How it started and who started it

[This article is written by Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Mike, Wally, Cedric, Ruth, Rebecca, Elaine, Marcia and Kat.]



Last week, a woman launched a prolonged attack on Dona, Jess, Jim, Mike, Rebecca and C.I.

Mike, Rebecca and C.I. had not had any contact with her Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, through Thursday evening. (C.I. had never had contact with the woman. In 2007, Mike had replied nicely to one of her frantic fan mails and ignored the rest as she turned complete whack-job. In 2007, Rebecca and she had exchanged angry e-mails.) But every day she attacked all of us at her blog, sometimes in a new post, sometimes in new comments she left to her own post.



The backstory is that she e-mailed both Mike and Rebecca in 2007. With both of them she started off cordial or so it seemed. Rebecca sensed right away what was going on and was very clear in her replies (there were several) that she wasn't in the mood for Gutter Trash's crap. Mike caught on after he made the mistake of replying originally. He wrote a kind e-mail. He received multiple replies which he wasn't aware of because they'd gone into his "spam" folder and not his "inbox." "Nutcase," was his dismissal of her and he never replied to her other than his original e-mail.



For anyone who doesn't know this (readers of this site know it), we do share which nutcases e-mail. When C.I. found out about the run-ins, Gutter Trash was no longer linked to at any community site (only C.I. had ever linked to her) and that was the end of it.



On our end.



Monday Jess, pulling e-mail account duty at The Common Ills, found an e-mail from Gutter Trash and she wanted to play the 'nice' game. She represented herself as part of "organization" and wanted to say "thank you" to C.I. for C.I. doing her part to get the word out on war resisters but, oh, by the way, you're wrong about Robin Long being extradited.



C.I. is not wrong about that. Judge Anne Mactavish initiated an extradition and called it a "deportation" because to call it what it was would kick it up for review (she neither has the power to extradite, nor does she have any laws or treaties backing her extradition up). It was an illegal extradition and legal scholars have weighed in publicly calling it that and the international press has reported it as such.



But Gutter Trash knows everything. Or think she does.



Jess wrote her back only because she was part of the 'organization.' He explained to her that we don't have time for her e-mails unless they are about an event or news to highlight, so don't write for any other reasons.



That was apparently difficult for her to understand because she wrote repeatedly. Dona saw them the next day. She read through all that garbage. In her final e-mail, Gutter Trash's meds appeared to kick-in and she was on even keel. Thinking she could make the point better by explaining slowly, Dona e-mailed her back.



Had Dona known (no one did) that Gutter Trash had already posted Jess' e-mail online (without his permission), Dona wouldn't have written back. Gutter Trash was spoiling for a fight and the mistake made on the part of Jess, Dona and Jim was in not ignoring her in the first place. Had she not been a representative of the 'organization,' they never would have replied her to begin with.



Dona's post goes up and includes a single sentence that mentioned C.I.'s recent week of exams. That comes into play shortly.



Gutter Trash still hasn't gone away despite being asked not to e-mail unless it was news of or event of the 'organization' she represents. Jim had e-mail duty at the public account of The Common Ills next. He was already fed up with Gutter Trash and, being Jim, didn't have much to say to her to begin with. He wrote her a short e-mail that repeated the main point of when it was acceptable to write.



She posted Jim's e-mail.



During all of this, Gutter Trash was actively trashing Jim, Dona and Jess. She broke the law posting their e-mails but that wasn't enough for her. Early on, a commentator who either never came back to her site (she was the first to post when Gutter Trash published the first e-mail) said she didn't think it was appropriate to be posting an e-mail without the sender's permission. She either stopped visiting Gutter Trash's posts trashing everyone or else Gutter Trash stopped allowing her comments to be published. We have no idea which.



Because, Jim, Jess and Dona had mentioned they knew what Gutter Trash had pulled with Rebecca and Mike, Gutter Trash decided to produce an e-mail to Rebecca and two to Mike. That's her right, she wrote those e-mails. She wasn't being honest (Rebecca and she had a lengthy e-mail exchange) but posting her e-mails to them didn't break any laws.



However, Gutter Trash also decided to post Mike's e-mail responding to her. (Mike says today that had he seen all of her e-mails that ended up in the "spam" folder as they came in, he would have written another reply and it would have given her something to whine about.) Mike's not said anything rude in that e-mail and Gutter Trash was delighted with it.



Her argument for posting Jess' e-mail (and later Dona and Jim's) without their permission (and breaking the law) was that they were 'mean' to her. There is no such excuse when it comes to Mike. And, strangely, at that point she didn't even feel the need to offer excuses for breaking the law and ethical behavior.



And her sock puppet squadron (a very dumb crowd) never thought to ask, "Gutter Trash, did you ask Mike for his permission?"



As Mike has pointed out, she felt so 'powerful' in getting away with her first lie, she started forgetting them as she rushed to her next lie.



Thursday, Ty received a phone call from C.I.'s oldest son.



Gutter Trash's week long trashing paid off. She finally got some attention. A man stumbled across it and called C.I. son to ask if the cancer was back? The son had been trying to call around (Ava, Kat, Rebecca, Wally and C.I. were speaking about Iraq and have their ringers turned all the way down during speaking engagements) to find out. He called Ty, who called (and texted) an emergency call to ask C.I. to call immediately.



To be clear, the cancer was back. The bulk of us didn't know that. C.I. told Elaine and Ava and told Ava that, if she needed to tell someone, she could tell Jess but swear him to privacy. C.I. had Dona (who didn't know anything was wrong) cancel all of September and October's speaking events. Dona did and we all assumed that C.I. was just sick of being on the road (C.I. had stated it was time for a break). That's not surprising since the schedule since August 2006 has seen them on the road every week except for one week in July 2007 and one week in July 2008 (both weeks, they spoke locally). Kat has been saying for months (to us and her site) she needs a break. So in that context, it didn't strike us as odd that the calendar would be cleared.



This was Parents Weekend at C.I.'s. C.I. had long floated that we needed to do that. While Dona was clearing the calendar, C.I. made plans for that. Jess, Ava, Dona, Jim, Ty and Wally live at C.I.'s. Their parents were invited (Wally's father is deceased -- it was his mother and his grandfather -- and Ty was raised by his grandparents who were invited and did show up). Except for Wally and Ava, everyone's visitors came in on Friday because Ava and Wally were on the road and would be returning Saturday with Kat and C.I. Everyone would leave Sunday afternoon. C.I. had invited her three kids to take part and has asked that they stay through Monday (leaving on Tuesday). She had explained that to them as the family day being planned. Sunday afternoon, after people's relatives left, C.I. was to break the news to her children and Ava would break the news to Jim, Dona and Ty (Jess already knew).



That had been the plan.



That all changed due to Gutter Trash's attacks.



Already one person had called C.I.'s oldest son. C.I. had to break the news over the phone to him. C.I. then had to do the same with her daughter and youngest son to avoid them learning elsewhere.



Rebecca got on the laptop somewhere in there ("I was in shock, I have no idea when it was, late Thursday afternoon or evening, we were in the Mountain Time Zone"), went in search of Gutter Trash's site, found it, logged into Blogger/Blogspot and attempted to leave a comment.



"I said that C.I. has cancer and the post needs to come down right away. I said that the woman wasn't telling the truth about her interation with me and that there were many replies from me to her and from her to me in 2007 that she wasn't honest about," Rebecca remembers.



By signing in via Blogger/Blogspot, Rebecca's comment would be linked to with her name. There would be no confusion as to who left it unless someone had stolen or figured out Rebecca's pass word. The comment never made it up. That's important in terms of Gutter Trash's sock puppet crowd. It's also important in a later detail.



C.I. e-mails Gutter Trash to tell her to pull it. C.I. contacts the 'organization' expressing dismay and asking if the woman is indeed part of their 'organization.' (Dona had already written them telling them that it needed to come down. C.I. had no idea.) The head of the organization e-mailed Dona and C.I. (though he thought he was e-mailing one person -- reading is fundamental) in a lackadaisical manner where he praised Gutter Trash and said he'd pass the concerns on to her.



C.I. was legally advised Friday to e-mail the 'organization' again and state that it needed to come down. C.I. sent that e-mail and received no response (to this day).



Thursday, C.I. dictated the snapshot and went through with the other speaking engagements scheduled. The snapshot went up the latest it ever has. It was dictated and it was held.



It alludes to what happened and though many in the community knew (Shirley went into overdrive getting the news out after Ty gave his okay), not everyone did. Kat and Rebecca broke the news to Betty over the phone. C.I. was going to have Elaine break the news to Mike. (Mike doesn't handle illness well. He's blogged about that many times and, last month, blogged about how difficult it was to move out of his parents' home and shared about how it reminded him of when his dog died senior year of high school). C.I. called Mike's father and mother to see if Mike had said anything to them yet. He hadn't called them and C.I. knew they'd be the first he'd called after Elaine. So C.I. asked Wally to call Mike (who was at Elaine's office; Elaine was doing her Thursday night group session with Iraq War vets) and to keep him on the phone, make up a problem, anything to keep him on the phone and off the computer. As soon as Mike indicated that Elaine was done (Wally was to say he really wanted Elaine's take on it -- for those interested, Wally invented a story that his ex-girlfriend was pregnant with his child) and was putting her on the phone, the snapshot could go up. (And did.) Wally explained to Elaine briefly what had happened, that she needed to tell Mike and please call C.I. in a few hours.



[Others? Trina drove to Ruth's to tell her in person. Ava broke the news to Cedric over the phone. Ruth and Trina drove to Marcia's to tell her in person. Ty learned of it from C.I. when C.I. returned Ty's call. C.I.'s response to the rumor was such that Ty knew it was true. C.I. confirmed it and asked Ty to figure out how to let the community members know and that she thought Jess already knew so check with him and then inform Dona and Jim together. Kat and Rebecca learned it as C.I. was on the phone because they were standing right next to her. Ty and Shirley made every effort possible to contact as many members as possible.]



Gifting the woman with "Gutter Trash" as a name, C.I. wrote about it late Thursday night.



Since that time, many e-mails have come in expressing disbelief and anger at the stunt Gutter Trash pulled. That's visitors and community members. Two never heard from outsiders have written to ask 'Can't we all just get along.'




It's a funny concern and one never posted to Gutter Trash's site.



No concerns posted at Gutter Trash's site. She's the representative for the 'organization' and she's got all that crap at her site and no one ever explained to her, "Hey Gutter Trash, when Audrey Hepburn was a UNICEF ambassador, I don't think she would have done this. I'd think she'd worry about how this would reflect on herself and the UN."

'Concern' only came when C.I. responded about the harm caused to her kids by this garbage.


Gutter Trash wrote late Thursday and Ava saw it and pointed out that C.I. was correct. Shortly after C.I.'s Thursday night entry posted, Gutter Trash and/or boyfriend and/or sock puppet showed up with an e-mail. How was C.I. correct? C.I. had said Gutter Trash was a drama queen and would come up with some way to make it all about Gutter Trash which is exactly what Gutter Trash did shortly after C.I. finally responded.



If you read C.I.'s entries on the topic, you're aware that C.I.'s kids were the focus. The harm done to them. The horror that they had to find out over the phone.



C.I. had planned this all out and it was her news to break. She was going to do so in person. Days before she could, Gutter Trash made that impossible.



But she/he/it did manage to write and make it all about her. Expressing no remorse for what she'd done, admitting no guilt over her own actions, Gutter Trash offered that there was this troll out there, this evil twin posing as her.



Gutter Trash doesn't like it that this is being discussed. Tough s**t. She started it and Jim, Dona and Jess will reply next week. This group piece was too hard to write. Finally, Ava and C.I. excused themselves from it (to work on the TV commentary) and Dona polled everyone on what they felt needed to be said right now.



Betty's always been the most gifted with reaching readers with her no-nonsense, from the Deep South, let it all hang out so we quickly jotted down her comments which seemed to sum up the main posts being made by all.



Betty: I guess I would first say, "Kiss my Black ass, Gutter Trash." I would then scream at her, "Do you know suffer any guilt for what you did?" I would ask her where she thought she could get away with breaking the law? I would tell her that no mother 'needs' to tell their kids they have cancer. But when they have to, they shouldn't be forced to because of something that is online. I have three kids myself. After Rebecca and Kat's call, I just got my kids to sit on the couch with me. I told him I got some bad news I didn't want to talk about but just sit with Mommy for awhile. Does that insane woman have no idea what it's like to be a parent? Does she have no idea what it's like to be a child? I would ask if her if she was happy with being so disgusting and filthy? I would point out that even after learning what had happened due to her actions, she was still tearing apart C.I. online. I would tell her there's no justification for what she did, that it was illegal and that she has the morals of an alley cat for keeping those posts up there and for continuing to write new ones. The woman that wrote pleading to all get along is an idiot and sounds that way in her e-mail. As for the one who showed up pretending he just learned about it, in the church I was raised in, we call that "lying." He pulled that in my community, we'd be planning a "Come to Jesus" moment for him right about now. We'd be telling him to get honest about his actions and point out that if you walk in on a trashing and don't call it out, you're at fault. If you walk in on a trashing and add anything to it that is not "Stop it!" then you have participated. It's very Judas like and I'm guessing that a man who can't take accountablity for his actions in a trashing really doesn't know the story of Judas. What kind of people are these? And what kind of an 'organization' is that? These people are disgusting freaks. They are trying to win public support for an issue and they're caught online publishing private e-mails and having ha-has about a woman with cancer. They're freaks. They live in their own little amoral world. And apparently without any adult supervision. That's my real question, is there no damn adult in that country? There's certainly no adult in the 'organization,' but is there no damn adult in that country that can step in and say, "You went too far. You went way too far."



They are an amoral bunch.

In one of the most laughable remarks posted online about this is the claim that C.I. has troubled the 'organization' with this.

That's a completely rewriting of history. C.I. had no contact with the woman until she had launched four days of public trashing of C.I. All C.I. did was respond to what was taking place. And the response wouldn't have even gone up to begin with if the woman had done what she was requested. Seven hours before C.I. responded online, seven hours after learning that for four days in a row, that woman had been attacking.

And they want to talk about the trouble they think C.I. caused?

C.I. has not responded to this personally. C.I. has never written, "I'm going to tell you how this makes me feel." C.I. has consistently focused on her children and the damage this has done to them.

The claim that C.I. 'started' anything is insane.

Gutter Trash has revealed her malice. Jim, Dona and Jess already knew how she was. That's why they repeatedly told her, no news or event, don't e-mail us again.

Most people who receive an e-mail they don't like, move on with their lives.

It was never about her not liking an e-mail. It was about her wanting to start a fight. It was about her wanting to get attention.

She started it and continued it for days (and has continued it since). Don't try to pin this on C.I.

Next week, if nothing's done, Jim, Dona and Jess respond. If more garbage continues, you will read about it on community sites.



C.I.'s kids want Gutter Trash exposed and much more. We were all in holding position until knowing where they stood. And while C.I. may play high minded, the rest of us will not.



If you think this is 'bothersome' now, you haven't seen anything yet.



Jim, Dona, Jess and C.I. have been trashed all last week at Gutter Trash's site. It wasn't just posting those e-mails, it was non-stop trashing.

If someone's concerned about the 'organization,' they should have the sense to realize Gutter Trash's actions weren't helping the 'organization' on Monday, or on Tuesday, or on Wednesday or on Thursday. C.I. has yet to name the woman or the 'organization.' Gutter Trash didn't invent names for us. She named us, she named our sites. She ridiculed us, trashed us and slimed us. And did all of that while it reads on her site that Gutter Trash is a part of that 'organization.' Her actions should have worried you.

Don't drop the problem Gutter Trash created in our laps. Like Bully Boy, she decided to launch her own little war. We have every right to defend ourselves and we will. Again, Dona, Jim and Jess are waiting until next Sunday to respond. (At C.I.'s request.) When they air their responses, they won't be as kind as C.I. They won't say "Gutter Trash," they'll name her. They won't say, "The 'organization'," they'll name it. The three of them were trashed all last week. Gutter Trash started that. Not them.

A rare moment when John Edwards told the truth

First of all, let me be absolutely clear about this. I think I said it a few minutes ago. Nobody on this stage is pure, and that absolutely includes me.



-- Democratic Presidential debate, October 30, 2007, Philadelphia.

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.

"The sock puppet master calls" -- Betty was able to create a chapter when she didn't think she could. Due to crap pulled on this community (this community didn't start it), it was not a 'fun' weekend. Betty found a way to work through it with a chapter that's a readers' favorite and one of our own.

"What Elaine said" -- Trina echoed Elaine and, judging by the report on e-mails from Ty, a lot of you are echoing Elaine as well.

"I don't support the War Resisters Support Campaign..." -- Elaine's post. Mike giving the backstory here, Elaine spent forever transcribing the interviews. She originally planned to do a series of summary paragraphs based on her interviews on background but she didn't have the time. It's a powerful post and we love it too.


"Laura Kaminker: Her own little fan club" -- Marcia offers much needed media criticism.

"Denver and bust" & "THIS JUST IN! THE DENVER SUICIDE PACT!" -- Cedric and Wally call the travesty in Denver.

"Taxi ride" -- Kat's very well written post.

"Gutter Trash Is a Damn Liar" -- Mike responding to a year-old e-mail being posted last week without his permission and the claim that the e-mails posted represented the full exchange. All Mike sent was one e-mail. Gutter Trash e-mailed him non-stop and he didn't know until he saw them in "Spam." He ignored them. But they were sent and Gutter Trash is a Damn Letter.

"chatty e-mail" -- Rebecca's post which proves Gutter Trash is a damn liar. This went up Monday. "Ned-ette" is Gutter Trash. Back when Gutter Trash was (unknown to us) playing dumb on who Rebecca and Mike were, Rebecca was reminding her readers of the creep who wrote her. Rebecca points out that her readers know all about Gutter Trash from 2007 when the idiot wouldn't stop e-mailing her and Rebecca would blog about the psycho (without naming Gutter Trash or posting Gutter Trash's e-mails). Her readers have e-mailed her non-stop all weekend with various posts from 2007 where Rebecca was addressing one e-mail after another from Gutter Trash.

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Change You Can Believe In" -- Went up last Sunday and documents the Dem ticket. Very funny.

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Softer Side of Narcissism" -- Went up Tuesday morning. Isaiah did not intend to take the weekend off. He's so upset by the news about C.I. and so sickened by Gutter Trash's actions, he can't think right now. But he asked us to inform that whenever he can calm down, Gutter Trash will most likely be his next comic.

"Eleanor's Smear" -- One of the three most requested pieces. (See note at end.) It's a masterpiece. C.I. wrote it.

"Naomi Wolf," "Kate Michelman," "Rachel Maddow," "Laura Flanders" and "ellie smeal, katha pollitt and red betty " -- Ruth, Kat, Marcia, Mike, Elaine and Rebecca doing Wednesday's theme posts.


Note that if there was something C.I. or Ava wrote last weekend beginning Thursday evening you wanted highlighted, we weren't ignoring you. Ava and C.I. asked that those things not be highlighted.

Truest statement of the Week

And I decided in around November of 2005, that, you know, this is just -- this is just ridiculous. I -- I -- I cannot morally, I cannot do what they are asking me to do. If I were to deploy to Iraq I would basically -- I felt like I would be a liability because there's no way I could shoot somebody who was simply trying to defend their own home from a foreign invader. They did all this mock training exercises in which we were in full battle gear and we were raiding mock houses -- mock houses with, you know, actors yelling out Arabic and that sort of thing. I had like my rifles and everything. And during the exercise, I shot two unarmed civilians with the blanks of my rifle and I -- and no one said anything to me about it. I don't know if anyone even saw me. But I realized at that time, you know, that if this was Iraq, those people would be dead. All they were doing was trying to defend their home. So I almost just threw away my rifle and just ran right there but, you know, I sort of needed a plan so I decided that I'd wait a few days. And on November 23, 2005, the date my original contract was set to expire, that's when I went AWOL.



US war resister Tim Richard speaking to Courage to Resist about his decision to self-checkout after being stop-lossed through 2031.

Truest statement of the week

One of the dumbest things I've seen was a panel with that chick from the Nation, Kristen van Whatever, at Emily’s List. It was the day that Dean finally -- FINALLY -- said something about the sexist media coverage, after Hillary had conceded of course and when she referenced it as if this was some great thing, Dean's name got booed. She seemed surprised by it and asked if it was about Florida and Michigan. It clearly was not. Finally, someone explained to her that it was because Dean had sat silent until the primary was over and then acted like he suddenly discovered the sexism. To her credit, Salon's Rebecca Traister knew exactly why women were angry with Dean and the party and said that one of the things that needed to be discussed was how not all of the misogyny came from the media and the right and why it was only after Hillary conceded that the sexism could be discussed at all.



BDBlue noting Katrina vanden Heuvel in "A New Agenda" (Corrente Wire)

A note to our readers

Hey --
8:00 a.m. our time? For us this is finishing an edition early!

First, let's note who helped:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, and Ava,
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 Dallas who locates links, offers advice and does more than we can ever thank him for. (I am tired -- "I" is Jim -- I pulled a C.I. and typed "thank for him" -- we need to wrap this note up quickly.)

Let's move to what we have.

Truest statement of the Week -- Tim Richard is an Iraq War Resister in Canada. Check out the interview Courage to Resist did with him.

Truest statement of the week -- We do so love noting all the 'raves' Katrina vanden Heuvel gets. We should print them all up and paste them in a scrapbook.

Editorial: Support War Resisters -- This wasn't the planned editorial. This isn't the planned edition. What happened was Dona pointed out at 5:30 this morning that we were running out of time. When that happened, this article became the editorial. It may or may not work as such (we're too tired to know) but being dubbed the 'editorial' does allow Robin's story to be the first article to show up.

TV: Cyborgs or gasbags, which is worse? -- Ava and C.I. wrote this and when they came back with it, we were already on fumes with several floating the idea that we bail. That's because two different features we had worked on tanked completely. (So, of course, we put them in our print edition.) I asked Ava and C.I. how good this was? I knew they were tired and didn't want to go straight to reading this out loud if it wasn't great. Their call was "It sucks" which is how I knew it would be incredible. (They are always the worst judges of their own work.) Reading this out loud rallied everyone's spirit and gave us a good four hours of motivation. Knowing how hard they'd worked (covering all the issues we didn't think we could get to elsewhere) in the past weeks, I made no last minute requests that they include a topic or two (or "Four!" Ava yells). And I had no idea what they were going to write about. As I started reading it out loud, I thought it was going to be one thing and then they flip it. And then they flip it again. The last sentence, by the way, is a modification of Linda Hamilton's last line in the voice over at the end of Terminator 2: Judgment Day.

Denver Super Rally: Putting the issues on the table -- As we were trashing various ideas for features because time was gone, we were looking for a short feature. I'd seen (but not read) the latest Spin and knew Patti Smith was interviewed in it. I suggested it thinking we could maybe have something from that. In line with Dona ("short features!"), Ava and C.I. agreed thinking it might contain a "truest" or maybe we could just plug a documentary. I was reading this out loud (so those participating by phone could hear) and at first thought Ava and C.I. were laughing at me. Then we all realized they were laughing about Patti. When I got to her comments on the 2008 election . . . It wasn't pretty. As that went on, Ty and Jess pointed out that we had to do a Ralph article of some kind. (We'd forgotten to include it on our list.) Dona had been recording the whole thing because everyone was too tired to take notes. She suggested we make it a Ralph thing and open with Patti's ridiculous statements and then go to the response Ava and C.I. offered. They agreed if the 1978 quotes by Patti that they referenced could be pulled. Longterm Patti watchers will know what the quotes were about. Others can research on their own.

Stephanie Tubbs Jones (1949 - 2008) -- It was 8:00 p.m. here Saturday when Jess decided to help out by downloading a photo from Stephanie Tubbs Jones' Congressional website. Problem was, it's gone. The whole website. You're redirected to a new website. Ava and C.I. got on the phone to friends to find out exactly what was going on. Nancy Pelosi was going on. C.I. wants it noted that while Amy Goodman couldn't mention Stephanie Tubbs Jones' support for Hillary, Aileen Alfandary did on KPFA Thursday morning.

vanden Heuvel doesn't do corrections -- Katrina, Katrina, have you no shame? Katrina gets caught out being wrong at least twice in one article and she can't offer a legitimate "clarification," let alone a "correction." Pay attention to what amounts to research for The Peace Resister.

Barack's Running Bud -- We were somewhat limited in what we could say here. We could have addressed it in a roundtable. When Dona noted how late it was (at five this morning), we crossed off doing a roundtable. Maybe next weekend.

Barack, the little s**t -- We had to cross off a lot of things that would take more time than we had. While we were writing the Tubbs Jones article, Dallas was asked to see if Barack issued any statement on the passing? It's there somewhere on the site but he found a release of Barack speaking about the Family Medical Leave Act that he wanted to tell us about. Dona and Betty compete each week to see who can quote the soap opera producer in Tootsie first: "It's okay. The girls saved it." They usually say that over Ava and C.I. And Betty was the first out of the gate with it this week. How did Ava and C.I. save it? This wasn't even a planned feature. Ava and C.I. explained to us who signed the act into law (a detail not in Barack's press release) and how Poppy Bush had refused to sign it. C.I. dispatched Jess to the bookcases with instructions on what books to pull while we quickly started this piece. Jess returned with the books just as we were finishing it. It went faster than anything else this edition. And it was completely unplanned ahead of time.

Highlights -- Mike, Elaine, Betty, Kat, Cedric, Rebecca, Ruth, Marcia and Wally wrote this and picked all highlights unless noted otherwise. We thank them for this.

And that's what we have. We'll see you next week.

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

Editorial: Support War Resisters

Friday US war resister Robin Long was court-martialed in Colorado. Karen Linne, Fort Carson Public Affairs Office, explained Friday afternoon that he was sentenced to 15 months behind bars, reduced in rank (to E1) and given a dishonorable discharge. Robin was held at the Criminal Justice Center in El Paso Country while awaiting the court-martial and he will receive credit for the time he has served ("about 40 days").



Robin enlisted in July 2003 and was told he wouldn't be going to Iraq. His US civilian attorney for the court-martial, James Branum, explained that and explained the basics of contracts (at JMBZINE.com):



First, Robin was promised by his recruiter that he would never see combat in Iraq. Robin was a fool for believing his recruiter, but I would say that it is understandable that he would believe his recruiter and understand that his recruiter is an agent of the US military and is tellilng the truth. And in basic contract law (outside of the military context), such statements could very well be interpreted as part of the contract itself, even if those statements aren't in writing.
Second, a basic tenant of contract law is that a contract isn't binding if it forces a party to engage in an immoral, unethical or illegal action. I would argue (as would Robin and millions of other people) that the Iraq war is all three of those things, and as such an enlistment contract should be invalid if it purports to force a party to participate in such a war. (of course, the enlistment "contract" isn't really a "contract," but that's another discussion. It would be fairer to say that it is an agreement to voluntarily become a slave of the state.)
Third, Robin Long left his unit and went to Canada in large part due to his conscience. Throughout history, we as a people (and I'm speaking of all North Americans and really all people of the world), have respected the idea that sometimes one must break the law if it conflicts with conscience. Dr. King, Gandhi, Thoreau, Jesus Christ, they all lived out this ideal. Contemporaries of the civilly disobedient often attack the character of those who refuse to submit to unjust laws, but the history books paint a different story.



In March 2005, Robin was informed he would deploy to Iraq and ordered to report to Fort Carlson in April of 2005. Instead, he self-checked out. Long remained underground for two months and went to Canada only for a wedding (June, 2005). He made that decision, as he told the CBC in October 2007:



Because I feel the war in Iraq is an illegal war of aggression and its an indiscriminate killing of the Arab people and I believe it's all for lies and the wrong reasons so I couldn't with good conscience take part in that conflict. . . . When I joined the army, I thought the war in Iraq was a good thing. I was lied to by my president. I -- The reasons that were given, I thought were valid but just because I joined the army didn't mean I abdicated my ability to evolve intellectually and morally and what I saw in the independent media and even in mainstream media changed my view of what was going on over there. And based on what I learned, I made a decision to desert.



He was speaking to the CBC after being released from jail for the 'crime' of movement. Robin was a new father and a day laborer. He did not move, he traveled to where the work was while keeping his residence. In Nelson (we'll get to that), he was busted for 'movement.' He'd changed residences! And not told the authorities! He hadn't changed residence.



But that set it all that followed in motion as the Stephen Harper government began insisting upon a "a pre-removal risk assestment." At the time, Courage to Resist made it clear: "He still faces a pre-removal risk assessment which could lead to deportation at a later time so the fight is not over yet." He told the CBC, "It feels good to be out. The fresh air feels really good. . . . When I got arrested and was sitting in the detention cell in Nelson, I was pretty sure I was going home right away. I was pretty sure I would be deported. The way that the immigration officer made it sound, I would be deported Friday. That's not quite what happened and I'm very thankful for that."



He wasn't deported while in jail in October 2007 because organizations such as the War Resisters Support Campaign and the Canadian Peace Alliance, the New Democratic Party of Canada political party (click here for release in English, here for release in French) and individuals worked very hard and worked very quickly, raising awareness, getting the word out and ensuring that whatever happened would not happen in silence or shielded from the public.



That was October and Robin stated he was hopefully that the following month, when the Supreme Court of Canada decided whether or not to hear the cases of U.S. war resisters Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey, there would be good news for all the war resisters in Canada.



Nelson? Rod Mickleburgh (Globe and Mail) was left to point out, "His detention on Monday follows the bizarre apprehension earlier this year of Kyle Snyder, another war resister staying in Nelson, who was taken off to jail in the middle of a winter's night, wearing just a toque, a robe and his boxers. Nelson police have refused to say on whose request they detained Mr. Snyder, or why they knocked on his door at 4 a.m. They released him three hours later, after learning that he was legally in Canada as a visitor."



Kyle Snyder's arrest came on the orders of the US and -- though Nelson police seem to have trouble grasping this -- the US cannot order around the police of Canada. After Snyder was arrested, the department and its head, Dan Maluta, repeatedly altered their story on what happened and happened. The whole thing was a lot like the visit to Winnie Ng's home and the ever-changing story on that by Canadian authorities. Following the publication of Joshua Key's The Deserter's Tale, the US military decided to enter Canada. Accompanied by a Canadian police officer, two members of the US military began searching for Key. The trio went to Winnie Ng's home (she had housed Joshua and Brandi Key along with their children early on when they moved to Canada) and presented themselves -- all three -- as Canadian police as they began questioning her. Ng told her story and was dismissed. She was ridiculed by the police and the US military denied it. But the story didn't go away and finally -- bit by bit -- it was learned that a Canadian police officer did escort two members of the US military around in their search for Key. Everything Winnie Ng said happened, happened. She stuck to her story and her story -- subsquently -- was proven accurate. Which is why the latest sop tossed out by Dan Maluta is greeted with skepticsm and why Manluta was under investigation for his actions in Snyder's arrest. The stories were ignored in the US media even by our trusted 'alternative' voices, only Gregory Levey (Salon) covered these earlier instances.



Robin continued on in Canada. He and his partner Renee had a son. He continued working. And then he was ordered imprisoned. He was judged a 'flight risk.' A flight risk? You're considering deporting someone and you want to imprison to make sure they don't leave the country?



No, it never made sense. Until you grasped that Judge Anne Mactavish's July 14th deportation order was, in fact, an extradition.



Mactavish avoided doing what she did up front because she knew extradition was a different process, she knew that if she ordered extradition (and not deportation), her actions would be reviewed by higher bodies before anything took place. Extradition is a legal process which requires many steps. By pretending she was merely overseeing a deporation, Mactavish skipped those steps. If Robin was being deported, he would be taken to the border or to a bus depot or airport where he would board something departing Canada. Instead he was extradited. After the ruling was made public, he remained imprisoned, kept from his peers and the press and he was physically taken to the border by Canadian authorities who did not expell him, they released him into the custody of American authorities under the arrangement that had already (and illegally) taken place.





As Susan Bourette (Christian Science Monitor) observed, "In a country that provided refuge to an estimated 90 percent of some 100,000 deserters and draft dodgers who went into exile during the Vietnam War, it's an unprecedented decision -- though perhaps not unexpected, given the political temper of the times in Canada."



That temper would be coming from Stephen Harper's side of the government. The Prime Minister and his party do not reflect the mood in the government or the mood in the country. June 3rd, the House of Commons passed a motion calling for safe harbor for war resisters by a vote of 137 for and 110 against. As the New Democratic Party noted in "NDP motion to let war resisters stay passes:"



Iraq War Resisters residing in Canada received overwhelming support from the House of Commons following today’s passage of an NDP motion to let them stay in the country.

NDP Citizenship and Immigration critic, Olivia Chow's (Trinity-Spadina) motion reflected ordinary Canadians' belief that George Bush’s war in Iraq is wrong and that resisters should not be deported to jail. The motion calls on the Harper Conservatives to allow American war resisters who have refused or left military service related to the illegal invasion of Iraq and their immediate family members to stay in Canada and be able to become permanent residents. Furthermore, the motion would force the government to immediately withdraw any removal or deportation orders against War Resisters.

NDP MP Bill Siksay (Burnaby Douglas), moved a similar motion a year ago on May 8, 2007 at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. His motion was rejected by the Conservatives, Liberals and Bloc. Through ongoing campaigns and mobilizations, supporters have finally been able to sway the Liberal and Bloc vote in support of the war resisters.

"Ordinary people want the Iraq war resisters to stay," said Chow. "The Harper Conservatives must respect this and immediately implement this motion."



That was the will of the House of Commons and it reflected the will of the Canadian people who have consistently voiced their support for US war resisters in poll after poll. Despite that vote, despite the people's belief, despite objections from MPs, Robin was extradited. The NDP issued a call to stop the expulsion:


NDP MP Bill Siksay (Burnaby-Douglas) is calling on the Conservative government to stop the deportation of American Iraq war resister Robin Long, scheduled for today.
"Stockwell Day, Diane Finley and Stephen Harper should respect the will of Parliament and the Canadian people and stop this deportation immediately," said Siksay. "The House of Commons has passed a motion supporting a special programme that would allow conscientious objectors who refuse to serve in the war in Iraq to remain in Canada. The government must respect this action by the House and stop deportation action against Robin Long and other Iraq war resisters."
The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration reported to the House of Commons about the need for such a programme, and on a motion moved by MPs Olivia Chow and Siksay, the House concurred in that report.
"The Canadian government and the Canadian people do not support George Bush's illegal war in Iraq. We must have the courage of those convictions and back them up by ensuring that Americans who take a stand against that war receive a welcome in Canada," noted Siksay.
"Robin Long must be allowed to stay," Siksay concluded.



But Robin was extradited.



Friday he was court-martialed. Nick Kyonka (Toronto Star) points out, "The sentence was the longest any convicted army deserter had received since the beginning of the 2003 Iraq war, said retired U.S. Army Col. Ann Wright, a former diplomat who resigned from her post out of protest at the war's outset. Wright testified against the legality of the Iraq war on Long's behalf.Of the thousands of soldiers sentenced for desertion or going AWOL – and the estimated two dozen tried for protesting the war – only former army sergeant Kevin Benderman received an equal sentence in 2005." ABC's KRDO reported:



Long's suporters felt the sentence is too harsh. "He's a young man who is a very good man," said retired Col. Mary Ann Wright, a former Army diplomat. "He's got principles, honor and courage. Four or five months is pretty common among all the ones who have gone AWOL and been public about it."

Sgt. Matthis Chiroux of New York can relate to Long. Chiroux also refused a deployment, but says the Army decided against court-martialing him--partly because he testified about war objections before Congress and had support from some lawmakers. "Robin Long, to me, is a hero. I'm going to be writing him lots of letters."



And they quoted Branum explaining of Robin, "He felt good that he got to speak his mind about why he did what he did. He knows that he did the legally wrong thing, but the morally right thing."





That's right, Robin didn't back down. He didn't show up at his court-martial and say, "I must have been drunk! I was wrong! The Iraq War is a gift from heaven!" He called it out. Courage to Resist adds:



The trial was packed with Long’s supporters, including members from Iraq Veterans Against the War, Veterans for Peace, and the Pikes Peak Justice and Peace Commission. The courtroom was so full that many of his supporters had to wait outside. When Long stepped out of the courtroom, he was met with throngs of people who cheered him on loudly, despite being pushed across the street by military police. Long’s supporters have spent months rallying on his behalf, and Courage to Resist raised funds for his civilian lawyer, James Branum.



Retired Army Col. Ann Wright (and retired US State Dept) tells Courage to Resist that the show of support helped Robin and that "It sets a very chilling precedent that someone who is brought back gets the book thrown at them. I hope the Canadian government recognizes that."



Courage to Resist notes three ways you can help Robin now:



1. Donate to Robin's legal expenses

2. Send Robin letters of support, more

3. Leaflet: Support Robin Long! (PDF)



We're not sure whether they're still promoting the third option but hope they are. Robin's sentence will be shortened by 40 days due to his imprisonment prior to the court-martial. Other war resisters have had their sentences reduced for a variety of reasons that often boiled down to the fact that the public did not forget about them.



Remember too that Jeremy Hinzman has been told he has until September 23rd to leave Canada, after that he will be deported. He has taped a video, available at the War Resisters Support Campaign, where he speaks directly to Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada:




Jeremy Hinzman: Hello, Mr. Harper. This is my family Nga, Liam and Meghan. We've been in Canada for the last four and a 1/2 years. I was a specialist in the 82nd Air borne division of the United States Army and served honorably in Afghanistan. In 2004, my family and I came to Canada because we would not participate in the Iraqi War, a war which Canada also refused to participate in because it was condemned by the international community. One of your predecessors, Pierre Trudeau, once said that Canada should be have from militarism and we took him at this word. On June 3, 2008, the Canadian Parliament passed a motion saying that United States war resisters should be able to remain in Canada. We're asking you to abide by this motion and allow us to stay in Canada. Thank you.


Title Card: On September 23rd, the Harper government plans to deport the Hinzman family back to the United States.


Title Card: Hinzman faces a court martial and up to 5 years in military prison for opposing the Iraq war and coming to Canada.


Title Card: War Resisters Support Campaign (Canada): www.resisters.ca


Courage to Resist alerts, "Supporters are calling on Hon. Diane Finley, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, to intervene. Phone 613.996.4974 or email http://us.mc507.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=finley.d@parl.gc.ca,"Iraq Veterans Against the War also encourages people to take action, "To support Jeremy, call or email Hon. Diane Finley, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and ask her to intervene in this case. Phone: 613.996.4974 email: http://us.mc507.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=finley.d@parl.gc.ca."

TV: Cyborgs or gasbags, which is worse?

To prove how pathetic the year has been and how pathetic so many were, you only have to drop back to the 2008 Winter issue of Ms. magazine, where they elected to reproduce an ad they found objectionable to women. The ad depicted "Cameron" and the same magazine that never found time (in print or online) to call out the repeated sexist attacks on Hillary felt it was their job to defend "Cameron." In the spring 2008 issue of Ms., Simone C. Williams wrote in to object to the ad being included in Ms.' long-running "No Comment" feature.



Williams made solid points so, of course, the current incarnation of Ms. magazine, had to reject it with an "Editors' note" -- the sort that increasingly shows just how useless the magazine has become: "We love Sarah Connor; we just think women, even Terminators, deserve to be shown with arms and legs." If you haven't sussed it out yet, "Cameron" is a character on Fox' Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles. Cameron is, in fact, a terminator.

You read that correctly. Ms. couldn't make any time for a flesh and blood woman under attack (Hillary) but they had all the time in the world to defend the rights of . . . cyborgs.

And if that doesn't tell you how inept are 'leaders' and 'protectors' are, nothing does.



Summer Glau plays Cameron and she's sent back in time to save John (Thomas Dekker) and Sarah Connor (Lena Headey). She does that (initially) by transporting them to the future of 2007. Glau is giving a strong performance and probably has a hell of a lot more to deal with than carping from Ms. that a robot was shown in an ad without "arms and legs." In other words, Glau lives in the real world.



That would be the world where Julianna Margulies starred in Fox' most promising series of 2008, Canterbury's Law, and gave an incredible performance. She did all of that without any of our 'leaders' rushing to support her or the show. But Ms. did make time to go after the only other show on Fox providing strong performances by actresses.



Along with Glau, Headey gives a strong performance which isn't easy for either woman. Both are playing characters that have changed since the first episode. Cameron was capable of blending in during the first episode. She now has been turned into a more robotic character learning human emotions (which really doesn't fit with her having been sent from the future where she presumably observed the adult John Connor at length before he sent her back in time). Headey's playing the role that Linda Hamilton owns.



Hamilton played the determined but inexperienced (in the ways of death and destruction as well as self-protection) in the first Terminator film and made her vivid transformation to a force of fury and strength in Terminatior 2: Judgment Day. It would be great to see that Sarah Connor on weekly television but that's apparently too strong for a woman on TV judging by the currently written character.



In fact, from script to script, the show can't seem to decide what is the right amount of strength and how much vulnerability to heap on. Rather strange since the series is supposed to take place after T2. But there's Sarah on your TV screen acting strong one moment and like a sap at other times. That's not Headey, it's the way the scenes are written. And your first clue should have been that Cameron is seen, by the creator of the show, as a way to 'wean' John off his mother.



The fierceness is largely written out and there are scenes where Sarah comes off more like Lorelai Gilmore than the woman who (in T2) rained bullets down on the home of Miles Dyson, shot him and only decided at the last minute she couldn't kill him.



Despite the (male) creator's uneasiness over how much strength to allow Sarah, Headey makes the character work overall. That "despite" should also include despite the wardrobe which, for a fugitive on the run and short on cash, is both dowdy and over priced. (That's especially noticeable in episode five when someone appears to have thought they were dressing Katharine Hepburn.) The series debuted to high ratings, then dipped much lower, then see-sawed until the final episode which came out with less than half the audience for the debut. A large reason for that, and one that's never commented on at length, is the way Sarah is written.



Brian Austin Green plays Derek Reese and Green does a solid job. That's not the issue. The issue is his lines, his view point is T2's Sarah's viewpoint and it's pretty sad that the show that frets constantly over how strong their female character can be is more than comfortable writing her scenes for Green.



We mentioned Miles Dyson earlier and, for those who haven't seen T2, Dyson was working on Skynet -- the microprocessor that allows the machines to take over in the near future. In the film, Dyson destroys all of his research and dies in an explosion. The series has Sarah living a fugitive life because she's wrongly blamed for Dyson's death. And she, John and Cameron are trying to prevent the development of Skynet and the impending war on humans.



It's too bad they time lept to 2007. Had they gone straight to 2008, they might wonder why bother?



Or, maybe, like us, they'd wonder why TV "characters" like Gwen Ifill can't be chased down onscreen by Terminators? The host of PBS' Washington Weak may, in fact, be a cyborg and, if so, that would certainly explain her war on the truth.



"So, Jackie, we don't engage in Washington Week much on pure speculation," said Gwen lying through her teeth and doing so semi-convincingly. If it weren't for speculation, what would Gwen and the gas bags have to offer?



Bad comedy was the answer on Friday when they hit the road and went to Denver.



As feminists, we'd love to say something supportive about the women; however, we actually watched the show.



Time magazine's Karen Tumulty requires no "maybe." She is obviously a cyborg who has killed off the real Karen and is now impersonating the human she replaced. We previously noted the heavy dramatics Karen attempted on the program in May which included her mugging before a live audience. She offered so much more (and so much worse) this broadcast that you sort of picture her spending her final days at a petting zoo. If anything nice can be said of what The New York Times' Jackie Calmes did with her stand-up bits, it's that the audience laughed at them and applauded her. After the silence that greeted Karen's attempts at laughter, Jackie can score that as a "win" -- if journalism is just her day job while she preps her act for the Laugh Factory.



Dan Balz (Washington Post) and James Barnes (National Journal) stuck to offering facts and opinions and not attempting to reduce the audience to titters. Which may make them 'iffy' for future road shows since spectacle and -- yes, Gwen -- speculation is what the show's become, so why not just laugh?



Doubt it? Note this exchange which takes place long after the John McCain's campaign commercial on Barack Obama and Tony Rezko was shown.



Gwen: By the way Rezko is the guy who was involved in some financial dealing with the Senator that allowed him to get his house.



Jackie: Right.



Gwen: And all cleared and not found guilty.



Jackie: Yeah was on trial and there was no -- the senator was not implicated in that trial.



What?



Antoin "Big Tony" Rezko was "not found guilty"? May 13th the jury found him guilty -- in fact they convicted him on two counts of money laundering, two counts of corrupt solicitation, six counts of wire fraud and six counts of mail fraud. That's "not found guilty"? In what damn world? It was right up there with Gwen's hilarious moment earlier this decade when she attempted to explain the First Amendment and bungled it badly leading her to declare "whatever it says." A 'journalist' who doesn't know what the First Amendment says isn't much of a journalist. So comedy may indeed be the way for Gwen to steer the show.



Jackie spoke at one point of how Barack was "trying to show he can relate to the average person." The show provided a clip of Barack surrounded by presumably "average" people and it went right to the problems the campaign has. There was Barack speaking in an overly loud voice (those present clapping or laughing were distant murmurs over Barack's thundering). Word to Barack, you're not in a classroom. There is a time to be loud and there is a time to turn down the volume. The meet-and-greet was staged to look less formal than the mass adulation rallies he became so notorious for (and revived in Germany this summer). But there was Barack over gesturing and over-volumed. It seemed dangerously close to Howard Dean's 'scream.'



People don't enjoy being yelled at. He had a microphone, there was no reason for the yelling and the volume. The way he spoke sounded arrogant -- as if he could only 'convince' people by yelling. It's amazing that he's on the verge of his convention speech and his staff hasn't yet learned to craft speeches so that he appears to be speaking to people and not speaking down to them. (The convention speech will be played to the camera which will eat up his gestures; however, his handlers would be well advised to work with him on modulation.)



Jackie declared Rezko a dead issue and one had to wonder how someone with such close ties to Barack (offered him his first job, gave $2000 to Barack's first run for political office, helped fuel $250,000 into Barack's campaigns -- according to Barack himself) who is now a convicted felon is a "dead issue"? Barack wouldn't have his mansion without Big Tony. Since the issue "died" (in Jackie's mind), we've learned the mansion deal had more details than Barack let on. Turns out, he took Big Tony on a tour of the property. The Rezkos buying the land (which had been split from the mansion) wasn't just Big Tony having some sort of Jungian synchronistic moment with Barack. Barack wouldn't have his mansion if it weren't for convicted felon Big Tony.



Though in Denver and though making that the prime topic (sole topic?), none of the gas bags took a moment to note that Ralph Nader is staging a Super Rally in Denver this Wednesday. Possibly exploring that would have prevented Gwen's gushing about her love of "pageantry"?



Maybe the war on humans starts with a war on the truth? If so, check the cast of FAIR's CounterSpin for a pulse because their battles with the truth are becoming legendary. Friday's show started out, as always, with a look at "recent news." Recent news? Try recent gas bagging. Not one of their items truly passed the fact check test but let's zoom in on the first one.





Steve Rendall: Conservative pundit Bill Kristol whose spectacularly wrong predictions about the Iraq War didn't keep him from landing a prime slot at The New York Times this year continued his long tradition of error in an August 17th column about about the evangelical Rev. Rick Warren's recent interviews with John McCain and Barack Obama. Kristol wrote that McCain who was interviewed second with exactly the same questions posed to Obama before him stole the show with his "crisp answers and colorful anecdotes." The columnist glibly dismissed the Obama campaign's claim that McCain was not sequestered in a Cone of silence during his opponents interview as he was announced to be citing NBC's Andrea Mitchell who reported that the Obama camp was claiming that McCain may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions to Obama Kristol sneered "That's pretty astonishing since there seems to be no basis for the charge." But there was one little problem. There was evidence right in the Times own news section that day which published an article entitled "Despite assurances, McCain wasn't in a cone of silence."



Stevie then goes off to Tom Tomorrow ("as cartoonist Tom Tomorrow") blah, blah, blah. F-ing blah. With that item, Steve Rendall continues his own long tradition of error or, as he might word it, "glaring sins of omission." (Kinder tongues would say Steve was again flaunting his "idiosyncratic understanding of accuracy.")



The New York Times article was written by Katharine Q. Seelye. McCain never claimed he was in a cone of silence, a fact that Stevie decided wasn't worth mentioning. Leaving it out, leaving out that Warren was the one who told people McCain was in a "cone of silence," played so much better for Stevie, truth be damned. Where was McCain? Seeyle reported:



Members of the McCain campaign staff, who flew here Sunday from California, said Mr. McCain was in his motorcade on the way to the church as Mr. Obama was being interviewed by the Rev. Rick Warren, the author of the best-selling book "The Purpose Driven Life."



McCain was in the motorcade and never made any effort to hide that. It's important that fact be left out by Steve because he's not interested in the truth, he's interested in furthering Team Obama's talking point. (The first response from Team Obama -- to Barack's horrendous performance -- was to claim he was under the weather. Cone of silence came about after many began commenting on the whining nature of Team Barack whenever the Christ-child falters.)



Equally true is that Seelye reported. Did Andrea Mitchell? No. Steve apparently knows very little about journalism. Andrea Mitchell is a journalist but she didn't "report" anything. She made her remarks as a guest on NBC's Meet The Press. No, Steve, she wasn't "reporting." And, by the way, Kristol's columns appear under the name "William Kristol."



Steve's hilarity was just beginning and he teamed up with the Scowling Janine Jackson for an "extended interview." In FAIR talk, that translates as "male gas bag" because there's nothing FAIR about CounterSpin's male to female ratio of guests and lighting might strike the gas bags dead if the program ever decided a woman was worthy of an "extended" interview. The Dull Duo teamed up with quack-pot Thomas Frank for what can only be described as "a kind of softening of the brain" -- so much so that we listened closely in hopes that someone would declare, "I think that expression sounds so nice. It always makes me think of cherry-coloured velvet curtains -- something that is soft to stroke." But that would have made art -- Ibsen's Ghosts, in fact -- and this was just Bad Liars Lying Badly.



As if to prove how far they'd go to lie, Steve Rendall deliberately distorted Michiko Kakutani's "The Business of Politics, the Politics of Business" (New York Times, Augst 18, 2008), declaring, "You were criticized by Michiko Kakutani in The New York Times book review of The Wrecking Crew for dwelling on the past . . ." Thomas Frank couldn't stop chuckling, coming up for air to pant and stammer a response which included, "I have a Ph. D in history. Of course, I dwell on the past -- that's ridiculous!" No, ridiculous is that Frank and Rendall thought they could get away lying.



Kakutani did not criticize him for "dwelling on the past," she critized him for failing to address the present:



Instead of using the Jack Abramoff scandal to examine the problems of a political system that empowers lobbyists, special-interest groups and big money players, Mr. Frank tries to turn the scandal into a case study in what he sees as the evils of free-market principles. . . .

Mr. Frank does not help himself by relying on fuzzy -- and poorly documented -- illustrations of his theories. He writes, for instance, that in 2004 "a group of the country's biggest companies reportedly paid some unnamed K Street firm $1.6 million to secure a tiny modification in the tax code, once the law was rewritten in accordance with their wishes -- and with almost no public notice -- they saved $100 billion in taxes, an amount which you and I will eventually have to replace in the public treasury." He adds that if you do the math, "you will find that the rate of return these companies made on their lobbying investment was some six million percent," and concludes that "these are the wages of conservatism." He does not say, however, which companies paid which lobbying firm the money nor does he describe which modifications of the tax code was involved.

Finally there is something curiously dated about this book. Mr. Frank spends a lot of time reviewing conservatives' attitudes toward South Africa when apartheid was still the official policy of that nation, and while he says little about how the Internet has affected politics and policy making, he spends a lot of energy talking about the right's use of direct mail, as pioneered by Richard Viguerie in the 1960s and '70s.



If the above doesn't make it clear to you, Frank not only asks that the reader check his math without providing the specifics to do so, he repeatedly drops back to some point from the past instead of detailing the "wrecking crew" and its actions in the last eight years.



That tends to happen when weak minds are allowed to operate a keyboard without supervision. The same weak minds who will embarrass themselves publicly anytime they speak. Our personal favorite from the interview was when Thomas Frank yammered on about "one of my all time favorite conservative quotes" and the quack-pot went on to tell a story -- one that never included a quote. Yes, he really is that stupid. He confuses a quote (which he could have provided) with an anecdote -- one badly told.



Sarah Connor wants to save humanity from the machines. Judging by what we witnessed last week, some may have good reason to fear the machines are already here -- and controlling our public discourse. Hope would be Gwen grasping that the truth does matter and making it her mission to impart it. Because if one gas bag can learn the value of human life, maybe others can too.