From the Center for Constitutional Rights:
Free Speech Victory for Rights Groups in Advance of G-20 Summit
Judge Rules Activists Can Demonstrate in Downtown Park
September 17, 2009, Pittsburgh , PA – Today, United States District Judge Gary L. Lancaster ruled today on a suit filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania (ACLU-PA) on behalf of groups seeking to hold peaceful demonstrations in downtown Pittsburgh where the Group of 20 Summit (G-20) will take place next week. In his decision, the judge said CodePink, one of the activist groups represented, will be allowed to use Point State Park , centrally located in downtown Pittsburgh , for several days preceding the G-20.
The judge ruled, however, that the city was within its rights to deny camping permits and a permit for a rally on a bridge, which were the two other requests in the complaint filed by the plaintiffs’ attorneys last week.
“We regret the judge did not see eye-to-eye with us in allowing the groups to camp and rally,” said CCR Vice President Jules Lobel. “It is a still a great victory, however, that CodePink and Three Rivers Climate Convergence will be able to erect a symbolic tent city in the main park in downtown Pittsburgh and be heard during the G-20.”
The complaint, filed after repeated efforts to negotiate with the city regarding the permits, charged the U.S. Secret Service, the Department of Homeland Security, the City of Pittsburgh and the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources with violating the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to free speech. The plaintiffs included: CodePink; Pittsburgh Women for Peace; 3 Rivers Climate Convergence; Thomas Merton Center ; Pittsburgh Outdoor Artists; Bail Out The People and G-6 Billion.
To read the full complaint, click here.
The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change. Visit www.ccrjustice.org.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
ETAN demands justice for mass atrocities
From ETAN:
CALL FOR JUSTICE ON EAST TIMOR PAST MASS ATROCITIES
Joint Statement on the Release of Martenus Bere – Indicted for Crimes Against Humanity in Timor-Leste
For the past ten years the disinterest of the international community and active efforts by Indonesia have blocked efforts to end impunity for serious crimes committed during the Indonesian occupation of Timor-Leste. Ignoring the pleas of the East Timorese people, the Timor-Leste leadership continues to dismiss their calls for justice and an end to impunity.
We were deeply distressed by the 30 August speech of Timor-Leste President Jose Ramos-Horta and the actions of the governments of Indonesia and Timor-Leste which led to the release of indicted militia leader Martenus Bere. His extra-judicial release violated international law and treaties and undermined the rule of law and the Constitution of Timor-Leste.
We firmly disagree with President Ramos-Horta that the pursuit of justice is “simplistic.”
We disagree that it is necessary to try everyone who committed crimes between 1974 and 1999, or to try no one. Those who gave the orders must be held accountable before a credible court. We believe the pursuit of justice and accountability for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed during the occupation of Timor-Leste will build democracy and respect for the rule of law in both countries and reconciliation between the two nations. Until there is justice, neither country can “put the past behind.” We add our voices to those in Timor-Leste and elsewhere calling for an International Tribunal for Timor-Leste.
We recognize that victims of human rights violations in Indonesia and Timor-Leste have much in common, including a desire to see those most responsible for their suffering brought to justice. We fully support the conclusions of the recently completed victims’ congress in Dili and will work on joint campaigns against impunity and for reparations.
* We urge the international community and Indonesia to respond to the recommendations included in the CAVR report released by Timor-Leste’s truth commission, including its call for an international tribunal.
* Countries should not arm or train the Indonesian military until it has been shown to be accountable for past human rights crimes.
* We urge the Indonesian government to fully implement the recommendations directed to it by the CAVR, starting with formally acknowledging receipt of its report and discussing it in the Indonesian Parliament.
* The Indonesian Government together with Timor-Leste should fully implement the recommendations of the Commission on Truth and Friendship (CTF), especially the one calling for a Commission for Disappeared Persons to gather data and provide information.
Jakarta, 12 September 2009
Asmara Nababan – Koordinator, KKPK (Indonesian Working Group on Truth Recovery)
Galuh Wandita – ICTJ JKT (International Center for Transitional Justice)
Rafendi Djamin – HRWG (Human Rights Working Group)
Usman Hamid – KontraS (Commission on the Disappeared and Victims of Violence)
Miryam Nainggolan – KKPK
Garda Sembiring – PEC (People Empowerment Consortium)
Mugiyanto – Ikohi (Indonesian Association of the Families of the Disappeared)
Hilmar Farid – JKB (Network of Cultural Works)
Rusdi Marpaung – Imparsial (Indonesian Human Rights Monitor)
Dedi Ali Ahmad – PBHI Nasional (Indonesian Legal and Human Rights Association)
John M. Miller – ETAN (East Timor and Indonesia Action Network)
Background
In February 2003, the UN-backed Serious Crimes Unit indicted Martenus Bere and other members of the Laksaur Militia for crimes against humanity including murder, rape, torture, enforced disappearances and more. Bere and other Laksaur Militia and Indonesian military officers are accused of carrying out the Suai Church Massacre on 6 September 1999, killing more than 30 unarmed people and three priests, including Indonesian priest Dewanto. Bere was arrested in Suai in early August by the Timor-Leste National Police. Until then, he and more than 300 others indicted by the Serious Crimes Unit lived openly in Indonesia, which has refused to cooperate with any international justice mechanism related to crimes committed in Timor-Leste. An East Timorese judge ordered him held for trial. On August 30, he was released into the custody of the Indonesian ambassador on orders of Timor-Leste Prime Minister Xanana Gusmao and Minster of Justice Lucia Lobato. Bere is believed to still be in Timor-Leste.
During President Ramos-Horta’s speech at the commemoration of the August 30 referendum, he said, “let’s put the past behind. There will be no International Tribunal.” Inexplicably, he continued that “I beg to disagree with their simplistic assertion that the absence of prosecutorial justice fosters impunity and violence.” He also said “We will not replace the Indonesians in their own fight for democracy, human rights and justice.”
etanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetan
ETAN looks forward to your support. Go to http://etan.org/etan/donate.htm to donate. Thank you.
John M. Miller, National Coordinator
East Timor & Indonesia Action Network (ETAN)
PO Box 21873, Brooklyn, NY 11202-1873 USA
Phone: +1-718-596-7668 Mobile phone: +1-917-690-4391 Email john@etan.org
Skype: john.m.miller
Web site: http://www.etan.org/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/etan009
Facebook: http://apps.facebook.com/causes/134122?recruiter_id=10193810
Send a blank e-mail message to info@etan.org to find out how to learn more about East Timor on the Internet
Winners: John Rumbiak Human Rights Defender Award for 2009
etanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetan
CALL FOR JUSTICE ON EAST TIMOR PAST MASS ATROCITIES
Joint Statement on the Release of Martenus Bere – Indicted for Crimes Against Humanity in Timor-Leste
For the past ten years the disinterest of the international community and active efforts by Indonesia have blocked efforts to end impunity for serious crimes committed during the Indonesian occupation of Timor-Leste. Ignoring the pleas of the East Timorese people, the Timor-Leste leadership continues to dismiss their calls for justice and an end to impunity.
We were deeply distressed by the 30 August speech of Timor-Leste President Jose Ramos-Horta and the actions of the governments of Indonesia and Timor-Leste which led to the release of indicted militia leader Martenus Bere. His extra-judicial release violated international law and treaties and undermined the rule of law and the Constitution of Timor-Leste.
We firmly disagree with President Ramos-Horta that the pursuit of justice is “simplistic.”
We disagree that it is necessary to try everyone who committed crimes between 1974 and 1999, or to try no one. Those who gave the orders must be held accountable before a credible court. We believe the pursuit of justice and accountability for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed during the occupation of Timor-Leste will build democracy and respect for the rule of law in both countries and reconciliation between the two nations. Until there is justice, neither country can “put the past behind.” We add our voices to those in Timor-Leste and elsewhere calling for an International Tribunal for Timor-Leste.
We recognize that victims of human rights violations in Indonesia and Timor-Leste have much in common, including a desire to see those most responsible for their suffering brought to justice. We fully support the conclusions of the recently completed victims’ congress in Dili and will work on joint campaigns against impunity and for reparations.
* We urge the international community and Indonesia to respond to the recommendations included in the CAVR report released by Timor-Leste’s truth commission, including its call for an international tribunal.
* Countries should not arm or train the Indonesian military until it has been shown to be accountable for past human rights crimes.
* We urge the Indonesian government to fully implement the recommendations directed to it by the CAVR, starting with formally acknowledging receipt of its report and discussing it in the Indonesian Parliament.
* The Indonesian Government together with Timor-Leste should fully implement the recommendations of the Commission on Truth and Friendship (CTF), especially the one calling for a Commission for Disappeared Persons to gather data and provide information.
Jakarta, 12 September 2009
Asmara Nababan – Koordinator, KKPK (Indonesian Working Group on Truth Recovery)
Galuh Wandita – ICTJ JKT (International Center for Transitional Justice)
Rafendi Djamin – HRWG (Human Rights Working Group)
Usman Hamid – KontraS (Commission on the Disappeared and Victims of Violence)
Miryam Nainggolan – KKPK
Garda Sembiring – PEC (People Empowerment Consortium)
Mugiyanto – Ikohi (Indonesian Association of the Families of the Disappeared)
Hilmar Farid – JKB (Network of Cultural Works)
Rusdi Marpaung – Imparsial (Indonesian Human Rights Monitor)
Dedi Ali Ahmad – PBHI Nasional (Indonesian Legal and Human Rights Association)
John M. Miller – ETAN (East Timor and Indonesia Action Network)
Background
In February 2003, the UN-backed Serious Crimes Unit indicted Martenus Bere and other members of the Laksaur Militia for crimes against humanity including murder, rape, torture, enforced disappearances and more. Bere and other Laksaur Militia and Indonesian military officers are accused of carrying out the Suai Church Massacre on 6 September 1999, killing more than 30 unarmed people and three priests, including Indonesian priest Dewanto. Bere was arrested in Suai in early August by the Timor-Leste National Police. Until then, he and more than 300 others indicted by the Serious Crimes Unit lived openly in Indonesia, which has refused to cooperate with any international justice mechanism related to crimes committed in Timor-Leste. An East Timorese judge ordered him held for trial. On August 30, he was released into the custody of the Indonesian ambassador on orders of Timor-Leste Prime Minister Xanana Gusmao and Minster of Justice Lucia Lobato. Bere is believed to still be in Timor-Leste.
During President Ramos-Horta’s speech at the commemoration of the August 30 referendum, he said, “let’s put the past behind. There will be no International Tribunal.” Inexplicably, he continued that “I beg to disagree with their simplistic assertion that the absence of prosecutorial justice fosters impunity and violence.” He also said “We will not replace the Indonesians in their own fight for democracy, human rights and justice.”
etanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetan
ETAN looks forward to your support. Go to http://etan.org/etan/donate.htm to donate. Thank you.
John M. Miller, National Coordinator
East Timor & Indonesia Action Network (ETAN)
PO Box 21873, Brooklyn, NY 11202-1873 USA
Phone: +1-718-596-7668 Mobile phone: +1-917-690-4391 Email john@etan.org
Skype: john.m.miller
Web site: http://www.etan.org/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/etan009
Facebook: http://apps.facebook.com/causes/134122?recruiter_id=10193810
Send a blank e-mail message to info@etan.org to find out how to learn more about East Timor on the Internet
Winners: John Rumbiak Human Rights Defender Award for 2009
etanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetan
An evening with Janis Ian, October 22nd
Janis Ian will be in Dallas and a friend of C.I.'s asked C.I. and Kat to promote it. We'll promote it as well. The woman whose classics include "Society's Child," "At Seventeen," "In The Winter," "Tattoo," "Love Is Blind," "Jesse," "Some People's Lives," "All Those Promises," "His Hands," "Stars" and so many more will be playing an intimate venue and those in the D-FW area should get the word out on this concert.
Back to Calendar
An Evening with Janis Ian
Thursday, October 22, 2009
6:00 PM to 9:00 PM
Click Graphic to Purchase Tickets
An Evening with Janis Ian
Thursday, October 22, 2009
6:00 PM to 9:00 PM
Click Graphic to Purchase Tickets
Back to Calendar
An Evening with Janis Ian
Thursday, October 22, 2009
6:00 PM to 9:00 PM
Click Graphic to Purchase Tickets
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, Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends, Ann of Ann's Mega Dub. and Wally of The Daily Jot. Unless otherwise noted, we picked all highlights.
"I Hate The War" -- Most requested highlight. Here C.I.'s explaining how the Cult of St. Barack immediately begins falsely smearing opponents, in this case a Green with a public record, not that facts concern the Cult.
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "He's Going To Scare You To Death" -- Isaiah's hilarious comic on Barack's scare tactics.
"Kat's Korner: Get Under The Covers" -- Kat's review of Matthew Sweet and Susanna Hoffs' latest album.
"Iraq snapshot" & "Say hello to the new Judy Millers" -- C.I. breaks news on Chris Hill telling Congress that the US had prior knowledge of the July 28th assault on Camp Ashraf before it took place and that the US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates commissioned a report which advises that the US should be planning renegotiations of the Status Of Forces Agreement now and not waiting until 2011.
"THIS JUST IN! OH NO HE DIDN'T!" & "It's just like the Source Awards!" -- Wally and Cedric on Barry O's big diss.
"Bully Boy & The Thirteenth Confession" -- Isaiah dips into the archives.
"Danny Schechter officially nuts," "why some things get covered and some get ignored," "dennis bernstein's a whore," "Ron Elving f**king idiot," "Certify Schechter nuts" and "Max Blumenthal practices McCarthyism as does KPFA" -- Betty, Rebecca, Marcia, Stan and Mike offer media criticism.
"Mary Travers," "It Knows Me By No Other Name, Mary Travers" and "Camp Bucca closes, Mary Travers passes away" -- Ruth, Kat and C.I. on the passing of Mary Travers.
"patrick swayze left a mark" -- Rebecca notes the passing of Patrick Swayze.
"Cass Elliot," "Carly Simon, David Saw," "Under The Covers Vol. 2" "Matthew Sweet and Susanna Hoffs," "Carly Simon, Holly Near, Janis Ian," "I love Under The Covers Vol. 2," "Comic and music" and "Isaiah, Third, Music" -- Ann, Kat, Trina and Mike talk music.
"Roasted Red Potatoes in the Kitchen" -- Trina offers a simple and tasty recipe and addresses the economy.
"Rape and other Iraq news" and "Ben Lando, Kenneth J. Theisen, drone crashes" and "Nouri's student plan" and "Iraq" -- some Iraq coverage from Elaine, Mike, Ruth and Ann.
"Alex Insenstadt, Bob Somerby," "Crazy Ass Carter and others who hurt Barack," "Somerby & Peanut Head," "It's not forgotten by me," "Jimmy, Jimmy Hack, stay away and don't come back," "My turn" and "THIS JUST IN! THE WRECKING CREW!" -- Jimmy Carter coverage in the community from Betty, Marcia, Stan, Elaine, Ann, Cedric and Wally.
"I Hate The War" -- Most requested highlight. Here C.I.'s explaining how the Cult of St. Barack immediately begins falsely smearing opponents, in this case a Green with a public record, not that facts concern the Cult.
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "He's Going To Scare You To Death" -- Isaiah's hilarious comic on Barack's scare tactics.
"Kat's Korner: Get Under The Covers" -- Kat's review of Matthew Sweet and Susanna Hoffs' latest album.
"Iraq snapshot" & "Say hello to the new Judy Millers" -- C.I. breaks news on Chris Hill telling Congress that the US had prior knowledge of the July 28th assault on Camp Ashraf before it took place and that the US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates commissioned a report which advises that the US should be planning renegotiations of the Status Of Forces Agreement now and not waiting until 2011.
"THIS JUST IN! OH NO HE DIDN'T!" & "It's just like the Source Awards!" -- Wally and Cedric on Barry O's big diss.
"Bully Boy & The Thirteenth Confession" -- Isaiah dips into the archives.
"Danny Schechter officially nuts," "why some things get covered and some get ignored," "dennis bernstein's a whore," "Ron Elving f**king idiot," "Certify Schechter nuts" and "Max Blumenthal practices McCarthyism as does KPFA" -- Betty, Rebecca, Marcia, Stan and Mike offer media criticism.
"Mary Travers," "It Knows Me By No Other Name, Mary Travers" and "Camp Bucca closes, Mary Travers passes away" -- Ruth, Kat and C.I. on the passing of Mary Travers.
"patrick swayze left a mark" -- Rebecca notes the passing of Patrick Swayze.
"Cass Elliot," "Carly Simon, David Saw," "Under The Covers Vol. 2" "Matthew Sweet and Susanna Hoffs," "Carly Simon, Holly Near, Janis Ian," "I love Under The Covers Vol. 2," "Comic and music" and "Isaiah, Third, Music" -- Ann, Kat, Trina and Mike talk music.
"Roasted Red Potatoes in the Kitchen" -- Trina offers a simple and tasty recipe and addresses the economy.
"Rape and other Iraq news" and "Ben Lando, Kenneth J. Theisen, drone crashes" and "Nouri's student plan" and "Iraq" -- some Iraq coverage from Elaine, Mike, Ruth and Ann.
"Alex Insenstadt, Bob Somerby," "Crazy Ass Carter and others who hurt Barack," "Somerby & Peanut Head," "It's not forgotten by me," "Jimmy, Jimmy Hack, stay away and don't come back," "My turn" and "THIS JUST IN! THE WRECKING CREW!" -- Jimmy Carter coverage in the community from Betty, Marcia, Stan, Elaine, Ann, Cedric and Wally.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Truest statement of the week
I am tired of supporting organizations that don’t support me. How about supposed anti-war organizations stop sending messages out from Democrats who support a pro-war President? How about they stop going underground every time a Democrat runs for President?
UFPJ and Code Pink have not been friends. They have wanted Green Party bodies and dollars, but not our voices. We will not stop these wars until the peace movement is ready to directly confront the politicians, Democrat and Republican. And that includes confronting them [on] the campaign trail and in the voting booth.
-- Ian Wilder, "Code Pink and UFPJ just Don’t Get It: Tom Hayden edition" (On The Wilder Side).
UFPJ and Code Pink have not been friends. They have wanted Green Party bodies and dollars, but not our voices. We will not stop these wars until the peace movement is ready to directly confront the politicians, Democrat and Republican. And that includes confronting them [on] the campaign trail and in the voting booth.
-- Ian Wilder, "Code Pink and UFPJ just Don’t Get It: Tom Hayden edition" (On The Wilder Side).
A note to our readers
Hey --
Another Sunday. Another Sunday. Some Sundays it's very difficult.
Let's start with who helped. Dallas and the following worked on this edition:
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),
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.
We thank them all. We also give a special thanks to Ava and C.I. and you'll understand why if you look at what we've got.
Truest statement of the week -- Ian Wilder's never had a truest before. He earned this one.
Editorial: Delivering the lambs to slaughter -- Thank you to Trina who came in to help with this editorial. We all wrote this and this was our seventh attempt at an editorial. Our seventh attempt? Yes, it was a very difficult, difficult edition.
TV: The Suckers -- Ava and C.I. wrote this as a bonus. They're addressing The Vampire Diaries and Bill Moyers Journal. And covering Iraq. This is funny, pointed and you'd swear it was the piece they had planned to write. That's not the case. We begged because four articles went down the drain. One of which was a roundtable that said practically nothing. If we're being honest, we could have reduced the roundtable to just a monologue by Betty. Jess even suggested that: Pull out everyone else and make it a piece by Betty. Betty felt we were overrating her contribution (we weren't) so we didn't do that. But we had nothing. Could they do another TV article? Yes, Ava and C.I. could. Did. It's wonderful.
Iraq -- Our Iraq feature. This is a weekly piece on Iraq. We keep track of the injured and dead and note some of the week's significant events.
TV: The Fall Season -- Ava and C.I. had written two articles already. If they could do one more, pretty please? Okay. They'd do an overview of the fall season. To mix it up a bit, they interviewed those of us here in California (which includes Betty, Kat and Wally). I (Jim) had begged and begged them to do something with the fall preview since Rolling Stone and TV Guide were.
TV: Specials -- This is the only article they intended to write. It's the first one they wrote. As Dona points out, it's the perfect time for a TV edition. As Ty points out, we've only once before leaned so heavily on Ava and C.I. (Once before we asked them to do three articles.) Again, we thank them.
Nanci Griffith: The Complete MCA Recordings -- This was written by us (Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess) and Betty, Wally and Kat. Ava and C.I. were working on the TV piece on Moyers and Vampire Diaries. We had one piece besides the editorial we liked. Liked. Not loved. So we quickly wrote this.
Pet Peeve (Dona) -- Noting that we were really, really leaning on Ava and C.I., Dona expressed disappointment in others and herself. She was really angry and said she might as well have spent the last few hours cleaning out her purse, it would have been "more productive." I said something idiotic (that I don't even remember now) and she grabbed her purse, threw it on the coffee table and began cleaning it out. At some point, when she saw the stack of business cards from the hair salon she frequents, she had an idea for Pet Peeve which could be a regular feature where we all step up and do an article by ourselves. (Ava just groaned. Okay, everyone except her and C.I. They already gave at the office and then some.)
Highlights -- Mike, Elaine, Rebecca, Betty, Kat, Marcia, Stan, Cedric, Ruth, Ann and Wally wrote this and we thank them tremendously.
And that's the edition. Ty says, "Repeating, we say a big thank you to Ava and C.I." We'll see you next week.
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.
Another Sunday. Another Sunday. Some Sundays it's very difficult.
Let's start with who helped. Dallas and the following worked on this edition:
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),
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.
We thank them all. We also give a special thanks to Ava and C.I. and you'll understand why if you look at what we've got.
Truest statement of the week -- Ian Wilder's never had a truest before. He earned this one.
Editorial: Delivering the lambs to slaughter -- Thank you to Trina who came in to help with this editorial. We all wrote this and this was our seventh attempt at an editorial. Our seventh attempt? Yes, it was a very difficult, difficult edition.
TV: The Suckers -- Ava and C.I. wrote this as a bonus. They're addressing The Vampire Diaries and Bill Moyers Journal. And covering Iraq. This is funny, pointed and you'd swear it was the piece they had planned to write. That's not the case. We begged because four articles went down the drain. One of which was a roundtable that said practically nothing. If we're being honest, we could have reduced the roundtable to just a monologue by Betty. Jess even suggested that: Pull out everyone else and make it a piece by Betty. Betty felt we were overrating her contribution (we weren't) so we didn't do that. But we had nothing. Could they do another TV article? Yes, Ava and C.I. could. Did. It's wonderful.
Iraq -- Our Iraq feature. This is a weekly piece on Iraq. We keep track of the injured and dead and note some of the week's significant events.
TV: The Fall Season -- Ava and C.I. had written two articles already. If they could do one more, pretty please? Okay. They'd do an overview of the fall season. To mix it up a bit, they interviewed those of us here in California (which includes Betty, Kat and Wally). I (Jim) had begged and begged them to do something with the fall preview since Rolling Stone and TV Guide were.
TV: Specials -- This is the only article they intended to write. It's the first one they wrote. As Dona points out, it's the perfect time for a TV edition. As Ty points out, we've only once before leaned so heavily on Ava and C.I. (Once before we asked them to do three articles.) Again, we thank them.
Nanci Griffith: The Complete MCA Recordings -- This was written by us (Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess) and Betty, Wally and Kat. Ava and C.I. were working on the TV piece on Moyers and Vampire Diaries. We had one piece besides the editorial we liked. Liked. Not loved. So we quickly wrote this.
Pet Peeve (Dona) -- Noting that we were really, really leaning on Ava and C.I., Dona expressed disappointment in others and herself. She was really angry and said she might as well have spent the last few hours cleaning out her purse, it would have been "more productive." I said something idiotic (that I don't even remember now) and she grabbed her purse, threw it on the coffee table and began cleaning it out. At some point, when she saw the stack of business cards from the hair salon she frequents, she had an idea for Pet Peeve which could be a regular feature where we all step up and do an article by ourselves. (Ava just groaned. Okay, everyone except her and C.I. They already gave at the office and then some.)
Highlights -- Mike, Elaine, Rebecca, Betty, Kat, Marcia, Stan, Cedric, Ruth, Ann and Wally wrote this and we thank them tremendously.
And that's the edition. Ty says, "Repeating, we say a big thank you to Ava and C.I." We'll see you next week.
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.
Editorial: Delivering the lambs to slaughter
Wednesday, Barack Obama tossed a lot of vague words in the latest attempt to sell ObamaInsuranceCorporationGiveAway. He decried those who used fear as he . . . proceeded to do just that.
We are, he said, at "the breaking point" and then he told horror stories. Despite being at the broken point, he insisted the US couldn't take "a radical shift" and have single-payer health care. No, that would "disrupt" and, again, be "a radical shift."
He acknowledged that there were five bills in Congress -- apparently it was supposed to be understood that they're all different. He had time to finger point at others and say, "And out of this blizzard of charges and counter-charges, confusion has reigned."
Uh, no, Barry, if confusion reigned it was because there was no plan -- there were multiple plans -- and you, Barry, did nothing to inform the people of them. You were happy to meet with the insurance lobby in the White House and discuss your plan. It was just the people you serve that you wished to leave in the dark.
He insisted we were at "the breaking point," he maintained "the time for bickering is over" and, golly, even the "times for games has passed."
Wow, sounds like there's a real sense of urgency. Except . . .
Except he said, "This exchange will take effect in four years, which will give us time to do it right."
Four years. But we must act now. The "times for games has passed." We must rush to . . . stand in line and wait.
His most honest line resulted in laughter. The room erupted after he said, "And while there remain some significant details to be ironed out . . ." (Doubt us and missed the broadcast? Check the official transcript where the laughter is noted.)
Even after all this time, he has nothing concrete.
So why are we all supposed to be rushing into something?
Something that's lousy and useless unless you're Big Pharma or an Insurance Corporation.
Mandatory. People will be forced to buy insurance or face stiff fines. What Barack will be doing is creating a new pool of consumers for the insurance companies by forcing people to purchase policies. The insurance companies will still be running everything. Nothing will be fixed. But that's really not the point, is it? The points is for Barack to deliver the lambs (the citizens) to Big Pharma and the Insurance Corporations.
That may have been the only thing made clear in his speech.
TV: The Suckers
Do you babble on? Not just talk to yourself, mind you, but have an indepth interior monologue going on? If so, you could be either of the leads in the CW's The Vampire Diaries. And though Julie Plec shares creator and executive producer credit with Kevin Williamson, the whole thing plays out like he still hasn't forgiven Miramax for cutting his ode to Grant Goodeve's possible eight inches from Scream. He worked very hard on that monologue for Tatum and he found it highly revealing. The lack of appreciation awarded to his analysis of the theme song to Eight is Enough and how it might have applied to (or commented on) Grant Goodeve's genitalia would have, he just knows, been a cinematic moment: Rose McGowan and Neve Campbell in the grocery store, Rose saying, "Watch the show, Sid, his basket is bigger than the one you're pushing."
Now, like a disfigured comic villain, he's determined that we will all pay for his loss and, therefore, no scraps land on the cutting room floor. Instead every "and" and "uh," every meaningless line of blather, gets used -- either as dialogue or as voice over. Once upon a time, graffiti was just what people scrawled on walls, now it's also the scripts to The Vampire Diaries.
The hour long romance and semi-drama got green lighted quickly -- as quickly as Twilight proved there was an audience for visuals about Young Vampires In Love. The TV show is loosely based on a series of books of the same name, however, details like hair color, best friends, countries of origin -- you know the things that help make us who we are? -- have been altered and changed by Williamson and Plec.
What we're left with is Dawson's Creek With Eye Teeth. In other words, in the near future, Nina Dobrev may end up married to Rupert Everett, Paul Wesley may quickly vanish from all our lives, Katrina Graham may become one of America's most talented but underappreciated actress and Steven R. McQueen may star in Fringe: The Movie. But before those real life events take place, we're still stuck with many, many episodes of this bad show.
Nina Dobrev plays Elena and Steven R. McQueen plays her brother Jeremy. Their parents died in a car accident and now they live with their aunt so they're all "table for three" if not exactly Party of Five. As if to convince viewers that the two are related, the only two talented performers were cast as siblings.
That becomes a huge problem whenever Elena's in a goo-goo eyes scene. Dobrev can't act in a vaccum but they've got her attempting to emote to a wall. His name is Stephan Salvatore and the last time we knew a Salvatore, it was Cher's first husband. Sonny Bono actually projected more magnetism onscreen than does Paul Wesley who has Bob Paris' chin and lips if not his muscles. He scrunches his brow a lot while looking far too old to pass for the teenage high school student (he's 27) Stephan's supposed to be and he's also supposed to be a vampire -- he's only convincing at scrunching his brow.
He's in love with Elena who looks just like the love-of-his-life who died in the Civil War. Robert E. Lee? Oh, honey, Kevin Williamson may be gay but he always writes straight (anyone remember the incredibly square Jack who never got near Dawson's crack?). While that might have actually made the show slightly different, Kevin's just going to keep cranking out the same-old-same-old every chance he gets.
Which makes him a lot like Bill Moyers who, come to think of it, is a lot like the undead himself. We're still laughing over his scrotal kiss two Fridays ago which seemed to exist solely for him to swallow the dangling Y and to prove how foolish the elderly can get. "The editors of The Economist," he said attempting to look serious and thoughtful, "say America's health care debate has become a touch delirious, with people accusing each other of being evil-mongers, dealers in death, and un-American."
With barely a pause, he would continue, "Well that's charitable. I would say it's more deranged than delirious and definitely not un-American. Those crackpots on the right . . ." And that's when he was off down the street, snarling and barking like an angry dog, at the right-wing.
Bill catn reed weel guud. If he could, he'd have grasped The Economist was criticizing both sides (it was, for example, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid who called opponents to ObamaInsuranceGiveAway "unAmerican"). No, in crackpot Billy's mind, that was a slam at the right and only the right and, when it's time for fistacuffs, a Geritol or two later, there is Moyers.
What an idiot. What a fool. What a liar.
Heaven save us all.
Especially journalists.
AP had a photograph of a dying soldier from the Afghanistan War. It became the topic de jour because it was a US soldier. (This was addressed in Tuesday's "Iraq snapshot.") Should the AP have distributed the photo or not? Some blowhards like Thomas E. Ricks (already a joke for defending the US military's use of the Rendon Group to 'vet' reporters) have said it was a 'moral' outrage for AP to have published that photo in a newspaper. Thing is, AP owns no newspapers. It's a wire service. Each newspaper could and did make the decision of whether or not to run the photo.
Friday, Bill decided to tackle the issue which mainly meant he was on top of the dog pile and feeling up everyone beneath him. The grope-fest was remarkably fact free. Oh, he got the basics of what AP did correct. It was just the basics of journalism that Bill struggled with.
After yammering away about how difficult it must be for parents and family members, Bill finally got to what he thought was journalism: "But as a journalist, I know that one reason Americans tolerate wars as long as we do is that most of us look the other way while others do the suffering in our stead. Our soldiers have been fighting in Afghanistan longer than we fought in the first and second world wars combined, but just try to remember the times you've actually have seen one of our fallen there." Uh, Bill, that may be your 'journalism,' but it's not journalism. It's activism.
The reason the photo should be published is that it is news. Violence took place and someone died. That's news. That's always news. It's news if it happens down the street, it's news if happens overseas. It's news. Many things in between will be ignored but births and deaths will always be covered.
One of Bill's guests Friday was McClatchy Newspapers' Nancy A. Youssef and she blew it as well. He raised the issue with her twice and she blew it both times.
Here's Nancy 'commenting' on journalism:
You know, when that photo came out, I talked to a friend of mine, she's a Colonel in the army. She served in Iraq and many years ago, she'd lost her daughter, who was a toddler at the time to an illness, so she could speak to it as a soldier and as a parent. And she was really angry about the photo. She said, "No one has the right to tell me what my last memory of my child should be." And it really stayed with me. And so as I could have empathy for the family, and I felt a lot of pain, because I can only imagine having that image seared in your mind. But I'm conflicted, because as a journalist, and as someone who has to go out and see this war day in and day out, it's hard to say that these photos shouldn't be seen. In a way, I feel like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been sanitized. And that photo, as gruesome as it is, captures the reality of war. It's ugly. And it's what these troops are facing day in and day out. So, I always-- this is my ultimate objective in all of this is to maintain the humanity in the coverage of war. And so, I'm conflicted, because that part of me wants to preserve the rights of that family. And at the same time, I want the general public to know what's happening.
That was at the start of the segment. At the end, he asked her about the AP photo again.
BILL MOYERS: So, since you know what you know, and since you say we have to know, where do we come down on showing the photograph?
NANCY YOUSSEF: It's really hard. Because as I said, you know, you can't lose your humanity in war. And I feel for that father. I can't imagine that image being foisted upon me of my son in that position. I just can't imagine. But sometimes I feel like we as a public need to be hit almost violently with the reality of war. And that's what that photo does. So, I'm really conflicted about it. You know?
Somebody tell Nancy that the public's not going to necessarily know the press position. Anyone could and should be able to relate to feelings of the parents. That's well and good if we want to live in a circle of empathy and not in a democratic republic. If we want to live in a democratic republic, with free speech, it's important that free speech is defended. Translation, when journalism is under attack, your concern isn't making yourself look good to your critics, your concern is in explaining journalism to those who may not grasp it.
One sentence on the pain of the family was more than sufficient. After that, a journalist needs to immediately move into what journalism is and why it's important that it address issues like death.
Bill thinks journalism is to end the war (whatever war). That's activism, Moyers, it's not journalism. Nancy thinks that journalism is one side of the coin and personal needs of a few individuals are the other side of the coin and, based on your empathy level apparently, one side wins out. That's touchy-feely, it's not remotely about journalism.
A real journalist should immediately grasp that a large number of people have come of age during a period where coffins returning to the US were hidden from sight. A real journalist should grasp that, should grasp the assault journalism is under and find a way to answer questions so that they enlighten viewers as to what journalism is supposed to be about and why.
Iraq was briefly touched on.
NANCY YOUSSEF: My biggest fear from the military perspective is that Iraq doesn't fall apart quickly, but that--
BILL MOYERS: Iraq?
NANCY YOUSSEF: Iraq. That Iraq falls apart slowly. And that we find ourselves in a place where we're doing this with troops. That as we're slowly bringing down troops in Iraq and slowly building up in Afghanistan, we find ourselves in a really difficult situation in both countries.
BILL MOYERS: So, you fear we have to reengage in Iraq?
NANCY YOUSSEF: I fear that we're going to find-- I don't know that the United States will. I mean, the Status of Forces Agreement makes it very clear that the United States is not going to engage.
BILL MOYERS: The Iraqis want us out.
NANCY YOUSSEF: That's right.
BILL MOYERS: There's a legal agreement to get out.
NANCY YOUSSEF: That's right. But what happens when the violence starts to escalate in Iraq and starts to escalate in Afghanistan, and we're say, at 80,000 troops in both countries? What is the United States role at that point? Is the plan to sit aside and do nothing? Will the Iraqi Government still feel that way? Depending on what the violence is? That's what keeps me up at night. Is that fear of that point where the United States finds itself engaged in both wars or at least heavily committed to both and not quite out of one, not quite in the other.
Legal agreement to get out? There's no such thing. And it's hilarious to hear Bill Moyers misrepresent what a contract binds you to and what it doesn't -- Bill Moyers of all people (our CBS friends are laughing out loud right now). The United Nations did not authorize the Iraq War. They did do an authorization of the occupation -- after the invasion -- and that authorization is what gave the legal cover for foreign forces (including US troops) to be on the ground in Iraq. That expired twice with Nouri al-Maliki renewing it (over the objections of the Parliament). He was faced with renewing it for the third year in a row but the White House (Bully Boy Bush administration) decided to bypass the UN. Staying under UN authorization bound the United States to certain obligations (which the US was not living up to). Bypassing the UN to create a treaty between Iraq and the US was the way the White House elected to go. That treaty replaces the UN mandate. It can be replaced with another treaty, it can be extended or renegotiated as any contract can be.
And Nancy grasps that. She'd have to be brain dead (or Bill Moyers) not to. If the contract means the US leaves (that's not what it means) then why even talk about the possibility that increasing violence might result in the US remaining in Iraq? If the contract means the US leaves, that's what the contract means. But that's not what it means and the public has been repeatedly lied to about this.
And liars and fools like Tom Hayden are the problem. Barack's been hailed as a man of peace. Really? His Iraq 'plan' is not what he promised in those crowd pleasing campaign speeches. Ten months, he said in Houston, Texas in February 2008, ten months after being sworn in, US troops would be out of Iraq! It's nine months after he was sworn in. Over 130,000 US troops remain on the ground in Iraq.
And his 'plan' that Nancy and Bill and so many others discuss? That's Bush's plan.
Now what the treaty (Status Of Forces Agreement) does is what it was meant to, ease heat in the US over the illegal war. It's done that. It's led to so many fools and liars proclaiming the Iraq War over or almost over: Tom Hayden, CODESTINK, Raed Jarrar, throw a dart at the fringe radical and you'll draw blood from a fool swearing the Iraq War is over or about to be.
A few people grasp that. One who does is US Senator Russ Feingold. On Thursday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee heard from US Ambassador to Iraq Chris Hill. From his exchange with Feingold (see Friday's snapshot for full exchange), we'll note this section:
Russ Feingold: The Iraqi government intends to hold a nation-wide referendum on the bi-lateral Status Of Forces Agreement and while there's been a lot of speculation about how this could impact a redeployment timetable, I'd like to also point out that both the Iraqi Parliament and the Iraqi people will have had a chance to vote on the agreement even though the US Senate has not. Can you assure us that any potential modifications to the Security Agreement will be submitted to the Senate for ratification?
Chris Hill: Uh, the issue of Senate ratification goes beyond my write but I will certainly take that question to the State Department and get you an official answer on that. I can give you my personal opinion on that.
Russ Feingold: Would you please?
Chris Hill: -- that you would not want to be changing this uh we would not engage in changing this security agreement without uh considerable consultation but as for the actual relationship between the Senate and the executive [branch] on this, I'd like to defer to our lawyers at the State Department.
Wow. If that treaty is the end of the Iraq War Treaty, Russ Feingold must have just wanted to waste time. But Feingold doesn't waste time. He doesn't speak just to enjoy his own voice. A contract that prolongs your presence (the SOFA prolonged the US presence by three years) does not mean that you leave.
Let's make it real simple. Paul Wesley, for example, may have signed a five-year contract with The Vampire Diaries. That doesn't mean he leaves in year six. If the show lasts that long (and it may -- its attempts at pathos will irk functioning adults but pre-teens and the overgrown pre-teens will lap it up), he may be smart enough to grasp that he's really got nothing in the works after this show. So he may decide to sign on for another year. Or two. Or three.
The SOFA only says the US will stay in Iraq for three years. The 'withdrawal' everyone pretends is an obligation is the same thing that was inherent in the UN mandate. If the UN mandate was not renewed, US forces had to leave Iraq.
Unless . . .
A new agreement of some form was reached. Enter the SOFA. But to read that mandate, you would think that when it was scrapped, the US and all other foreign forces had to leave.
When will The Vampire Diaries leave? It's a really bad show. But parents are non-existent and the trauma-drama dial has been turned to broil. As awful as it is to anyone who's already lived through the first 90210 or Dawson's Creek, for unformed minds, it's fresh. And for undeveloped minds who do remember the earlier shows, it's simple enough for them to handle. Sarah Jessica Parker's character breaks it down in the film Strangers With Candy when she says, "My point is, Gerri, somebody's always got it worse." That's what shows like The Vampire Diaries (or, for that matter, Bill Moyers Journal) sell. And for four years, as its core audience navigates real life high school, the melodrama swirling around Mystic Falls should make the audience grateful for what they see as their own comparatively dull lives. Shows like these don't run out of things to do or lose their steam, their audience just grows up.
Now, like a disfigured comic villain, he's determined that we will all pay for his loss and, therefore, no scraps land on the cutting room floor. Instead every "and" and "uh," every meaningless line of blather, gets used -- either as dialogue or as voice over. Once upon a time, graffiti was just what people scrawled on walls, now it's also the scripts to The Vampire Diaries.
The hour long romance and semi-drama got green lighted quickly -- as quickly as Twilight proved there was an audience for visuals about Young Vampires In Love. The TV show is loosely based on a series of books of the same name, however, details like hair color, best friends, countries of origin -- you know the things that help make us who we are? -- have been altered and changed by Williamson and Plec.
What we're left with is Dawson's Creek With Eye Teeth. In other words, in the near future, Nina Dobrev may end up married to Rupert Everett, Paul Wesley may quickly vanish from all our lives, Katrina Graham may become one of America's most talented but underappreciated actress and Steven R. McQueen may star in Fringe: The Movie. But before those real life events take place, we're still stuck with many, many episodes of this bad show.
Nina Dobrev plays Elena and Steven R. McQueen plays her brother Jeremy. Their parents died in a car accident and now they live with their aunt so they're all "table for three" if not exactly Party of Five. As if to convince viewers that the two are related, the only two talented performers were cast as siblings.
That becomes a huge problem whenever Elena's in a goo-goo eyes scene. Dobrev can't act in a vaccum but they've got her attempting to emote to a wall. His name is Stephan Salvatore and the last time we knew a Salvatore, it was Cher's first husband. Sonny Bono actually projected more magnetism onscreen than does Paul Wesley who has Bob Paris' chin and lips if not his muscles. He scrunches his brow a lot while looking far too old to pass for the teenage high school student (he's 27) Stephan's supposed to be and he's also supposed to be a vampire -- he's only convincing at scrunching his brow.
He's in love with Elena who looks just like the love-of-his-life who died in the Civil War. Robert E. Lee? Oh, honey, Kevin Williamson may be gay but he always writes straight (anyone remember the incredibly square Jack who never got near Dawson's crack?). While that might have actually made the show slightly different, Kevin's just going to keep cranking out the same-old-same-old every chance he gets.
Which makes him a lot like Bill Moyers who, come to think of it, is a lot like the undead himself. We're still laughing over his scrotal kiss two Fridays ago which seemed to exist solely for him to swallow the dangling Y and to prove how foolish the elderly can get. "The editors of The Economist," he said attempting to look serious and thoughtful, "say America's health care debate has become a touch delirious, with people accusing each other of being evil-mongers, dealers in death, and un-American."
With barely a pause, he would continue, "Well that's charitable. I would say it's more deranged than delirious and definitely not un-American. Those crackpots on the right . . ." And that's when he was off down the street, snarling and barking like an angry dog, at the right-wing.
Bill catn reed weel guud. If he could, he'd have grasped The Economist was criticizing both sides (it was, for example, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid who called opponents to ObamaInsuranceGiveAway "unAmerican"). No, in crackpot Billy's mind, that was a slam at the right and only the right and, when it's time for fistacuffs, a Geritol or two later, there is Moyers.
What an idiot. What a fool. What a liar.
Heaven save us all.
Especially journalists.
AP had a photograph of a dying soldier from the Afghanistan War. It became the topic de jour because it was a US soldier. (This was addressed in Tuesday's "Iraq snapshot.") Should the AP have distributed the photo or not? Some blowhards like Thomas E. Ricks (already a joke for defending the US military's use of the Rendon Group to 'vet' reporters) have said it was a 'moral' outrage for AP to have published that photo in a newspaper. Thing is, AP owns no newspapers. It's a wire service. Each newspaper could and did make the decision of whether or not to run the photo.
Friday, Bill decided to tackle the issue which mainly meant he was on top of the dog pile and feeling up everyone beneath him. The grope-fest was remarkably fact free. Oh, he got the basics of what AP did correct. It was just the basics of journalism that Bill struggled with.
After yammering away about how difficult it must be for parents and family members, Bill finally got to what he thought was journalism: "But as a journalist, I know that one reason Americans tolerate wars as long as we do is that most of us look the other way while others do the suffering in our stead. Our soldiers have been fighting in Afghanistan longer than we fought in the first and second world wars combined, but just try to remember the times you've actually have seen one of our fallen there." Uh, Bill, that may be your 'journalism,' but it's not journalism. It's activism.
The reason the photo should be published is that it is news. Violence took place and someone died. That's news. That's always news. It's news if it happens down the street, it's news if happens overseas. It's news. Many things in between will be ignored but births and deaths will always be covered.
One of Bill's guests Friday was McClatchy Newspapers' Nancy A. Youssef and she blew it as well. He raised the issue with her twice and she blew it both times.
Here's Nancy 'commenting' on journalism:
You know, when that photo came out, I talked to a friend of mine, she's a Colonel in the army. She served in Iraq and many years ago, she'd lost her daughter, who was a toddler at the time to an illness, so she could speak to it as a soldier and as a parent. And she was really angry about the photo. She said, "No one has the right to tell me what my last memory of my child should be." And it really stayed with me. And so as I could have empathy for the family, and I felt a lot of pain, because I can only imagine having that image seared in your mind. But I'm conflicted, because as a journalist, and as someone who has to go out and see this war day in and day out, it's hard to say that these photos shouldn't be seen. In a way, I feel like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been sanitized. And that photo, as gruesome as it is, captures the reality of war. It's ugly. And it's what these troops are facing day in and day out. So, I always-- this is my ultimate objective in all of this is to maintain the humanity in the coverage of war. And so, I'm conflicted, because that part of me wants to preserve the rights of that family. And at the same time, I want the general public to know what's happening.
That was at the start of the segment. At the end, he asked her about the AP photo again.
BILL MOYERS: So, since you know what you know, and since you say we have to know, where do we come down on showing the photograph?
NANCY YOUSSEF: It's really hard. Because as I said, you know, you can't lose your humanity in war. And I feel for that father. I can't imagine that image being foisted upon me of my son in that position. I just can't imagine. But sometimes I feel like we as a public need to be hit almost violently with the reality of war. And that's what that photo does. So, I'm really conflicted about it. You know?
Somebody tell Nancy that the public's not going to necessarily know the press position. Anyone could and should be able to relate to feelings of the parents. That's well and good if we want to live in a circle of empathy and not in a democratic republic. If we want to live in a democratic republic, with free speech, it's important that free speech is defended. Translation, when journalism is under attack, your concern isn't making yourself look good to your critics, your concern is in explaining journalism to those who may not grasp it.
One sentence on the pain of the family was more than sufficient. After that, a journalist needs to immediately move into what journalism is and why it's important that it address issues like death.
Bill thinks journalism is to end the war (whatever war). That's activism, Moyers, it's not journalism. Nancy thinks that journalism is one side of the coin and personal needs of a few individuals are the other side of the coin and, based on your empathy level apparently, one side wins out. That's touchy-feely, it's not remotely about journalism.
A real journalist should immediately grasp that a large number of people have come of age during a period where coffins returning to the US were hidden from sight. A real journalist should grasp that, should grasp the assault journalism is under and find a way to answer questions so that they enlighten viewers as to what journalism is supposed to be about and why.
Iraq was briefly touched on.
NANCY YOUSSEF: My biggest fear from the military perspective is that Iraq doesn't fall apart quickly, but that--
BILL MOYERS: Iraq?
NANCY YOUSSEF: Iraq. That Iraq falls apart slowly. And that we find ourselves in a place where we're doing this with troops. That as we're slowly bringing down troops in Iraq and slowly building up in Afghanistan, we find ourselves in a really difficult situation in both countries.
BILL MOYERS: So, you fear we have to reengage in Iraq?
NANCY YOUSSEF: I fear that we're going to find-- I don't know that the United States will. I mean, the Status of Forces Agreement makes it very clear that the United States is not going to engage.
BILL MOYERS: The Iraqis want us out.
NANCY YOUSSEF: That's right.
BILL MOYERS: There's a legal agreement to get out.
NANCY YOUSSEF: That's right. But what happens when the violence starts to escalate in Iraq and starts to escalate in Afghanistan, and we're say, at 80,000 troops in both countries? What is the United States role at that point? Is the plan to sit aside and do nothing? Will the Iraqi Government still feel that way? Depending on what the violence is? That's what keeps me up at night. Is that fear of that point where the United States finds itself engaged in both wars or at least heavily committed to both and not quite out of one, not quite in the other.
Legal agreement to get out? There's no such thing. And it's hilarious to hear Bill Moyers misrepresent what a contract binds you to and what it doesn't -- Bill Moyers of all people (our CBS friends are laughing out loud right now). The United Nations did not authorize the Iraq War. They did do an authorization of the occupation -- after the invasion -- and that authorization is what gave the legal cover for foreign forces (including US troops) to be on the ground in Iraq. That expired twice with Nouri al-Maliki renewing it (over the objections of the Parliament). He was faced with renewing it for the third year in a row but the White House (Bully Boy Bush administration) decided to bypass the UN. Staying under UN authorization bound the United States to certain obligations (which the US was not living up to). Bypassing the UN to create a treaty between Iraq and the US was the way the White House elected to go. That treaty replaces the UN mandate. It can be replaced with another treaty, it can be extended or renegotiated as any contract can be.
And Nancy grasps that. She'd have to be brain dead (or Bill Moyers) not to. If the contract means the US leaves (that's not what it means) then why even talk about the possibility that increasing violence might result in the US remaining in Iraq? If the contract means the US leaves, that's what the contract means. But that's not what it means and the public has been repeatedly lied to about this.
And liars and fools like Tom Hayden are the problem. Barack's been hailed as a man of peace. Really? His Iraq 'plan' is not what he promised in those crowd pleasing campaign speeches. Ten months, he said in Houston, Texas in February 2008, ten months after being sworn in, US troops would be out of Iraq! It's nine months after he was sworn in. Over 130,000 US troops remain on the ground in Iraq.
And his 'plan' that Nancy and Bill and so many others discuss? That's Bush's plan.
Now what the treaty (Status Of Forces Agreement) does is what it was meant to, ease heat in the US over the illegal war. It's done that. It's led to so many fools and liars proclaiming the Iraq War over or almost over: Tom Hayden, CODESTINK, Raed Jarrar, throw a dart at the fringe radical and you'll draw blood from a fool swearing the Iraq War is over or about to be.
A few people grasp that. One who does is US Senator Russ Feingold. On Thursday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee heard from US Ambassador to Iraq Chris Hill. From his exchange with Feingold (see Friday's snapshot for full exchange), we'll note this section:
Russ Feingold: The Iraqi government intends to hold a nation-wide referendum on the bi-lateral Status Of Forces Agreement and while there's been a lot of speculation about how this could impact a redeployment timetable, I'd like to also point out that both the Iraqi Parliament and the Iraqi people will have had a chance to vote on the agreement even though the US Senate has not. Can you assure us that any potential modifications to the Security Agreement will be submitted to the Senate for ratification?
Chris Hill: Uh, the issue of Senate ratification goes beyond my write but I will certainly take that question to the State Department and get you an official answer on that. I can give you my personal opinion on that.
Russ Feingold: Would you please?
Chris Hill: -- that you would not want to be changing this uh we would not engage in changing this security agreement without uh considerable consultation but as for the actual relationship between the Senate and the executive [branch] on this, I'd like to defer to our lawyers at the State Department.
Wow. If that treaty is the end of the Iraq War Treaty, Russ Feingold must have just wanted to waste time. But Feingold doesn't waste time. He doesn't speak just to enjoy his own voice. A contract that prolongs your presence (the SOFA prolonged the US presence by three years) does not mean that you leave.
Let's make it real simple. Paul Wesley, for example, may have signed a five-year contract with The Vampire Diaries. That doesn't mean he leaves in year six. If the show lasts that long (and it may -- its attempts at pathos will irk functioning adults but pre-teens and the overgrown pre-teens will lap it up), he may be smart enough to grasp that he's really got nothing in the works after this show. So he may decide to sign on for another year. Or two. Or three.
The SOFA only says the US will stay in Iraq for three years. The 'withdrawal' everyone pretends is an obligation is the same thing that was inherent in the UN mandate. If the UN mandate was not renewed, US forces had to leave Iraq.
Unless . . .
A new agreement of some form was reached. Enter the SOFA. But to read that mandate, you would think that when it was scrapped, the US and all other foreign forces had to leave.
When will The Vampire Diaries leave? It's a really bad show. But parents are non-existent and the trauma-drama dial has been turned to broil. As awful as it is to anyone who's already lived through the first 90210 or Dawson's Creek, for unformed minds, it's fresh. And for undeveloped minds who do remember the earlier shows, it's simple enough for them to handle. Sarah Jessica Parker's character breaks it down in the film Strangers With Candy when she says, "My point is, Gerri, somebody's always got it worse." That's what shows like The Vampire Diaries (or, for that matter, Bill Moyers Journal) sell. And for four years, as its core audience navigates real life high school, the melodrama swirling around Mystic Falls should make the audience grateful for what they see as their own comparatively dull lives. Shows like these don't run out of things to do or lose their steam, their audience just grows up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
