Barack and his use of racism

A strange thing is happening in our e-mails. New readers popping up to talk about Barack. Now the first group is the spam nonsense that the campaign's doing to all sites, trying to convince the world that Barack is lovable and all that jazz. The second group is the one that interests us.



This group is echoes what Marcia, Cedric, Ty and Betty see in their own African-American communities, the tempers easing and people beginning to grasp just how they were played.



Lawanda writes, "No one yelled 'racism!' louder than me about Bill Clinton calling Barack's 2008 tale of his position on Iraq a 'fairy tale.' But now, all these months after, I look back and scratch my head. First, Barack was telling a lie. Second, when is 'fairy tale' a racist remark? I feel like I was played for a sucker."



Yeah, it was a sucker punch. It was fake and fraudulent. Barack had joined John Edwards in attacking Hillary and so you had Loser Joe Trippi joining in to raise the hysteria level.



Via Chicago Tribune (text and video), here's Bill Clinton's fairy tale remarks:



"But since you raised the judgment issue, let's go over this again. That is the central argument for his campaign. 'It doesn't matter that I started running for president less a year after I got to the Senate from the Illinois State Senate. I am a great speaker and a charismatic figure and I'm the only one who had the judgment to oppose this war from the beginning. Always, always, always.' "
"First it is factually not true that everybody that supported that resolution supported Bush attacking Iraq before the UN inspectors were through. Chuck Hagel was one of the co-authors of that resolution. The only Republican Senator that always opposed the war. Every day from the get-go. He authored the resolution to say that Bush could go to war only if they didn't co-operate with the inspectors and he was assured personally by Condi Rice as many of the other Senators were. So, first the case is wrong that way."
"Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, numerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well, how could you say, that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your website in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since?' Give me a break.
"This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen...So you can talk about Mark Penn all you want. What did you think about the Obama thing calling Hillary the Senator from Punjab? Did you like that?"
"Or what about the Obama hand out that was covered up, the press never reported on, implying that I was a crook? Scouring me, scathing criticism, over my financial reports. Ken Starr spent $70 million and indicted innocent people to find out that I wouldn't take a nickel to see the cow jump over the moon.
"So, you can take a shot at Mark Penn if you want. It wasn't his best day. He was hurt, he felt badly that we didn't do better in Iowa. But you know, the idea that one of these campaigns is positive and the other is negative when I know the reverse is true and I have seen it and I have been blistered by it for months, is a little tough to take. Just because of the sanitizing coverage that's in the media, doesn't mean the facts aren't out there.



It was probably really important to falsely scream "racism" at fairy tale and, if you read the above in full, you'll see why. What comes after fairy tale? A very real example of Barack's dirty tricks (exposed by the press) where Barack was using racism: "Punjab." So don't let the quote get discussed that far. Scream racism about what comes before and distract the people from the fact that Bill Clinton pointed out just who had been racist.



They did with that Gloria Steinem as well and we pointed that out last week. Stop the sound byte before it gets damaging for Barack! Zoom in on the first part and falsely scream "racism!" and maybe people won't pay attention to the remarks you don't want them to catch.

Troy e-mailed that he decided to go back and check out what "enraged me in real time. I never caught Mark Penn on Hardball. I just heard that he went on there and started talking about BO's drug use and because Penn was head of Clinton's campaign, I thought, 'They're using racism.' I thought that and thought it because idiots like Blow Hard Michael, trashing the airwaves daily, was saying it and all these blogs were saying. Turns out Penn did discuss drug use. He discussed it because that was what the segment was about. Penn was brought on along with BO's David Axelrod and Edwards' Joe Trippi to discuss the drug use. That got left out of all the hysteria. That all three were on and that the segment was about drug use got left out. Media Matters has a lot of great stuff on that. I would recommend their 'On CNN, Donahue claimed Penn repeated "drug issue ... over and over and over" -- but Matthews first asked about drugs' because it not only discusses what really happened on Hardball, it exposes how people like Jennifer Donahue then went on CNN and lied and distorted what had happened on Hardball."

Which is exactly correct and the only thing we would add to Troy's observations is that you need to pay attention to what Joe Trippi does in that. And when you pay attention, you need to remember that John Edwards and Barack Obama worked as a tag team to destroy Hillary Clinton. There's Joe Trippi foaming at the mouth (no doubt desperate for some attention since he's always working for the losing candidate). But this Hardball appearance that entered folklore as proof of racism on the Clinton campaign's part included Axelrod. If it was objectionable (it wasn't), then Axelrod could have objected to Penn's remarks (on air, he didn't).

Most of the e-mails point out that no, it wasn't racism when Bill Clinton was asked about his pot use. So why is drug use being discussed racism for Barack? "Unless, you're an idiot like Dave Lindorff," wrote Birdie, "who thinks Barack risked jail to do drugs and that's a good thing and a sign of character!"

And why is it okay for bi-racial Barack to write about his drug use (pot and cocaine with hints of heroin) in his books and joke about it on The Tonight Show ("I inhaled!") but for anyone else to bring it up is allegedly racism?

Because that's all the weak candidate has to offer as a defense. If he's criticized, it's racism. If he's asked difficult questions, it's racism. It's the only way to shut down the discussion. The reality is Barack went to a posh prep school in Hawaii and led then, and for the bulk of his college, a White life. Like many White students in the late seventies and early eighties, he dabbled in drugs. He may have even sold them and, if so, wouldn't be the only college student at that time to do so. Chicago, which comes much later, is all about Barack attempting to identify Black. An interesting sociological work could be done on Barack's rejection of his bi-racial status and his early efforts to overcompensate with the appearance of Whiteness and then later with the appearance of Blackness. But that would involve a real discussion of race and we won't get that. But suffice is to say that there's a lot of the subplot from Imitation of Life in Barack's personal history.

But as people e-mail starting to grasp that, no, it isn't racism to mention drug use (admitted drug use at that, drug use the candidate has told jokes about on national television) and, no, it isn't racism to point out that Barack's lying about his Iraq War positions, and, no, it isn't racism to use the term "fairy tale," the question keeps popping up why would Barack do that?

As we pointed out last week, Hillary won New Hampshire. It was a great upset for Barack. And the usual loons like Mark Crispin Miller and others began insisting that it was voter fraud (MCM said "I KNOW" when he knew nothing). He'd lost New Hampshire. Michigan and Florida were going to go to Hillary (Barack's own polling demonstrated that which is why he pulled his name from the ballot at the last minute). All the public relations and spin that had puffed up his weak record was about to go down the tubes. South Carolina was next with an African-American community that would determine the winner of the state.

A fantasy seems to have replaced the reality of what Barack was up against back then.

Well, in South Carolina, which has the largest African-American voting population of all of these primaries, these early primaries, he's been trailing Hillary Clinton down there, because many of the blacks in South Carolina have said he doesn't embrace the Civil Rights movement, and he doesn't have that passion for civil rights that these-- Martin Luther King and Jesse Jackson did.

Bill Moyers, January 9th, Bill Moyers Journal, outlining the very real problem (now forgotten), Barack Obama had going into South Carolina. He needed that vote and a decision was made to falsely scream "racism" over and over in order to inflame tensions, create divisions, destroy Hillary's strong support in the African-American community and allow the Barack campaign to continue.



You need to grasp just how ugly what Barack did was. He inflamed the country with false charges of racism. The bi-racial man who claimed to be post-racial utilized a very real and very deep American wound and used his for his own personal gain via lies.



And none of your 'leaders' have ever called him out on that. A few have stayed silent while the bulk have repeated the lies. You used to see nonsense like that all the time on the right but that's how low the standards have gotten for the left that they will stay silent and act like Barack was a victim when Barack used racism by falsely crying it.



And they still do it. They take exit polls of Kentucky and West Virginia and find someone who said race was a reason for their vote and insist it's racism! (We should say they find someone who voted for Hillary and insist that. Those voting for Barack and saying "race" aren't called racists.) What we saw in West Virginia and Kentucky (and South Dakota) on the ground was that when people wanted to talk about "race" in terms of the elections, they usually wanted to talk about the false charges of racism Barack's campaign had used. Marcia heard it the most. Someone (African-American or White) would approach her after a speech and say they wanted to raise something privately. (Marcia is African-American.) "After the third time it happened," she recalls, "I knew whenever someone opened with that, what the subject was going to be. And whether they were African-American or White, it was always how offended they were by the use of these false charges of racism. One woman in Kentucky was crying about it as she started speaking. She was African-American. She didn't understand why this 'Black' man would falsely charge racism because, her words, 'We all have to live in this country regardless of who is president. Doesn't he realize the damage he's doing?' My reply to her was, remember, he's not 'Black,' he's bi-racial. He didn't grow up with racial tensions. He had everything handed to him and he's happy to slash and burn Black communities if it gets him into the White House."



And if you doubt that, you need to only look at the "Recreate 68" nonsense led by a lot of assholes who were threatening race riots at the convention (judging by the people involved, that would be White-White on violence but they were calling it race riots). Barack's never done a damn thing for the African-American community or promised them anything. But he was happy to use them and to inflame racial tensions across the country in order to get what he wanted.



"The fact of the matter," Betty says, "is that after the election, Barack's going to be living in his mansion in a pricey section of Chicago and somewhere in DC -- maybe the White House -- while Black people are still going to be struggling in their own areas. And they won't have Secret Service or a bankroll to hide behind. Barack inflamed racial tensions. He ran a Tawana Brawley campaign and that was not good for Black America and we're going to be ones living with the fallout, not him in his mansion. He has falsely cried racism over and over and ridden that to a higher profile but for Black America, we're the ones who will be stuck with the blowback. Real racism exists and we face it every day. When someone like him uses false racism, it degrades whatever understanding of real racism the country had, it exhausts people to the point that they just don't care. It's like Oprah claiming it was racism that a store in Paris wouldn't open up after hours to let her shop there. We face real racism in our schools -- which are poorly underfunded and goes to systematic racism, we face real racism in the job market -- in terms of opportunities as well as in terms of the pay scale. And Barack's false charges of racism didn't help any Black person in America. They helped a bi-racial man. It's just like OJ suddenly remembering he was 'Black' when he needed support. It's really time for the Black community to stop rushing to 'rescue' these millionaires who are not living Black lives and who are not part of the community. And, if you'll pay attention, the White Mommas are the ones still stirring it up. The Kimberly Wilders, the Sharon Smiths, the Michele Bolingers. None of them are Democrats but they sure as hell want to cheer on the bi-racial man and pretend like they get what it is to be Black. I am Black. I didn't need false charges of racism to explain to me what being Black means. They are poisoning America with their crap and who's going to suffer from it? The Black community. And for what? A bi-racial man that couldn't even attend Tavis Smiley's State of Black America two years running. A bi-racial man who gives nothing to the Black community and lives in a mansion. A bi-racial man who is Black when he wants to be and attacking the Black community when he needs to score some points with White conservatives. In this election, the Black community was treated like the football with everyone trying to grab it to move it where they wanted. They weren't trying to lift up the Black community and they weren't doing a damn thing for it. It was nothing but a football, a thing, a device to use and then discard."

Cockburn's SewerHose

Does it get loonier or more gutter trash than CounterPunch these days? Back in April, Elaine called Alexander Cockburn out on his crazed theories about John McCain as a prisoner of war. This weekend SewerHose published Douglas Valentine's "John McCain: War Hero or North Vietnam's Go-To Collaborator?"



Is this really what the left's come to? On the one hand the Vietnamese are not to be trusted. If McCain was given medical attention (after his plane crashed), he must have been collaborating! Flies in the face of many peace 'leaders' real time statements and smears the Vietnamese but, hey, anything for a vote, eh?



McCain uses profanity. Shocking! McCain was, after all, in the military.



In the midst of his "McCain The Collaborator!" piece, he quotes NewsMax.com (surely the go-to for the left, right?) to get Bob Smith on the record saying McCain "used profanity". We are shocked. We are appalled. Profanity. Tsk-tsk. Thank goodness no one serving in today's military uses profanity. Thanks to the Ronald Reagan 1987 provision, all caught using profanity are immediately shot dead. What's that? There was no such provision and cursing still continues in the military? Well, hey, if Doug Valentine can lie, so can we.



Valentine lists McCain's crimes as including providing radio statements. We don't think Jane Fonda did anything wrong with her Vietnam radio addresses (in fact, we miss that Jane as opposed to what she's now become), we're certainly not going to call out John McCain for his. We will note there's a difference, McCain was a prisoner of war, tortured into delivering his. All the same, tortured or not, we're not going to lose any sleep over radio addresses during an illegal war.



While asserting McCain was tortured (he was), Valentine then wants to do something curious with his story allegedly on "collaboration," he wants to quote a Cuban doctor who spoke to McCain in 1970. From 1967 until 1973, McCain was a POW. Fernando Barral ("a Cuban psychologist") interviewing McCain in 1970 would have been a collaborator with those torturing McCain. He would have noticed that McCain had been tortured. (McCain has limited arm movement as a result of his torture. We're sure he has many other injuries as well but we'll note that one because it would have been obvious to anyone speaking with him during that period.) Here's how David Adams (St. Petersburg Times) described Barral this year: "Back in those days, Barral was a committed young communist working for Cuba's Ministry of Interior, the dreaded state security service that has over the years been accused of torture and repression of political dissidents." Are we to expect Valentine to next praise the 'work' of psychologists assisting torture in Guantanamo?



Are there no standards left for the left? Valentine goes on to quote Barral as a respected source. Message to Iraq veterans who have been P.O.W.s, don't run for office as a Republican without expecting left attacks. We can't imagine how the kind of 'dirt' Valentine would create/invent on Jessica Lynch.



This really is despicable and it needs to stop. It's an insult to all who have been held captive (in war or non-war) and assumes that those cooperating with the captors (as Barral was) are to be trusted. We can't imagine what world Valentine (or Alexander Cockburn) lives in that he thinks this is 'reporting' or 'journalism' or anything but smut.







Hey Doug, we heard your father was a war criminal and that the only reason the Japanese spared him -- didn't castrate him, didn't kill him -- was because he collaborated with the enemy!



How's it feel?



Our assertion has about as much basis in reality as Valentine's nonsensical ravings.



None of us are voting for McCain in November, none of us are supporting his campaign. But when someone is tortured, you owe them the respect not to treat the torturers and their collaborators as 'honest brokers.'



That may be the most offensive thing about Valentine's entire piece and CounterPunch, which has regularly decried torture, proves that standards can be dropped at will by running a piece that treats those in charge of the torture as 'reliable' sources.

Things to do

All events are NYC.

Tuesday, Women's Media Center will hold a public forum on the topic of the Democratic primary race at The Paley Center for Media -- 25 West 52nd Street -- from nine to noon. This event -- sponsored by WMC, The White House Project and the Maynard Institute for Journalism Education -- is free and open to the public. Panelists will include Juan Gonzalez, Christiane Amanpour, Sue Carroll, Courtney Martin, Celinda Lake, Mika Brzezinski, Catalina Camia, Geneva Overholser, Ron Wlaters, Dr. Kathy and Dr. Patti Williams. Click here for the announcement and for information on registering. Juan's listed first because he called out Barack when all of Panhandle Media was silent. Ava and C.I.'s commentary this week will give you excellent ideas of questions to ask Dr. Kathy and, of course, Dr. Patti could be asked about her snit-fit meltdown on KPFA when she attempted to lie that Barack voted against the 2002 Iraq resolution but a caller with a MidEast accent pointed out that Barack wasn't in the Senate in 2002. You could ask her if she felt she could go to town on the nervous woman because (a) it was a woman, (b) because of the woman's accent or (c) because no one calls Dr. Patti out on her lies?

Ralph Nader's campaign for President has an event the following day:

Wed. June 18th, 7:30pm
Nader for President 2008 Rally
NYC
Peter Norton Symphony Space, Peter Jay Sharp Theater
2537 Broadway at 95th NY, NY
Contribution $10
(646) 812-4267 or events@votenader.org
Map it

And this is followed with a Thursday event:

Thur. June 19th, 6:30pm
Catered Elegant Evening in New York City
Upper Eastside Apartment
Contribution $250
RSVP (202) 471-5833 or events@votenader.org
Map it

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, Ruth of Ruth's Report, Marcia of SICKOFITRADLZ and Wally of The Daily Jot. Unless otherwise noted, we picked all highlights.



"Pack it in Ms. Magazine, you're pathetic" -- Betty dropped the chapter planned for her site Friday. She was too ticked off. With? Ms. magazine and their phony nonsense. Ms. magazine and their waste everyone's time. She apologizes to Betinna fans but says, "Ms. is so out of it that they don't know kids' slang, they don't know the Black culture and they're trying to pretend like they've been calling out sexism throughout the primary race. All of that nonsense meant I hit the roof."


"Easy additions in the Kitchen" -- Trina's getting more and more readers lately. Some of them know nothing about cooking but are trying to learn something. How come? Why did Trina start her site? Because of the poor economy. The Bully Boy economy that has only gotten worse. Elaine says Trina was saying Friday, "It's not like I was trying to be Gourmet magazine, I was keeping the recipes short and simple. But there are people out there, a growing number, who would look at some of those basics as way out of their price range." The economy is getting worse and Mike says Trina's going to drop down to even easier and more basic and less expensive dishes for the next few weeks, "Ma is really alarmed by the e-mails. There's a whole group of people who's income has dropped due to raising prices and there's no press on them. But they are a growing group and she hears from more and more of them every week."





"Pride & Shame" & "Pride & Shame" -- It is Gay Pride Month and one feature Marcia's started doing -- and plans to do at least twice a week through the month -- is Pride & Shame. We're going to try to do something with this here as well.



"I Hate The War" -- most requested post and Ty says three complaints came in to this site that Wally and Cedric had ignored it. Cedric, "We didn't link to it. We will in our joint-post Monday. We often forget things. What happens with The Common Ills is we go to the mirror site. We grab the big title -- which contains a link -- and copy and paste it in. That way we don't have to copy and paste in the title and then go copy the link, go back into the draft e-mail and add it. But on Saturday, the problem that's come up all last week was happening again. For some reason, all last week, at various times, Blogdrive wouldn't show the latest posts. That was true of my mirror site and Rebecca's. I would get e-mails that I hadn't cross-posted when I had. So we went in Saturday, to the mirror site and it was showing Wednesday's cross-posts as the latest. We tried refresh, it didn't do anything. In a rush, we grabbed them from the main site and forgot that there were four and not three. Our bad, no insult intended." Rebecca adds, "Those are being cross-posted. C.I.'s cross-posting, Cedric's cross-posting and I'm cross-posting. We are all getting e-mails about why we've stopped. Sometimes the same person will e-mail again later to say, 'Oh, it is up.' That's a Blogdrive thing and it has nothing to do with what we're doing on our end."





"Peggy Simpson, Katie Couric" -- Elaine explains how women are targeted. "Some of the e-mails Sunny read on this," she said, "pointed to Britney Spears and other women as well. That's very true but I was trying to stay out of the arts and just note the way three had been targeted. But, yes, there is a dogpile on women that never stops. As Ava and C.I. named it: 'Bash the Bitch.' And, they are right, it is becoming the national pastime."





"Corey Glass, Third" --Mike talks about war resisters and breaks down last week's edition.



"Howard Dean never gets it" -- Mike's post on Coward Dean and how he pretends to give a damn about sexism but quickly betrays himself in his own remarks.



"music"& "Carly" -- Rebecca wrote about the Mamas and the Papas, Kat wrote about Carly. No, they didn't both plan to write about music. It was Monday, the first day back at their own sites, and they knew a lot of people were not thrilled that Hillary had suspended her campaign so they were trying to provide an enjoyable topic and they both ended up on music.





"Keith Olbermann's tough night" & "THIS JUST IN! KEITH'S SMACKDOWN!" & THIS JUST IN! OLBERMANN FILES FOR DAMAGES! & The ordeals of Olbermann -- Cedric and Wally's "The Keith Chronicles" in which life gets 'tough' for the pampered puss who appears addicted to facials as much as he's addicted to screaming at women.



"Pelosi v. Reid" -- If you're not paying attention, you're not noticing that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are not working together. If you're not noticing, you're not aware that Nancy Pelosi has been getting very public with her criticism of the Senate and its leader. Who's right? You'd have to be following what's going on to determine that. We doubt Barack can win the general election so we don't see a Dem White House, Dem Senate and Dem House. But for those of you who do, for those of you invested in it, you might want to start paying attention to the very real conflict between the leader of the House and the leader of the Senate (both Democrats) because your hopes of total control and getting things done the minute that happens appear to have a few kinks.



"Barack sews up the non-religious vote" -- We loved this one by Ruth reminding people that it's the strong unfavorables that show up in polling which opposing candidates will use against them.



"Michele Bollinger plays with her own feces" -- Elaine's wonderful post. Mike, "My grandfather's a Socialist and has been one since before people like Bollinger were even bored. He says Socialist Worker -- US division -- isn't Socialist. He says they have repeatedly demonstrated that they're content to play Democrat's kid sister. He read Elaine's post and laughed hard. Then he hunted down Bollinger's article and laughed even harder. He said it was like she was angling for a job in a Barack administration." :D



"barack follies" -- We love the follies! :D Rebecca talking about the Christ-child's latest problems.



"Patti Smith, Corey Glass" & "D.N.C. says goodbye to Florida" -- Ruth shares two videos from YouTube (one of rock legend Smith and the other of war resister Glass) and in the other post talks about what Barack in November means for the Florida vote.

Truest statement of the week

A genuine alliance with male radicals will not be possible until sexism sickens them as much as racism. This will not be accomplished through persuasion, conciliation, or love, but through independence and solidarity; radical men will stop oppressing us and make our fight their own when they can't get us to join them on any other terms.

Ellen Willis wrote the above in 1969 ("Up from Radicalism: A Feminist Journal"). It was true then and, outrageously, it's only more so today.

A note to our readers

Hey --
As promised, here's the note.

There's a lot to cover and I (Jim) will try to be quick because we just spend two hours putting in illustrations and that's put C.I. two hours behind on The Common Ills. ("There'll be only one entry, blame Jim," says C.I.)

So let's start with who worked on this edition:


The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
and Marcia SICKOFITRDLZ.

And of course Dallas. Thanks to Isaiah for his comic we reposted. Illustrations not done by him are either credited (or will be here) or were done for this site. Betty's eldest son worked on the bulk if not all of them and some he may have done by himself. (We're rushed and don't have time for specifics. If you got to school with him and he says he worked on it or did all by himself, that's the way it was.) Here's what we've got.

Truest statement of the week -- This went up tonight. We didn't have a truest and the e-mails today asked, "Where's the truest!" So there's your truest, Ellen Willis.

Editorial: Know Your History! You Have The Right! -- A Courage To Resist and a Sir! No Sir! ad are used as illustrations in this. A war resister contacted C.I. last week and another early Sunday morning. Both are in Canada and know C.I.'s cell number. C.I.'s pretty much had it (to put it mildly) with the fact that all this time later people are still not being told the real history of war resistance during Vietnam. You saw C.I., three weeks ago, go over the basics on the 'draft' in every snapshot that week because people kept saying Canada only welcomed "draft dodgers" then so, since there's no draft today, there's no reason for Canada to give them asylum. C.I. linked to Ford's speech and many other things doing remedial snapshots for an entire week and Mike picked up on it as well to amplify that. Though they still play dumb in the US, a few real journalists in Canada started telling it like it was. That entire history is unknown. Even the brilliant Sir! No Sir! doesn't give you the entire history -- largely because it is focused on the war resisters itself as it should be. But their actions had impact. So last week, C.I. started hitting on the point that no one in Congress today is calling for asylum for war resisters; however, back then, you had Democrats and Republicans in Congress calling for it. It made an impact with two war resisters in Canada that called C.I. and so we bumped the planned topic (also on war resistance) to raid C.I. and Elaine's minds (and C.I.'s journals) for a few incidents from back then that are not known today.

TV: The Ugly People's Orgy -- Your e-mails said you were fine, when Ava and C.I. honored the writers' strike by shelving reviews of entertainment televsion and focusing on non-scripted. When the strike was over and they began blending to the two for one commentary, you said that was cool. But you obviously missed the entertainment TV commentaries. A record number of longterm readers e-mailed today to sing their praises. There was a chance, going into this edition, that Ava and C.I. would blend. They tossed that out the window due to the nature of the rest of the edition. They figured (rightly) with the hard hitting nature of every piece, a strictly entertainment TV commentary would add something to the mix. A few of you are e-mailing to ask, "So they're done with public affairs for awhile?" They don't know. They have no idea what they'll tackle next Sunday. Maybe it will be another like this one, maybe it will be a blend, maybe it will just be public affairs programming. Ava says, "Accept for what it is today because we don't even want to think about next Sunday, we just want to get some sleep."

The VA Computer Breach You Don't Know About (Jim) -- I didn't argue for this to be so high in the listings. I felt it should come after the four-part series. Ava and C.I. pointed out that, "Forget the topic's important, when someone does a byline piece, we try to put up near the top."
The editorial always comes before the note then the most popular feature article (Ava and C.I.'s piece) and then the next slot goes to what we think is the strongest. I don't think this is the strongest but that's fine. I wrote this and have a note at the end where I give credit to Ava and C.I. for their help and I hope I express my gratitude enough. They found the story, they wrote about it three times. I followed their leads. They answered 10 questions before I wrote it (after saying they'd have no involvement with the writing of it) because we'd all forgotten about it. Kat, Mike, Elaine, Rebecca, Marcia, Cedric, Ruth, Betty and Wally remembered the article hadn't been written when they wrote "Highlights." The orginal ending was "southern state." Ava and C.I., when I was reading it out loud, said hold on, talked amonst themselves, and then said, "Jim, the state is Texas." I couldn't find that out. (They know the city, they know the street address of the building, they know the office number where the breach took place, the office number where the investigators questioned people in the building. They found out all of that, after catching an off hand remark, and working the phones.) I also owe a huge debt of gratitude to those in the government who, when I identified myself as a friend of Ava and C.I.'s, spoke with me. (And some hung up. But thank you to the ones who spoke to me.)

Piggies on parade -- This begins the four-part series. Mike, C.I. and I thought this up (a four-part series) while on a morning run last week. It was (a) the male sexism, (b) the Queen Bees, (c) the silent and (d) the lectures to women. This one focuses on the male sexists and, judging by the e-mails that came in since this posted this morning, it's the most noted. We figured that would be the case and that's why it's higher up in the listings. (Again, I would have been fine with my solo piece appearing in the listings after this four-part series.)

What Did You Do In The War, Mommy? -- Mike may remember this differently, but we were talking about all the crap thrown at Hillary and by who on our run and Mike made a joke that I forget and C.I. responded, "What did you do in the war, Mommy?" (A Blake Edwards film, What Did You Do In The War, Daddy?, was just released on DVD. We all recommend it.) That led to a lengthy discussion, during our run, of exactly how these Queen Bees intend to explain, five or ten years from now, their attacks on Hillary?

Norman Solomon remembers 'the ladies' -- Mike, on the run, was specifically talking about Mark Karlin's insulting b.s. editorial where he lectured "the little ladies." We include that in piggies. However, Norman Solomon showed up last week with his own "talk" (talk down to) "the little ladies." So this become a response to that.

Ms.went from playing dumb to outright insulting -- The silence. The lies from Ms. about the silence. It's disgusting. C.I. and Ava hit the roof when it got back to them (from friends at Ms. and the Feminist Majority Foundation) that our criticism (linked to in this article) resulted in Michelle Kort stating a falsehood, that Ms. was barred from covering the political race because they couldn't do endorsements. They called it out in a snapshot (the day Kort made the remarks which resulted in six phone calls to Ava and C.I. of, "You won't believe what she said!") . Kort would be advised that she's already on C.I.'s s**t list and she better watch her words. Anything gets back to Ava or C.I. this time and they'll be writing a story about a non-journalist who begged for help and promised credit and never gave it. They'll talk about appropriation and misrepresentation and it will not be pretty. So choose your words carefully, Kort. If they get back to Ava and C.I., you'll have a lot of explaining to do.

Watch your back, Ralph -- Because we had the four-part series planned, we thought it would be a simple edition. Ava and C.I. were bringing in the sexism in last week's NYT (that's on hold until next week) and we'd have the editorial and Ava and C.I.'s commentary, the "Highlights" and we pretty much had an edition. Dona was wanting some short pieces because she knew the four-part series would be lengthy. Thanks to a longterm reader, we found out about this. We knew about the disruptive liar showing up at John Edwards' campaign site in real time, knew that he was an Obamabot, and when he tried to do the same at Hillary's site, we knew then. But we didn't know much else about him. A longterm reader stumbled upon him a gay chat room and copied and pasted the exchange and his bragging about how he was now targeting Ralph Nader. This is a bit longer than a short piece but we thank ___ for e-mailing us the copy and paste transcript. We also got online Sunday morning and posed as a young man interested in S&M role play in that chat room to get some more information out of "Richard," "Joe," et al.

Nader, McCain & Barr, pay attention -- This is a short piece. Dona said, "I'm not kidding we need some short pieces." C.I. said, "What about Obama's trashing of all the Democrats running? He started out saying those who admitted their vote was wrong weren't electable because they were 'flip-floppers' and, after he knocked them out, he went after Hillary saying the fact that she would only say she regretted her vote made her unelectable. Apologize for the vote and Barack attacks you, don't apologize and he attacks you. That's the way the little thug works."

Name that racist! -- Dona wanted another short piece. During the writing of the Ms. feature, C.I. said, "Dona, do you think this is racist?" C.I. then quoted a passage from memory. Dona said it certainly was racist and assumed it was some White man speaking about this campaign season. C.I. explained it was Donna Brazile in 1988. Thank you to Dallas for hunting down the link in about three seconds.

Typical Obama supporter -- While hunting down links, Dallas said, "I think I've got something for a short piece." He did. We offered him a byline credit but he's too modest so we'll credit him here. He found it and it really does reveal the ugly side of the 'unity' campaign.

Highlights -- Mike, Elaine, Betty, Ruth, Cedric, Rebecca, Marcia, Wally and Kat wrote this and selected highlights unless noted otherwise. Ty has been responding to e-mails. He wasn't supposed to even be reading. His boyfriend has now finished college and moved out here (California) with the rest of us. Ty should be off e-mails this week, he may break that. We're trying to be sure to create time since they were a couple when we (Dona, Jess, Ava, Ty and I) were in NY and they maintained a long distance relationship all this time since. Now we're all at C.I.'s. One big happy family. In the "Note to be done later today" that went up this morning (which this replaces), I noted that Ava and C.I. did the TV commentary and I did the solo piece. Ruth Ann wrote to say, I didn't give credit in that brief note to the gang writing "Highlights". I didn't, I was rushing. Credit for that is given at the top of the piece each week. I was rushing and did not mean to offend anyone nor was I trying to imply anything. I was rushing and I forgot.

Where's mailbag? You didn't do a roundtable, Jonas writes, so where's mailbag. When Highlights was written, they realized I hadn't done the VA piece. We had the editorial to write and we also needed to go back to the Piggies piece. I had planned that we'd do mailbag but there was no time. Hopefully next week.

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

Editorial: Know Your History! You Have The Right!

War resistance saw a real achievement last week. On Tuesday, the House of Commons in Canada voted to grant safe harbor to US war resisters in Canada.



You didn't really hear about that from Panhandle Media, did you?



As always they had something else to do.



They didn't have time to tell you about Corey Glass either. May 21st, US war resisters and Iraq War veteran Glass was informed that he had until June 12th to leave Canada or he would be deported.



Amy Goodman isn't interested in telling her audience about that.



Amy Goodman just isn't interested.



Friday, Amnesty International issued "USA: James Corey Glass has right not to serve in Iraq"



Amnesty International believes James Corey Glass to have a genuine conscientious objection to serving as a combatant in the US forces in Iraq, and would consider him to be a prisoner of conscience if imprisoned on his return to the USA. He is facing deportation from Canada on 12 June.James Glass joined the army in 2002, enlisting in the National Guard where he was assigned to non-combatant duties in the USA. His unit was later ordered to deploy to Iraq, where he served five months of active service in 2005.

According to his statement, he had concerns about the legality of the war before his deployment to Iraq. While serving there, he developed further serious objections to the war, including what he saw as the abusive treatment of civilians by the US military and failure within the system to address such abuses. He stated that, whilst in Iraq, he reported his concerns to his superiors and asked to be relieved of duty. His request was denied but he was granted a two-week leave. He refused to return to his unit and went absent without leave (AWOL) in February 2006.Since being in Canada, James Glass has become a member of the "War Resisters Campaign" and has spoken out publicly about his objection to the Iraq war.

US law recognizes the right to conscientious objection only on grounds of opposition to war in any form. James Glass was therefore unable to seek a claim for discharge from the army on grounds of his objection to the Iraq War. Other similar cases where US soldiers have sought to register their conscientious objection and apply for non-combatant status have been turned down.

If returned to the USA he faces a possible court-martial, where he could be imprisoned for between one and five years.



Corey Glass has a story that Panhandle Media isn't rushing to tell.



In the end, that may be a good thing considering how badly Panhandle Media has repeatedly botched the story in the US.



For years, they've allowed people to get away with repeating the lie that there's a difference between Vietnam and Iraq, that there was a draft during Vietnam, that Canada recognized "draft resisters". They've avoided the reality that Canada's asylum provision was never rooted in the draft, that "deserters" were as welcome as "draft dodgers".



They've repeated the lie of no draft making a difference and seriously undermined efforts in Canada with their own stupidity.



They don't know their history, no matter how pompously they gas bag. Victor Navasky and Amy Goodman gas bagged hard on Gerald Ford when he passed but didn't know enough about the amnesty program he offered to get it right. Ford offered a conditional amnesty and it was to "draft dodgers" and "deserters". It required a lengthy process that might allow you to avoid prison. If you did everything just so and were judged adequate.



Jimmy Carter followed Ford in the White House. Carter issued an amnesty for "draft dodgers" only.



Though there were expectations of more to come, nothing ever did and isn't that a brief summary of Jimmy Carter's entire presidency?



This decade has seen "deserters" from that era come into the US and be arrested.



But somehow we were all supposed to play as dumb as the CED fellow and pretend that Canada only opened their arms to "draft dodgers."



We're still supposed to play dumb.



We're not, for instance, ever supposed to mention that Ed Koch, then a member of Congress, later NYC mayor, went to Canada in 1969 to meet with war resisters. We're not supposed to tell people that by 1974, Koch had proposed four amnesty bills. Offering that hidden history only underscores how little has been done by our current Congress and how little pressure our peace 'leaders' have brought to bear. But shove some more painted hands in Condi's face. Hey, it got you a photo in Jet magazine! And isn't that really the end goal? Publicity for yourselves? Doesn't matter if people are laughing at you, just as long as your photo gets run!



Here's history you're not supposed to know. Canada's Minister of Immigration, during Vietnam, Allan J. MacEachen issued the order that all war resisters were allowed to enter Canada. Quote: "If a serviceman from another country meets our immigration criteria, he will not be turned down because his is still in the active service of his country. The selection criteria and requirements applying to him will be the same as those that apply to other applicants." You're not supposed to know that. Either because Panhandle Media's too stupid or they want to stretch it all out to fill their coffers.



But that's the reality. The draft had nothing to do it. "Deserters" were welcome.



MacEachen made that declaration in May 22, 1969.



By 1971, well known people supporting a call for all governments to welcome US "deserters" was supported by the likes of Hannah Arendt, Vanessa Redgrave, Jean Genet, Lenoard Bernstein, Noam Chomsky, Erich Fromm, Dr. Benjmain Spock and Norman Mailer.



Where are the ones demanding it today? The great Shirley Douglas stood tall then and stands tall now. Where are the rest? Can't make demands on them if you don't know the bravery that was shown in earlier times.



Or maybe Joan Baez thinks it's 'enough' that she endorsed the 'anti-war' Barack. You've gone a long way backwards, Joanie.



Lot of crouchers, not a lot of standers.



See how they run like pigs from a gun

See how they run



They could turn the first Camp Casey into a media event but supporting a grieving mother is always less controversial than standing up and publicly supporting war resisters.



You'll never know how very little is being done today until you know the real history of that period and, Sir! No Sir! aside, no one's even trying to educate it. An ignorant population will accept meaningless sop. An informed public will demand action.



--
Illustration is a card you can purchase from Courage to Resist which is an organization the provides up-to-date alerts, interviews and much more on war resisters. You can also utilize
The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. The latter is a Canadian organization that assists US war resisters in Canada.

Song quoted in text is John Lennon (and Paul McCartney's according to the credit) "I Am The Walrus." The title is a reworking of The Clash's "Know Your Rights."

TV: The Ugly People's Orgy

You don't expect genius from summer filler, true, but you do expect something coherent. CBS' Swingtown debuted last Thursday and demonstrated that, outside of tepid voyeurism, it had little to offer. Since it airs on CBS and not HBO, only the truly naive will believe anything "steamy" is in the offing.



What is Swingtown? It's the latest crap from Mike Kelley who someone thinks has talent but, judging by his output, we'll assume he's better at conning suits than he is viewers.



Swingtown is all con. The look at 'suburbia' on the 'lake front' is a con from start to finish.



Musically, it might be considered 'ahead of its time.' See, the show is set in the summer of 1976. For what reason? No thought appeared to go into that. The same lack of thought that had a non-make out scene between two teenagers drag on forever in a car while the radio played Fleetwood Mac's "Go Your Own Way."



"Go Your Own Way" is known as many things. It's the song where Lindsey Buckingham really goes to town on Stevie Nicks (didn't take away the guilt over his cheating or over the fact that, throughout their relationship, he was too 'sensitive' to actually work for a living while Stevie held down multiple jobs). Artistically (or "artistically") it was a sign that, yes, Lindsey would attempt to rework the songs of his heroes. (As with "Monday Morning," "Go Your Own Way" has a huge Mamas and the Papas debt yet to be paid.) But although it is known as many things, it was never known as a song played on radio in July of 1976. That's because the track was the lead single to Fleetwood Mac's Rumors album -- the monster seller released in 1977.



"Go Your Own Way" does not fit the mood the scene is trying for, nor does it fit the timeline. But attention to either detail would betray the inattentive show. (Viewers will feel restless -- and we don't mean horny -- watching.)



For the record, the scene is supposed to revolve around the female teenager and not the male. That would be Laura Miller (Shanna Collins), the teenage daughter of the family the show revolves around. The guy? A guy's she dating while mooning over an older man. Translation, a little nothing. How does a song about a man whining underscore whatever Laura's supposed to be going through? It doesn't. And it never would.



It's just a wasted scene. Wasted in the writing. Wasted in the song choice and wasted on the viewer.



Laura's mother is supposedly one of the stars (but Mike Kelley is rarely interested in adults -- see his O.C. work). She's played by Molly Parker. Susan Miller isn't a role on the page and it's not really a character on screen but Parker tries to invest it with something.



It's not easy when saddled with scenes where Laura tells Mother Molly not to worry about her just because she's now the same age Molly was when she got "knocked up" with Laura.



Knocked up?



In 1987's Overboard, one of Goldie Hawn's "sons" (see the movie) will holler at another, walking off with a girl, not to get her "knocked up." Goldie will not only admonish him for yelling that, she'll visibly recoil. That's because, last summer's dull and overrated flick not withstanding, women don't generally use the term "knocked up" unless they're insulting someone. So, for example, Laura might taunt a bitter rival with "knocked up" (e.g.: "Sure you got him, but you had to get knocked up to do it!") but she's not going to use it with her mother unless they're having an all out argument. She's especially not going to use the term since she was the pregnancy in question.



In casual conversation, it's not really a term that women (or girls) use. Certainly not in the White world of suburbia circa the 1970s. But if you dwell on that misuse, you're utilizing more thought than went into the show.



One good and momentary thought was to cast Grant Show as 'swinger' Tom Decker. The Millers move out of a humble home into a more upscale lake property and the Deckers are their next door neighbors. Tom and Trina Decker (Lana Pamilla) have an open marriage and it's really important that Tom be seen as sexy. So, for a moment, casting Grant Show was a smart move. A moment was about all the time that went into figuring out the men's hairstyles.



Underneath that hideous hair job is a sexy man. But who can get underneath it? We mentioned Lindsey Buckingham earlier. He was considered sexy in his pre-Eraser Head days of the 1980s. His hair wasn't a stringy mange back then. Nor were any of the Eagles saddled with bad hair. But all the males of Swingtown have been given really bad hair. It's generally at least chin length, one layer and matted and/or stringy. No, that is not how sexy men (or even Docker Dads in Suburbia) wore their hair in 1976. It is how some 'swingers' wore their hair from 1968 through 1972. (Although they usually did something with it, generally "the dry look.") By 1976, "key parties" and "open marriages" really weren't a mini-rage in the country either. The Ice Storm was set in 1973 and even that was a little too late for the terrain it was covering.



About the only chronological thing they come close to getting right is putting a Dorothy Hamill do on a female character. Sadly, the woman sporting it is no actress. It's Lana Parrilla who helped sink NBC's summer offering in June 2006 and, sadly, she's actually gotten worse. She's not playing the sad sack in this show, she's supposedly sexually provocative. So Parrilla does her same sad sack routine but also pops her eyes constantly as if that's going to turn anyone on.



The only reason to watch the show is to see Miriam Schor. Her role is a stereotype (and no, her character will not 'develop' over the summer -- even if the show survives). Janet Thompson is her character's name. She's a mother, wife of Rick Thompson, best friend of Susan Miller and the neighbor they leave behind when they make like a White version of The Jeffersons.



She's described as needy and clingy and she's supposed to be a bit of a prude. The latter is underscored when she enters a room at a party, finds Show's character in the midst of an orgy with countless women, refuses to kick off her shoes and leaves the party. We're not up on the proper etiquette for walking in on an ugly people's orgy, but unlike the sexist scripts, we won't blame Thompson for her reaction. It's the only drama in the entire hour.



Schor holds your attention in her supporting role. You don't care for Janet Thompson and you may not even care for the actress. She's playing the role 'straight' but it really seems like one of Molly Shannon's SNL character. We won't call it a bad acting choice because, when there's nothing on the page, you do what you can. And not only do your eyes automatically go to Schor in every scene she's in, you miss the tension she provides in all the dull scenes without her.



Molly Parker's supposed to be the lead but, other than the fawning camera work and careful lighting, you really can't tell. There's no character there. We're not even sure if there's an actress there. Laura Miller is endlessly . . . not in shock. Shock would be an emotion and there's never an emotion. It's more like a "Did that just happen?" doubt. Were we stuck with the role, we'd have plenty of doubts too.



Mainly, we'd wonder who in the world thought Jack Davenport could make it as a leading man? He's cast as Laura's husband Bruce. He's playing the same prig he did in Coupling but there's no laughtrack and, presumably, that's because this hour long show is supposed to be a drama.



When Janet storms out of the orgy, she does so after Laura and Bruce refuse to leave. Her husband Tom (played by Nick Benson in the only performance that can be called acting -- in the only performance that can be called a performance) will look sheepishly at Laura and Bruce. Parker will do another "Did that just happen?" look and we will next see Laura and Bruce the morning after, in their own bedroom, as they've just finished having sex. They will be wiped out and viewers are supposed to wonder, "Okay, they just had sex. But did they just have sex after a night at the orgy? Or is this great sex they supposedly had just the result of titillation at the party getting them all hot and bothered?"



Who knows and who cares. Bruce is running off to the shower. Laura will laugh and give her "Did that just happen?" look to the camera.



We assume the audience gives a "Did that just happen?" look as well. Mainly after they check the clocks and see they just lost an hour of their lives they're never getting back. At some point, CBS suits will be asking themselves, "Did that just happen?" when they watch the ratings sink week after week. What they should be asking is, "How did that happen?"



No question, CBS needs to shake their bran and Depends image. But we're not seeing how a show set in the mid-seventies does that? We're also not grasping how the sort of "swingers" that Steve Martin and Dan Ackroyd once sent up to huge laughs on Saturday Night Live are suddenly considered to be worthy of a weekly, hour long drama.



The show's too trashy to be 'high brow,' so the only thing that's going to fix it is to throw out the concept and turn it into pure soap. For that to work, you have to bring a Donna Mills or a Heather Locklear into the cast. Neither woman could be considered a "star" before they saved TV programs (Mills saved Knots Landing; Locklear helped save Dynasty and saved Melrose Place), but they were already "known." However, "known" works both ways and Swingtown's already being ridiculed so badly we're having a hard time thinking of any "known" actress who would be willing to sign up. Something's just can't be saved. We have a feeling that before summer's end, that's a point CBS will grasp.