It opens with 27 seconds of instrumental. Then the vocal kicks in:
It's over, I'm done writing songs about love
There's a war going on
So I'm holding my gun with a strap and a glove
And I'm writing a song about war
And it goes
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Oh oh oh oh
"It" is The Ballet's "I Hate The War" which was written by Greg Goldberg. The 2006 track by the band (available for purchase on CD as well as free download at the group's website) is intoxicating. As Trina noted yesterday, "I normally start off with a recipe; however, that's the opening to The Ballet's 'I Hate The War.' Between my husband and Mike (my son), I have heard that song for about seven days straight. Rebecca burned copies from when it was played on WBAI's Out-FM two Mondays ago. The song is now permanently etched in my mind so, thankfully, it is a wonderful song. I told Ruth I'd include it in my post." The melody, the arrangement and the na-na-nas (fifty seconds into the song) will stick in your head.
I'm sick of the news, it's the same every day
But I can't turn it off
So I'm trying to choose every word that I say
But it's never enough and I'm lost
So I go
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Oh oh oh oh
At a minute and fifty a seventeen second instrumental bridge brings to mind both both the arrangement of the Madonna recording "Papa Don't Preach" and Carly Simon and Jacob Brackman's instrumental break leading into the final verse of "Haven't Got Time For The Pain."
What I'm trying to say is
It's time to get in the way
It's crazy that thing is still going on
I can't believe this thing is still going on
And it goes
Prosody: "What I'm trying to say . . . is." Note the brief pause, note the stumble. Goldberg isn't writing (or singing) blindly. The vocal melody includes, as speech would, the stumble. You should also note the two-note figure that appears throughout in the opening as well as the first and third lines of the first and second verse (a variation of which appears after every line in the final verse).
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
This is a classic song. The melody is easy to sing, the arrangement shows a grasp of what the ear needs to make a song instantly memorable and it's fun to sing along with.
And what a song to find many singing along a march. "Na na na na na na na I hate the war . . ."
Oregone has posted a self-made video for the song and credits it to Gay Secret. For some reason, that name also shows up if you play the MP3 in Windows Media Player; however, the band is The Ballet. (If you play the MP3 in Winamp, it is properly credited to The Ballet.) Watch Oregone's video and see if you don't grasp how well it would work in a march and at rallies.
Last week, we noted the band and Kent e-mailed to complain about a quote from Goldberg that we reposted. He decried it as "filth" (which made us wonder if he'd ever read anything else that's been up at our site?) and said he was under the impression that we were "work safe." "We" aren't. The Common Ills is. Here, we will give a heads up to community members who check on work computers and could get in trouble for the language in certain pieces. That's for Common Ills community members and we're really not concerned about passer-bys.
For Kent, we'll again note that section of the interview conducted by Jeff Klingman for Merry Swankster:
JK: How do you feel about straight bands like Franz Ferdinand feigning gay in their lyrics, for some sort of a "hip" factor?
GG: It's totally wrong and unethical. Just kidding -- it's fine as long as they're willing to suck a little cock from time to time. Also, if you're fat and have a beard, then you're a cub/bear in my book, and that makes you fair game.
Why did that get quoted? We were hunting down everything we could find on The Ballet. That interview was one thing we found. We were suggesting passages from everything we found. When we'd all read that and began suggesting quotes it was "work-safe" C.I. who brought up that section noting, "Oh come on, the eye catching section, the one everyone's going to remember is that and it's funny. If Dylan had said it, people would put on t-shirts." Ty and Rebecca agreed (and Rebecca noted that if she still did public relations and The Ballet was her client, she'd grab that quote and put it on every press release). Excluding the song's lyrics, that excerpt was the sixth and final paragraph and obviously it does stand out or Kent wouldn't be e-mailing to complain about it.
To Kent we say, na na na na na na na, I hate the war.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Dems & Iraq
Last week, Bill Richardson kicked off the conversation on Iraq -- a topic Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama were then avoiding. Later in the week, Edwards would remember the illegal war. But Richardson came out hitting strong.
In full, from his website, this December 19th post, "Iraq: The Real Cost of War Can't Be Ignored:"
At each stop I make in this campaign, there are a lot of issues that I can talk about. Right now, too many Americans are worried about keeping their jobs, keeping their homes, and making sure their kids have quality education and quality health care.
But there is one issue that I believe is the linchpin to everything we want to do in a post-Bush world:
Ending the war in Iraq.
Some of my fellow candidates have decided to stop talking about Iraq. I'm not sure if they think the surge is working, or just that their polls tell them it is simpler and safer to follow the media's lead and just forget our brave troops and what this war is costing us.
Well, I believe that "easy" isn't necessarily right, so even if I'm the only person speaking the truth on this issue, I'm not going to stop.
I'm going to keep talking about ending this war and getting all of our troops out every chance I get.
The fact is, we cannot move forward on any of the issues that matter until we extract ourselves from this black hole that is robbing us of precious lives, money and time.
And we simply can't wait until 2013 to get this done.
Some of my fellow Democrats are willing to leave troops in Iraq for 5 years or longer -- the Republicans are talking decades -- yet still think we can make the dramatic changes here at home we need. But spending $10 billion a month on a war and working towards universal health care, building a new energy economy, and ending our dependence on foreign oil is an equation that doesn't add up.
It doesn't add up financially.
It doesn't add up morally.
It doesn't add up for America.
A few weeks ago, my campaign launched a very strong website www.2013istoolate.com which details the core problem I have with the Iraq plans of Senator Edwards, Clinton and Obama -- they won't even commit to getting all of our troops out of Iraq by 2013 -- almost five years from now.
And today, I'm proud that we've released another TV ad to bring attention back to this issue.
I'm going to do everything I can to make sure we don't forget this war, and forget what we need to do to end it.
Ending the war means getting all the troops out -- there is no room for rhetorical hair-splitting. We're either in or we're out. Now, or the war continues.
We hadn't planned on this, but I'm glad today is the day this ad is coming out -- because just yesterday Congress lost another chance to end this war, choosing instead to once again give Bush what he needs to draw out this tragedy even longer.
Where is the leadership? Just this week, with the fight over telecom immunity, we saw what can happen when a single Senator shows up and stands up for what's right, and yet, yesterday four senators in this race who say they oppose the war -- Senators Obama, Clinton, Dodd and Biden -- were all away while the president got what is essentially another blank check.
This Congress was elected to end this war and they have once again failed to stand up to President Bush. Yesterday, they didn't even show up ready to fight. With a long history of repelling occupying forces, the people of the Middle East are very sensitive to foreign occupation. So long as U.S. troops occupy those lands, millions of Iraqis and those in surrounding nations will see American troops as jihadist propaganda portrays us -- as occupiers there to repress them and plunder their oil. If we want them to believe we won't occupy Iraq indefinitely, then we need to act like we won't -- and get our troops out.
In addition, our presence in Iraq perpetuates Iraq's political stalemate and undermines political reconciliation. As long as U.S. troops are there, the Iraqi factions have every incentive to jockey for power, rather than to reconcile and compromise.
As president, I will get all of our troops out, and I will get them out my first year in office.
A slow redeployment over many years would only prolong the suffering of Iraqis, and delay the process of reconciliation and reconstruction. The longer we take to redeploy, the longer our troops are in harm's way. While redeployment must be done carefully, as determined by our military leaders, to maximize political impact and minimize harm, we can't afford to drag it out over many years.
2013 is over five years from now. If we still have troops in Iraq in 2013, the Iraqis sure won't think the war is over. And neither will the American people.
I have profound differences with my opponents.
Senator Edwards says he will remove combat troops, but not necessarily non-combat troops, and not necessarily by 2013. This contradicts military doctrine that states non-combat troops must be withdrawn first with combat troops providing protection. Leaving non-combat troops behind will either turn them into combat troops or leave them as targets without any support.
Senators Obama and Clinton talk about ending the war, but when given the chance to commit to withdrawing troops by 2013, they both declined. They both say they will end the war, but I also remember hearing that when we elected a Democratic majority to Congress in 2006.
If we have a Democratic President willing to keep us in this war for five more years, what chance do we have of restoring our place in the world? Of creating real peace in the Middle East? Of having the diplomatic strength to broker peace in Darfur or Pakistan or North Korea?
If we have a Democratic President who is willing to keep us in this war for five more years, what hope do we have of funding full care for all of our veterans who have been injured and need our help? What hope do we have of giving health insurance to children? Of paying teachers a living wage? Of dealing with global warming?
I think the answer speaks for itself.
I won't stop talking about Iraq, because you can't talk about solving any problem we face without talking about Iraq. We can't forget that.
TV ad? For those who are unable to utilize the audio (either due to their computers or due to hearing issues), an announcer asks, "Is there a difference between the Democrats on Iraq? There's a big difference. Bill Richardson's the only major candidate with a plan, endorsed by military and diplomatic leaders, to remove all of our troops. Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama have repeatedly said they'll leave thousands of troops in Iraq indefinitely, even beyond 2013."
Meanwhile John Edwards saw two strong supporters on the campaign trail. Unlike the diva of trash TV (now with an 'inspirational' touch), Oprah Winfrey, neither Bonnie Raitt or Jackson Browne appeared on TV being chummy with Judith Miller in the leadup to the illegal war. That would be Hoprah who, when questioned by a member of the audience LIED and said she wasn't attempting to tell anyone what to think, she was just providing information. If you'll note that broadcast, there was no information provided from any voices against the illegal war. Hoprah was selling the illegal war before it started. Which makes her a perfect match-up for Barack Obama. Poor little Hoprah, thinking she could be a War Hawk and her dizzy cult would forget and no one else would ever know. Good thing Bill Moyers Journal included her in "Buying the War."
Meanwhile Barack Obama Jnr., who plays damsel in distress so well, cried "foul" yet again and posed as the virgin candidate. Maria La Ganga and Seema Mehta, Los Angeles Times sketch out the story better than most (PO'LIceandTICOh appears to doubt the existence of 527s by the use of "so-called" preceding 527):
The Democratic presidential race heated up Saturday, with Barack Obama charging that rival John Edwards committed campaign hypocrisy by deriding political organizations called 527s at the same time he allegedly will benefit from their spending.
Wah-wah cried Little Junior, all the way home.
What is the 527 (Alliance for a New America) airing? Shots of Baby Barack in his "youthful" (translation, adult) days snorting coke while campaigning for Bob Dole? No. It appears it's nothing more than an ad dealing with medical care. But Bambi's up in arms. He's whining, he's crying, he's demonstrating that, if America's foolish enough, they can replace Bully Boy with Baby Boy.
Bambi, who can't fight his own battles even with Sammy Bring Me the Axe Power purring in his ear and David Axelrod giving him some serious attention, whined that John Edwards must stop the ads. STOP 'EM! Axelrod worked the phones like a time-share master. But is Bambi's eternal victim act getting a little damn old?
This was the week when a bit of truth about the Junior Squirt from Illinois began to surface. His record of voting "present" (as oppose to yea or nay) surfaced in The New York Times while
Howard Kurtz (Washington Post) reminded readers:
There was also a lack of media pickup when The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder reported that an Obama Aide had sat down next to him and 'wanted to know when reporters would begin to look into Bill Clinton's post-presidential sex life'."
If a comment were made about Bambi's sex life, he'd be crying on TV and screaming, "UNFAIR!" But he thinks of nothing of his staff trashing not only a rival's sex life but her husband's, Bill Clinton, the last elected president (Democrat or otherwise).
Edwards, if he wants the nomination, is going to have to fight for it and that means standing up to Obama. He was all over the map regarding the ads. The correct response was: "527s end only when Congress passes legislation to outlaw them." He could have added, "Obama might introduce such a bill . . . if he could ever show up to serve the six-year term the people of Illinois voted him into."
One thing he got right and didn't seem to waiver on was declaring, "I'm proud of the fact that, unlike Senator Obama, I have never taken any money from a Washington lobbyist or PAC. From my perspective that is not an academic or philosophical question. This is about who has the toughness and fight to take on corporate greed and win. And I have been doing it my entire life. And what we have is an epic fight in front of us to stop this corporate greed and to protect the middle class and jobs in this country. And that's a fight I'm ready for."
Let's see Bambi's friend is under indictment, his South Carolina event not only put homophobes onstage but allowed the expression of homophobia and he was against the illegal war before he was for it in a John Kerry reverse. See, he called it "dumb" before it began and he moved away from that (weak) position quickly. Long before the 2004 election, he was stating that troops couldn't be pulled because 'they were already there.' And of course, just ahead of the 2004 DNC Convention, he told The New York Times that he wasn't sure how he would have voted on the resolution if he'd been in the Senate in 2002.
With the likes of Katrina vanden Heuvel lapping at his political crotch, he's gotten non-stop tongue baths. What will happen if voters grasp in time that Bambi's nothing but an empty suit -- from the tall boys section of the store?
Edwards also noted, "Senator Obama's attacks seem to increase as momentum for our campaign grows. The truth is I am the only candidate in this race who has never taken a dime of PAC or Washington lobbyist money -- ever. And, it's why I support public financing of federal elections. As for outside groups, unfortunately, you can't control them, but let me make it clear -- I think money has corrupted our politics and these groups should not be a part of the political process. Of course, if Senator Obama is serious about real change, I hope he and Senator Clinton will finally end their silence and join with me in calling on the Democratic Party to end the influence of Washington lobbyists by once and for all rejecting their money."
[Illustration by Betty's oldest son.]
In full, from his website, this December 19th post, "Iraq: The Real Cost of War Can't Be Ignored:"
At each stop I make in this campaign, there are a lot of issues that I can talk about. Right now, too many Americans are worried about keeping their jobs, keeping their homes, and making sure their kids have quality education and quality health care.
But there is one issue that I believe is the linchpin to everything we want to do in a post-Bush world:
Ending the war in Iraq.
Some of my fellow candidates have decided to stop talking about Iraq. I'm not sure if they think the surge is working, or just that their polls tell them it is simpler and safer to follow the media's lead and just forget our brave troops and what this war is costing us.
Well, I believe that "easy" isn't necessarily right, so even if I'm the only person speaking the truth on this issue, I'm not going to stop.
I'm going to keep talking about ending this war and getting all of our troops out every chance I get.
The fact is, we cannot move forward on any of the issues that matter until we extract ourselves from this black hole that is robbing us of precious lives, money and time.
And we simply can't wait until 2013 to get this done.
Some of my fellow Democrats are willing to leave troops in Iraq for 5 years or longer -- the Republicans are talking decades -- yet still think we can make the dramatic changes here at home we need. But spending $10 billion a month on a war and working towards universal health care, building a new energy economy, and ending our dependence on foreign oil is an equation that doesn't add up.
It doesn't add up financially.
It doesn't add up morally.
It doesn't add up for America.
A few weeks ago, my campaign launched a very strong website www.2013istoolate.com which details the core problem I have with the Iraq plans of Senator Edwards, Clinton and Obama -- they won't even commit to getting all of our troops out of Iraq by 2013 -- almost five years from now.
And today, I'm proud that we've released another TV ad to bring attention back to this issue.
I'm going to do everything I can to make sure we don't forget this war, and forget what we need to do to end it.
Ending the war means getting all the troops out -- there is no room for rhetorical hair-splitting. We're either in or we're out. Now, or the war continues.
We hadn't planned on this, but I'm glad today is the day this ad is coming out -- because just yesterday Congress lost another chance to end this war, choosing instead to once again give Bush what he needs to draw out this tragedy even longer.
Where is the leadership? Just this week, with the fight over telecom immunity, we saw what can happen when a single Senator shows up and stands up for what's right, and yet, yesterday four senators in this race who say they oppose the war -- Senators Obama, Clinton, Dodd and Biden -- were all away while the president got what is essentially another blank check.
This Congress was elected to end this war and they have once again failed to stand up to President Bush. Yesterday, they didn't even show up ready to fight. With a long history of repelling occupying forces, the people of the Middle East are very sensitive to foreign occupation. So long as U.S. troops occupy those lands, millions of Iraqis and those in surrounding nations will see American troops as jihadist propaganda portrays us -- as occupiers there to repress them and plunder their oil. If we want them to believe we won't occupy Iraq indefinitely, then we need to act like we won't -- and get our troops out.
In addition, our presence in Iraq perpetuates Iraq's political stalemate and undermines political reconciliation. As long as U.S. troops are there, the Iraqi factions have every incentive to jockey for power, rather than to reconcile and compromise.
As president, I will get all of our troops out, and I will get them out my first year in office.
A slow redeployment over many years would only prolong the suffering of Iraqis, and delay the process of reconciliation and reconstruction. The longer we take to redeploy, the longer our troops are in harm's way. While redeployment must be done carefully, as determined by our military leaders, to maximize political impact and minimize harm, we can't afford to drag it out over many years.
2013 is over five years from now. If we still have troops in Iraq in 2013, the Iraqis sure won't think the war is over. And neither will the American people.
I have profound differences with my opponents.
Senator Edwards says he will remove combat troops, but not necessarily non-combat troops, and not necessarily by 2013. This contradicts military doctrine that states non-combat troops must be withdrawn first with combat troops providing protection. Leaving non-combat troops behind will either turn them into combat troops or leave them as targets without any support.
Senators Obama and Clinton talk about ending the war, but when given the chance to commit to withdrawing troops by 2013, they both declined. They both say they will end the war, but I also remember hearing that when we elected a Democratic majority to Congress in 2006.
If we have a Democratic President willing to keep us in this war for five more years, what chance do we have of restoring our place in the world? Of creating real peace in the Middle East? Of having the diplomatic strength to broker peace in Darfur or Pakistan or North Korea?
If we have a Democratic President who is willing to keep us in this war for five more years, what hope do we have of funding full care for all of our veterans who have been injured and need our help? What hope do we have of giving health insurance to children? Of paying teachers a living wage? Of dealing with global warming?
I think the answer speaks for itself.
I won't stop talking about Iraq, because you can't talk about solving any problem we face without talking about Iraq. We can't forget that.
TV ad? For those who are unable to utilize the audio (either due to their computers or due to hearing issues), an announcer asks, "Is there a difference between the Democrats on Iraq? There's a big difference. Bill Richardson's the only major candidate with a plan, endorsed by military and diplomatic leaders, to remove all of our troops. Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama have repeatedly said they'll leave thousands of troops in Iraq indefinitely, even beyond 2013."
Meanwhile John Edwards saw two strong supporters on the campaign trail. Unlike the diva of trash TV (now with an 'inspirational' touch), Oprah Winfrey, neither Bonnie Raitt or Jackson Browne appeared on TV being chummy with Judith Miller in the leadup to the illegal war. That would be Hoprah who, when questioned by a member of the audience LIED and said she wasn't attempting to tell anyone what to think, she was just providing information. If you'll note that broadcast, there was no information provided from any voices against the illegal war. Hoprah was selling the illegal war before it started. Which makes her a perfect match-up for Barack Obama. Poor little Hoprah, thinking she could be a War Hawk and her dizzy cult would forget and no one else would ever know. Good thing Bill Moyers Journal included her in "Buying the War."
Meanwhile Barack Obama Jnr., who plays damsel in distress so well, cried "foul" yet again and posed as the virgin candidate. Maria La Ganga and Seema Mehta, Los Angeles Times sketch out the story better than most (PO'LIceandTICOh appears to doubt the existence of 527s by the use of "so-called" preceding 527):
The Democratic presidential race heated up Saturday, with Barack Obama charging that rival John Edwards committed campaign hypocrisy by deriding political organizations called 527s at the same time he allegedly will benefit from their spending.
Wah-wah cried Little Junior, all the way home.
What is the 527 (Alliance for a New America) airing? Shots of Baby Barack in his "youthful" (translation, adult) days snorting coke while campaigning for Bob Dole? No. It appears it's nothing more than an ad dealing with medical care. But Bambi's up in arms. He's whining, he's crying, he's demonstrating that, if America's foolish enough, they can replace Bully Boy with Baby Boy.
Bambi, who can't fight his own battles even with Sammy Bring Me the Axe Power purring in his ear and David Axelrod giving him some serious attention, whined that John Edwards must stop the ads. STOP 'EM! Axelrod worked the phones like a time-share master. But is Bambi's eternal victim act getting a little damn old?
This was the week when a bit of truth about the Junior Squirt from Illinois began to surface. His record of voting "present" (as oppose to yea or nay) surfaced in The New York Times while
Howard Kurtz (Washington Post) reminded readers:
There was also a lack of media pickup when The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder reported that an Obama Aide had sat down next to him and 'wanted to know when reporters would begin to look into Bill Clinton's post-presidential sex life'."
If a comment were made about Bambi's sex life, he'd be crying on TV and screaming, "UNFAIR!" But he thinks of nothing of his staff trashing not only a rival's sex life but her husband's, Bill Clinton, the last elected president (Democrat or otherwise).
Edwards, if he wants the nomination, is going to have to fight for it and that means standing up to Obama. He was all over the map regarding the ads. The correct response was: "527s end only when Congress passes legislation to outlaw them." He could have added, "Obama might introduce such a bill . . . if he could ever show up to serve the six-year term the people of Illinois voted him into."
One thing he got right and didn't seem to waiver on was declaring, "I'm proud of the fact that, unlike Senator Obama, I have never taken any money from a Washington lobbyist or PAC. From my perspective that is not an academic or philosophical question. This is about who has the toughness and fight to take on corporate greed and win. And I have been doing it my entire life. And what we have is an epic fight in front of us to stop this corporate greed and to protect the middle class and jobs in this country. And that's a fight I'm ready for."
Let's see Bambi's friend is under indictment, his South Carolina event not only put homophobes onstage but allowed the expression of homophobia and he was against the illegal war before he was for it in a John Kerry reverse. See, he called it "dumb" before it began and he moved away from that (weak) position quickly. Long before the 2004 election, he was stating that troops couldn't be pulled because 'they were already there.' And of course, just ahead of the 2004 DNC Convention, he told The New York Times that he wasn't sure how he would have voted on the resolution if he'd been in the Senate in 2002.
With the likes of Katrina vanden Heuvel lapping at his political crotch, he's gotten non-stop tongue baths. What will happen if voters grasp in time that Bambi's nothing but an empty suit -- from the tall boys section of the store?
Edwards also noted, "Senator Obama's attacks seem to increase as momentum for our campaign grows. The truth is I am the only candidate in this race who has never taken a dime of PAC or Washington lobbyist money -- ever. And, it's why I support public financing of federal elections. As for outside groups, unfortunately, you can't control them, but let me make it clear -- I think money has corrupted our politics and these groups should not be a part of the political process. Of course, if Senator Obama is serious about real change, I hope he and Senator Clinton will finally end their silence and join with me in calling on the Democratic Party to end the influence of Washington lobbyists by once and for all rejecting their money."
[Illustration by Betty's oldest son.]
Iowa
The polls essentially are counts of votes by likely caucus attendees. If a poll is done properly, its measure of opinion about the candidates should be similar to the tabulation of votes on caucus night. But if a poll does manage to precisely forecast the results of the Jan. 3 caucuses, that is probably more coincidence than polling accuracy.
That's because Iowa Democrats shun public disclosure of voter preferences at their caucuses -- something not generally reported by the press or understood by the public.
An early order of business in each Democratic precinct caucus in Iowa is a count of the candidate preferences of the attendees. For all practical purposes, this is just what the polls try to measure. But Iowa Democrats keep the data hidden. The one-person, one-vote results from each caucus are snail-mailed to party headquarters and placed in a database, never disclosed to the press or made available for inspection.
The above is from Gilbert Cranberg, Herb Strentz and Glenn Roberts' "Iowa’s Undemocratic Caucuses" which ran on Tuesday's op-ed pages of The New York Times. The authors ("Gilbert Cranberg is a former editor of the editorial page of The Des Moines Register. Herb Strentz is a former executive secretary of Iowa’s Freedom of Information Council. Glenn Roberts is a former director of research for The Register") go on to explain that the popular results are not reported and that delegates from areas does not demonstrate the actual popular support in Iowa for any candidate (if that's lost on you, carry it over to the electoral college).
Last week, "Mailbag" responded to MSM believer Milton and noted this on a previous New York Times column:
That column ran on A25 of the paper's January 7, 2004 edition. It is entitled "How to Be an Iowan for a Day" and is written by Dan Savage. From Savage's column: "As a citizen and, um, a respectable journalist, I was appalled when I learned that you didn't need a valid voter registration card or proof of residency -- any identification at all -- to take part in Iowa's caucuses. . . . With huge numbers of volunteers and true believers flooding into the state, the potential for mischief seemed huge." Savage participated -- non-Iowan Savage -- in the January 2000 Iowa caucus and got away with it. He only got punished when he wrote about it. I have no idea why you couldn't find it but the article ran in 2004 and we're not going to hunt down a link to spoonfeed you.
Milton, we've spoonfed you this week, you get a link and don't have to go to the trouble of actually using a search engine.
If you're still not grasping how Iowa should not be allowed to kick off the primary season (it doesn't have a primary, it has a caucus), consider that two weeks ago, in a report on the candidates, The New York Times seemed amused that Hillary Clinton found it surprising that giving an entire hour over to one man for face time didn't result in his support. Only in Iowa. Any other state, she would have found a supporter, a foe or someone thrilled to have 30 minutes, let alone an hour, to share her or his thoughts on government and the president's role.
The popular lie is that Iowans go first because they care so much about politics. Proportionally, that's not true when looking at turnout for Iowa and, of course, it's impossible to measure it against the forty-nine other states because there is no rotation of who goes first. Cycle after cycle, we're left with Iowa which is not representative of the country.
Cycle after cycle, that state gets catered to and babied. This year Florida stood firm and said they weren't going to play this nonsense presidential election year after presidential election year. We applaud their stand and boo and hiss the national Democratic Party's response to it.
If you're one of the ones who thinks, "Well you just don't do that at the last minute," fine. But realize that something needs to be done and it needs to be done before 2012 presidential election season (which, if the pushing up continues, may start in 2010).
In the US, presidential elections are held every four years. Think: What else is held every four years?
Did the Olympics come to mind? Every four years, there is a summer and a winter Olympics. They are not held in the same area cycle after cycle. Instead, every nation participating gets a shot at hosting them. By the same token, every state should have a chance at being the first to hold a primary. The Democratic Party should have long ago grasped that.
Instead, they want to piss off Florida voters with threats. The ones who should be pissed off are those living in the 49 states other than Iowa.
Leaving aside the immense flaws in Iowa's system and the fact that is does not have a primary, there is the issue of basic fairness. How many years is Iowa going to be allowed to have all the candidates cater to them? Speaking with Krys Boyd on Think, Wesley Clark noted that California and Texas don't even see candidates after the primaries because the states are considered 'sewn' up. (Dallas says that in 2004, Howard Dean came to the city of Dallas and John Kerry went to Austin, others may have shown up elsewhere as well during the primary.) That's appalling but even more appalling is the fact that one state gets months of opportunities to interact with all candidates during the primaries and most of the other states are not so fortunate.
Iowas don't care "more" but they do get bombarded more with local media because the candidates are in-state, making speeches, meeting with people, attending events. We think candidates would get similar attention in any state they had to campaign in the way they do Iowa.
It's past time for the Democratic Party to start showing fairness and stop catering to one state (even New Hampshire doesn't get the kind of face time Iowa does).
We applaud the move Florida made and we applaud even more the fact that they refused to back down. If the DNC wants to attempt to strip the state of their delegates to the national convention, there should be a huge outcry from across the nation. This wasn't just about Florida, it was about those living in Florida and the rest of the states, the bulk of the states, where a candidate rarely shows up, let alone spends week meeting with citizens.
That's because Iowa Democrats shun public disclosure of voter preferences at their caucuses -- something not generally reported by the press or understood by the public.
An early order of business in each Democratic precinct caucus in Iowa is a count of the candidate preferences of the attendees. For all practical purposes, this is just what the polls try to measure. But Iowa Democrats keep the data hidden. The one-person, one-vote results from each caucus are snail-mailed to party headquarters and placed in a database, never disclosed to the press or made available for inspection.
The above is from Gilbert Cranberg, Herb Strentz and Glenn Roberts' "Iowa’s Undemocratic Caucuses" which ran on Tuesday's op-ed pages of The New York Times. The authors ("Gilbert Cranberg is a former editor of the editorial page of The Des Moines Register. Herb Strentz is a former executive secretary of Iowa’s Freedom of Information Council. Glenn Roberts is a former director of research for The Register") go on to explain that the popular results are not reported and that delegates from areas does not demonstrate the actual popular support in Iowa for any candidate (if that's lost on you, carry it over to the electoral college).
Last week, "Mailbag" responded to MSM believer Milton and noted this on a previous New York Times column:
That column ran on A25 of the paper's January 7, 2004 edition. It is entitled "How to Be an Iowan for a Day" and is written by Dan Savage. From Savage's column: "As a citizen and, um, a respectable journalist, I was appalled when I learned that you didn't need a valid voter registration card or proof of residency -- any identification at all -- to take part in Iowa's caucuses. . . . With huge numbers of volunteers and true believers flooding into the state, the potential for mischief seemed huge." Savage participated -- non-Iowan Savage -- in the January 2000 Iowa caucus and got away with it. He only got punished when he wrote about it. I have no idea why you couldn't find it but the article ran in 2004 and we're not going to hunt down a link to spoonfeed you.
Milton, we've spoonfed you this week, you get a link and don't have to go to the trouble of actually using a search engine.
If you're still not grasping how Iowa should not be allowed to kick off the primary season (it doesn't have a primary, it has a caucus), consider that two weeks ago, in a report on the candidates, The New York Times seemed amused that Hillary Clinton found it surprising that giving an entire hour over to one man for face time didn't result in his support. Only in Iowa. Any other state, she would have found a supporter, a foe or someone thrilled to have 30 minutes, let alone an hour, to share her or his thoughts on government and the president's role.
The popular lie is that Iowans go first because they care so much about politics. Proportionally, that's not true when looking at turnout for Iowa and, of course, it's impossible to measure it against the forty-nine other states because there is no rotation of who goes first. Cycle after cycle, we're left with Iowa which is not representative of the country.
Cycle after cycle, that state gets catered to and babied. This year Florida stood firm and said they weren't going to play this nonsense presidential election year after presidential election year. We applaud their stand and boo and hiss the national Democratic Party's response to it.
If you're one of the ones who thinks, "Well you just don't do that at the last minute," fine. But realize that something needs to be done and it needs to be done before 2012 presidential election season (which, if the pushing up continues, may start in 2010).
In the US, presidential elections are held every four years. Think: What else is held every four years?
Did the Olympics come to mind? Every four years, there is a summer and a winter Olympics. They are not held in the same area cycle after cycle. Instead, every nation participating gets a shot at hosting them. By the same token, every state should have a chance at being the first to hold a primary. The Democratic Party should have long ago grasped that.
Instead, they want to piss off Florida voters with threats. The ones who should be pissed off are those living in the 49 states other than Iowa.
Leaving aside the immense flaws in Iowa's system and the fact that is does not have a primary, there is the issue of basic fairness. How many years is Iowa going to be allowed to have all the candidates cater to them? Speaking with Krys Boyd on Think, Wesley Clark noted that California and Texas don't even see candidates after the primaries because the states are considered 'sewn' up. (Dallas says that in 2004, Howard Dean came to the city of Dallas and John Kerry went to Austin, others may have shown up elsewhere as well during the primary.) That's appalling but even more appalling is the fact that one state gets months of opportunities to interact with all candidates during the primaries and most of the other states are not so fortunate.
Iowas don't care "more" but they do get bombarded more with local media because the candidates are in-state, making speeches, meeting with people, attending events. We think candidates would get similar attention in any state they had to campaign in the way they do Iowa.
It's past time for the Democratic Party to start showing fairness and stop catering to one state (even New Hampshire doesn't get the kind of face time Iowa does).
We applaud the move Florida made and we applaud even more the fact that they refused to back down. If the DNC wants to attempt to strip the state of their delegates to the national convention, there should be a huge outcry from across the nation. This wasn't just about Florida, it was about those living in Florida and the rest of the states, the bulk of the states, where a candidate rarely shows up, let alone spends week meeting with citizens.
Cynthia McKinney announces run for president
Ralph Nader has said he will announced by year's end whether or not he will seek the Green Party's nomination for president in the 2008 race. Last Sunday, former Congress member Cynthia McKinney announced she is seeking the nomination.
Sounding like a serious and determined candidate, McKinney doesn't waffle or hedge her statements, "It is time to break the vicious cycle where the poor go to war and veterans come home wounded and ignored."
In her announcement, McKinney declared that "the Republicans have deceived us; the Democrats have failed us. It is time for a new beginning: A time for hope to rise from the ashes of despair."
Is it possible? Who knows, but McKinney is a fighter. That's when her own party (the Democratic Party) actively worked to defeat in her in the 2002 elections. That's why, after winning back her seat in 2004, US House Speaker and Wimp Fancy Nancy Pelosi refused to restore McKinney's seniority. That's why the party went into overdrive to attempt to run her out of the House in 2006. And, if you missed it, all that The Nation offered no defense to McKinney.
Ari Berman, who apparently never met a female candidate he liked, full of pomp and priss, wrote the following on April 5, 2006 ("Cynthia McKinney, Cynthia McKinney," The Notion, The Nation) :
Instead, they can't get enough of Cynthia McKinney, a controversial Democrat from Georgia who last week punched a police officer on Capitol Hill. It's not just Fox News. Wolf Blitzer had her in the Situation Room. Even Jon Stewart last night juxtaposed images of DeLay and McKinney, as if their sins were equal. And McKinney inexplicably keeps the story alive by holding media appearance after media appearance.
The Nation defended McKinney when the right-wing and AIPAC slimed her as an anti-Semite back in 2002. But, as far as I'm concerned, she's on her own now.
Maybe she was racially profiled, as McKinney adamantly claims. But there are 435 members of the House of Representatives. Surely Capitol Police don't always recognize every member, especially when they've just changed their hair style and aren't wearing any identification. It may have been an honest mistake.
So, for the good of the country and your party Ms. McKinney, can we move on?
First off, Berman, "The Nation" didn't defend her. That's like saying "The Nation defended Hillary Clinton." Katha Pollitt, who has penned the closest thing to positive coverage on Hillary for the magazine, was the one who defended Cynthia McKinney. Katha Pollitt, not The Nation.
For the record, the unsigned pieces can be attributed to "The Nation." Signed pieces are not "The Nation" and Katrina vanden Heuvel is damned ready to make that argument whenever someone has a complaint. The policy needs to be put in place in terms of a Nation Style Manual and it especially needs to be put in place when speaking of Katha Pollitt who is her own voice (good or bad) at the magazine and doesn't rush to fall in line. It's real easy to point to her maverick work and grab credit for the magazine but she's the one who earns the praise and the blame, the applause and catcalls in real time and it's dishonest for Berman to strip Pollitt of whatever credit or blame she's earned and hand it over to the magazine. Pollitt defended McKinney in her column. The Nation did not defend McKinney. (If that's still not clear, Berman, let us know and we'll try to work in a tutoring session for both you and Lakshami who also has a problem with grabbing things from Pollitt's work and crediting it to "The Nation.") A style manual could also curb vanden Heuvel (editor and publisher) from repeatedly playing favorites and using such terms as "my colleague" to refer to people who work for her.
It's interesting that, in that post, he, unlike right-wingers from the same period such as Michelle Malkin, didn't even use the word "allegedly" before "punched." But Air Berman's all about the 'swoosh'. He doesn't have time for because racial injustice can always take a back seat to Bare He Is Berman who's all about the electing. 'OMG! We gotta an election coming up! Shut up, Cynthia! Shut up!'
McKinney was not required to wear identification, no member of Congress was. And hair change or not (the extensions did not alter her face and were, in fact, pulled away from her face making her face more visible than it was prior or if she'd been wearing a hat). How many White members of the House have been grabbed? Is Air Berman concerned about the number of African-American members that have been?
With 'friends' like The Thrilla' From Vanilla Big Vomit Ari, McKinney didn't need enemies, but she had them. And she's still standing.
Here's the press release on McKinney's announcement:
Cynthia McKinney Announces she's seeking the Green Party Nomination for President.
Video of her official announcement links below.
See Video on Youtube
YouTube
http://youtube.com/watch?v=03cOM9r51Nw
Read here on Cynthia McKinney Campaign Page. You'll also find Windows Media Video and MP3 Audio version here.
http://www.runcynthiarun.org/
Read about supporting the campaign
http://supporters.runcynthiarun.org/supporters.cgi
NEWS RELEASE
For immediate release:
December 16, 2007
Contact: media-requests@runcynthiarun.org
Cynthia McKinney Announces Presidential Campaign
Video News Release Available Today at 6 PM
Cynthia McKinney, a former six-term Congresswoman and an outspoken opponent of the war in Iraq, today officially launched her campaign as a Green Party candidate for President.In a video news release, McKinney says "the Republicans have deceived us; the Democrats have failed us. It is time for a new beginning: A time for hope to rise from the ashes of despair."
McKinney, a former Democrat from Georgia, was one of only three members of Congress to vote "yes" on a House Resolution in 2005 calling for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. One of her last acts in office was introducing Articles of Impeachment naming George Bush, Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice.
According to McKinney: "It is time to break the vicious cycle where the poor go to war and veterans come home wounded and ignored."
McKinney supports universal, single-payer health care; fair trade; and has been an unrelenting advocate for Hurricane Katrina survivors. No stranger to controversy and unafraid of speaking truth to power, McKinney has demanded that the Bush Administration tell the American people what the Administration knew about the events leading up to 9/11 and when they knew it.
McKinney's announcement ends months of speculation about her plans. McKinney has been traveling constantly and meeting with Green Party members and other activists across the country who have been encouraging her to seek the Presidency.
More information about McKinney's campaign including a copy of her video statement, are available by linking to: http://www.runcynthiarun.org/.
Members of the media are urged to request a copy of the high resolution version of this VNR, suitable for broadcast and cablecast at:
http://media.runcynthiarun.org/vnr_request.cgi
And, in the 11th Congressional district in Illionis, Green Party member Jason Wallace is running for office:
11th Congressional District Candidate Opposes Proposed Peotone Airport
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday, December 21, 2007
Contacts:
Jessica Junis, Press Secretary, 309-287-5144, jessica.junis@electwallace.us
Kara Bavery, Campaign Manager, 309-532-3446, kara.bavery@electwallace.us
Normal, IL -- Citizens of the 11th Congressional District have a candidate that is willing to stand with them in their fight against the proposed South Suburban Airport in Will County. Jason Wallace, Green Party Candidate for the District, is adamantly opposed to the airport proposal that is concerning many constituents in eastern Will County.
His opposition to the airport came from talking with concerned citizens at the Will County fair during the summer.
"I spent a fair amount of time talking with George Ochsenfeld, President of STAND. After hearing that the people who live in Peotone and the surrounding areas are opposed to the airport, I promised I would do whatever I could to support them," said Wallace.
Shut This Airport Nightmare Down or STAND is a non-profit, 5,000-member grassroots member organization opposed to the construction of, and land banking for, the proposed Peotone airport in eastern Will County.
"STAND members are grateful that Green Party candidate Jason Wallace is supporting the position of the vast majority of eastern Will County residents, as well as all others in the district who are concerned about sprawl, environmental degradation, and higher taxes, in opposing the proposed Peotone airport," said Ochsenfeld.
Instead of building an airport, Wallace has said as the district's next Congressman he will push for alternatives to better serve the transportation needs of people in Will County. One such alternative is fast and high-speed trains that connects Midwestern cities.
"A reliable, efficient and sustainable rail system would greatly reduce air-traffic and the impact we have on the environment. This airport is absolutely unnecessary and only serves the interest of Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. as well as the leadership of the Republican and Democratic parties," said Wallace in a prepared statement.
Last week, Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. attached an amendment to the Defense spending bill, which essentially nullified 'Weller's Amendment' to guarantee local control of the proposed airport by the Will County Board.
"The push for this airport comes from a Congressman that doesn't even live in the district. His actions is another reflection the fact that the party leaders do not represent the best interest of the people," said Wallace.
Wallace has stated that government should be for and by the people as stated in the U.S. Constitution and this airport is very clearly not what the people want.
Several municipalities and organizations that would be affected by the airport have voted on or passed resolutions and referendums the South Suburban airport. For more information about this issue visit www.nothirdairport.org, or about Jason Wallace please visit his campaign website at www.electwallace.us.
###
--
Jason Wallace, Candidate
U.S. House of Representatives
Illinois 11th Congressional District
PO Box 708
Bloomington, IL 61702-0708
Office 309.532.3446
Cell 309.826.5290
Fax: 1.866.554.3176
jason@electwallace.us
http://www.electwallace.us
Paid for by the Committee to Elect Jason Wallace
Sounding like a serious and determined candidate, McKinney doesn't waffle or hedge her statements, "It is time to break the vicious cycle where the poor go to war and veterans come home wounded and ignored."
In her announcement, McKinney declared that "the Republicans have deceived us; the Democrats have failed us. It is time for a new beginning: A time for hope to rise from the ashes of despair."
Is it possible? Who knows, but McKinney is a fighter. That's when her own party (the Democratic Party) actively worked to defeat in her in the 2002 elections. That's why, after winning back her seat in 2004, US House Speaker and Wimp Fancy Nancy Pelosi refused to restore McKinney's seniority. That's why the party went into overdrive to attempt to run her out of the House in 2006. And, if you missed it, all that The Nation offered no defense to McKinney.
Ari Berman, who apparently never met a female candidate he liked, full of pomp and priss, wrote the following on April 5, 2006 ("Cynthia McKinney, Cynthia McKinney," The Notion, The Nation) :
Instead, they can't get enough of Cynthia McKinney, a controversial Democrat from Georgia who last week punched a police officer on Capitol Hill. It's not just Fox News. Wolf Blitzer had her in the Situation Room. Even Jon Stewart last night juxtaposed images of DeLay and McKinney, as if their sins were equal. And McKinney inexplicably keeps the story alive by holding media appearance after media appearance.
The Nation defended McKinney when the right-wing and AIPAC slimed her as an anti-Semite back in 2002. But, as far as I'm concerned, she's on her own now.
Maybe she was racially profiled, as McKinney adamantly claims. But there are 435 members of the House of Representatives. Surely Capitol Police don't always recognize every member, especially when they've just changed their hair style and aren't wearing any identification. It may have been an honest mistake.
So, for the good of the country and your party Ms. McKinney, can we move on?
First off, Berman, "The Nation" didn't defend her. That's like saying "The Nation defended Hillary Clinton." Katha Pollitt, who has penned the closest thing to positive coverage on Hillary for the magazine, was the one who defended Cynthia McKinney. Katha Pollitt, not The Nation.
For the record, the unsigned pieces can be attributed to "The Nation." Signed pieces are not "The Nation" and Katrina vanden Heuvel is damned ready to make that argument whenever someone has a complaint. The policy needs to be put in place in terms of a Nation Style Manual and it especially needs to be put in place when speaking of Katha Pollitt who is her own voice (good or bad) at the magazine and doesn't rush to fall in line. It's real easy to point to her maverick work and grab credit for the magazine but she's the one who earns the praise and the blame, the applause and catcalls in real time and it's dishonest for Berman to strip Pollitt of whatever credit or blame she's earned and hand it over to the magazine. Pollitt defended McKinney in her column. The Nation did not defend McKinney. (If that's still not clear, Berman, let us know and we'll try to work in a tutoring session for both you and Lakshami who also has a problem with grabbing things from Pollitt's work and crediting it to "The Nation.") A style manual could also curb vanden Heuvel (editor and publisher) from repeatedly playing favorites and using such terms as "my colleague" to refer to people who work for her.
It's interesting that, in that post, he, unlike right-wingers from the same period such as Michelle Malkin, didn't even use the word "allegedly" before "punched." But Air Berman's all about the 'swoosh'. He doesn't have time for because racial injustice can always take a back seat to Bare He Is Berman who's all about the electing. 'OMG! We gotta an election coming up! Shut up, Cynthia! Shut up!'
McKinney was not required to wear identification, no member of Congress was. And hair change or not (the extensions did not alter her face and were, in fact, pulled away from her face making her face more visible than it was prior or if she'd been wearing a hat). How many White members of the House have been grabbed? Is Air Berman concerned about the number of African-American members that have been?
With 'friends' like The Thrilla' From Vanilla Big Vomit Ari, McKinney didn't need enemies, but she had them. And she's still standing.
Here's the press release on McKinney's announcement:
Cynthia McKinney Announces she's seeking the Green Party Nomination for President.
Video of her official announcement links below.
See Video on Youtube
YouTube
http://youtube.com/watch?v=03cOM9r51Nw
Read here on Cynthia McKinney Campaign Page. You'll also find Windows Media Video and MP3 Audio version here.
http://www.runcynthiarun.org/
Read about supporting the campaign
http://supporters.runcynthiarun.org/supporters.cgi
NEWS RELEASE
For immediate release:
December 16, 2007
Contact: media-requests@runcynthiarun.org
Cynthia McKinney Announces Presidential Campaign
Video News Release Available Today at 6 PM
Cynthia McKinney, a former six-term Congresswoman and an outspoken opponent of the war in Iraq, today officially launched her campaign as a Green Party candidate for President.In a video news release, McKinney says "the Republicans have deceived us; the Democrats have failed us. It is time for a new beginning: A time for hope to rise from the ashes of despair."
McKinney, a former Democrat from Georgia, was one of only three members of Congress to vote "yes" on a House Resolution in 2005 calling for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. One of her last acts in office was introducing Articles of Impeachment naming George Bush, Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice.
According to McKinney: "It is time to break the vicious cycle where the poor go to war and veterans come home wounded and ignored."
McKinney supports universal, single-payer health care; fair trade; and has been an unrelenting advocate for Hurricane Katrina survivors. No stranger to controversy and unafraid of speaking truth to power, McKinney has demanded that the Bush Administration tell the American people what the Administration knew about the events leading up to 9/11 and when they knew it.
McKinney's announcement ends months of speculation about her plans. McKinney has been traveling constantly and meeting with Green Party members and other activists across the country who have been encouraging her to seek the Presidency.
More information about McKinney's campaign including a copy of her video statement, are available by linking to: http://www.runcynthiarun.org/.
Members of the media are urged to request a copy of the high resolution version of this VNR, suitable for broadcast and cablecast at:
http://media.runcynthiarun.org/vnr_request.cgi
And, in the 11th Congressional district in Illionis, Green Party member Jason Wallace is running for office:
11th Congressional District Candidate Opposes Proposed Peotone Airport
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday, December 21, 2007
Contacts:
Jessica Junis, Press Secretary, 309-287-5144, jessica.junis@electwallace.us
Kara Bavery, Campaign Manager, 309-532-3446, kara.bavery@electwallace.us
Normal, IL -- Citizens of the 11th Congressional District have a candidate that is willing to stand with them in their fight against the proposed South Suburban Airport in Will County. Jason Wallace, Green Party Candidate for the District, is adamantly opposed to the airport proposal that is concerning many constituents in eastern Will County.
His opposition to the airport came from talking with concerned citizens at the Will County fair during the summer.
"I spent a fair amount of time talking with George Ochsenfeld, President of STAND. After hearing that the people who live in Peotone and the surrounding areas are opposed to the airport, I promised I would do whatever I could to support them," said Wallace.
Shut This Airport Nightmare Down or STAND is a non-profit, 5,000-member grassroots member organization opposed to the construction of, and land banking for, the proposed Peotone airport in eastern Will County.
"STAND members are grateful that Green Party candidate Jason Wallace is supporting the position of the vast majority of eastern Will County residents, as well as all others in the district who are concerned about sprawl, environmental degradation, and higher taxes, in opposing the proposed Peotone airport," said Ochsenfeld.
Instead of building an airport, Wallace has said as the district's next Congressman he will push for alternatives to better serve the transportation needs of people in Will County. One such alternative is fast and high-speed trains that connects Midwestern cities.
"A reliable, efficient and sustainable rail system would greatly reduce air-traffic and the impact we have on the environment. This airport is absolutely unnecessary and only serves the interest of Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. as well as the leadership of the Republican and Democratic parties," said Wallace in a prepared statement.
Last week, Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. attached an amendment to the Defense spending bill, which essentially nullified 'Weller's Amendment' to guarantee local control of the proposed airport by the Will County Board.
"The push for this airport comes from a Congressman that doesn't even live in the district. His actions is another reflection the fact that the party leaders do not represent the best interest of the people," said Wallace.
Wallace has stated that government should be for and by the people as stated in the U.S. Constitution and this airport is very clearly not what the people want.
Several municipalities and organizations that would be affected by the airport have voted on or passed resolutions and referendums the South Suburban airport. For more information about this issue visit www.nothirdairport.org, or about Jason Wallace please visit his campaign website at www.electwallace.us.
###
--
Jason Wallace, Candidate
U.S. House of Representatives
Illinois 11th Congressional District
PO Box 708
Bloomington, IL 61702-0708
Office 309.532.3446
Cell 309.826.5290
Fax: 1.866.554.3176
jason@electwallace.us
http://www.electwallace.us
Paid for by the Committee to Elect Jason Wallace
Things to watch, things to listen to
Today on WBAI, 11 a.m. to noon, The Next Hour will feature Paul Krassner and Sean Kelly joining Janet Coleman and David Dozier for a discussion about the season. Remember WBAI broadcasts from NYC and for those not in the broadcast area, WBAI streams online.
Monday's Cat Radio Cafe (also on WBAI, from two p.m. to three p.m.) will continue the seasonal motif with Coleman and Dozer.
Also Monday, on Democracy Now!: "Legendary Beat Generation Bookseller and PoetLawrence Ferlinghetti of City Lights Books on the 50th Anniversary of JackKerouac's On The Road, Allen Ginsberg's Howl and Poetry As Insurgent Art."
Tuesday on Democracy Now!, "Listening Is an Act of Love: National Oral History Project StoryCorps Records Ordinary People Telling Their Remarkable Stories to Each Other."
Wednesday (the 26th), CCCP returns to WBAI for their monthly broadcast. The Christmas Coup Comedy Players is original comedy programming created for public radio. It will air from two p.m. to three p.m. and feature Coleman, Dozer, John McDonagh, Marc Kehoe, Scooter, Moogy Klingman and (Wally's favorite) Will Durst.
And, if you missed them, available for streaming online . . .
PBS' Bill Moyers Journal. Moyers delivers an essay on the state of a juiced up nation, explores whether or not the Constitution should be altered and looks at global impacts from economic
theories (the guest on that segment is political theorist Benjamin Barber). The program also posts full transcripts. In addition the website features an exclusive online report about what the FCC rammed through (watch, listen or read).
PBS' NOW with David Brancaccio addresses the issue of being homeless as they probe a new program which provides apartments to homeless persons." NOW with David Branccacio has also selected their "Top 10 NOW reports of 2007" (currently on the front page of the website).
Highlights
This piece is written by 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.
"The Sonny to his Cher" -- Betina and Cathy Pollitt go in search of Katrina vanden Heuvel and Thomas Friedman. This is hilarious (even if Betty's disagrees). She also notes that the phrase is "How are you?" in Japanese and that C.I. gave it to her. "It wasn't included in the original drafts," she explains, "C.I. spelled it out and told me to try it after the sentence about a foreign language. I did and it worked perfectly. That may be the only thing I'm pleased with."
"Kat's Korner: Smashing Pumpkins, tilted windmills" -- Kat wanted to be pleased with Smashing Pumpkins' CD that came out this year . . . but wasn't. Read the review and discovered how the group -- despite a splashy press 'comeback' -- ended up with a poor selling CD.
"Glazed Onions in the Kitchen" -- Trina explains a recipe, quotes a song and provides you the latest on presidential contender Dennis Kucinich.
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "A Bully Boy and Pelosi Christmas" -- This is what bipartisan truly looks like!
"Tina Turner, Poland, Glen Ford" -- While suspect males took to their outlets to defend the torturer Ike Turner, if you searched, you could find some reality.
"Cindy Sheehan" -- Kat explains why she's voting for Cindy Sheehan and, if you live in the eighth district in California, you should vote for Cindy too.
"GOP pile-up!" & "THIS JUST IN! TOUGH TIMES FOR REPUBLICANS!" -- Cedric and Wally break down the bad news for the GOP. This site received an e-mail stating, "You forgot Ron Paul!" As previously noted, though they don't support Ron Paul, they're not interested in making jokes about his campaign because the press already has.
C.I.'s "Jamie Leigh Jones and other realities ignored," Rebecca's "the strong women (and thank god we have them!)," Elaine's "Only women & countries get 'discovered'" and Mike's "Torture, Dave Lindorff, Dave Zirin" -- all explain why abuse isn't overlooked or forgotten.
"Deep into White" & "THIS JUST IN! IT DON'T GET ANY WHITE-ER!" -- a favorite of many who e-mailed this site. We didn't have a funny caption as Obama continues to rack up nominations from White America. We asked C.I. for one and were provided with this: "So who's next? Edgar Winter?"
"Howard Zinn, Third" -- Jim picked this and it's Mike breaking down last week's edition of Third.
"I Hate The War" -- C.I.'s Thursday night entry. We love it for a number of reasons including but not limited to the fact that The Ballet's "I Hate The War" will now be the featured lyrical excerpt.
"The Sonny to his Cher" -- Betina and Cathy Pollitt go in search of Katrina vanden Heuvel and Thomas Friedman. This is hilarious (even if Betty's disagrees). She also notes that the phrase is "How are you?" in Japanese and that C.I. gave it to her. "It wasn't included in the original drafts," she explains, "C.I. spelled it out and told me to try it after the sentence about a foreign language. I did and it worked perfectly. That may be the only thing I'm pleased with."
"Kat's Korner: Smashing Pumpkins, tilted windmills" -- Kat wanted to be pleased with Smashing Pumpkins' CD that came out this year . . . but wasn't. Read the review and discovered how the group -- despite a splashy press 'comeback' -- ended up with a poor selling CD.
"Glazed Onions in the Kitchen" -- Trina explains a recipe, quotes a song and provides you the latest on presidential contender Dennis Kucinich.
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "A Bully Boy and Pelosi Christmas" -- This is what bipartisan truly looks like!
"Tina Turner, Poland, Glen Ford" -- While suspect males took to their outlets to defend the torturer Ike Turner, if you searched, you could find some reality.
"Cindy Sheehan" -- Kat explains why she's voting for Cindy Sheehan and, if you live in the eighth district in California, you should vote for Cindy too.
"GOP pile-up!" & "THIS JUST IN! TOUGH TIMES FOR REPUBLICANS!" -- Cedric and Wally break down the bad news for the GOP. This site received an e-mail stating, "You forgot Ron Paul!" As previously noted, though they don't support Ron Paul, they're not interested in making jokes about his campaign because the press already has.
C.I.'s "Jamie Leigh Jones and other realities ignored," Rebecca's "the strong women (and thank god we have them!)," Elaine's "Only women & countries get 'discovered'" and Mike's "Torture, Dave Lindorff, Dave Zirin" -- all explain why abuse isn't overlooked or forgotten.
"Deep into White" & "THIS JUST IN! IT DON'T GET ANY WHITE-ER!" -- a favorite of many who e-mailed this site. We didn't have a funny caption as Obama continues to rack up nominations from White America. We asked C.I. for one and were provided with this: "So who's next? Edgar Winter?"
"Howard Zinn, Third" -- Jim picked this and it's Mike breaking down last week's edition of Third.
"I Hate The War" -- C.I.'s Thursday night entry. We love it for a number of reasons including but not limited to the fact that The Ballet's "I Hate The War" will now be the featured lyrical excerpt.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Truest statement of the week
When Barack Obama was a state legislator running for the U.S. Senate in Illinois in 2003 opposition to the war in Iraq was extremely popular in African American communities and among the progressive voters he needed in order to win. Brother Obama was on the case, doing what he had to do to sew up that vote early, showing up at local antiwar meetings and rallies, and making speeches like the one opposing "a dumb war" which is now trotted out as evidence of his fervent and prescient antiwar stand.
Bush invaded Iraq in March 2003, and by late May declared "mission accomplished" and victory in "the battle of Iraq" from the deck of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln. With the president riding high in national polls, this reporter checked Obama's campaign web site and noted that all the evidence of and references to candidate Obama's prior opposition to the invasion of Iraq had been deleted. The visionary Barack Obama appeared to be leaning rightward with the prevailing wind, distancing himself from his prior opposition to the war.
After calls to Obama's campaign office yielded no satisfactory answers, we published an article in the June 5, 2003 issue of Black Commentator effectively calling Barack Obama out. We drew attention to the disappearance of any indication that U.S. Senate candidate Obama opposed the Iraq war at all from his web site and public statements. We noted with consternation that the Democratic Leadership Council, the right wing Trojan Horse inside the Democratic party, had apparently vetted and approved Obama, naming him as one of its "100 to Watch" that season. This is what real journalists are supposed to do --- fact check candidates, investigate the facts, tell the truth to audiences and hold the little clay feet of politicians and corporations to the fire.
-- Bruce Dixon's "Oprah & Obama: Corporate Marketing for a Corporate Campaign" (Black Agenda Report). As Dixon notes, that "is what real journalists are supposed to do".
Bush invaded Iraq in March 2003, and by late May declared "mission accomplished" and victory in "the battle of Iraq" from the deck of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln. With the president riding high in national polls, this reporter checked Obama's campaign web site and noted that all the evidence of and references to candidate Obama's prior opposition to the invasion of Iraq had been deleted. The visionary Barack Obama appeared to be leaning rightward with the prevailing wind, distancing himself from his prior opposition to the war.
After calls to Obama's campaign office yielded no satisfactory answers, we published an article in the June 5, 2003 issue of Black Commentator effectively calling Barack Obama out. We drew attention to the disappearance of any indication that U.S. Senate candidate Obama opposed the Iraq war at all from his web site and public statements. We noted with consternation that the Democratic Leadership Council, the right wing Trojan Horse inside the Democratic party, had apparently vetted and approved Obama, naming him as one of its "100 to Watch" that season. This is what real journalists are supposed to do --- fact check candidates, investigate the facts, tell the truth to audiences and hold the little clay feet of politicians and corporations to the fire.
-- Bruce Dixon's "Oprah & Obama: Corporate Marketing for a Corporate Campaign" (Black Agenda Report). As Dixon notes, that "is what real journalists are supposed to do".
Truest statement of the week II
Or maybe IVAW can book a 'voice' from the 'left' who pushes nuclear energy because they seem to pop up on all Pacifica stations and they are never questioned, let alone called out, for pushing nuclear energy. They are treated as 'trusted voices' and given the kids glove treatment. Again, that is not one station and I wonder if listeners of just one station grasp just how common this push for nuclear energy is becoming on Pacifica?
Dr. Helen Caldicott is a frequent guest on Pacifica programming. In 2007, I have only heard her on archived broadcasts such as From The Vault and she was to be featured, from an archived broadcast, on the Pacifica Radio Archives day of special programming recently. In a 2005 column entitled "Nuclear Power is the Problem, Not a Solution," Dr. Caldicott opened with this statement, "There is a huge propaganda push by the nuclear industry to justify nuclear power as a panacea for the reduction of global-warming gases." She was not mistaken. Hearing various 'trusted' 'voices' on Pacifica throughout the year present themselves as environmentalists while advocating on behalf of nuclear energy indicates that Pacifica is far from its roots on many issues.
-- Ruth in her latest "Ruth's Report." Noted by community member Brenda Sunday afternoon and added Sunday night.
Dr. Helen Caldicott is a frequent guest on Pacifica programming. In 2007, I have only heard her on archived broadcasts such as From The Vault and she was to be featured, from an archived broadcast, on the Pacifica Radio Archives day of special programming recently. In a 2005 column entitled "Nuclear Power is the Problem, Not a Solution," Dr. Caldicott opened with this statement, "There is a huge propaganda push by the nuclear industry to justify nuclear power as a panacea for the reduction of global-warming gases." She was not mistaken. Hearing various 'trusted' 'voices' on Pacifica throughout the year present themselves as environmentalists while advocating on behalf of nuclear energy indicates that Pacifica is far from its roots on many issues.
-- Ruth in her latest "Ruth's Report." Noted by community member Brenda Sunday afternoon and added Sunday night.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
