Press reports continue to caution that Iraq might be on the brink of civil war which leaves one wondering how they might have reported Sherman's March to the Sea?
-- "Iraq Snapshot," The Common Ills, November 24, 2006
A day after the Thursday violence that had claimed over 200 lives in Baghdad alone, while what was portrayed as retaliation killings and violence rocked the capital, most reporters refrained from stating the obvious: Iraq was and had been in a civil war.
That might seem strange until you realize they usually avoided noting a total figure for Iraqis who had died since the start of the illegal war until Bully Boy himself cited the figure (a vast undercount) from Iraqi Body Count. Suddenly, they could all toss around the low ball.
Because, apparently, it doesn't happen until an "official" says it has.
Today's New York Times contains a piece by Edward Wong where he attempts to address the issue, "Though the Bush administration continues to insist that it is not, a growing number of American and Iraqi scholars, leaders and policy analysts say the fighting in Iraq meets the standard definition of civil war."
Scholars knowledgeable on the issue, scholars who specialize in that field, say it's "civil war." The New York Times? Balance, balance, balance. It's all about the 'balance,' baby. Scholars say this, administration says that. And The New York Times doesn't exist to inform readers what is actually happening. Better to play out like a print version of the children's game Telephone. There are on 'facts' to be determined, just 'choices' to be noted -- for the paper of record, it's The Pepsi Challenge way of covering war.
Solomon Moore (Los Angeles Times) gets right to the point in his report, in the first sentence: "Iraq's civil war worsened Friday as Shiite and Sunni Arabs engaged in retaliatory attacks after coordinated car bombings that killed more than 200 people in a Shiite neighborhood the day before. A main Shiite political faction threatened to quit the government, a move that probably would cause its collapse and plunge the nation deeper into disarray."
The week before last (on November 16th), Ellen Knickmeyer (Washington Post) could report:
"While American commanders have suggested that civil war is possible in Iraq, many leaders, experts and ordinary people in Baghdad and around the Middle East say it is already underway, and that the real worry ahead is that the conflict will destroy the flimsy Iraqi state and draw in surrounding countries."
We like the Sherman's March to the Sea analogy because civil war didn't break out Thursday, it didn't break out last week or this month. It's been ongoing. While it's good that some reporters are starting to report what they see and know, as opposed to playing the on-the-one-hand-on-the-other game, it's also true that the civil war started some time ago.
Why wasn't it reported sooner? Paul Farhi notes the continued decline in Nightline for AJR. Nightline, never as good as the press made it out to be, was a rusted out hooptie even when Ted Koppel held the title and license. For one thing, there was a not-so-slow leak in the front and rear tires on the passenger side, causing it to lean to right. These days, the airs out of all the tires.
Drop back with us to a TV review Ava and C.I. did last August where they noted that the March 20, 2006 broadcast of Nightline addressed the 'newsworthy' issue of the ABC broadcast entertainment show Grey's Anatomy. As Ava and C.I. noted, it was the anniversary of the illegal war, the day before (a Sunday) 45 Iraqis had died, the US troops scandals involving alleged killing of Iraqis (in Haditha and near Balad) and former puppet of the occupation Allawi had told the BBC, "If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."
But Nightline, the 'news' program, was schilling for ABC entertainment product.
They must be so proud, providing such an informative public service to viewers.
Speaking of ABC, today on their chat & chew (This Week), George Stephanopoulos promises:
Under Siege: The latest bombings in Iraq include the single deadliest assault on Iraqi civilians in Baghdad since the start of the war in 2003, and place Iraq on the verge of all-out civil war. Our headliner this week is King Abdullah II of Jordan. With President Bush scheduled to meet with both King Abdullah and Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Amman next week, King Abdullah joins me to discuss what can be done to stem the growing tide of violence.
As long as he has King Abdullah II on, how about asking what he thinks about the US administration's recent decision to discontinue training Iraq police officers in Jordan? As more US troops head to Iraq to do just that (train police officers), shouldn't the press be raising the issue?
Don't count on it being rasied anytime soon.
But take a moment to be thankful that some are raising the issue of civil war and be really thankful that some are actually reporting that it is a civil war. Those journalists aren't waiting for a government official to give an okay for reality to be reported. Friday evening, on CNN, Michael Ware broke it down, "Well, firstly, let me say, perhaps it's easier to deny that this is a civil war, when essentially you live in the most heavily fortified place in the country within the Green Zone, which is true of both the prime minister, the national security adviser for Iraq and, of course, the top U.S. military commanders. However, for the people living on the streets, for Iraqis in their homes, if this is not civil war, or a form of it, then they do not want to see what one really looks like. This is what we're talking about. We're talking about Sunni neighborhoods shelling Shia neighborhoods, and Shia neighborhoods shelling back. We're having Sunni communities dig fighting positions to protect their streets. We're seeing Sunni extremists plunging car bombs into heavily-populated Shia marketplaces. We're seeing institutionalized Shia death squads in legitimate police and national police commando uniforms going in, systematically, to Sunni homes in the middle of the night and dragging them out, never to be seen again. I mean, if this is not civil war, where there is, on average, 40 to 50 tortured, mutilated, executed bodies showing up on the capital streets each morning, where we have thousands of unaccounted for dead bodies mounting up every month, and where the list of those who have simply disappeared for the sake of the fact that they have the wrong name, a name that is either Sunni or Shia, so much so that we have people getting dual identity cards, where parents cannot send their children to school, because they have to cross a sectarian line, then, goodness, me, I don't want to see what a civil war looks like either if this isn't one."
That pretty much says it all.
Sunday, November 26, 2006
TV Review: Burying the living
Last Thanksgiving weekend, we reviewed the music offerings of ABC (Kenny With A Z!) and NBC (Faith Hill) and were expecting Kenny Chesney to provide the better music special. We were wrong. This Thanksgiving, NBC offered two specials, one on Tuesday, the other Wednesday. In terms of 'success' (we define that as audience enjoyment), well, at least they can look back fondly to the Faith Hill special last year.
First up was Tony Bennett: An American Classic. The title should have given pause, it's the sort of thing that conjures Aged In Wood (the Margo Channing play that Eve Harrington can't shut up about in the early scenes of All About Eve). Sadly, as indicated by the title, the hour long 'special' had about as much life in it as one of those Kennedy Center Honors.
"I love Tony Bennett. You know why?" Dyan Cannon's character asks in Bob, Carol, Ted & Alice before answering, "He just sings."
That thinking seems to have been the operating principal of this special: Tony Bennett can't do anything but sing. Alice might have enjoyed Tony Bennett: An American Classic, but we doubt it.
Things started off promising enough with "Smile" which opened the program. It's not a natural opener, it's not upbeat. But using it as the opener indicated that the makers might be interested in shaking things up. When Barbra Streisand joined Bennett for the second verse and they began their duet, there was life in the air. Singing, she made her ways towards him, moving around the piano slowly.
And then?
Nothing.
Streisand was in fine voice, Bennett was in fine voice throughout the program. But when you open with Streisand (a closer), exactly where do you think the special is going? More importantly, when you put Streisand and Bennett on the same stage, you don't have them perform one song and then quickly wisk Streisand away.
Yeah, it would have been great if Streisand had been kept around for at least one more song but that's not what we mean. There they were on stage and nothing. The two sang amazing well together and the audience had a right to expect something, anything. But this wasn't a special, it was an assembly line and before you could say "Gotta Move," Streisand was gone.
It was a pattern that repeated throughout the non-special. Others that would come down the line were Stevie Wonder, k.d. lang, Chris Botti, Michael Buble, Elton John, John Legend and Christina Aguilera. We may have forgotten someone. If so, no great loss.
Diana Krall, at the piano, on "The Best Is Yet to Come" managed to stand out. Who knows what was being smoked when someone decided to turn the number into 'a happening' with dancers straight out of the sixties (the really well scrubbed sixties) but it was one of the few moments when someone registered as something other than a prop. k.d. lang's ease packed more power than did her vocals. That's no doubt due to the fact that she and Bennett actually have chemistry. To watch, you grasped that. To listen only, you may have have been confused.
Though the audience was robbed of even bad stage patter between Bennett and his many partners (or for that matter, his dancers -- even Dean Martin talked to his dancers on The Dean Martin Show), really inane, boring moments of speak were provided.
First up was Tony Bennett: An American Classic. The title should have given pause, it's the sort of thing that conjures Aged In Wood (the Margo Channing play that Eve Harrington can't shut up about in the early scenes of All About Eve). Sadly, as indicated by the title, the hour long 'special' had about as much life in it as one of those Kennedy Center Honors.
"I love Tony Bennett. You know why?" Dyan Cannon's character asks in Bob, Carol, Ted & Alice before answering, "He just sings."
That thinking seems to have been the operating principal of this special: Tony Bennett can't do anything but sing. Alice might have enjoyed Tony Bennett: An American Classic, but we doubt it.
Things started off promising enough with "Smile" which opened the program. It's not a natural opener, it's not upbeat. But using it as the opener indicated that the makers might be interested in shaking things up. When Barbra Streisand joined Bennett for the second verse and they began their duet, there was life in the air. Singing, she made her ways towards him, moving around the piano slowly.
And then?
Nothing.
Streisand was in fine voice, Bennett was in fine voice throughout the program. But when you open with Streisand (a closer), exactly where do you think the special is going? More importantly, when you put Streisand and Bennett on the same stage, you don't have them perform one song and then quickly wisk Streisand away.
Yeah, it would have been great if Streisand had been kept around for at least one more song but that's not what we mean. There they were on stage and nothing. The two sang amazing well together and the audience had a right to expect something, anything. But this wasn't a special, it was an assembly line and before you could say "Gotta Move," Streisand was gone.
It was a pattern that repeated throughout the non-special. Others that would come down the line were Stevie Wonder, k.d. lang, Chris Botti, Michael Buble, Elton John, John Legend and Christina Aguilera. We may have forgotten someone. If so, no great loss.
Diana Krall, at the piano, on "The Best Is Yet to Come" managed to stand out. Who knows what was being smoked when someone decided to turn the number into 'a happening' with dancers straight out of the sixties (the really well scrubbed sixties) but it was one of the few moments when someone registered as something other than a prop. k.d. lang's ease packed more power than did her vocals. That's no doubt due to the fact that she and Bennett actually have chemistry. To watch, you grasped that. To listen only, you may have have been confused.
Though the audience was robbed of even bad stage patter between Bennett and his many partners (or for that matter, his dancers -- even Dean Martin talked to his dancers on The Dean Martin Show), really inane, boring moments of speak were provided.
Catherine Zeta-Jones did not embarrass herself. That's because, more than many today, she conjures up the old Hollywood style. Coasting on her own wattage and likeability, she didn't embarrass herself as she read the dumb, on camera, narration required. Also coming off well was Bruce Willis. That's because his smirk is built in. So the pompous 'tribute' he was given to read was brought down to earth by his own personality -- he made it work.
Then there were the less fortunate.
Then there were the less fortunate.
Billy Crystal? Billy Crystal talking about Tony Bennett? What? Jackie Mason was booked elsewhere?
That fey, love-me, auter quality killed his career -- even returning to sub-standard vehicles hasn't brought it back to life. His lifeless recitation was hard to recover from.
That fey, love-me, auter quality killed his career -- even returning to sub-standard vehicles hasn't brought it back to life. His lifeless recitation was hard to recover from.
John Travolta? We were in Lifetime: Intimate Portrait territory as he mumbled his way through lines about how Bennet "not only bridged the generation gap, he demolished it." Demolished sums up Travolta's moment and reminded us of the actor doing voice over for commercials who's attempting to circumvent a lifeless voice by providing hard "kk" sounds. (It's the most hilarious voice over since Brenda Vaccaro's 'deep breathing' in the eighties -- and, as with that, people are at work trying to smooth it over.)
The absolute worst was Robert DeNiro who had no place in the special and seemed to know it judging by the way he squirmed -- he hasn't looked that uncomfortable since he allowed himself to be used to provide redemption for Eli Kazan.
The lesson here is no one wants a lecture. Not in a special. Bring loads of personality (as Zeta-Jones and Willis did) or prepare to put the audience to sleep (the portion that's not making jokes about you). In fairness to the three losers, no one could have saved the show.
The absolute worst was Robert DeNiro who had no place in the special and seemed to know it judging by the way he squirmed -- he hasn't looked that uncomfortable since he allowed himself to be used to provide redemption for Eli Kazan.
The lesson here is no one wants a lecture. Not in a special. Bring loads of personality (as Zeta-Jones and Willis did) or prepare to put the audience to sleep (the portion that's not making jokes about you). In fairness to the three losers, no one could have saved the show.
Streisand didn't. She gave you hope and then she was gone. Krall did the same. But this wasn't a special. This was an obit delivered early with "Happy Birthday" tacked on at the end to fool everyone.
When Tony Bennett passes (hopefully, many years from now), we think he deserves a lively wake but his son (who was the 'brain' behind this special) apparently has other ideas.
Bennett is capable of magic. He's been providing it for decades. But it's not just the moments where he sings (sorry, Alice) that provide that. Anyone fortunate enough to see him onstage is quite aware that its the quiet moments as well as the toe tappers that make him a living legend (living -- absent from the special, though he is still very much alive).
When Tony Bennett passes (hopefully, many years from now), we think he deserves a lively wake but his son (who was the 'brain' behind this special) apparently has other ideas.
Bennett is capable of magic. He's been providing it for decades. But it's not just the moments where he sings (sorry, Alice) that provide that. Anyone fortunate enough to see him onstage is quite aware that its the quiet moments as well as the toe tappers that make him a living legend (living -- absent from the special, though he is still very much alive).
The special didn't provide viewers with those moments. And anyone afraid that the problem is the magic wouldn't translate to TV needs to think again. Two weeks ago, we reviewed SNL and noted the performances of Christina Aguielra. The last of her three performances was "Stepping Out" with Tony Bennett.
It was a lively, giddy and goofy moment. They got up onstage and they spun some magic. Seeing the same song done in Tony Bennett: An American Classic with better costumes, intricate choreography, multiple dancers and, most importantly, annoying camera changes, it was obvious that all the life was left somewhere on the cutting room floor.
As bad as the dopey narration (honestly, celebrity endorsements do not belong in something billed as a music special unless they're funny), what the special really reminded us of was the coffee commericals which try to shake things up by making it look as though they're using various film stock to film the commerical. They're not. It's phoney and done in editing. That might be fine when you're hawking a product but, unlike his son apparently, we don't see Tony Bennett as a product.
Okay, we reminded ourselves, we were wrong in our expecations last year, that still left Madonna.
MyTV's Fascist House
This week on MyTV's Fascist House, they get a jump on the seasonal themes by airing their HomoErotic X-Mas special.
When soccer star David Beckham starts strolling/trolling the streets of DC shirtless and with who knows what above his mouth, there's something in the air. Lourdes gets a whiff of it and holds her nose (air out the pits, Beckham, air out the pits!) but it's enough to get Madonna singing her latest non-hit and pulling "Erotica" out of mouthballs for the DC boys.
John McCain tosses on a fur and struts his stuff, Donald the Rumsfled and Bully Boy get all touchy-feely but, LOOK OUT, there's a new man in town, John Abizaid testifes to Congress and prays they DON'T ASK what he's thinking about because he WON'T TELL that he's picturing a kicky Karl Rove on the one hand and Dennis Hastert doing GOD KNOW WHAT on the other.
Hastert locks himself away with his page (special guest star Fall Out Boy's Pete Wentz) to make sure the p.o. (pit odor) of Beckham doesn't break up their his happy home.
And, via the geniuses at ILM, it all ends happily with Bully Boy providing good eats.
MyTV's Fascist House airing 365 days a year, 52 weeks. All new episodes!
Junior wasn't all that? You don't say
Lemon
See through in the sunlight
-- "Lemon" (U2, Zooropa)
Update to Harold Ford Jr. (see "Junior campaigned in strange places" and "Meet the Donkaphant Harold Ford Jr.") It would have been nice to be able to "see through in the sunlight" Junior but independent media didn't want to. (Bruce Dixon, Glen Ford and Margaret Kimberley, now with The Black Agenda Report, weren't afraid to address the realities of Junior.)
See through in the sunlight
-- "Lemon" (U2, Zooropa)
Update to Harold Ford Jr. (see "Junior campaigned in strange places" and "Meet the Donkaphant Harold Ford Jr.") It would have been nice to be able to "see through in the sunlight" Junior but independent media didn't want to. (Bruce Dixon, Glen Ford and Margaret Kimberley, now with The Black Agenda Report, weren't afraid to address the realities of Junior.)
Which is why it was Adam Nossiter and The New York Times, not independent media, that tackled Junior on November 21, 1006 (A20, "Political Memo: Is the South Truly a Dead Zone for Democrats?"). Nossiter informs readers that they need to hold on just a second, the conventional wisdom that Junior was defeated due to his race doesn't bear out to Democratic "Party officials in Tennessee."
No __?
Nossiter writes:
Voters knew that several members of the politically active Ford family had been caught up in legal and ethical problems, including Ford's father and predecessor in Congress, Harold Ford Sr., who was acquitted on federal corruption charges.
"The Ford name has a lot of baggage in West Tennessee," said Will T. Cheek, a member of the Democratic National Committee in Nashville.
That voters might have considered the Fords less than trustworthy could have been reinforced in the Senate race, in the view of some Tennessee Democrats, by the candidate's own late-breaking genuflections towards his faith, by his denunciations of same-sex marriage and by other signals of a swing to the right.
Or even by his voting record.
So why is it that independent media before the election ran a puff piece on Junior (who loves the Bully Boy and loves the illegal war -- thought the full weight of the magazine was going behind anti-war candidates) and the Friday after the election, on Democracy Now!, an "analyst" who wasn't couldn't seem to stop singing the praises of Junior?
Lot of cover was given to Junior. Lot of people looked the other way. 2006 was supposed to be the year that Dems absorbed the message (fully) that, given a choice between a Repube and a faux Repube, voters would vote for the genuine article? Running to the right of the Bully Boy hadn't worked out too well in 2004 and 2006. But here came the Juniors and we were all supposed to look the other way. One got elected, one didn't. Neither should have even been in the race on the Democratic ticket.
As some fret about Junior and "really hope" he gets a CNN job, we hope he does anything, but run for public office again. Ford Junior got pantsed, pulled over the lap and spanked till his legs were kicking and his eyes were running tears. Politics isn't for children and Dems need to learn to be Dems. Maybe he'll grasp that when he's done with his corner time?
Taking care of the most pressing business first
In January, the Democrats will control the House of Representatives. For the first time since 1995. But don't set your hopes too high on any real efforts to address the problems that have plauged the nation over the last five years.
Speaking to Lesley Stahl for the October 20, 2006 edition of 60 Minutes, House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi addressed the issue of impeachment: "No, impeachment is off the table." Stahl asked her if that was a pledge and Pelosi responded, "Well, it's a pledge in the -- yes, I mean, it's a pledge. Of course it is. It is a waste of time."
According to Pelosi, gay rights are also a waste of time, or as she responded to the issue of same-sex marriage, "Well, that's an issue that is not an issue that we're fighting about here." Stahl also observed that Pelosi (like many Congressional Democrats -- our comment, not Stahl's) appeared to have backed off from her strong pro-choice stance.
So let's recap, impeachment is off the table, basic rights are off the table, and, with the character assassination (from the left and 'left') of John Murtha (Pelosi's pick for House Majority Leader) "off the table" and War Hawk Steny Hoyer inserted to the post in January, you might want to rethink that whole "Dems will end the war!" excitement.
But fear not, the Dems in the House are rolling up their sleeves to address the really important issues, not petty power plays here, not at all. Jackie Kucinich (The Hill) reports that Henry Waxman has surveyed the scene and is now hard at work . . . ending the policy of smoking in the Speaker's Lobby.
Now smoking isn't mandatory. There's no rule that all who pass through, the relatively few who do, must shove a butt between their lips and light up. But those who wanted to, could. Though few American citizens -- you know, those average Joe and Joans the Dems are supposed to represent -- will ever be in the Speaker's Lobby, Waxman obviously knows it is one of the most pressing issues.
When contacted, Average Joan replied, "My chiefs concerns are probably the war and the cost of health care." Asked about smoking in Speaker's Lobby, Average Joan quickly replied, "Oh that! Yes, yes, by all means that should be the top priority. I know my diabetic child, myself, and indeed the entire country will benefit from addressing that. Thank you, Representative Waxman, suddenly my son's dialysis seems so much more manageable."
Speaking of Bully Boy and Dick Cheney, Pelosi told Stahl, "This election is about them. This is a referendum on them."
And clearly Americans turned out on election day to issue a referendum on smoking in the Speaker's Lobby as well. Next up for Waxman, installing breathalyzers on the House floor to make sure no Congress member has been sneaking nips between votes.
Highlights
Noting our picks for posts and entries you shouldn't have missed last week.
"Guns and Butter (Ruth)" -- Ruth filling in for Kat write of when she learned JFK had been assassinated.
"Abeer (Betty filling in for Kat)" -- Betty filling in for Kat tackles the issue of the silence surrounding the murder of Abeer and her family, Abeer's rape and setting Abeer on fire.
"Back to posting" -- and Kat's back!
"Thanksgiving" -- Elaine explains a difficult moment this Thanksgiving.
"Reality in the Kitchen" -- Trina covers the difficult meaning and those who would stick their heads in the sands.
"A Crossdresser or Two" -- Betty's latest chapter, we weren't kidding you when we said you should be paying attention.
Wally's "JUDITH REGAN: BORN TRASH, DIE TRASH AND STINKING UP THE WORLD IN BETWEEN" and Cedric's "Trashmouth Judith Regan" take on the gutter that is Fox, Murdoch and Regan.
"Law and Disorder, Abeer, Third Estate Sunday Revie..." -- Mike turned in a term paper. (Mike, we're joking.) Seriously, he's covering a number of topics including the four-part series Law and Disorder has been doing. (Forth installment is scheduled to air Monday.)
"Ruth's Report" -- Ruth wonders who will cover Ehren Watada and Agustin Aguayo.
"Ruth's Report" -- Ruth files a second report to let you know that no one did.
"Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts 'A Bully Thanksgiving'" -- We love this as a stand alone but we've seen today's comic and you should look at this one first.
"passports, robert altman, iraq" -- Rebecca addresses one crackdown on our freedoms.
"NYT: It looks just like Skinny & Sweet" -- four of our readers who are 9 to 5 fans e-mailed to say, "Pick this one by C.I.!"
"Guns and Butter (Ruth)" -- Ruth filling in for Kat write of when she learned JFK had been assassinated.
"Abeer (Betty filling in for Kat)" -- Betty filling in for Kat tackles the issue of the silence surrounding the murder of Abeer and her family, Abeer's rape and setting Abeer on fire.
"Back to posting" -- and Kat's back!
"Thanksgiving" -- Elaine explains a difficult moment this Thanksgiving.
"Reality in the Kitchen" -- Trina covers the difficult meaning and those who would stick their heads in the sands.
"A Crossdresser or Two" -- Betty's latest chapter, we weren't kidding you when we said you should be paying attention.
Wally's "JUDITH REGAN: BORN TRASH, DIE TRASH AND STINKING UP THE WORLD IN BETWEEN" and Cedric's "Trashmouth Judith Regan" take on the gutter that is Fox, Murdoch and Regan.
"Law and Disorder, Abeer, Third Estate Sunday Revie..." -- Mike turned in a term paper. (Mike, we're joking.) Seriously, he's covering a number of topics including the four-part series Law and Disorder has been doing. (Forth installment is scheduled to air Monday.)
"Ruth's Report" -- Ruth wonders who will cover Ehren Watada and Agustin Aguayo.
"Ruth's Report" -- Ruth files a second report to let you know that no one did.
"Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts 'A Bully Thanksgiving'" -- We love this as a stand alone but we've seen today's comic and you should look at this one first.
"passports, robert altman, iraq" -- Rebecca addresses one crackdown on our freedoms.
"NYT: It looks just like Skinny & Sweet" -- four of our readers who are 9 to 5 fans e-mailed to say, "Pick this one by C.I.!"
Sunday, November 19, 2006
A Note to Our Readers
Hey --
It's nearly nine p.m. Monday and we're putting this under Sunday to keep it with the edition.
First up, those who need crediting for the writing on this edition:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and, me, Jim;
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills);
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man;
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review;
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix;
Mike of Mikey Likes It!;
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz;
and Wally of The Daily Jot
We thank all above (other than the core six) and we thank Dallas for links and for sounding board and much more.
New content:
Highlights -- covers our picks of some of the best entries from the community last week. We can't e-mail still. (We usually post in full and do that via e-mails -- we can't repost and space and all that and put out a new edition.)
Where's the content! -- was a brief note done by the core six minus Dona just to say content is coming. We were late for a number of reasons including wanting to catch up with Kat (who is back from Ireland).
Playlist this edition -- short entry by the core six minus Dona.
Mommy's Pantyhose wants to be a tough boy -- thanks to Rebecca who photoshops all of our illustrations. The illustrations this edition were done by Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I. and by Rebecca who adds to them in photoshop. We like this entry and it's very popular in the e-mails as well. Connie e-mailed that the illustration perfectly matched the text. A rare event, if true!
Judith Regan: Trash merchant (still!) -- we weighed in. We went back and forth on whether too or not. (Hasn't enough been said? Obviously not, it's bigger news on Monday than when we posted our feature Sunday.) It was a possibility for online. We knew we'd do something for print. Then Dona loved the illustration we'd done for it and said we had to write it for online (all online features were in the print edition as well except a note -- our "A Note to the Readers" in the print edition was "UGGGHHHH!").
Happy Birthday -- C.I. and Dona were gone for most of the week (speaking with high school and college students about the war). C.I. had calls and visitors while gone. I (Jim) didn't pass on the messages. There was enough to focus on (for C.I. and Dona). C.I. heard about it Saturday when they (C.I. and Dona) returned. Moments after learning some of it, a friend was at the door. This is to someone C.I. knows. C.I. was asked to write it (and asked while gone but I didn't pass that on) as an open letter that would circulate among friends (and go to the intended). On Saturday, C.I. explained there was no time for something like that, we had an edition to turn out and there were other things as well. The friend who'd stopped over asked if it couldn't go into the edition?
C.I. asked us (Ty, Ava, Jess, Dona and me) what we thought and we were all for it. We assumed it would be for the print edition. Rebecca knew the woman it's to and Elaine as well (less so than Rebecca) so they were eager to participate as well. We all worked on it and decided what resulted needed to go online for several reasons. For C.I.'s friends, it made the "open letter" more open. (They've e-mailed it like crazy.) For us, we're trying to get C.I. to allow us to post something or work on a new version of it -- an open letter C.I. did in the 90s. It's a holiday greeting and quite humorous. The reaction to this has been positive enough that C.I.'s considering it (not as a repost, as something we'll all work on). If it's not clear, and C.I. was against this going up for that reason, the woman in question is not a "hippie." She voted for Bully Boy. She was never a "hippie." No one ever thought she was. But pleading "hippie" allowed her an excuse for all her other stunts before. (We also had an e-mail from her -- griping. We laughed when we read it today.)
Justice for Abeer and her family? -- one of the longest pieces in terms of writing time. Also in terms of the artwork. What we're going for is putting the rapists in the foreground to get across both how much smaller the 14-year-old Abeer was and also to get across who was the concern at the time (themselves). With the exception of brown and black for hair and green for one t-shirt, we're largely working with red, white and blue and, yes, that was intentional. We were disgusted with the actions Barker described. When we talked to other people, who'd heard it (some on Democracy Now! during Friday's headlines), it was obvious that, though they were offended, they didn't really picture it. We did three illustrations with the hope that it would get across how awful the crimes were. While we think it's sad that it hasn't gotten across, we're also aware that these crimes have not been covered seriously in the media.
Music retrospective: Stevie Nicks -- the never ending feature. Truly! We just added to it tonight. Dona didn't work on the short features. She was attempting to prune what we'd written down to a workable length. We ended it before it was over (while we were writing on it) when it was pointed out we'd been writing it for over three hours. (We were also out of chocolate.) Dona took it and did a great job editing it. As we were working on the short features, we realized we needed to add a bit more. We added that tonight.
TV: Day Break -- Ava and C.I.'s TV review. This has been the most instantly popular since Prison Break. A lot of people who watched wrote to share their agreement and we've also got e-mails saying, "I'm checking it out Wednesday." (Illustrations to all Ava and C.I. TV reviews are the work of Jess and Rebecca.)
Editorial: Signs of activism life on campuses -- we were done. Oh no, we weren't. We never wrote the editorial! (We did have a host of technical problems.) We did this as quickly as possible. The thing we didn't note, that C.I. would have asked for a "C.I. did not participate in this editorial," resulted from a "tension" in the writing that we hadn't noticed. We've re-read the thing we were going to include and there is a "tension" in it. If someone's writing for reasons that are less than on the surface, we say more power to you and are glad we didn't include it in the editorial.
Thanksgiving weekend? (This coming Sunday.) We're not sure who will be participating. Wally's a maybe. Kat's for sure (she's trying to get back into the normal routine now that she's back from Ireland). Rebecca's pretty sure she's she's out. If she is, we're thinking of asking Mike and Elaine to bow out (so that they can have a whole weekend). Betty says she's in and Cedric says he's in. But it's all still up in the air. (Anyone who needs the weekend off should take it.)
See you Sunday.
--Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.
It's nearly nine p.m. Monday and we're putting this under Sunday to keep it with the edition.
First up, those who need crediting for the writing on this edition:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and, me, Jim;
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills);
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man;
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review;
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix;
Mike of Mikey Likes It!;
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz;
and Wally of The Daily Jot
We thank all above (other than the core six) and we thank Dallas for links and for sounding board and much more.
New content:
Highlights -- covers our picks of some of the best entries from the community last week. We can't e-mail still. (We usually post in full and do that via e-mails -- we can't repost and space and all that and put out a new edition.)
Where's the content! -- was a brief note done by the core six minus Dona just to say content is coming. We were late for a number of reasons including wanting to catch up with Kat (who is back from Ireland).
Playlist this edition -- short entry by the core six minus Dona.
Mommy's Pantyhose wants to be a tough boy -- thanks to Rebecca who photoshops all of our illustrations. The illustrations this edition were done by Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I. and by Rebecca who adds to them in photoshop. We like this entry and it's very popular in the e-mails as well. Connie e-mailed that the illustration perfectly matched the text. A rare event, if true!
Judith Regan: Trash merchant (still!) -- we weighed in. We went back and forth on whether too or not. (Hasn't enough been said? Obviously not, it's bigger news on Monday than when we posted our feature Sunday.) It was a possibility for online. We knew we'd do something for print. Then Dona loved the illustration we'd done for it and said we had to write it for online (all online features were in the print edition as well except a note -- our "A Note to the Readers" in the print edition was "UGGGHHHH!").
Happy Birthday -- C.I. and Dona were gone for most of the week (speaking with high school and college students about the war). C.I. had calls and visitors while gone. I (Jim) didn't pass on the messages. There was enough to focus on (for C.I. and Dona). C.I. heard about it Saturday when they (C.I. and Dona) returned. Moments after learning some of it, a friend was at the door. This is to someone C.I. knows. C.I. was asked to write it (and asked while gone but I didn't pass that on) as an open letter that would circulate among friends (and go to the intended). On Saturday, C.I. explained there was no time for something like that, we had an edition to turn out and there were other things as well. The friend who'd stopped over asked if it couldn't go into the edition?
C.I. asked us (Ty, Ava, Jess, Dona and me) what we thought and we were all for it. We assumed it would be for the print edition. Rebecca knew the woman it's to and Elaine as well (less so than Rebecca) so they were eager to participate as well. We all worked on it and decided what resulted needed to go online for several reasons. For C.I.'s friends, it made the "open letter" more open. (They've e-mailed it like crazy.) For us, we're trying to get C.I. to allow us to post something or work on a new version of it -- an open letter C.I. did in the 90s. It's a holiday greeting and quite humorous. The reaction to this has been positive enough that C.I.'s considering it (not as a repost, as something we'll all work on). If it's not clear, and C.I. was against this going up for that reason, the woman in question is not a "hippie." She voted for Bully Boy. She was never a "hippie." No one ever thought she was. But pleading "hippie" allowed her an excuse for all her other stunts before. (We also had an e-mail from her -- griping. We laughed when we read it today.)
Justice for Abeer and her family? -- one of the longest pieces in terms of writing time. Also in terms of the artwork. What we're going for is putting the rapists in the foreground to get across both how much smaller the 14-year-old Abeer was and also to get across who was the concern at the time (themselves). With the exception of brown and black for hair and green for one t-shirt, we're largely working with red, white and blue and, yes, that was intentional. We were disgusted with the actions Barker described. When we talked to other people, who'd heard it (some on Democracy Now! during Friday's headlines), it was obvious that, though they were offended, they didn't really picture it. We did three illustrations with the hope that it would get across how awful the crimes were. While we think it's sad that it hasn't gotten across, we're also aware that these crimes have not been covered seriously in the media.
Music retrospective: Stevie Nicks -- the never ending feature. Truly! We just added to it tonight. Dona didn't work on the short features. She was attempting to prune what we'd written down to a workable length. We ended it before it was over (while we were writing on it) when it was pointed out we'd been writing it for over three hours. (We were also out of chocolate.) Dona took it and did a great job editing it. As we were working on the short features, we realized we needed to add a bit more. We added that tonight.
TV: Day Break -- Ava and C.I.'s TV review. This has been the most instantly popular since Prison Break. A lot of people who watched wrote to share their agreement and we've also got e-mails saying, "I'm checking it out Wednesday." (Illustrations to all Ava and C.I. TV reviews are the work of Jess and Rebecca.)
Editorial: Signs of activism life on campuses -- we were done. Oh no, we weren't. We never wrote the editorial! (We did have a host of technical problems.) We did this as quickly as possible. The thing we didn't note, that C.I. would have asked for a "C.I. did not participate in this editorial," resulted from a "tension" in the writing that we hadn't noticed. We've re-read the thing we were going to include and there is a "tension" in it. If someone's writing for reasons that are less than on the surface, we say more power to you and are glad we didn't include it in the editorial.
Thanksgiving weekend? (This coming Sunday.) We're not sure who will be participating. Wally's a maybe. Kat's for sure (she's trying to get back into the normal routine now that she's back from Ireland). Rebecca's pretty sure she's she's out. If she is, we're thinking of asking Mike and Elaine to bow out (so that they can have a whole weekend). Betty says she's in and Cedric says he's in. But it's all still up in the air. (Anyone who needs the weekend off should take it.)
See you Sunday.
--Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.
Editorial: Signs of activism life on campuses
If we read one more column slamming the peace movement from the supposed left or supposed semi-left, we'll scream. If we hear one more falsehood about how Iraq doesn't matter on campus but "a living wage" is the big ticket, we'll get downright ugly to those pushing that lie.
We're not joking.
If you're packing up your semi-merry pundsters off to a campus and you're not someone who addresses Iraq, don't be surprised that those concerned with the war choose to skip your gathering. Honestly, why would they show in the first place?
If coverage is activism and your coverage is "Vote!" . . . well, quit kidding yourselves that the ones who really care about the war are going to show up for your gathering.
Students aren't idiots. This is written by the core six and five of us are college students. We're not stupid. We see the covers on Hurricane Katrina, we see the coverage of "Eisenhower Democrats." We wouldn't go to one of your gatherings. In fact, we skipped one (featuring a speaker we do like -- one speaker) and went instead to the reading of Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove's Voices of a People's History. We like Zinn, we like Arnove. We like Alice Walker and the others participating. (C.I. and Ava note Alice Walker was a guest on Friday's Democracy Now! interviewed by Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez.) Many people we interviewed exploring the importance of people to the movements and progress of this country vs. a wonderful speaker and two others (one of whom is on staff at another magazine and pushed the war after the 2004 elections), so it was a sad choice (in terms of the one speaker) but it was a wise choice.
We'll go with Zinn. We'll go with Arnove. We'll go with the crowd that knows the war is illegal.
Others make similar statements. Other students. We've all heard it on campuses and not just in California or from our friends in NY. We tag along on C.I.'s trip (Dona tagged last week) (C.I. says "Not tagged, everyone who goes participates.") , we hear the comments. (Like, in Iowa, the "Eisenhower Democrats" tag for the students that do get coverage.)
So word to the desk jockeys who don't even go out to campuses, you have no idea what's going on. Word to the publication who does, your coverage has been so poor that you shouldn't be surprised that most who will criticize the war (and the Democratic Party) skip your events.
Did you catch this?
Police removed more than 20 protesters from a speech Maj. Gen. Michael J. Diamond gave Wednesday about the wars in the Middle East.Diamond, the deputy director of logistics from U.S. Central Command, focused on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in his presentation at the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs.
The speech began as planned, but the protesters entered the auditorium and began rapidly shooting questions at Diamond.
Edward Goetz, associate dean of academics at the Humphrey Institute, warned protesters they may be escorted out if they did not allow the speaker to proceed.He said there would be time for questions at the end of the presentation, but the protesters continued to interrupt Diamond.About five minutes into the discussion, Goetz directed University police to escort protesters out of the auditorium, an act that received applause from the 75-member audience.
The protesters chanted, "Out of Afghanistan, out of Iraq, out of the 'U' and don't come back," as they were ushered out.Before the speech, about 50 protesters from the student group Anti-War Organizing League and a community group called the Anti-War Committee gathered outside the building and called the war in Iraq "racist" and said it needed to end.Tracy Molm, women's studies senior and protest organizer, said AWOL was there to voice opposition to the war."We're here to stand up against the war in Iraq," she said.
That's from last week's Minnesota Daily, Charles Bruce's "Police remove protesters from speech on Iraq." Now it's not 'fantasy football,' or maybe we should call it "Trading Cabinets"?, but it's reality. How about, on a variety of age groups, Minneapolis' the Anti-War Committee? What are they doing?
Well, maybe you remember the GOP convention in 2004, the one in NYC? Maybe you remember how Bloomberg dicked everyone around on the whole permit issue and how the grass in Central Park (not a concern when Dave Matthews Band gave a free concert) couldn't take the people lawfully assembling?
Minneapolis' citizens working to end the war aren't going to play wait and see. They're applying for permits right now because the 2008 GOP convention will be held in their state.
Now again, it's not as fun as "Pelosi's a winner! Wait, no, she's not! Waxman! She should have gone with Waxman! Draft Waxman! Draft Waxman!"
WTF is that but the gas baggery that Tim Russert's been allowed to get away with for far too long? He has no plans, Waxman, to run for House Majority Leader, but we're told, we can dream.
Yes, we can dream. We can dream up ways for a better world. We can dream the dreams that will lead us to that. We can create the world we want (the way Alice Walker does in her novels). Or we can jaw bone and gas bag about how a post would be perfect for someone who doesn't want it.
Which really seems more productive?
Why don't students against the war flock to those gatherings? Because of jerk off crap like that. (It's only one example. There's another one we want to note but C.I. says if we do, we have to note "C.I. is not participating in this editorial." If it weren't so late and we weren't so tired, we're pretty sure we could make a convincing argument to include it, even persuade C.I. But, oh well.)
Hey, did anyone at the publication, in fact at any left publication, notice the news re: Abeer this week?
Guess not. Guess she'll continue to go unnoted. (Robin Morgan covered her in an essay in August, the magazine Off Our Backs devoted consideral coverage to the topic in the last issue.)
You don't see the anti-war activists? You don't see the peace activists? At your gatherings, they're not there. So you assume they don't exist? The reality is they do. The reality is they, unlike you apparently, are quite aware that "alleged" can now be removed from the statement that US troops raped and murdered 14-year-old Abeer and murdered her parents and her five-year-old sister. [Note: Barker only pleaded guilty for himself. Though his testimony does state that the others were involved, they haven't been tried yet. See "Justice for Abeer and her family?"]
Maybe sometime, if you can pull yourself away from 'fantasy football,' you can't cover something that actually matters. Until you do, don't be surprised that you get the middle-of-the-road Eisenhower Democrats and you continue to be further and further disconnected from students really working to end the war.
[Note: Dallas insists we add this. Last Sunday, we did an editorial. The publication in question posted something with the same two word title and question mark on the 16th. We're not talking about that. We weren't even aware of it until Dallas told us. We like the columnist and certainly don't hold a patent on those two words plus question mark.]
We're not joking.
If you're packing up your semi-merry pundsters off to a campus and you're not someone who addresses Iraq, don't be surprised that those concerned with the war choose to skip your gathering. Honestly, why would they show in the first place?
If coverage is activism and your coverage is "Vote!" . . . well, quit kidding yourselves that the ones who really care about the war are going to show up for your gathering.
Students aren't idiots. This is written by the core six and five of us are college students. We're not stupid. We see the covers on Hurricane Katrina, we see the coverage of "Eisenhower Democrats." We wouldn't go to one of your gatherings. In fact, we skipped one (featuring a speaker we do like -- one speaker) and went instead to the reading of Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove's Voices of a People's History. We like Zinn, we like Arnove. We like Alice Walker and the others participating. (C.I. and Ava note Alice Walker was a guest on Friday's Democracy Now! interviewed by Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez.) Many people we interviewed exploring the importance of people to the movements and progress of this country vs. a wonderful speaker and two others (one of whom is on staff at another magazine and pushed the war after the 2004 elections), so it was a sad choice (in terms of the one speaker) but it was a wise choice.
We'll go with Zinn. We'll go with Arnove. We'll go with the crowd that knows the war is illegal.
Others make similar statements. Other students. We've all heard it on campuses and not just in California or from our friends in NY. We tag along on C.I.'s trip (Dona tagged last week) (C.I. says "Not tagged, everyone who goes participates.") , we hear the comments. (Like, in Iowa, the "Eisenhower Democrats" tag for the students that do get coverage.)
So word to the desk jockeys who don't even go out to campuses, you have no idea what's going on. Word to the publication who does, your coverage has been so poor that you shouldn't be surprised that most who will criticize the war (and the Democratic Party) skip your events.
Did you catch this?
Police removed more than 20 protesters from a speech Maj. Gen. Michael J. Diamond gave Wednesday about the wars in the Middle East.Diamond, the deputy director of logistics from U.S. Central Command, focused on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in his presentation at the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs.
The speech began as planned, but the protesters entered the auditorium and began rapidly shooting questions at Diamond.
Edward Goetz, associate dean of academics at the Humphrey Institute, warned protesters they may be escorted out if they did not allow the speaker to proceed.He said there would be time for questions at the end of the presentation, but the protesters continued to interrupt Diamond.About five minutes into the discussion, Goetz directed University police to escort protesters out of the auditorium, an act that received applause from the 75-member audience.
The protesters chanted, "Out of Afghanistan, out of Iraq, out of the 'U' and don't come back," as they were ushered out.Before the speech, about 50 protesters from the student group Anti-War Organizing League and a community group called the Anti-War Committee gathered outside the building and called the war in Iraq "racist" and said it needed to end.Tracy Molm, women's studies senior and protest organizer, said AWOL was there to voice opposition to the war."We're here to stand up against the war in Iraq," she said.
That's from last week's Minnesota Daily, Charles Bruce's "Police remove protesters from speech on Iraq." Now it's not 'fantasy football,' or maybe we should call it "Trading Cabinets"?, but it's reality. How about, on a variety of age groups, Minneapolis' the Anti-War Committee? What are they doing?
Well, maybe you remember the GOP convention in 2004, the one in NYC? Maybe you remember how Bloomberg dicked everyone around on the whole permit issue and how the grass in Central Park (not a concern when Dave Matthews Band gave a free concert) couldn't take the people lawfully assembling?
Minneapolis' citizens working to end the war aren't going to play wait and see. They're applying for permits right now because the 2008 GOP convention will be held in their state.
Now again, it's not as fun as "Pelosi's a winner! Wait, no, she's not! Waxman! She should have gone with Waxman! Draft Waxman! Draft Waxman!"
WTF is that but the gas baggery that Tim Russert's been allowed to get away with for far too long? He has no plans, Waxman, to run for House Majority Leader, but we're told, we can dream.
Yes, we can dream. We can dream up ways for a better world. We can dream the dreams that will lead us to that. We can create the world we want (the way Alice Walker does in her novels). Or we can jaw bone and gas bag about how a post would be perfect for someone who doesn't want it.
Which really seems more productive?
Why don't students against the war flock to those gatherings? Because of jerk off crap like that. (It's only one example. There's another one we want to note but C.I. says if we do, we have to note "C.I. is not participating in this editorial." If it weren't so late and we weren't so tired, we're pretty sure we could make a convincing argument to include it, even persuade C.I. But, oh well.)
Hey, did anyone at the publication, in fact at any left publication, notice the news re: Abeer this week?
Guess not. Guess she'll continue to go unnoted. (Robin Morgan covered her in an essay in August, the magazine Off Our Backs devoted consideral coverage to the topic in the last issue.)
You don't see the anti-war activists? You don't see the peace activists? At your gatherings, they're not there. So you assume they don't exist? The reality is they do. The reality is they, unlike you apparently, are quite aware that "alleged" can now be removed from the statement that US troops raped and murdered 14-year-old Abeer and murdered her parents and her five-year-old sister. [Note: Barker only pleaded guilty for himself. Though his testimony does state that the others were involved, they haven't been tried yet. See "Justice for Abeer and her family?"]
Maybe sometime, if you can pull yourself away from 'fantasy football,' you can't cover something that actually matters. Until you do, don't be surprised that you get the middle-of-the-road Eisenhower Democrats and you continue to be further and further disconnected from students really working to end the war.
[Note: Dallas insists we add this. Last Sunday, we did an editorial. The publication in question posted something with the same two word title and question mark on the 16th. We're not talking about that. We weren't even aware of it until Dallas told us. We like the columnist and certainly don't hold a patent on those two words plus question mark.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
