & The Banned will perform their unique style of original, political music. Blacklisted features Sonny Meadows, Bob Westcott, Jon Foreman, Bob Campbell and Robert Langley. Blacklisted’s repertoire is sure to include some words against war and you can also expect them to play at least one song from their recently released first album, "I Never Thought I'd Miss Richard Nixon." More information about Blacklisted & The Banned can be found at http://www.sonnymeadows.com/.
The Green Party is an alternative to the Democrats and Republicans. The Green Party’s values can be described by the four pillars of: Nonviolence; Grassroots Democracy; Ecological Wisdom; and Social and Economic Justice.
Donations and/or requests for advance tickets can be sent to: Green Party of Suffolk, 14 Robin Drive, Huntington, NY 11743. For more information call Roger at (631) 351-5763 or go to http://www.gpsuffolk.org/
Robert Knight's "The Knight Report"
Last Thursday, someone was kind enough to e-mail the public account of The Common Ills with a transcription of "The Knight Report" from Wednesday. Ava read the e-mail. It was after C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" had posted but Ava passed it on to all of us (except Elaine who doesn't blog on Thursdays but notes she will post it Monday) and it got posted at various sites.
What's "The Knight Report"? Oh, no, you didn't, says Betty. "The Knight Report" is written and read by Robert Knight on KPFA's hour long news magazine Flashpoints Radio, Monday through Thursday. (The program also airs on KPFB and KFCF Fresno.) Fridays, Flashpoints Radio a news summary in Spanish. The hour long program airs from 5:00 pm EST to 6:00 pm EST and can be heard, via archives at any of the previous links, at any time provided you can listen online.
What is Flashpoints Radio? From Ava and C.I.'s commentary in the debut issue of Hilda's Mix: "The people's peace radio. A one-two body blow to the war machine that never starts churning. The information that often is provided by no other outlet." Along with Robert Knight, other contributors include Emily Howard and Miguel Molina. The hosts are Dennis Bernstein and Nora Barrows-Friedman. Again from Ava and C.I.'s commentary: "The topics? Forget what NPR won't tell you because NPR is far from alone in playing the Quiet Game. Live reporting from the occupied territories. Guests like Dahr Jamail, Dr. Mona el-Farra and Robert Parry. Life in times of war and peace. Reporting from in the line of fire."
Ava and C.I. are now doing weekly overview/reviews of radio programs for Hilda's Mix which is a newsletter for all Common Ills community members but exists to highlights the issues of the disabled. We asked them about their commentary of this program and they said what they did, what they're trying to do with each one, is convey the program in more than "And then . . ." "The show crackles with life and zips along at a fast pace. If you read the thing, we tried to re-create/honor that in our sentence structure by using partial sentences as well as full ones to convey the quieter moments to attempt to convey, for those who can't hear it, what goes on each broadcast."
If you are able to listen but haven't yet, please consider sampling the program. For now, you can enjoy "The Knight Report" from Wednesday.
In today's "Knight Report" --
VP Cheney gets another thunderous respomse to his secret visit to Iraq; and
Democrats decide to continue the War in Iraq by giving President Bush a bimonthly "allowance," rather than an annual "trust fund."
I'm Robert Knight in New York.
The man who mapped Iraq's oilfields as the payoff for the Bush administration's 2003 invasion today visited his prize territory under cover of darkness, where security required Halliburton alumnus and VP Richard Cheney to wear a massive flack-jacket under his blue blazer during yet another secret visit to Baghdad. Nevertheless, Cheney was serenaded with the percussive sound of nearby explosions, just as he was duriung his secret visit to Bagram airnbase in Afghanistan several weeks ago.
Today, mortars fired by the Iraqi patriotic resistance struck near the heavily guarded home of the Iraqi puppet parliament and prime minister inside Baghdad's US controlled Green Zone, with such force and proximity that Cheney's traveling team of reporters and mainstream media stenographers were quickly hustled from the rattling windows that framed a scheduled press conference, to the basement bunker of the US embassy compound, for their own safety.
Following the upstaging of his meeting with US "proconsul" Ryan Crocker and Iraq's de facto military governor, General David Petraeus, the surly VP terminated reporters' questions by growling that "This is just a photo spray." and grumbling that "There still are some security problems, security threats, no question about it." Later, as reporters filed into an embassy conference room for another photo-op of Cheney they overheard him tell his staff "...then we kick the press out."
Cheney's primary purpose was to pump the unratified Iraqi oil law, which was actually written by an American consultancy based near Langley, Virginia -- and which would abolish Iraqi national sovereignty over national petroleum reserves, in favor of lucrative extraction agreements with multinational oil conglomerates, whose proceeds the Bush administration had fondly hoped would help fund the 2-trillion-dollar cost of the ill-advised invasion and occupation of Iraq.
The legislation would also lead to a defacto partition of Iraq by disempowering the central Baghdad government, as well as Iraq's 18 provinces, in favor of so^called "regional governments" -- of which there is currently only one: namely, the Kurdistan regional regime in northern Iraq, which has long enjoyed the favors and clandestine presence of the CIA and Mossad.
But the legitimacy of the Kurdish construct was also challenged during Cheney's visit by the Iraqi resistance, which launched a suicide truck attack in the fortified Kurdish capitol of Irbil, killing nearly 2 dozen and wounding more than 100, in the most significant attack in three years. The "Islamic State of Iraq" claimed responsibility, saying it was in retaliation for the Kurdish government's dispatch of Peshmerga troops and militias to Baghdad for the American security surge.
Cheney's secondary purpose in Iraq was to demand speedy compliance from Iraq's "plantation parliament," which has yet to rubber-stamp the Bush administration's desperate desire for the oil law giveaway. The absentee assembly seldom reaches quorum because nearly half of its members now reside in London and in neighboring countries for their own safety. Cheney (along with most of the American mainstream media) feels competent to judge the parliament's plans for a 2-month recess during the 100-degree summer days of Iraq -- just like the US Congress enjoys during its annual recesses, as do most of America's schoolteachers and students.
More than 4 years into the disastrous occupation that Cheney and the the White House said would be "welcomed with open arms," Cheney today blamed the US-constructed occupation regime for the lack of post-invasion progress, saying of the scheduled Iraqi recess that "Any undue delay would be difficult to explain," and adding that "I do believe that there is a greater sense of urgency now than I'd seen previously."
But, unfortunately for Cheney, much of that urgency is in direct opposition to his presence in Iraq.
The Mahdi Army movement led by Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr today announced large demonstrations in the three holy cities of Kufa, Karbala and Kadhemiyah to protest Cheney's visit. al-Sadr has also withdrawn a half-dozen Sadrist party members from the occupation cabinet of puppet PM Nouri al Maliki, over his refusal to demansd a US troop withdrawal from Iraq. Yesterday the Sunni VP of the occupation, Tarek Al Hashimi, gave Maliki a one-week deadline for accomodatoing Sunni interests and ending the occupation -- or face the withdrarwal of Sunni contingents from Maliki's shaky coalition government.
There was also some back-tracking in Washington, where Democrats in Congress are adopting a new strategy to maintain the war in Iraq, while appearing to oppose it.
The latest Democratic party gambit in prolonging the bipartisan war is to not end funding for the war, but to transfer President Bush from an annual war-making "triust fund," to a bi-monthly "allowance."
The Democrats' proposal would pay for the war through July, then give Congress the option of renewing more money if conditions meet up with arbitrarily-defined "benchmarks" -- not the least of them being... passage of the oil law. The Democrats would also agree to eliminate withdrawal requirements and give Bush a blank check for a potential invasion of neighboring Iran. The bill would fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for three months, but "sequester" $48 billion until Bush made an automatic and unchallenged claim of "progress" in Iraq.
Even so, the White House said today it would still veto the new conditional House legislation -- which Democrats consider a "win-win" tactic, because it would give the impression (with renewals every few weeks) that they are "opposed" to the war and occupation that more than 2/3 of the American public wish to come to a rapid comnclusion.
Nevertheless, Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the day-to-day commander for U.S. military operations in Iraq, revealed today there are NO plans to end the US escalation in Iraq anytime soon. Odierno said "The surge needs to go through the beginning of next year for sure," .
And that's some of the news of this Wednesday, May 9, 2007.
From exile in New York, I'm Robert Knight for Flashpoints.
What's "The Knight Report"? Oh, no, you didn't, says Betty. "The Knight Report" is written and read by Robert Knight on KPFA's hour long news magazine Flashpoints Radio, Monday through Thursday. (The program also airs on KPFB and KFCF Fresno.) Fridays, Flashpoints Radio a news summary in Spanish. The hour long program airs from 5:00 pm EST to 6:00 pm EST and can be heard, via archives at any of the previous links, at any time provided you can listen online.
What is Flashpoints Radio? From Ava and C.I.'s commentary in the debut issue of Hilda's Mix: "The people's peace radio. A one-two body blow to the war machine that never starts churning. The information that often is provided by no other outlet." Along with Robert Knight, other contributors include Emily Howard and Miguel Molina. The hosts are Dennis Bernstein and Nora Barrows-Friedman. Again from Ava and C.I.'s commentary: "The topics? Forget what NPR won't tell you because NPR is far from alone in playing the Quiet Game. Live reporting from the occupied territories. Guests like Dahr Jamail, Dr. Mona el-Farra and Robert Parry. Life in times of war and peace. Reporting from in the line of fire."
Ava and C.I. are now doing weekly overview/reviews of radio programs for Hilda's Mix which is a newsletter for all Common Ills community members but exists to highlights the issues of the disabled. We asked them about their commentary of this program and they said what they did, what they're trying to do with each one, is convey the program in more than "And then . . ." "The show crackles with life and zips along at a fast pace. If you read the thing, we tried to re-create/honor that in our sentence structure by using partial sentences as well as full ones to convey the quieter moments to attempt to convey, for those who can't hear it, what goes on each broadcast."
If you are able to listen but haven't yet, please consider sampling the program. For now, you can enjoy "The Knight Report" from Wednesday.
In today's "Knight Report" --
VP Cheney gets another thunderous respomse to his secret visit to Iraq; and
Democrats decide to continue the War in Iraq by giving President Bush a bimonthly "allowance," rather than an annual "trust fund."
I'm Robert Knight in New York.
The man who mapped Iraq's oilfields as the payoff for the Bush administration's 2003 invasion today visited his prize territory under cover of darkness, where security required Halliburton alumnus and VP Richard Cheney to wear a massive flack-jacket under his blue blazer during yet another secret visit to Baghdad. Nevertheless, Cheney was serenaded with the percussive sound of nearby explosions, just as he was duriung his secret visit to Bagram airnbase in Afghanistan several weeks ago.
Today, mortars fired by the Iraqi patriotic resistance struck near the heavily guarded home of the Iraqi puppet parliament and prime minister inside Baghdad's US controlled Green Zone, with such force and proximity that Cheney's traveling team of reporters and mainstream media stenographers were quickly hustled from the rattling windows that framed a scheduled press conference, to the basement bunker of the US embassy compound, for their own safety.
Following the upstaging of his meeting with US "proconsul" Ryan Crocker and Iraq's de facto military governor, General David Petraeus, the surly VP terminated reporters' questions by growling that "This is just a photo spray." and grumbling that "There still are some security problems, security threats, no question about it." Later, as reporters filed into an embassy conference room for another photo-op of Cheney they overheard him tell his staff "...then we kick the press out."
Cheney's primary purpose was to pump the unratified Iraqi oil law, which was actually written by an American consultancy based near Langley, Virginia -- and which would abolish Iraqi national sovereignty over national petroleum reserves, in favor of lucrative extraction agreements with multinational oil conglomerates, whose proceeds the Bush administration had fondly hoped would help fund the 2-trillion-dollar cost of the ill-advised invasion and occupation of Iraq.
The legislation would also lead to a defacto partition of Iraq by disempowering the central Baghdad government, as well as Iraq's 18 provinces, in favor of so^called "regional governments" -- of which there is currently only one: namely, the Kurdistan regional regime in northern Iraq, which has long enjoyed the favors and clandestine presence of the CIA and Mossad.
But the legitimacy of the Kurdish construct was also challenged during Cheney's visit by the Iraqi resistance, which launched a suicide truck attack in the fortified Kurdish capitol of Irbil, killing nearly 2 dozen and wounding more than 100, in the most significant attack in three years. The "Islamic State of Iraq" claimed responsibility, saying it was in retaliation for the Kurdish government's dispatch of Peshmerga troops and militias to Baghdad for the American security surge.
Cheney's secondary purpose in Iraq was to demand speedy compliance from Iraq's "plantation parliament," which has yet to rubber-stamp the Bush administration's desperate desire for the oil law giveaway. The absentee assembly seldom reaches quorum because nearly half of its members now reside in London and in neighboring countries for their own safety. Cheney (along with most of the American mainstream media) feels competent to judge the parliament's plans for a 2-month recess during the 100-degree summer days of Iraq -- just like the US Congress enjoys during its annual recesses, as do most of America's schoolteachers and students.
More than 4 years into the disastrous occupation that Cheney and the the White House said would be "welcomed with open arms," Cheney today blamed the US-constructed occupation regime for the lack of post-invasion progress, saying of the scheduled Iraqi recess that "Any undue delay would be difficult to explain," and adding that "I do believe that there is a greater sense of urgency now than I'd seen previously."
But, unfortunately for Cheney, much of that urgency is in direct opposition to his presence in Iraq.
The Mahdi Army movement led by Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr today announced large demonstrations in the three holy cities of Kufa, Karbala and Kadhemiyah to protest Cheney's visit. al-Sadr has also withdrawn a half-dozen Sadrist party members from the occupation cabinet of puppet PM Nouri al Maliki, over his refusal to demansd a US troop withdrawal from Iraq. Yesterday the Sunni VP of the occupation, Tarek Al Hashimi, gave Maliki a one-week deadline for accomodatoing Sunni interests and ending the occupation -- or face the withdrarwal of Sunni contingents from Maliki's shaky coalition government.
There was also some back-tracking in Washington, where Democrats in Congress are adopting a new strategy to maintain the war in Iraq, while appearing to oppose it.
The latest Democratic party gambit in prolonging the bipartisan war is to not end funding for the war, but to transfer President Bush from an annual war-making "triust fund," to a bi-monthly "allowance."
The Democrats' proposal would pay for the war through July, then give Congress the option of renewing more money if conditions meet up with arbitrarily-defined "benchmarks" -- not the least of them being... passage of the oil law. The Democrats would also agree to eliminate withdrawal requirements and give Bush a blank check for a potential invasion of neighboring Iran. The bill would fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for three months, but "sequester" $48 billion until Bush made an automatic and unchallenged claim of "progress" in Iraq.
Even so, the White House said today it would still veto the new conditional House legislation -- which Democrats consider a "win-win" tactic, because it would give the impression (with renewals every few weeks) that they are "opposed" to the war and occupation that more than 2/3 of the American public wish to come to a rapid comnclusion.
Nevertheless, Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the day-to-day commander for U.S. military operations in Iraq, revealed today there are NO plans to end the US escalation in Iraq anytime soon. Odierno said "The surge needs to go through the beginning of next year for sure," .
And that's some of the news of this Wednesday, May 9, 2007.
From exile in New York, I'm Robert Knight for Flashpoints.
Highlights
This feature is written by Wally, Cedric, Rebecca, Betty, Elaine and Mike and all selections were made by us unless otherwise noted.
"The Jowls of Death" -- Look out Betinna! You've heard of the Jaws of Life? Betinna's up against the converse, a very ugly device.
Pesto Potato Salad in the Kitchen" -- Trina's providing several recipes, actually, and also noting why some need to clarify and explain themselves on Iraq now.
"Bully Boy doesn't understand "foreign forces"" &"THIS JUST IN! BULLY BOY SAYS FOREIGNERS OUT OF IRAQ!"-- the Iraqi parliament calls for a timeline for withdrawal of foreign forces and Cedric and Wally show you how the Bully Boy greets the news.
"Katie Couric, Robert Knight" -- if someone was slagged non-stop, from long before taking a job, how do you think they're ratings would be? Kat on both the continued sexism and the silence on the topic.
"NYT: He's reallly too old to play go-go boy" -- Ty said Lynda picked this one as her favorite entry by C.I. last week. ("He" is John F. Burns.)
"The US must 'stay the course' - says the exile who fled in the 80s" -- and our own pick for favorite entry from C.I. last week. (In the non-Iraq snapshot division.)
"David R. Francis, The Third Estate Sunday Review" -- Jim's pick for his favorite post by Mike last week. If you haven't noticed, Jim and Mike are engaged in a continuous bid of one-upmanship.
"Ron Jacobs, Paual Rothenberg, feminism" -- a very popular entry by Elaine last week. And, did you notice, a "Mommy's Day means flowers and food" type this year elected to emphasize the peace roots of the holiday. (After Elaine's post went up.)
"THIS JUST IN! MODEL CITIZEN BULLY BOY!" & "The 'inspiring' Bully Boy" -- Wally & Cedric explore the realities of Bully Boy as motivational speaker.
"camilo mejia, dennis kucinich, matthew cardinale" -- Rebecca's first real post since giving birth.
("Sir! No Sir! airs Monday on The Sundance Channel" was a mini-post to give a heads up.)
"Gonzales Cesspool, Robert Knight (Betty)" -- we'll let Rebecca and only Rebecca speak about this one. "Betty was just asked to fill in. I didn't expect her to go to the trouble of hunting down things and trying to get on top of them. This is an amazing post as she updates on the latest regarding Gonzlaes. That said, I hope she never does that again. I just wanted her to have a little fun while she's filling in for me."
"So-called apathy (C.I. guest posting)" -- Betty, "My oldest son said he'd finished his project when asked on Monday. Wednesday, as we're driving home from church, this is Wednesday night, he says he didn't finish it. I had to make sure that was being done and C.I. was the last one I wanted to ask but the only one I could reach." Amazing post and one that Betty tried to get highlighted at The Common Ills but C.I. said "No." So it's also a "Banned from The Common Ills post!" :D
"This & That (Betty filling in for Rebecca)" -- Rebecca says this is a wonderful blend of various strands and a treat to read. "The sort of thing I expected Betty would do and have fun with."
"Jim filling in for Rebecca (and Betty)" -- Jim wanted to fill in to help out and Betty said it wasn't needed but it was appreciated. A first-rate post. Jim argues he had about half-planned out and the minute he reached the end point on that, the thing just goes flat. We just know we enjoy it.
"The Jowls of Death" -- Look out Betinna! You've heard of the Jaws of Life? Betinna's up against the converse, a very ugly device.
Pesto Potato Salad in the Kitchen" -- Trina's providing several recipes, actually, and also noting why some need to clarify and explain themselves on Iraq now.
"Bully Boy doesn't understand "foreign forces"" &"THIS JUST IN! BULLY BOY SAYS FOREIGNERS OUT OF IRAQ!"-- the Iraqi parliament calls for a timeline for withdrawal of foreign forces and Cedric and Wally show you how the Bully Boy greets the news.
"Katie Couric, Robert Knight" -- if someone was slagged non-stop, from long before taking a job, how do you think they're ratings would be? Kat on both the continued sexism and the silence on the topic.
"NYT: He's reallly too old to play go-go boy" -- Ty said Lynda picked this one as her favorite entry by C.I. last week. ("He" is John F. Burns.)
"The US must 'stay the course' - says the exile who fled in the 80s" -- and our own pick for favorite entry from C.I. last week. (In the non-Iraq snapshot division.)
"David R. Francis, The Third Estate Sunday Review" -- Jim's pick for his favorite post by Mike last week. If you haven't noticed, Jim and Mike are engaged in a continuous bid of one-upmanship.
"Ron Jacobs, Paual Rothenberg, feminism" -- a very popular entry by Elaine last week. And, did you notice, a "Mommy's Day means flowers and food" type this year elected to emphasize the peace roots of the holiday. (After Elaine's post went up.)
"THIS JUST IN! MODEL CITIZEN BULLY BOY!" & "The 'inspiring' Bully Boy" -- Wally & Cedric explore the realities of Bully Boy as motivational speaker.
"camilo mejia, dennis kucinich, matthew cardinale" -- Rebecca's first real post since giving birth.
("Sir! No Sir! airs Monday on The Sundance Channel" was a mini-post to give a heads up.)
"Gonzales Cesspool, Robert Knight (Betty)" -- we'll let Rebecca and only Rebecca speak about this one. "Betty was just asked to fill in. I didn't expect her to go to the trouble of hunting down things and trying to get on top of them. This is an amazing post as she updates on the latest regarding Gonzlaes. That said, I hope she never does that again. I just wanted her to have a little fun while she's filling in for me."
"So-called apathy (C.I. guest posting)" -- Betty, "My oldest son said he'd finished his project when asked on Monday. Wednesday, as we're driving home from church, this is Wednesday night, he says he didn't finish it. I had to make sure that was being done and C.I. was the last one I wanted to ask but the only one I could reach." Amazing post and one that Betty tried to get highlighted at The Common Ills but C.I. said "No." So it's also a "Banned from The Common Ills post!" :D
"This & That (Betty filling in for Rebecca)" -- Rebecca says this is a wonderful blend of various strands and a treat to read. "The sort of thing I expected Betty would do and have fun with."
"Jim filling in for Rebecca (and Betty)" -- Jim wanted to fill in to help out and Betty said it wasn't needed but it was appreciated. A first-rate post. Jim argues he had about half-planned out and the minute he reached the end point on that, the thing just goes flat. We just know we enjoy it.
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Truest statement of the week
Anger. Resistance. They're pissed off, as well they should be. Natalie Maines [of the Dixie Chicks] embodies that. It's that, "F--k it, man -- this is not what I want this country to be." There's a lot of young people who feel that way. The young people I work with and who come to my events, they're beginning to feel their power in a very different way than in the Sixties and Seventies.
-- Jane Fonda responding to Anthony DeCurtis' question about what she sees in young people today that tells her they are hopeful. The quote appears in DeCurtis' interview with Jane fonda in the 40th anniverary issue of Rolling Stone magazine (on sale now), the May 3-17, 2007 issue. We almost went with with this quote last week but bumped it for one by Betty. Betty nominated it again this week and, as Jess pointed out, the issue is still on sale. And, Jane Fonda is featured in the documentary Sir! No Sir! which airs Monday night on The Sundance Channel (check local listings).
-- Jane Fonda responding to Anthony DeCurtis' question about what she sees in young people today that tells her they are hopeful. The quote appears in DeCurtis' interview with Jane fonda in the 40th anniverary issue of Rolling Stone magazine (on sale now), the May 3-17, 2007 issue. We almost went with with this quote last week but bumped it for one by Betty. Betty nominated it again this week and, as Jess pointed out, the issue is still on sale. And, Jane Fonda is featured in the documentary Sir! No Sir! which airs Monday night on The Sundance Channel (check local listings).
A Note to Our Readers
Hey --
Another week. Hell week. The nightmare edition.
Here's who participated in the writing of this edition:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,
and Wally of The Daily Jot
Rebecca's apologized profusely. Rebecca was not the problem. There was a feature she really wanted to do. We did it. Then she said, "I don't know." She preferred it in the print edition. We say, "So?" We've all done that. It was one feature and we've all done that at one time or another. (Except me, Jim, who always pushes for everything to be up here if it's an interesting read.) Rebecca didn't set us behind with that.
She also offered that she might have set us behind due to her new baby (congratulations to Rebecca and Flyboy on the birth of their child last week). Again, no! She didn't set us behind. We worked around it. (We'd basically insisted she not participate this weekend due to having just given birth. She objected and Ava and C.I. immediately raised the issue that if a woman wants to work, she gets to work. End of conversation.)
Rebecca was not the reason for the delay. We thank her and we thank everyone for their help and input and assistance. We thank Dallas for his help with links and with being a soundboard.
Let's talk about what delayed us.
1) Illustrations. Two of mags were a pain in the ass. (In fact, when we finally called it quits and went to sleep, we made a point to upload those. When we woke up less than five hours later, they were still not done uploading on Flickr. They're here and that's thanks to Rebecca and C.I. figuring out another way to get the images outside of Flickr.) The other illustrations were no better. They just would not load. And would not load and would not load. We killed one feature here because of that. It really needed the Condi illustration. You can read C.I.'s "NYT: How Stupid Can Two Men Be & Helene lies again" and "Iraq snapshot" zooming in on the reason Iran's Foreign Minister gave for leaving a dinner as opposed to the US State Department's reason and note that the US press not only backed the State Department, they didn't even offer that the Foreign Minister cited a different reason. So illustrations were a pain in the butt.
2) We have never had so many technical problems. You would have thought we were on dial up the way the pages loaded so slowly -- dial up via dixie cups. After we decided to just start postiong everything and agreed we'd add the illustrations tonight, we still had to wait 20 minutes on average to pull up a page (of already typed text) before we could hit "publish."
3) We got a few features up that way. And then . . . We were kicked out of Blogger/Blogspot by Google. Not a case of page wouldn't load or can't find page. We got an actual message from Google displayed. We'll go into that below.
But those were the problems. Rebecca wasn't the problem.
Let's do the content.
Truest statement of the week -- Betty was the pick last week. This week the pick picked. Betty really wanted Jane Fonda's quote highlighted last week. We agreed it was worth highlighting and the issue is still on sale. Check out the interview, it's worth reading.
Editorial: Don't miss Sir! No Sir! Monday night on... -- The Sundance Channel. We don't imagine we'll do an editorial on a movie again. But Sir! No Sir! is an important documentary. We (rightly) criticize those in small media who maintain a continued silence on war resistance. For that reason, we felt it was our obligation to do all we could to get the word out on an important and amazing documentary.
TV: Mid-wifing the rebirth of the yuppy -- Ava and C.I.'s TV commentary. Excellent e-mailed Lorna who was waiting and waiting this morning and e-mailing and e-mailing. When we decided to bail after the Google message, Ty brought up that Lorna had written repeatedly. Ava and C.I. scanned their hard copy (they write their commentaries out on legal pad) and e-mailed them to her as a PDF. She loved it and has written a lengthy thing on their process (noting cross outs, sentences with arrows to indicate that they should be changed, etc.). She asked if it was okay to share that in Hilda's Mix Tuesday. Hilda was fine with it, so were we. So look for Lorna's analysis of Ava and C.I.'s writing process in Hilda's Mix Tuesday. I'll note (before Mike posts tomorrow that I short-changed Ava and C.I.!) that they really did not know the name of this show. They had a mental block on it. They mention calling friends to find out if it was cancelled yet and not being able to remember the name of the show. It's also true that when I asked Ava on Thursday what they were reviewing, she couldn't remember (and, as Mike noted, threatened to throw her drink at me if I didn't shut up). (Ava points out, "We were a night club blowing off steam. The last thing in the world to talk about was 'What are you two reviewing this weekend?'") This is a really strong commentary and if I weren't tired (if we all weren't tired) I could write more on it. Mike'll outdo me tomorrow. (Private message to Mike: ":D")
The Bwana of Baghdad -- Ty's checking the e-mails and we have a compliment from Joe for the "nice catch" on this. Actually, that was a nice catch by a friend of C.I.'s who came by Saturday insisting we watch the tape.
From the desk of Katrina vanden Heuvel -- This has the most images. The mags are the ones that would never upload on Flickr. Thank you to Rebecca and C.I. for figuring out another way this evening. This was longer in the print edition. Dona did a quick edit after we finally had the mag illustrations.
Jaques-cuse still doesn't get it -- Rebecca did not put us behind. When she pulled the piece she'd fought for from going online (it went out in the print edition), we were already having problems and Dona and I immediately went through the morning papers looking for something. We saw nothing that interested us. Then I saw Jaques in The New York Times. It wouldn't be a group piece but maybe Ava and C.I. could do something? ("Short piece," Dona urged.) By the time they finished this we were still trying to post. There was no delay from Rebecca pulling a piece. (It's a strong piece. And, you probably can guess, it was largely on her giving birth last week. We all enjoyed working on this. )
Screw Google -- Here it is, the message we got from Google. Jess: "I wish we were robots! Robots don't need sleep." This message came up and would not go away. For one hour we tried on various computers, we tried cleaning the cache, we tried everything. We were effectively banned by Google. As Dona says, "That's bullshit." We weren't doing anything different this week so this sudden "They're robots!" crap is just bullshit. We got this to post by e-mailing it. We couldn't get into our account. (If we could have, we would have attempted copy and pasting what we'd typed up and e-mailing them to the site. But no one had the energy to retype.) Cynthia wondered if we were plugging AOL? No. Ty sent that in and used his AOL account. AOL automatically adds that plug at the bottom of their e-mails.
Miss J/O America -- A similar feature ran in the print edition last week. It was killed for the online version because we had a strong theme going. We agreed to address the topic again this week and did so with a short feature.
Ask Dahr -- Two years after Dahr Jamail's reported something, a government report comes out echoing what he's already noted and doing a review of the governmental report is suddenly "news" and "reporting"? We don't think so. He's speaking in the Bay Area Friday night. If you're in the area, make a point to show up.
Highlights -- Mike, Rebecca, Elaine, Betty, Cedric and Wally worked on this. We thank them for it.
That's it. We're exhausted. C.I. still has to do "And the war drags on" over at The Common Ills.
Don't blame us. Blame Google. As slow as it was taking for each page to load, we would have stayed up until every feature posted (we might have left this note unwritten until after we got some sleep). Google banned us. Blame Google.
We'll see you next week.
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.
Another week. Hell week. The nightmare edition.
Here's who participated in the writing of this edition:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,
and Wally of The Daily Jot
Rebecca's apologized profusely. Rebecca was not the problem. There was a feature she really wanted to do. We did it. Then she said, "I don't know." She preferred it in the print edition. We say, "So?" We've all done that. It was one feature and we've all done that at one time or another. (Except me, Jim, who always pushes for everything to be up here if it's an interesting read.) Rebecca didn't set us behind with that.
She also offered that she might have set us behind due to her new baby (congratulations to Rebecca and Flyboy on the birth of their child last week). Again, no! She didn't set us behind. We worked around it. (We'd basically insisted she not participate this weekend due to having just given birth. She objected and Ava and C.I. immediately raised the issue that if a woman wants to work, she gets to work. End of conversation.)
Rebecca was not the reason for the delay. We thank her and we thank everyone for their help and input and assistance. We thank Dallas for his help with links and with being a soundboard.
Let's talk about what delayed us.
1) Illustrations. Two of mags were a pain in the ass. (In fact, when we finally called it quits and went to sleep, we made a point to upload those. When we woke up less than five hours later, they were still not done uploading on Flickr. They're here and that's thanks to Rebecca and C.I. figuring out another way to get the images outside of Flickr.) The other illustrations were no better. They just would not load. And would not load and would not load. We killed one feature here because of that. It really needed the Condi illustration. You can read C.I.'s "NYT: How Stupid Can Two Men Be & Helene lies again" and "Iraq snapshot" zooming in on the reason Iran's Foreign Minister gave for leaving a dinner as opposed to the US State Department's reason and note that the US press not only backed the State Department, they didn't even offer that the Foreign Minister cited a different reason. So illustrations were a pain in the butt.
2) We have never had so many technical problems. You would have thought we were on dial up the way the pages loaded so slowly -- dial up via dixie cups. After we decided to just start postiong everything and agreed we'd add the illustrations tonight, we still had to wait 20 minutes on average to pull up a page (of already typed text) before we could hit "publish."
3) We got a few features up that way. And then . . . We were kicked out of Blogger/Blogspot by Google. Not a case of page wouldn't load or can't find page. We got an actual message from Google displayed. We'll go into that below.
But those were the problems. Rebecca wasn't the problem.
Let's do the content.
Truest statement of the week -- Betty was the pick last week. This week the pick picked. Betty really wanted Jane Fonda's quote highlighted last week. We agreed it was worth highlighting and the issue is still on sale. Check out the interview, it's worth reading.
Editorial: Don't miss Sir! No Sir! Monday night on... -- The Sundance Channel. We don't imagine we'll do an editorial on a movie again. But Sir! No Sir! is an important documentary. We (rightly) criticize those in small media who maintain a continued silence on war resistance. For that reason, we felt it was our obligation to do all we could to get the word out on an important and amazing documentary.
TV: Mid-wifing the rebirth of the yuppy -- Ava and C.I.'s TV commentary. Excellent e-mailed Lorna who was waiting and waiting this morning and e-mailing and e-mailing. When we decided to bail after the Google message, Ty brought up that Lorna had written repeatedly. Ava and C.I. scanned their hard copy (they write their commentaries out on legal pad) and e-mailed them to her as a PDF. She loved it and has written a lengthy thing on their process (noting cross outs, sentences with arrows to indicate that they should be changed, etc.). She asked if it was okay to share that in Hilda's Mix Tuesday. Hilda was fine with it, so were we. So look for Lorna's analysis of Ava and C.I.'s writing process in Hilda's Mix Tuesday. I'll note (before Mike posts tomorrow that I short-changed Ava and C.I.!) that they really did not know the name of this show. They had a mental block on it. They mention calling friends to find out if it was cancelled yet and not being able to remember the name of the show. It's also true that when I asked Ava on Thursday what they were reviewing, she couldn't remember (and, as Mike noted, threatened to throw her drink at me if I didn't shut up). (Ava points out, "We were a night club blowing off steam. The last thing in the world to talk about was 'What are you two reviewing this weekend?'") This is a really strong commentary and if I weren't tired (if we all weren't tired) I could write more on it. Mike'll outdo me tomorrow. (Private message to Mike: ":D")
The Bwana of Baghdad -- Ty's checking the e-mails and we have a compliment from Joe for the "nice catch" on this. Actually, that was a nice catch by a friend of C.I.'s who came by Saturday insisting we watch the tape.
From the desk of Katrina vanden Heuvel -- This has the most images. The mags are the ones that would never upload on Flickr. Thank you to Rebecca and C.I. for figuring out another way this evening. This was longer in the print edition. Dona did a quick edit after we finally had the mag illustrations.
Jaques-cuse still doesn't get it -- Rebecca did not put us behind. When she pulled the piece she'd fought for from going online (it went out in the print edition), we were already having problems and Dona and I immediately went through the morning papers looking for something. We saw nothing that interested us. Then I saw Jaques in The New York Times. It wouldn't be a group piece but maybe Ava and C.I. could do something? ("Short piece," Dona urged.) By the time they finished this we were still trying to post. There was no delay from Rebecca pulling a piece. (It's a strong piece. And, you probably can guess, it was largely on her giving birth last week. We all enjoyed working on this. )
Screw Google -- Here it is, the message we got from Google. Jess: "I wish we were robots! Robots don't need sleep." This message came up and would not go away. For one hour we tried on various computers, we tried cleaning the cache, we tried everything. We were effectively banned by Google. As Dona says, "That's bullshit." We weren't doing anything different this week so this sudden "They're robots!" crap is just bullshit. We got this to post by e-mailing it. We couldn't get into our account. (If we could have, we would have attempted copy and pasting what we'd typed up and e-mailing them to the site. But no one had the energy to retype.) Cynthia wondered if we were plugging AOL? No. Ty sent that in and used his AOL account. AOL automatically adds that plug at the bottom of their e-mails.
Miss J/O America -- A similar feature ran in the print edition last week. It was killed for the online version because we had a strong theme going. We agreed to address the topic again this week and did so with a short feature.
Ask Dahr -- Two years after Dahr Jamail's reported something, a government report comes out echoing what he's already noted and doing a review of the governmental report is suddenly "news" and "reporting"? We don't think so. He's speaking in the Bay Area Friday night. If you're in the area, make a point to show up.
Highlights -- Mike, Rebecca, Elaine, Betty, Cedric and Wally worked on this. We thank them for it.
That's it. We're exhausted. C.I. still has to do "And the war drags on" over at The Common Ills.
Don't blame us. Blame Google. As slow as it was taking for each page to load, we would have stayed up until every feature posted (we might have left this note unwritten until after we got some sleep). Google banned us. Blame Google.
We'll see you next week.
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.
Editorial: Don't miss Sir! No Sir! Monday night on The Sundance Channel
"Have we ever done an editorial on a movie?"
Dona wondered that. The answer is no. Not even at the height of Mel Gibson's 'antics.' So why now?
The movie is a documentary entitled Sir! No Sir! directed by David Zeiger. We've discussed and noted the film here before -- many, many times. So why now?
This coming MONDAY is the Sundance Channel's televised Premiere of Sir! No Sir!
Don't miss this opportunity to see the film and show it to others.
Make a night of resistance out of it!
Sir! No Sir!
Monday May 7
Sundance Channel
9 pm Eastern and Pacific
Check Listings for Central and Mountain
The Ground Truth
Monday, May 7
The Sundance Channel
10:30 pm Eastern and Pacific
Check Listings for Central and Mountain
The Sundance Channel? "Are you betraying your mission to serve your original readers?" No.
No, we know full well that our original readers, a dedicated group, included many without cable or satellite TV. We also know some of them purchased Sir! No Sir! on DVD and we'll assume that some of them have friends with cable or satellite. The latter can be sure to get the word out so people are watching Monday night. The former can feel ahead of the curve, "Oh yeah, we've got that in the house. We're not missing anything by not having cable."
Ava and C.I. will continue to cover broadcast TV in their commentaries. But this is pretty big news and Sir! No Sir! is a pretty big movie.
How so? For those who haven't seen it, the documentary covers the resistance in the military during Vietnam. You see archival footage, you get current interviews with some of those who resisted. You learn about the underground press dedicated to the movement of resistance. You hear people speaking today about their actions back then and, even now, in many voices, you hear a sense of wonderment, a sense of "Was I really strong enough to do that?"
They were and they did. And this now-hidden (we won't say forgotten because we think the hidden part was far more active) resistance helped to end the illegal war. The myth today, the lie, is that the troops either wanted to be fighting or had no opinion on the war. That's not reality. (It's not reality now either, but we'll get to that.) Why hide this reality?
To rob people of their sense of power. To send a message to those who come after that it really is just a few people -- and they're outside the military -- that opposes an illegal war. To crack down on dissent within and outside of the military. To teach everyone to be good little soldiers, following the marching orders given out by the White House.
As the movie demonstrates, the resistance wasn't hidden in real time. You could find it in Life on TV, all over. It took a lot of work to hide it and that's why we say now-hidden and not simply forgotten.
Let's get to today. Watching the movie will really put across how little coverage you're getting of war resistance from All Things Media Big and Small. We've said it before and we'll say it again, when Dana or Doug Zeigler makes a film twenty to thirty years ago about the war resistance that went on during the Iraq war, we hope the director puts people on the spot. For instance, we'd love to see how The Peace Resister explains the silence of her own magazine (magazine, not website) on the issue of war resisters?
There's a movement going on right now of war resistance, a growing, thriving movement, and you can't find out about it in the pages of The Nation. Helga Aguayo, wife of US war resister Agustin Aguayo, has spoken of how Sir! No Sir! had an effect on her husband. It didn't alter his beliefs. He was already attempting to be granted c.o. status. But a film like this sends the (needed) message that "You are not alone."
That's an important message to send. And the silence around war resisters, practiced by The Nation most shockingly but by other outlets as well, is that you are alone and you don't matter. That's bullshit. War resistance mattered then and it matters now.
Sir! No Sir! isn't a part of a long line of films documenting war resistance within the military and, for that reason, it may have a shock value for many viewers. It may set off light bulbs the same way Howard Zinn's books do. It will connect you to the larger picture of resistance, a history of resistance that so many seem determined to ignore.
And, as we've stressed before, we know when some people hear "history" or "documentary," they start thinking "boring." The film's not boring. It moves quickly and you'll most likely find yourself, as Betty did, thinking, "It's over already?" You will not be bored, you will not doze off. If you're a first time viewer, you will wish you had invited friends over to watch it with you because you will want to share the movie. So if you do get The Sundance Channel, make plans to invite company over on Monday. As noted in an e-mail to get the word out:
WE URGE YOU TO GRAB THIS OPPORTUNITY.
1. Not Everyone has the Sundance Channel...
2. So if you do, PLEASE organize a house party to watch the films
and spread their influence among soldiers and civilians alike.
3. If you don't, find someone who does and offer to bring the chips.
CLICK HERE TO SEE THE ALREADY EXTRAORDINARY EFFECTS SIR! NO SIR! HAS HAD ON ACTIVE DUTY SOLDIERS AND VETS!!!
In preparation, to help spread the films, WWW.SIRNOSIR.COM is offering these specials:The Director's Edition DVD of the film and 1 1/2 hours of additional stories will be on SALE through May 15th
$19.95 (from $23.95)
The Limited Edition DVD, with the film and "Punk Ass Crusade" counter-recruitment video,
is now available in bulk at a DISCOUNTED RATE:
5 for $50
10 for $80
15 for $105
20 for $120
(All plus shipping and handling)
CLICK HERE TO READ ABOUT HOW VETERANS FOR PEACE HAS USED SIR! NO SIR! FOR RESISTANCE
The Ground Truth is also available in bulk at http://groundtruthstore.seenon.com/
It's this Monday night, May 7th. We'll close with words from the director of the film (from an open e-mail sent to get the word out):
"It's a unique experience to feel that you are part of making history."
So says Dr. Howard Levy who, as an army doctor in 1966, spent 3 years in federal prison for refusing to train Green Beret troops heading to Vietnam. His comments come at the end of my film about the GI Movement against the Vietnam War, Sir! No Sir!
In a sadly ironic twist, 40 years later Dr. Levy and the thousands of active duty soldiers who openly organized against the Vietnam War while in the military are once again part of making history-because their story is sparking a new and significant movement in the military today.
Sir! No Sir! tells a story that has literally been erased from history. Hundreds of films, both fiction and non-fiction, have been made about Vietnam. But this story-the rebellion of thousands of American soldiers-has never been told in film. This is certainly not for lack of evidence. By the Pentagon's own figures, 503,926 "incidents of desertion" occurred between 1966 and 1971; officers were being "fragged"(killed with fragmentation grenades by their own troops) at an alarming rate; and by 1971 entire units were refusing to go into battle in unprecedented numbers. In the course of a few short years, over 200 antiwar underground newspapers were published by soldiers around the world; local and national antiwar GI organizations were joined by thousands; thousands more demonstrated against the war at every major base in the world in 1970 and 1971, including in Vietnam itself; and stockades and federal prisons were filling up with soldiers jailed for their opposition to the war and the military. Colonel Robert Heinl, the Marine Corp's official historian, wrote strikingly in 1971 that rebellion in the ranks had "permeated every branch of the service." His article in the Armed Forces Journal was titled "The Collapse of the Armed Forces."
Sir! No Sir! opened in theaters last Spring and got a good deal of attention. L.A. Times critic Kenneth Turan called it "A powerful documentary that uncovers half-forgotten history, history that is still relevant but not in ways you might be expecting," and another critic only half-jokingly called it "A film that threatens the war movement with every showing, the Bush administration should outlaw it from all theatres within fifty miles of an armed forces recruiting station."
It turns out he had a point. Since its release last spring, my little film about events that happened 40 years ago has had quite an impact inside the military. Kind of like giving a motorboat to prisoners abandoned on a remote Island. The organization Iraq Veterans Against the War has distributed hundreds of DVDs soldiers for free, and the film has been cited by several who have publicly refused deployment to Iraq on the grounds that the war is immoral and a clear violation of international law.
Navy Seaman Jonathon Hutto and Marine Sergeant Liam Madden met at a screening in Norfolk last fall and, inspired by the film and David Cortright's seminal book on the GI Movement, Soldiers in Revolt, decided to start the Appeal for Redress. Cleverly using the military's own whistleblower protection policy, the Appeal is a petition to congress calling for an immediate end to the war. Almost instantly they had 1,600 signatures (it has since risen to over 2,000). If the number seems small, consider this: There are currently about 140,00 troops in Iraq. In November 1969, with over 3.5 million GIs in Vietnam, 1,366 signed a New York Times ad calling for an end to the war-and the effect was electrifying. Numbers only take on their true meaning when understood in context.
True, Iraq is not Vietnam, and 2007 is not 1969. But something very profound is happening here. The world is full of moments when history intertwines with the present in dynamic and unexpected ways. The civil rights movement of the 1960s was fueled by the hundred-year-old stories of Harriet Tubman, John Brown, and the slave rebellions we never learned about in school. This is another one of those moments.
My film doesn't tell anyone what to do. But it does tell an incendiary story of thousands of soldiers who helped end a war 40 years ago. As the Bush administration plans only escalation of this horrendous war, the 200-pound gorilla blocking his way may well be the troops themselves.
TV: Mid-wifing the rebirth of the yuppy
Our big question all last week was "You didn't cancel it, did you?" We peppered various friends at ABC with that and first they'd want to know which show? That was a problem because the title's even less impressive than the show itself.
It's not yet cancelled. It is titled Notes from the Underbelly and it got on the schedule because "women will watch." Women will watch was the thinking and that was the same thinking that landed the bomb Big Wedding on ABC as well. While we're glad that at least one network hasn't written off women, we'd strongly urge them to get know to some.
Notes from the Underbelly isn't The Vagina Monologues Grabs a Pen. Though that would have been more interesting, this show builds around a sure ratings booster, pregnancy. Pregnancy and weddings pump up any ratings. At least for the short term. People tune in for the big events of Little Ricky's birth or Rhoda and Joe's marriage. Why that is may be worth pondering.
We'd argue that since many people have experienced it directly or indirectly, they enjoy seeing how characters they like will react to the same big events. Therefore, as a sweeps stunt, it can be effective.
We just don't think you can build a show around it. Or at least not the way Big Wedding tried and Notes from the Underbelly (for now) still tries. In both cases, there seems to be some sort of consensus that weddings and birth are for female viewers what car chases are for male viewers. Putting aside the issue that many women enjoy watching car chases, we think there's another problem with that thinking. A car chase gets your spirits racing but labor wipes most women out.
Watching a car chase may leave many viewers (of both genders) (and we said "chase," not "race") excited and eager to hop in the car. Watching a woman push a child out of a tiny opening in the body doesn't result in cries of, "I must do that!" Not unless your name's Arnold Schwarzenegger or Ivan Reitman.
There's also the fact that a car chase equates freedom (even when it ends as Thelma & Louise's did) while birth and marriage equate something completely different.
Two supporting characters on the show have, at least, grasped that. And they get in their jabs and funnies. The two would be Michael Weaver as Danny and Rachael Harris as Cooper.
Weaver's got no character so anytime he makes you laugh, credit the actor and not the lousy writing. Cooper's not really a character either but Harris has decided to play in her a "pinched" manner similar to Lily Tomlin's Ernestine. Were today still dominated by the big three and cable not even on the horizon, Cooper would be the break out character given the catch phrase.
But there are (many) other options these days and there's no reason to continue airing Notes from the Underbelly so it will likely be nothing but a footnote in Harris' career that reads: "The best thing about the brief ABC sitcom."
The ratings stunts work because you give a damn how Rachel's going to handle the pregnancy or whether or not Sinclair and Overton will say "I do." You're already invested in the characters, you like them and it's a nice way to boost interest (though the come down can be hell). But what if a show takes a stunt and makes that the premise?
Notes from the Underbelly has been a thirty-minute whine. It's the sort of thing that would have you replying to a friend "Oh, I'm busy" just to avoid another installment of "My life is changing and let me share." We have a friend, Rebecca, who just gave birth. We did not avoid her but her every remark wasn't, "Let's talk about my pregnancy." The two pregnant characters in this show (and their spouses) seem to believe they invented pregnancy. You know the types. They're the ones who think, "Why show off one picture of my kid when I can show fifty?"
Until a kid invents the cure for cancer, we'll hold that precious though they may be, no small child is the center of anyone's universe other than its parents. But there are many parents who operate as though their children are as lively and interesting as what happens in the Middle East or at least the latest tabloid scandal from Britty.
Melanie Paxson's Julie and Sunkrish Bala's Eric are supposed to be the extreme version of this.
But we'd argue that the leads, Jennifer Westfeldt's Lauren and Peter Cambor's Andrew, aren't headed down the same road, they're already there.
Wesfeld co-wrote, co-produced and co-starred in Kissing Jessica Stein so she at least should know that even comedy needs conflict. Writers of Undernotes from the Belly have no such knowledge.
What they've birthed is actually a tribute to the 80s yuppie. It's Hope and Michael Steadman (thirtysomething) playing for laughs. That's not the Stedmans being laughed at -- though, goodness knows, they were in real time. Instead, they're presented as ideals to strive for. And we're supposed to enjoy the yuppie conflicts that pregnancy brings. Andrew's worried about money, wants to buy a mini-van (because they increase each year in value?) and speaks of his 'primitive' desires raging within where Lauren quits her job and has to depend on him. We're supposed to find it entertaining.
It doesn't even qualify for a good sex fantasy. While Andrew thinks insular 'big' picture (you never believe for an instant that these characters live in 2007, let alone in a real world), Lauren's obsessed with her body. It's supposed to be comical when she's going on and on about how big her breasts have gotten (for the third time that episode) to her sex starved husband who just keeps staring at them and pushing for sex. It should also be noted that for many women, pregnancy raises concerns about the larger world around them -- issues of peace weigh on many women's minds -- not on bad characters' minds, but on many real life women's minds.
Peter Cambor has no character. In the pilot he wore a Longhorns shirt (Univeristy of Texas) and the only real reason for that appears to be that the actor was born in Texas. (Water Cooler Critics, we warned you years ago there was a topic ripe for the taking.) Along with no character, he has no appeal unless someone's been in search of a low rent Ben Affleck. He is to Affleck what some of those clones are to Ripley in Alien: Resurrection.
As though the show were taking place a century before it was filmed, the women and the men break up, at every gathering, into groupings based on gender. The boys are bores but not boorish enough to provide the audience a good laugh at them. They're little boys trying to act out their ideas of manhood and about as convincing as little boys are when they play cowboys.
The girls' group should be no better based on the writing but, thanks to Harris' Cooper, it's often funny. As Lauren and Julie drone on non-stop about their pregnancies (no matter how big the party, the group going off to the side always seems to be just Lauren, Julie and Cooper), you watch Cooper tense up and explode in little bits and pieces.
This pregnancy terrain actually can be handled quite well in a sitcom and has been on Roseanne. But, if you'll remember, Jackie and Roseanne didn't talk non-stop about pregnancy (nor did Dan and Fred). After awhile, you start to realize that Lauren and Julie (as well as Andrew and Eric) can't shut up about pregnancy because their actual lives are so void of anything else. They start to remind you of a girl you knew in high school who decided to have a baby because she wanted something to love.
Roseanne succeeded on this landscape because the show had actual characters and because the real show runner (Roseanne) knew a thing or two about the subject and brought it to life in a realistic way. There's no realism in Notes from the Underbelly, just tired characters with trite lives hoping that a birth will provide them with some excitement and the scariest thing is that there's no indication anyone involved with the show grasps that.
Had it been a hit, the headlines would read "Yuppies Reborn!" Instead, it's just one more superficial show (in a season of little else) that hopes a ratings stunt can take the place of actual characterization and plot development.
It's not yet cancelled. It is titled Notes from the Underbelly and it got on the schedule because "women will watch." Women will watch was the thinking and that was the same thinking that landed the bomb Big Wedding on ABC as well. While we're glad that at least one network hasn't written off women, we'd strongly urge them to get know to some.
Notes from the Underbelly isn't The Vagina Monologues Grabs a Pen. Though that would have been more interesting, this show builds around a sure ratings booster, pregnancy. Pregnancy and weddings pump up any ratings. At least for the short term. People tune in for the big events of Little Ricky's birth or Rhoda and Joe's marriage. Why that is may be worth pondering.
We'd argue that since many people have experienced it directly or indirectly, they enjoy seeing how characters they like will react to the same big events. Therefore, as a sweeps stunt, it can be effective.
We just don't think you can build a show around it. Or at least not the way Big Wedding tried and Notes from the Underbelly (for now) still tries. In both cases, there seems to be some sort of consensus that weddings and birth are for female viewers what car chases are for male viewers. Putting aside the issue that many women enjoy watching car chases, we think there's another problem with that thinking. A car chase gets your spirits racing but labor wipes most women out.
Watching a car chase may leave many viewers (of both genders) (and we said "chase," not "race") excited and eager to hop in the car. Watching a woman push a child out of a tiny opening in the body doesn't result in cries of, "I must do that!" Not unless your name's Arnold Schwarzenegger or Ivan Reitman.
There's also the fact that a car chase equates freedom (even when it ends as Thelma & Louise's did) while birth and marriage equate something completely different.
Two supporting characters on the show have, at least, grasped that. And they get in their jabs and funnies. The two would be Michael Weaver as Danny and Rachael Harris as Cooper.
Weaver's got no character so anytime he makes you laugh, credit the actor and not the lousy writing. Cooper's not really a character either but Harris has decided to play in her a "pinched" manner similar to Lily Tomlin's Ernestine. Were today still dominated by the big three and cable not even on the horizon, Cooper would be the break out character given the catch phrase.
But there are (many) other options these days and there's no reason to continue airing Notes from the Underbelly so it will likely be nothing but a footnote in Harris' career that reads: "The best thing about the brief ABC sitcom."
The ratings stunts work because you give a damn how Rachel's going to handle the pregnancy or whether or not Sinclair and Overton will say "I do." You're already invested in the characters, you like them and it's a nice way to boost interest (though the come down can be hell). But what if a show takes a stunt and makes that the premise?
Notes from the Underbelly has been a thirty-minute whine. It's the sort of thing that would have you replying to a friend "Oh, I'm busy" just to avoid another installment of "My life is changing and let me share." We have a friend, Rebecca, who just gave birth. We did not avoid her but her every remark wasn't, "Let's talk about my pregnancy." The two pregnant characters in this show (and their spouses) seem to believe they invented pregnancy. You know the types. They're the ones who think, "Why show off one picture of my kid when I can show fifty?"
Until a kid invents the cure for cancer, we'll hold that precious though they may be, no small child is the center of anyone's universe other than its parents. But there are many parents who operate as though their children are as lively and interesting as what happens in the Middle East or at least the latest tabloid scandal from Britty.
Melanie Paxson's Julie and Sunkrish Bala's Eric are supposed to be the extreme version of this.
But we'd argue that the leads, Jennifer Westfeldt's Lauren and Peter Cambor's Andrew, aren't headed down the same road, they're already there.
Wesfeld co-wrote, co-produced and co-starred in Kissing Jessica Stein so she at least should know that even comedy needs conflict. Writers of Undernotes from the Belly have no such knowledge.
What they've birthed is actually a tribute to the 80s yuppie. It's Hope and Michael Steadman (thirtysomething) playing for laughs. That's not the Stedmans being laughed at -- though, goodness knows, they were in real time. Instead, they're presented as ideals to strive for. And we're supposed to enjoy the yuppie conflicts that pregnancy brings. Andrew's worried about money, wants to buy a mini-van (because they increase each year in value?) and speaks of his 'primitive' desires raging within where Lauren quits her job and has to depend on him. We're supposed to find it entertaining.
It doesn't even qualify for a good sex fantasy. While Andrew thinks insular 'big' picture (you never believe for an instant that these characters live in 2007, let alone in a real world), Lauren's obsessed with her body. It's supposed to be comical when she's going on and on about how big her breasts have gotten (for the third time that episode) to her sex starved husband who just keeps staring at them and pushing for sex. It should also be noted that for many women, pregnancy raises concerns about the larger world around them -- issues of peace weigh on many women's minds -- not on bad characters' minds, but on many real life women's minds.
Peter Cambor has no character. In the pilot he wore a Longhorns shirt (Univeristy of Texas) and the only real reason for that appears to be that the actor was born in Texas. (Water Cooler Critics, we warned you years ago there was a topic ripe for the taking.) Along with no character, he has no appeal unless someone's been in search of a low rent Ben Affleck. He is to Affleck what some of those clones are to Ripley in Alien: Resurrection.
As though the show were taking place a century before it was filmed, the women and the men break up, at every gathering, into groupings based on gender. The boys are bores but not boorish enough to provide the audience a good laugh at them. They're little boys trying to act out their ideas of manhood and about as convincing as little boys are when they play cowboys.
The girls' group should be no better based on the writing but, thanks to Harris' Cooper, it's often funny. As Lauren and Julie drone on non-stop about their pregnancies (no matter how big the party, the group going off to the side always seems to be just Lauren, Julie and Cooper), you watch Cooper tense up and explode in little bits and pieces.
This pregnancy terrain actually can be handled quite well in a sitcom and has been on Roseanne. But, if you'll remember, Jackie and Roseanne didn't talk non-stop about pregnancy (nor did Dan and Fred). After awhile, you start to realize that Lauren and Julie (as well as Andrew and Eric) can't shut up about pregnancy because their actual lives are so void of anything else. They start to remind you of a girl you knew in high school who decided to have a baby because she wanted something to love.
Roseanne succeeded on this landscape because the show had actual characters and because the real show runner (Roseanne) knew a thing or two about the subject and brought it to life in a realistic way. There's no realism in Notes from the Underbelly, just tired characters with trite lives hoping that a birth will provide them with some excitement and the scariest thing is that there's no indication anyone involved with the show grasps that.
Had it been a hit, the headlines would read "Yuppies Reborn!" Instead, it's just one more superficial show (in a season of little else) that hopes a ratings stunt can take the place of actual characterization and plot development.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
