In light of the Canadian Supreme Court's refusal to hear the appeals of war resisters Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey, we're again noting Courage to Resist's letter of appeal. Note that you can print this up off your computer or you can go to Courage to Resist where they allow you send the message electronically.

"Fred Kaplan falls off his pony" (C.I.)

Jim: Ava's right, if I'd been there when this was being written, I would have called dibs on it for Third. The backstory here is that Rebecca saw a lame (putting it mildly) review of Brian de Palma's new film and kept insisting C.I. read it. After the seventh time, C.I. finally did. This is C.I.'s response.


"Fred Kaplan falls off his pony"
Poor Fred Kaplan. Film criticism is apparently much more difficult than gas bagging. In a slam of Brian DePalma's Redacted at Slate, Kappy scribbles furiously to reach a conclusion:

The film ends with photos of real-life victims of the Iraq war, though it's impossible to tell who they are, how they were killed, or who killed them. Is De Palma saying it doesn't matter? The final photo, he's told interviewers, is fake. Is he saying that doesn't matter, either?

Kappy's not going to like the film. He's one of those war 'critics' that really isn't. His dislike would go unremarked upon were he not such an idiot as he works himself up into a frenzy to bury the film. In the paragraph above (the second to last one in his slam), he's taking De Palma to task (disclosure, I know De Palma) for what? For images from the illegal war (which have been redacted by a cowardly company). Kappy wants to get ride his high horse (a tiny, little pony) carping "it's impossible to tell who they are, how they were killed, or who killed them."

"Get on your pony and ride, get on your pony and ride," Kappy, as the Mamas and the Papas sing ("Too Late," The Papas & The Mamas).

There are many problems with Kappy's 'logic' including his ignorance (again, the photos were redacted over De Palma's objection). But Kappy's 'logic' falls apart throughout. Does it matter who died, how they were killed and who killed them? Absolutely. That's really not the point of their inclusion in the film but we'll get to that. For now let's note that Kappy's falling off his pony.
Here's Dunce Kappy earlier in his slam:

The horror scene, as has been widely reported, is based on a real incident that took place in March 2006 in Mahmudiyah, a village south of Baghdad, where a U.S. Army private named Steven Green was charged with doing precisely what the psychos in Redacted do: raping a 14-year-old Iraqi girl, shooting her, and murdering her family. Green was every recruitment officer's nightmare: a troubled kid, a high-school dropout with a G.E.D. who'd racked up a few convictions on drug and alcohol charges, who was let in the Army as it was lowering standards to meet enlistment targets--and, under pressure, turned out not to have reformed after all.

That is so wrong on so many levels. But let's take it to Kappy's level if the elevator reaches that low -- we'll obviously be going far below the ground floor. Kappy, who died? If it's important who died -- and Kappy thinks it is when it comes to what De Palma offers onscreen after a film has ended -- isn't it important that they be named?

The fourteen-year-old girl is Abeer Qassim Hamza. Was "her family" murdered? Her parents Qassim Hamza Raheem and Fakhriya Taha Muhasen and her five-year old daughter Hadeel Qassim Hamza were murdered. Kappy doesn't name Abeer or her sister or her parents. He who wants to whine that it's important to know "who". Wants to whine when it comes to someone else's work. Was "her family" murdered? Kappy doesn't know the first thing he's writing about. And we're not going to spoon feed his sorry ass. But, no, there are other members of her immediate family.

How they died is important, Kappy says, of photos that close out a film. But Kappy can't even provide the basics on the example he chooses to highlight. He can't even get his own facts right -- a terminal condition for Kappy.

Steven D. Green? Kappy doesn't know the first thing he's talking about and Slate should issue a correction. "Was charged"? Green is charged. Green also denies the charges. (He'll be tried in a civilian court. November 8th, 2006, in a federal court in Kentucky, Green entered a not guilty plea.) Does Kappy know the names Paul Cortez, Jesse Spielman, Bryan Howard and James P. Barker? To read his scribbled slam he doesn't. If he insists it's important, that how someone died is important, he should be including those names. Barker and Cortez are not in dispute. They took part in the gang-rape. They've had their day in court. They confessed.

Repeating, Green maintains his innocence. Barker and Cortez have confessed (and fingered him as the ringleader in their own testimonies).


So why would someone focus on Green? Why would they argue he "was charged" when there is nothing past tense about the charges against Green?

It's a cute little rewriting -- like Kappy's war 'criticism' -- that turns War Crimes into the problems of one person, one bad apple -- apparently 'rotten' before he ever went to Iraq.

At the Article 32 hearing in August 2006, military prosecutor Captain Alex Pickands argued: "They gathered over cards and booze to come up with a plan to rape and murder that little girl. She was young and attractive. They knew where she was because they had seen her on a previous patrol. She was close. She was vulnerable." "They." A plural. He was speaking of Cortez, Barker, Spielman and Howard. Green is alleged to have been present but Green wasn't part of the Article 32 hearing (he had been discharged from the military already which is why he's facing a civilian court and not a military one).

Kappy's version of 'reality' tells readers that Abeer was "raped" and murdered (as well as "her family") by Green. Kappy wants to ride his pony to town on De Palma using photos at the end of a film and carp that these photos (which, again, the company has redacted) go to some problem with the movie because they don't tell who died, how they died and "who killed them" but, in his own space, he doesn't bother to cover those issues with regards to Abeer. In fact, he can't even bring himself to name Abeer -- let alone her sister or parents.


He also can't name the ones who have been convicted. It's a cute little fantasy where Green, all by himself, is responsible. And he's a 'recruiters' nightmare.' Oh that trickster! The mighty trickster Green! Fooling those poor recruiters! Actually, he was one recruiter's wet dream. He was recruited right after he was busted. He shouldn't have been recruited due to his history of legal problems and other things. But let's not call him a "nightmare" for recruiters when his past was known and his recruiter actively worked to get him a waiver. He was one more towards meeting a quota, he was a recruiter's wet dream.

To repeat, he is also the only one accused of direct participation (Barker and Cortez's testimony has them raping Abeer while Green took her parents and sister into a bedroom and shot them dead, he then rejoined them -- according to their testimony -- and took part in the gang-rape) who has not had his day in court. Two of her rapists have confessed in court.

They don't fit the 'logic' Kappy's trying to sell which is that 'De Palma's film is over the top and, goodness me, the actual events the film is based upon is just the work of one social misfit that turned out to be a nightmare.'

That's LYING.

Green's record was known when he was recruited. Green, if the testimony of others proves to be correct, is the ringleader. However, he was also the least educated and no one's come forward to tell a tale of the troubled childhoods of the others involved. They were apparently 'upstanding' people. And that's what's at the heart of De Palma's film, the War Crimes, the way events shape and alter people.

Kappy intentionally misses that to write his slam. He reduces a gang-rape to one rapist. He goes with the rapist that can be used to say, "See, he was bad before he went to war. That's what happened. That's why this happened." That's not reality. Kappy can't handle the reality on screen and he can't handle reality in real life.

In Kappy's World of Crappy, he can rewrite history and LIE. He can reduce a conspiracy to rape and murder a young girl down to one person's actions. He can overlook the fact that Green was known to be lusting after the underage girl and that it wasn't an issue to his 'buddies.' They weren't appalled by that. Grown men who knew that, if they were in the US, and slept with an underage girl, even with her consent, they would be up on statutory rape charges weren't just willing to look the other way on a gang-rape, they were willing to take part in planning it. They were willing to see it as normal. As they did when Green touched Abeer inappropriately in public -- he and the others ran a checkpoint in her neighborhood.

If Green's guilty, his actions are criminal. He is a War Criminal if he's guilty. (Yes, I think he's guilty but a court will decide that.) But so are the actions of the others involved -- and the military courts have held that the actions were criminal. You don't have Green by himself, the way Kappy portrays it, you have several War Criminals.

But being honest and telling that story would raise issues that make Kappy uncomfortable. So he reduces War Crimes, a criminal conspiracy, down to one person.

Again, the others are not known to have had any legal troubles in childhood. They are all thought to be 'upstanding' prior to the incident. They weren't stationed in Abeer's neighborhood to pick up women let alone to plot to rape an underage girl. They were stationed there to provide the area with protection. Instead, it was a bunch of jokes, a bunch of ha-has. A bunch of leering. It continued and got more and more inappropriate until finally they're plotting how to gang rape and murder her, how to get through the family's fence, who will be lookout, how they will cover it up, etc.

Oh, yes, the cover up.


'Terrorists' killed Abeer and her family. That was the cover story. To destroy evidence, the US soldiers involved attempted to set Abeer's body on fire. That was part of the plan as well. In May 2006, what was announced as a retaliation move for those War Crimes would take place and US service members would be tortured and killed, their corpses mutilated. That's when Justin Watt would come forward with what he was hearing. If he was hearing it, others in the unit probably were as well. Only Watt came forward and did what the military says you are supposed to. (And the military 'repaid' him with one non-stop witch hunt after another.)

Kappy can't tell you any of that either. He can't because he doesn't like that story (he certainly doesn't like it on screen). He calls the film 'war porn' -- a term we've used here repeatedly but we use it to describe rah-rah nonsense that sells war and turns it into a game. That's not what De Palma's film does.

The story of Abeer is a story of War Crimes. Kappy reduces it to one lone misfit. The realities are much deeper and more complex. Kappy has to lie because he can't face those realities and that, in the end, is why he can't stomach De Palma's Redacted.

Scribbling his distortions, lies and half-truths, lets him deny the very nature of the War Crimes that took place. A critic who can't face reality isn't much of a critic and Kappy should stick to his crappy gas bagging. A critic who white washes War Crimes when the criminals have entered guilty pleas and been sentenced is praciting war porn.

To close this out, reviewing means some people will like your opinion, some won't. The fact that Kappy thinks the film is awful isn't the issue. The issue is that he can't critique the film by the own set of standards he pretends to profess. His review is bad writing for that reason. His slamming of the film goes to the fact that he's selling future illegal wars (better planned ones, to be sure) and that requires that he turn War Crimes by several members of the US military into one lone individual. That reduction is why he can't stand the film -- a piece of fiction offers more reality than he does in a supposed non-fiction piece of alleged thought.

Make a point to see Redacted -- a film that makes the right-winger (O'Lielly) and the 'better planning next time!' crowd uncomfortable. (Kappy expresses "discomforting" over the US dividing up a foreign country but feels it's the only 'alternative' . . . for the US -- a 'compassionate' imperialist).



Opening

11/16/2007
Berkeley, CA: Shattuck Cinemas
Los Angeles, CA: The Landmark
Palo Alto, CA: Aquarius 2
Pasadena, CA: Laemmle's One Colorado Cinemas
San Francisco, CA: Embarcadero Center Cinema
Santa Ana, CA: South Coast Village 3
West Hollywood, CA: Sunset 5
Washington, DC: E Street Cinema
Chicago, IL: Landmark's Century Centre Cinema
Cambridge, MA: Kendall Square Cinema
New York, NY: Sunshine Cinema
New York, NY: Lincoln Plaza
Philadelphia, PA: Ritz at the Bourse

11/21/2007
San Diego, CA: Hillcrest Cinemas
Denver, CO: Mayan Theatre
Minneapolis, MN: Lagoon Cinema
Seattle, WA: Metro Cinemas

11/30/2007
Santa Rosa, CA: Rialto Cinemas Lakeside
Wilmington, DE: Theater N at Demours
Atlanta, GA: Midtown Art Cinemas 8
Durham, NC: Carolina Theatre - Durham
Raleigh, NC: Colony Twin
Montclair, NJ: Clairidge Cinemas
Red Bank, NJ: Red Bank Cinemas
Bronxville, NY: Bronxville Cinemas
Manhasset, NY: Manhasset Cinemas
White Plains, NY: Cinema 100 Twin
Cleveland Heights, OH: Cedar Lee Theatres
Dallas, TX: Magnolia Theatre - Dallas
Houston, TX: River Oaks Theatre

12/7/2007
Little Rock, AR: Market Street Cinema
Tucson, AZ: The Loft Cinema
Santa Fe, NM: The Screen
Salt Lake City, UT: Broadway Centre Cinemas

12/14/2007
Rochester, NY: Little Theatre

12/16/2007
Savannah, GA: Victory Square Cinema 9

12/18/2007
Norfolk, VA: Naro Expanded Cinema

Highlights

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


"Invasion of the fools" -- Betty's latest chapter has Betinna grasping that her new 'best friends' are even more shallow than she thought and just when she thinks it can't get worse . . .

"Work" -- Trina's post. C.I. asked us to note that this is "really a major post on unions, the work force and the work environment. I was there working on my entries while Trina was writing it and I had no idea what it was about just that she kept pausing while writing it. You don't want to miss this."

"oh canada ..." -- Rebecca wonders what has become of Canada?

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Donald Kerr on the job" -- an instant classic from Isaiah that resulted in a huge amount of e-mails from outside the community.

"PBS' NOW and talking music & the war with Ruth" -- Mike interviews Ruth and they discuss Iraq, music and just about everything.

"Are they your airwaves?" -- Ruth covering the latest shenanigans by the FCC commissioner.

"Played? By who?" -- Like Kat, we're all tired of everyone making excuses for Bambi.

"Danny Schecter, NBC's Chuck and Third" -- Mike covers Third and shares his love of the TV show Chuck. (Monday nights, NBC)

"Brother? I got a brother?" & "THIS JUST IN! AN INSPECTOR WHO DOESN'T KNOW HIS BROTHER?" & "Does he know he has a mother?" -- Cedric, Wally and C.I. cover the Cookie and Buzzy brotherly love.

"bill gallagher on di-fi and fancy nancy" -- Rebecca lets it rip on Di-Fi and more.

"Barack loving press" & "THIS JUST IN! THEY'RE AT IT AGAIN!" -- He's going to do it . . . this time. How many times has the press prepared us for Bamib's first baby steps?

"Laura Flanders, Amy Goodman" -- Elaine dubs this her "least worst" and says if we "have to" highlight something go with that and not our other choice.

"Fred Kaplan falls off his pony" -- Betty decrees "Instant classic!" and no one disagrees.

"And the war drags on . . ." -- C.I. reflects on the importance of Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey and the difference their stands have made.

Truest statement of the week

Well, I think that was an absolutely shocking display, and I think what's most shocking about it is this idea that this is somehow a question of good government and the torture question can be belittled. I mean, what we just saw was lawmakers knowingly voting in favor of someone who has said that one of the classic modern torture techniques -- I mean, the classic torture techniques of the French in Algeria, for instance, were simulated drowning, electroshock and rape. These are the three main tools of contemporary torture. And this is a man who has said to the world that one of those key techniques, simulated drowning, water torture, is not illegal. So, with that knowledge, he was just endorsed.
And to elevate a man who has said this to the highest legal office in the country, I think, just puts everyone of those lawmakers, but particularly the Democrats who voted for him, into bold new territory. They have just crossed a line, because they can no longer pin this on Bush. They can no longer claim ignorance. Anyone who faces these techniques in the future, they will be complicit in those war crimes, in those crimes against humanity -- everybody who voted for this man.

-- Naomi Klein, author of The Shock Doctrine: The Rise Of Disaster Capitalism, on the Wednesday, November 7, 2007 broadcast of Democracy Now!

Truest statement of the week II

The initial interview was followed by others. He would tell his story on Democracy Now!, on MTV, on CNN, at Truthout, in LeftTurn, New American Media, Nichi Bei Times, and many other outlets. His mother Carolyn Ho, his father Bob Watada, his step-mother Rosa Sakanishi would appear in multiple outlets including, again, Democracy Now!, Laura Flanders' radio program, Law and Disorder, KPFK's Sojourner Truth and Uprising, KPFA's The Morning Show and Aaron Glantz's reporting on all aspects would spread the issue over all of KPFA's programming, etc. Rolling Stone magazine would put Watada on their "Honor Roll" for the 2006 year-end issue. Watada, as the first officer to resist, would garner more attention than any other Iraq War resister thus far and, in doing so, underscore several realities. Of chief interest to war resisters and those who support war resisters, the silence from The Nation magazine. Readers of the print magazine would make it through the end of the 2006 issues of the weekly 'political' and 'left' magazine without ever seeing the words "Ehren Watada" though there was plenty of time to provide glossy fluff on bad candidates (the DLC's Harold Ford being only one example) and to do 'theme' issues (such as their food issue). There just wasn't time to cover war resisters. Watada would finally make it into print in the January 8th issue (actually a double-issue but we're not going into that nonsense) where he would be called a "coward." The magazine that sat out Watada (and Abeer) throughout 2006 finally prints his name and it's in a statement calling him a coward. (No e-mails on the 'online exclusives,' they were covered long ago.) The article's a cover story (done by The Pooper) and it also contains a tiny sidebar that kind-of, sort-of tells Watada's story . . . after The Nation has already introduced him to print readers as a "coward." It was a telling event that would finally call to everyone's attention the magazine silence on war resisters under the 'leadership' of The Peace Resister. In their laughable article over the summer of 2007, they would manage to insult everyone participating (left, center and right) but the telling moment (after the fact that they wanted praise for an article which bragged of "dozens" of photos of abuse to Iraqis but printed NONE -- the photos did and do exist) would be in the way they reduced war resisters -- Camilo Mejia was a "deserter" (that call is in question since the military legally could not extend -- as they did -- Mejia's enlistment through stop-loss since Mejia was not a US citizen) but he wasn't billed as a "war resister." The coverage and non-coverage of Watada was a water-shed moment in many ways which did include instructing news consumers on who stood with and who stood far, far away. It's also worth noting that many other resisters went public in the wake of Watada: Darrell Anderson, Agustin Augyo, Kyle Snyder, Mark Wilcox, Ricky Clousing and . . . stop there. Stop there and don't continue because that's how All Things Media Big and Small, with every few exceptions, have treated 2007's crop of war resisters. Despite the fact that 2007 is set to be a record year -- according to the military's own official numbers -- for war resistance, emerging war resisters fell off the media map. James Burmeister was the strongest example. Either you followed Canadian media or you caught NOW with David Brancaccio or you didn't have a clue. Too bad for everyone because the last week of September "kill teams" (US service members setting out equpiment as traps to shoot Iraqis) would become a huge story but Burmeister was telling the story when he went public in June of 2007. Eli Israel would remain "Eli Who?" to All Things Media Big and Small despite the fact that he became the first war resister resisting publicly while stationed in Iraq. The Kamunen brothers? In These Times could find them when no one else in independent media could or would. The mainstream media showed some interest because three brothers -- Leo, Leif and Luke -- all electing to self-checkout over the same Christmas 2006 holiday was news . . . to some.Watada is big Iraq news today and yet, at The Nation, the main page features nothing. No articles (even 'online exclusives'), nothing (except a screen cap that underscores why some people shouldn't part their hair in the middle). Forget the magazine's campaign blog, look at The Notion where conventional 'wisdoms' are dispensed in the best Kooky Cokie Roberts fashion. Today's posts? Karl Rove and a right-wing event, a week long event . . . that started October 21st. Three weeks old and served up as 'fresh' 'news' today on the rag's 'real time' blog: "Rapid reaction to breaking news and unfiltered takes on politics, ethics and culture from Nation editors and contributors." Rapid reaction to breaking news? Not a word on Watada but a three week old right wing action is worth posting on today? That Karl Rove doesn't care for left blogs is 'news,' but Watada isn't? Never forget that since assuming control, Our Lady of Peace Resistance has ensured that The Nation ignores Iraq, employs her friend and exists as a promotion tool for herself (hence all those bad e-mails sent out whenever she's booked anywhere and hence the 'notion' that a screen cap of her, with bad middle part, has more 'credibility' than one of Jeremy Scahill being interviewed by Bill Moyers for his PBS show -- give her time, she'll turn it into the 'political' equivalent of Martha Stewart's Living yet.). Why does the war drag on? Look no further than the non-leadership at The Nation.

-- C.I. from Friday's "Iraq snapshot," noted by 12 readers in their e-mails to this site and included because there are two issues in the above we'll be addressing next week (time ran out this week).

Editorial: Victories for Watada and the Constitution

Ehren Watada, the first officer to publicly refuse to serve in the illegal Iraq War (June, 2006), cannot be shoved into a second court-martial. That's what Judge Benjamin Settle, US District Judge, ruled Thursday.

The military bungled their court-martial in February. They called a "mistrial" over defense objections. The thinking appears to have been, "If the prosecution screws up, we can just start over."

But there's a thing called the Fifth Amendment in a document known as the Constitution and it forbids double-jeopardy.

The US military, whose service members take an oath to uphold the Constitution, wanted to argue that double-jeopary didn't apply to them.

Apparently, the US military is supposed to be extra-Constitutional.

That and other arguments worked in military courts. But when civilian Judge Settle got the appeal, he issued two stays while he reviewed the briefs and the applicable law.

On Thursday, he informed the military that they were not above the Constitution.

"The same Fifth Amendment protections," Settle found, "are in place for military service members as are afforded to civilians. There is a strong public interest in maintaining these rights inviolate."

Christian Hill (The Olympian) reported:

He also found that the granting of a preliminary injunction is necessary in part because Watada will "probably prevail on the merits" of his case, his ruling said.
Settle reached that conclusion largely because of what he said was the abuse of discretion by Lt. Col. John Head, the military judge who presided in Watada's first court-martial, in rejecting a so-called stipulation of fact agreed upon by the government and defense that led to the mistrial, the ruling shows.

Though not the end of the battle, this is a huge victory for Ehren Watada and for the Constitution.

If your favored outlet didn't note the finding, you need to ask them why that is?

A Note to Our Readers

Hey --

Sunday and we've got the edition up. We don't have any illustrations. Throughout the many hours working on this edition we weren't able to log into Flickr and upload new illustrations. That's the way it goes.

Here's who helped out this week:

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

Truest statement of the week -- Naomi Klein became the obvious pick on Wednesday, as Mike noted during last week. Read it and see why.

Truest statement of the week II -- 12 readers (with no organized campaign we're aware of) wanted this. We actually intended to have two pieces up dealing with topics in this quote. We're going for next weekend.

Editorial: Victories for Watada and the Constitution -- we'll return to the topic of Watada next week. In doing so, we'll address coverage and representation. This, however, boils it down to the most notable point.

TV: The drip-drip of Carpoolers -- How the hell was this up long enough to result in 22 e-mails already? What do you readers do? Wait and wait for Ava and C.I.'s latest feature to go up? If we didn't enjoy them as much as the readers do, we'd feel ignored! Seriously, this really is wonderful. One feature we may pick up next week (we will note the e-mails) is the response from last week's comments on NBC's Chuck. A number of you seem to have found a new friend with that show. Ava and C.I. aren't surprised. But they note they are holding that interview because Chuck will still be on in the spring (barring an extended writers' strike -- and we all support the writers). They encourage you to watch Monday night and don't just e-mail this site that you like the show, tell your friends to watch.

Saint Bam-Bam -- C.I. with a migraine and dead tired is very funny. There's a line in here that just popped out and had us all laughing. See if you can figure out which one. (Any reader that guesses correctly will be noted next week. I, Jim, will call Mike and tell him not to note which line it is on Monday in his post.)

The kind-of left embarrasses with age -- As we note within the article, C.I. knows Scheer and was against "hack" being used. The only condition C.I. put on it. Hack is used twice. Why? Dona asked, "Have you read this section on news organizations?" Between the concept of a free press and the reality exists a huge gulf but C.I. was raised to appreciate the idea of the press and "hack" was the only word to identify someone who worked for years on a daily paper and wants to call an opinion journal a "news organization." (We'll be dealing with the news organization next week.) Hack. Yeah, I said it. (Stealing from KPFK's Uprising.) The second time, I think we were all tired. But we agreed with it. My own personal opinion? After 70, maybe some men don't need to have their own weekly radio program, their own weekly newspaper column and their own commercial website? Maybe at 70, you need to step out of the way and let others step up? That would certainly remove a lot of the aging men who get ever more conservative with age.

Dumb ass found online by reader Lou -- Wah! cries a Hillary hater. Reader Lou found this and we thank him for it.

Cassie's got a beef -- Cassie, can you move a little to the right? Always!

To non-members and non-regular readers -- This really did tick off Elaine, the e-mail issue. She has this guy who is convinced that Noam Chomsky is responsible for every tragedy (and that apparently includes WWII war crimes). It's gotten so bad, she and Sunny hate reading the e-mails. In addition, there was something that was noted in an e-mail that she wanted to post -- from another man -- but she thought, "If I do that on this, the other guy" Chomsky hater, "will never stop e-mailing me." (The other thing was a press release, just FYI.)

November 17th, Robert, Nat and Sam Parry in Arling... --Next Saturday, November 17th, you can hear Robert, Nat and Sam Parry discuss their new book and they will take questions. The chance to pick the brain of Robert Parry? If you're in the area (Arlington), you can't pass up the chance.

Something to Remember -- Kimberly Wilder (and we're not doing links in the note -- we may come in and do some more after we get some sleep -- Ty says he'll come in and do the link tonight) found this and forwarded it to us. It should have gone into our Scheer article; however, we wanted that done and closed. By the time we found out about this one (C.I. found the e-mail), we were against going back in out of fear C.I. would water down some of the points out of "in fairness." (I'm not picking on C.I. We all know the "in fairness" instinct that kicks in.) So we included this as a stand alone. If it was from last week or even last month, we would've made it a truest statement but it's from March of this year.

From the Illinois Green Party -- Unlike Scheer, we know third parties are out there. We don't just think they have a right to run, we think they have a right to get attention for their campaigns.

Excluding Gravel -- This is the first thing we posted today. We put it up early to be sure anyone interested in the issue had a chance to catch Flanders' show. Only after Laura Flanders' show was over did we post other things. If you're interested in the topic, you should have caught the show.

Mailer -- Mike's post. If there's not a link, as one e-mailer has stated, we'll put it in later. We're trying to get to bed. And remember, Ava and C.I. hit the road again tomorrow morning. They got back on Saturday. They're back out on the road on Monday. Everyone's tired.

Highlights -- Mike, Kat, Rebecca, Betty, Elaine, Cedric and Wally wrote this and selected the highlights, we thank them for it.

Roundtable -- Ava posted this "bonus" on Saturday morning. Ava and C.I. of this site participated in the roundtable as did Betty, Kat, Ruth, Trina and Elaine (who've all helped out here) and Rebecca (ditto) moderated. We loved reading it. Two things quickly. "Parenthesis." Ava: "That's what Rebecca said. When we were finishing the typing, we pointed out it was 'quotation marks.' Rebecca said, 'Leave what I said in otherwise someone else may want to change something. I used the wrong word. Boo-hoo. I can live with it." Also the Pollitt book is Virginity or Death.

C.I.'s not sure we thanked Dallas. I'm too tired to scroll up. Dallas helps us each week. He locates links, he acts as a sound board and he does about a dozen other things. We cannot think him enough so thank you, Dallas or thank you again -- either way, you've earned it.

Wait! screams C.I. Even if we're not sure if we thanked Dallas, C.I. points out, we should have mentioned him already. Where's that feature? Not posted. In draft. We're tired. We must have hit "Save" and thought we hit "publish."

M.E. Moses -- now up. Reader Hazel had a question and wanted something written about. The Common Ills community members Dallas, Billie and Ramona (all live in Texas) were kind enough to share their memories of a five and dime chain store. We thank Dallas, Billie and Ramona as well as members we contacted in that area who had no memories of the chain.

See you next week.

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

TV: The drip-drip of Carpoolers

On The Mary Tyler Moore Show, Rhoda was in a carpool and kicked out when those in her carpool realized she didn't own a car. It was a funny bit, a throw away laugh. What were comedy scraps in the seventies becomes a "premise" thirty years later and take it as a sign of why TV sucks so bad.



Carpoolers or Carpiddles or maybe just Oil Stains, airs each Wednesday on ABC's first hour of primetime following the wretched Cavemen and deciding which one is worse is a bit like trying to pick out the pretty daughter in the White House during the Johnson Administration. If forced to choose, we'd assume George Hamilton would escort Carpoolers which would it make it the Lynda Bird Johnson and not the Luci Baines Johnson of the pair. Hamilton once famously declared he would love Lynda even if she weren't the president's daughter which only makes us wonder how embarrassing the Water Cooler Set's love affair with Carpoolers will be when ABC yanks it?



The show follows four who carpool and, wouldn't you know it, they are all men. Jerry O'Connell is only the name among the four actors and he plays Laird, Fred Goss is the only one with a handle on his character (Gracen), Tim Peper recites the lines of newlywed Dougie and Jerry Minor is the only non-White adult in the show. All four are married and apparently, in an attempt to combat the vast number of African-American women starring in so many TV shows today, the ha-ha decision was made to only show his wife's feet.



The vast number of African-American women? No, we really don't see them on our TV set either but apparently as impressionable children the men behind the show -- Justin Falvey, Darryl Frank, David Miner, Marsh McCall, Jose Russo, Anthony Russo and Kids in the Hall's Bruce McCulloch -- were all forced to watch Gimme a Break! and vowed that one day they would have their revenge. Nell Harper be damned, they'd populate a show with clones of Ralph Simpson!



From Rhoda's Carlton the Doorman on through Vera on Cheers, TV sitcoms have a long history of characters who are never fully seen but are the butt of the jokes. Apparently in 2007, 'progress' is that a basically all White show can get a ton of jokes out of an African-American woman while never putting her fully on camera. Just as, apparently, Aubrey being the driver, the driver of three White men, is never supposed to call to mind any thoughts of Driving Miss Daisy.



The White woman don't fair any better in the writing. Faith Ford steals every scene she's in because she's Faith Ford. That's not an insult to Ford. We're not suggesting she's not playing a character (Leila, married to Gracen), we're just noting she's the only one with a sitcom history, she long ago learned how to get laughs when she put her days of Another World's Julia far behind her and stole the show early on during a funeral on Murphy Brown not just with lines (such as noting Murphy would be dead long before she would) and with physical comedy. There's not a lot of "physical" about the show to begin with but Ford provides comedic tension even in a scene where Leila's just staring at a toaster. Ford reminds you repeatedly that this is supposed to be a sitcom and supposed to be funny and, she's so good, that when she's onscreen, she can almost trick you into believing it lives up to those two things.



Carpoolers is another sitcom that thinks it is edgy and daring because it eschews studio audiences. It's so revolutionary! It's a one camera show! Without an audience! Without an audience refers not just to the fact that it has no studio audience, it also refers to the fact that the show really doesn't have that many tuning in. In fact the ratings have so cratered that it reached a new low last Tuesday when it finally had something to offer. But we'll get to that.



The reality is that outside of some middle-aged pathetics playing Halo and locked into stunted lives, no one really 'loves' the non-soundstage bound sitcoms. They really didn't care for them -- no, they are not new -- back in the day. The Courtship of Eddie's Father, Julia, Gilligan's Island, hate to break it to you, were also one-camera, no-studio-audiences show. If you're wondering, for instance, why you or your friends can remember lines from Friends or Seinfeld or any number of shows but largely don't remember them from the earlier run of the non-funny sitcoms, the reason is because they weren't funny. They were sometimes whimsical. But since they didn't require making an actually present at filming audience laugh, there was no need to provide laugh getting lines. It's the difference between an I Love Lucy and a The Bill Cosby Show. You've seen it all before, folks, even if the Water Cooler Set wants to impose a cultural amnesia.



And you've seen the show before. It's nothing but backlash nonsense, from episode to episode. It's as though Gloria Steinem were still streaking her hair, Cher was still part of Sonny & Cher and the feminist movement was still being billed as a "fad." That's obvious in the first episode when Gracen's pissed, miffed and mopey because wife Leila bought a toaster without asking him. "What was wrong with the old one?" he wants to know. It's not funny, it's not 'of the moment' and it's not interesting.



If you were expecting that throughout the first episode and later ones, Leila would be off buying kitchen gadgets, you were disappointed. That might have said something about her character and would certainly be cause for concern.



Instead, the concern comes in over the money (though the household is not hurting for money). The toaster cost $200! Only in a show created by seven White men could that be a plot point for a comedy. Reality check, you're paying a minimum of fifty to sixty bucks for a toaster these days that won't either die after two years of regular use or burn your house down. Yes, you can purchase one of those drug store toasters for ten or so dollars and you can repurchase it and repurchase it over and over if you are a heavy toaster user. One hundred dollars is not uncommon for toasters on a registry list (four slice). Is two hundred dollars a lot of money for a toaster?



If you're struggling to make ends meet, it is. The family is not struggling and, as the plot point leads to the main point of episode, Leila's not just earning a sizeable income, she's earning a great deal more than her husband. How much is she earning?



That's what Gracen wants to know! And Laird will find out for him! Gracen fears she makes more than him and also complains that the money set-up in the household is what he earns is their money but what she earns is her money and it's not fair, it's not fair, it's just not fair!



You're getting a nasty little peak at the insides of the men behind the camera and how much they fear women and how much they hate themselves. They don't intend to provide that but, as Freud so famously noted, the criminal has a compulsion to confess.



Were any women involved behind the camera (or any men whose soft knuckles didn't drag against the plush-carpeted floors), it's doubtful any of this nonsense would have aired (including the 'happy ending' where Leila restores Gracen's potency -- not his maturity which does not exist -- by insisting he does make more than she does -- a clear lie).



Gracen can't ask his wife how much she makes because he is obviously uncomfortable. The "their" and "her" money stems from the same thing. Leila, the same Leila who has to lie at the end just so her husband can get it up, is fully aware of that. It's obvious that "her" money was something imposed by Gracen, not insisted upon by Leila. He may not have said it in so many words but to soothe his ego the whole real esate profession was billed as a way to get some "mad money," some money to blow. Nothing that would provide -- "Infringement! Will Robinson, Infringement!" -- just something to get the hair and nail done and maybe pick up a spiffy new outfit.



Leila's talented at what she does and it pays. So she has to hide that from the already fragile ego of her husband. Of course she's buying a two hundred dollar toaster. Of course she's spending big on little items (for the house). If she did anything else, if she allowed her success to be visible in any other manner, he'd have a nervous breakdown.



A woman or a man not just emerging from the 'sixties' would have grasped that. And the show could have had a funny first episode. But no one did and the debut was lousy. The males behind the show are too busy summing up their arguments ("Men under attack!") to deal with reality and when a sitcom's not commenting on reality it's not grabbing viewers.



Had a thinking person (of either gender) been involved, the 'happy' ending could have led to some real laugh-fests in later episodes regarding Leila's attempts to continue to soothe and feed Gracen's ego or, novel concept, both characters could have been a little more honest with one another. But the men don't grasp that, they don't grasp anything, they don't grasp the times they live in.



Here's how it works. Men go off to war, and women shop.



So pompously declares Laird in the first episode which aired October 2nd. It wasn't true. It wasn't even funny. And comedy is timing. To provide the perspective the men behind the show never could, "The Department of Defense announced today the death of a sailor who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. Seaman Apprentice Shayna Ann Schnell, 19, of Tell City, Ind., died as a result of injuries suffered from a vehicle accident. Schnell was serving as a master-at-arms assigned to Naval Security Force Bahrain, Jebel Ali Detachment, United Arab Emirates." Shanyna Ann Schnell died the day before that dopey and insulting line was broadcast on network TV. Had the US military been doing their job (their job is not to hide the deaths of US service members), that would have been news. But it was the start of the month and MNF was trying to sell the 'good' news of "lowered deaths" which is why DoD made the announcement instead (MNF is supposed to announce the deaths, DoD is only supposed to provide the names after the families have been informed of the deaths). Currently 99 women in the military have died in the illegal war. Not only is the line not funny, it's not true.



Which is the problem with the bulk of the show. It's a problem with the character of Laird as well. O'Connell had a weight problem, he famously had a weight problem, as a child. The result is a picky eater (we're being kind) who frets over his weight constantly. Well, no big deal in and of itself. But the male created, male dominated show, is convinced Laird's God, or at least TV's, physical gift to women. O'Connell's got nice hair and a nice face. But only straight and out of it men could have thought they could provide a lengthy shirtless scene of Laird (with all women going into convulsions) and have built up a joke about how he was left with only the "absercisor" (and the home) in his divorce settlement with that body. O'Connell is thin which is what he wants to be. That's not a problem. But a thin body is not in and of itself a sexy body.



Jerry O'Connell can be funny and recently was on the shpw. Sadly, the highest rated show of the series was the debut -- which wasn't that highly rated to begin with but a sure sign of a series with a problem is week after week of declining ratings. It hit an all time low last Tuesday getting the kind of ratings that even a low rated daytime drama look at in derision. That's really a shame because it was the best episode of the series and it was really the direction the series needed to go if it was ever going to be worth watching.



Joannifer appeared for one episode. That would be Laird's ex-wife and she was played by Rebecca Romijn whose work on Just Shoot Me necessitated that she be billed as "supermodel Rebecca Romijin." That was some time ago. By the time she starred in her own short-lived Fox show (Pepper Dennis, which we reviewed in the print edition and also ran the review in the gina & krista round-robin), Romijin was an actress, a very talented one as viewers of Ugly Betty can see each week.



Just having someone talented and gifted at comedy on the show was an improvement, no question. But Romijin already has regular employment. A guest spot is not the answer to how to fix Carpoolers. The answer was provided in what the show did with the guest spot. Dishrag Cindy (Dougie's wife played by Allison Munn) finally had a purpose on the show. All the characters had a purpose. And it underscored that the show could exist not as a workplace comedy (it's not one) but as a comic take on a neighborhood (think of it as Knots Landing with the giggles). The show moved along at a fast pace, all the characters were involved and there were actual laughs. Laird came off far less glossy more flawed and more human.



That wasn't from Joannifer stomping on his dignity (which took place repeatedly) but from, in front of everyone, repeating a tidbit of advice that Gracen gave him, a tidbit that angered Leila and served to knock the shine off both Laird and Gracen in front of others.



Others? A concept that the creators never seem to have considered. Characters need to exist within a recognizable space. They need to interact. Comedy is conflict so their interacting (as Carpooler does too often with the four male leads) only with similar characters is neither funny nor interesting. Nor are stand up routines sitcoms. We're not suggesting that any of the lines the four male leads swap is up to the level of good standup (it's not even up to the level of bad standup) but we are saying viewers expect to be shown not told. That hasn't happened on the show very often until last week's episode.



Instead, audiences hear about funny things (told in non-humorous lines) while the four men ride to work. It plays out like a class reunion you've tagged along to. Sure others may be laughing and enjoying themselves, but you didn't see it, you didn't live through it and it's just empty chatter to you. That's not how a sitcom should play out.



But no sitcom should be confined to a car. That a single camera sitcom offers so little visual proves just how hollow all the gas bagging over the "miracle" and "reinvention" of sitcoms via a tired device from an earlier age really is. No one wants to watch four people (regardless of gender) sitting in a car. In an earlier time, a better time for sitcoms, creative geniuses (real ones, not press created ones) grasped that. A sure sign of the sad state of sitcoms is that something that rated as nothing but a throw-away one liner for Valerie Harper's Rhoda is now the premise for a TV sitcom.