The new age of privacy?

The Center for Democracy & Technology maintains, "Privacy is the number one concern of Internet users; it is also the top reason why non-users still avoid the Internet. Survey after survey indicates mounting concern." And there's good reason for concern and to be offended by your information being gathered and shared.



For example, 2008 is the year Senator John Kerry can kiss any future presidential ambitions goodbye. Those who donated online to his 2004 primary campaign do not appreciate his turning over their information to others. As the primaries began, they did not appreciate being harassed with e-mails and phone calls asking them to donate to Barack Obama's campaign.



"My phone number is unlisted," says community member Lynda echoing many who wouldn't support Kerry today for anything. Kerry can forget about the McKinnons support, as Mike has long documented at his site, for exactly the same reason. His aunt reveals she sent in checks to Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and made a point of marking through her phone number for that reason explaining, "It wasn't just the asking for contributions, starting two weeks before the [February Democratic] primary, we began non-stop robo-phone calls asking us to vote for Barack. I am not only voting for Ed O'Reilly [in the primary], if Ed loses, I'll be voting for the Republican running against John Kerry. We have three lines in our home, the only one getting the robo-calls to vote for Barack was the one we input when donating online for Kerry."

Lynda agrees with Mike's aunt and adds of her own experience, "It's unlisted for a reason. I did not appreciate getting endless calls, I did not appreciate having to change the number. I was not asked, 'Is it fine for me to share your information'?





But that's what John Kerry did and it wasn't his information to share. Jim accessed an old e-mail account he rarely even checks these days and, sure enough, there was non-stop Barack crap. Non-close personal friend David Plouffe was e-mailing him Tuesday about "Lies to Nowhere." Looking through the account, the only thing unread was non-stop Barack crap. 2007 contained some John Kerry e-mails (unread) and you can go all the way back through 2004 for the seven "Thank you for your contribution" e-mails to Kerry's 2004 primary campaign. Not only was Kerry the only candidate Jim had given money to, he never signed up with any political organization or candidate using that e-mail address. Opening the last one, we find:



Thank you for your generous contribution to our campaign.

The election is in full swing now, and we're winning -- but only thanks to people like you.

Please take the next step and ask your friends to sign up for Johnkerry.com.

John Kerry's success on Election Day depends on all of us and signing up will ensure your friends participate in activities that will make the difference in November.

If you want to learn more about John Kerry or his positions on the issues, please visit our website at http://www.johnkerry.com.

Thanks for your support!

Thank you,

The JohnKerry.com Team



Nowhere in that e-mail does it say, "By the way, in four years, I'll be handing over all your information during the Democratic primary to the candidate I've decided to endorse." The Kerry Team did ask you to sign up your friends and, if you did, you probably owe them an apology because Kerry repaid your support by harvesting information and passing it on to another campaign without permission. That's a funny way to say "Thanks for your support!"



Keesha knows all about the harvesting of information online from her own experiences and never, not even comments at a website, uses her real e-mail address.



"Your told your e-mail will not be made public, but you'll quickly learn otherwise," she explains. Whenever I leave a comment, I invert a letter or number in my e-mail address. If the site requires registration for comments, I don't leave a comment. I've had way too many bad experiences. At one 'Democratic' site in March 2004, I ended up with an online stalker who somehow obtained my information and harassed me repeatedly each day with e-mails. I ended up creating a new e-mail account. Now I'm very careful to only give my e-mail address to friends and to tell them not to send me something from a website because that can result in your getting spam mail. I never believe any site that says your e-mail will be kept private."



Which brings us to Dissident Voice, a website the community enjoys and the topic of discussion last week.



The online magazine allows comments after you fill in the following:



Your Name (required)
Email (will not be published!) (required)
Website (optional)



Though your e-mail is published, your e-mail hasn't been private. That point was driven home to Martha last Tuesday when she checked her account and found an e-mail from Stacie Adams that she was sent that day at 12:20 p.m. (PST). Who the hell is Stacie Adams?



Her bio says she's "an unassuming and introverted young woman with plans to take over the world and make it tolerable." She apparently feels the way to do that is to harvest private information and send e-mails to those who don't like her bad writing.



"Shrill, Baby, Shrill! Tactical Coups at the RNC and the Coming Out of Sarah Palin" is Adams' bad and offensive article. In one sentence, Adams manages to insult a wide stretch of America and to flaunt zero tolerance of many groups: "Between passing around her special needs baby for various photo ops and braying maniacally about the horror of being a community organizer, she struck that shrill conservative note beautifully."



"Passing around her special needs baby" is an offensive statement. For background, Hilda's Mix is a Common Ills community newsletter that was started to serve and highlight community members who are disabled/have special needs. Hilda had a personal reason for starting that newsletter, she's deaf. We asked her opinion of Adams' offensive remarks regarding special-needs and Hilda wrote back, "It wasn't all that long ago in this country that any disability meant you were hidden away. Adams is being not just insensitive but insulting. She is expressing distaste over the fact that Sarah Palin made her child with Down syndrome [Trig Palin] a public member of her family, someone as wanted and as deserving of sharing the moment as her other children who do not have special-needs. The language is insulting and offensive, suggesting that those of us not considered 'normal' should be hidden away. If Adams was 'grossed out' by the sight of a beautiful baby who has done nothing to harm anyone, she might take some time asking herself why that was and she might attempt to make a public apology to the special-needs community because that baby had as much reason to be included in his mother's big moment as any other of her children."



And the smarmy snark on a special-needs child was deplorable. It is not a minor issue to this community or to this site. July 30, 2006, Ava and C.I. were tackling one woman suggesting that special-needs children need to be hidden away.



There are a number of issues we deal with in various community newsletter. When Martha forwarded the e-mail from Stacie Adams, the consensus was that we would do that with this; however, C.I. made a point to read the article Tuesday evening and hit the roof on Adams' insulting and damaging remark regarding special-needs children.



"You need to go back to 2004 and the big announcement that John Edwards would be John Kerry's running mate," C.I. offers. "The young Edwards children were photographed and received nice press. Why shouldn't they? They're children. Fast forward four years later and Palin's indicted for 'passing around her special needs child'? That's is so far out of bounds. That's insulting to Trig Palin, that's insulting to all children and adults with special-needs and that's insulting to Sarah Palin and her husband. She did not 'pass around' her child. As Hilda says, she included her child in what was a big moment for her family. Adams may be uncomfortable around or with the mere fact that not everyone is as capable as she sees herself. That's her damn problem. The child was not 'passed around.' Palin held her son, her husband held their son, her children held the son and, when Palin was speaking, Cindy McCain went over to hold the child to allow Palin's husband to be able to stand. Apparently, to Stacie Adams, there was a cootie outbreak in Minnesota that she was repelled by. The family and Cindy held the baby and that was just too much information for Adams. Adams needs to confront her own prejudice. Trig Palin is a beautiful, little boy. He is not someone to be hidden away or ashamed of but Adams' offense that he was as visible as any of his siblings indicates she believes otherwise. So sorry that Adams had to leave her world of comfort for a minute and grasp that there are people who are different from her. She should relax, it's not 'catchy,' it's a chromosome issue so, to address more garbage online, Palin's birth or when her membrane began leaking in the ninth month, had nothing to do with Down syndrome. It is a condition that begins at conception, it does not suddenly appear in the birthing or after the birth. No one 'catches' it and Stacie Adams can relax, seeing Trig on her TV screen did not put her 'at risk' -- either of 'catching' the condition or of embracing humanity. "



We searched in vain for some moment where Adams decried the Obama girls appearing at the DNC convention or on Access Hollywood but found none. We'll assume she saves her vennum for special-needs children only. How very 'progressive' of her.



The National Down Syndrome Society explains that "more than 400,000 people in the U.S. have this genetic condition. One of the most frequently occurring chromosomal abnormalities, Down syndrome affects people of all ages, races and economic levels. Today, individuals with Down syndrome are active participants in the educational, vocational, social and recreational aspects of our communities. In fact, there are more opportunities than ever before for individuals with Down syndrome to develop their abilities, discover their talents and realize their dreams. For example, more teens and adults with Down syndrome each year are graduating from high school, going to college, finding employment and living independently. The opportunities currently available to individuals with Down syndrome have never been greater. However, it is only through the collective efforts of parents, professionals, and concerned citizens that acceptance is becoming even more widespread."



Acceptance is becoming even more widespread . . . except in Stacie Adams' home.



Now Martha's objection was over the sexist language. "Shrill" and "braying" were applied to Palin by Adams. Martha's call wasn't out of bounds. But it resulted in an e-mail from Adams.



Adams misses the irony of the quote she ends her e-mail with: "People come up to me and say 'What's wrong?' Nothing. 'Well it takes more energy to frown than it does to smile'. Yeah, you know it takes more energy to point that out than it does to leave me alone?" (Bill Hicks.) Does Adams believe that quote applies to Martha? It certainly "takes more energy" to e-mail Martha than it does to leave her alone.



Adams chose to post an insulting and sexist article at a site that allows comments. Seeing (yet another) woman being attacked in sexist terms ("shrill" and "braying") Martha left the following comment at Dissident Voice:



Sexism never wins your argument with me. The author lost me with her garbage including, "Between passing around her special needs baby for various photo ops and braying maniacally about the horror of being a community organizer, she struck that shrill conservative note beautifully." Shrill and braying in one sentence. Just a reminder that some of the worst sexist pigs are women.



Less than four hours after posting that comment (it was approved at some point), Stacie Adams enters Martha's inbox.



We contacted a number of people for this article and had planned to quote them. Bloggers and Dissident Voice.



Joshua Frank (of Dissident Voice) might like to be quoted but C.I. made the call that Frank's e-mail was private unless he stated otherwise because he is not the publisher of Dissident Voice. Sunil K. Sharma is the publisher and we did exchange e-mails with Sharma. Dissident Voice was unaware that this had happened and they are checking into it. Sharma responded at length and we would love to quote; however, we advised from the start that we were seeking comments for publication and we asked that this be approved. We did not get such approval.



From the e-mails (from Frank and Sharma), we believe the issue is being addressed and will not be a problem in the future. (And we do thank both men for responding and responding promptly.)



As stated, we also e-mailed bloggers. That includes people from the field of journalism who now blog and people who, as far as we know, began their public writing careers with blogs or personal websites. If any of the many people who were kind enough to reply would like to be quoted and misunderstood that we were writing for express permission to quote them, we will quote them next week.



Some shared that they had contacted someone who had left something on their own personal site which they found offensive. We tried to be clear in our e-mails (and will try to be clear here) that the issue with Adams is very different than that. Had Frank or Sharma taken offense to anything Martha or anyone else left at Dissident Voice and contacted them, that wouldn't have resulted in an article. Dissident Voice is online magazine and the ones running it can do with it as they see fit. Stacie Adams is a writer whose articles are posted to Dissident Voice. She is not on the masthead.



We would not be at all surprised by those running DV having access to the e-mail addresses of people who leave comments. We wouldn't be at all surprised for those with personal blogs or websites to have access to the e-mail addresses of people leaving comments at their own sites.



We do wonder how a writer (Adams) got access? (And if we could quote from a Sharma e-mail, we could explain how that may have happened.) But when the issue came up Tuesday evening, we made a list of community members who often e-mail (C.I.) to get something from DV highlighted. We then e-mailed those members to explain what happened to Martha and ask if anything similar had happened to them?



It had but nothing negative. Several members reported receiving e-mails from writers after they left comments at Dissident Voice. These were not e-mails like the one Stacie Adams sent to Martha. The writers were advising on their other writing and on the writing of others. [Those writers are not named here and were not named by us to Dissident Voice. There were no complaints over those e-mails and that had been taken place for several months.]



While there is a difference between that and the stunt Adams pulled, Dissident Voice was unaware that was taking place either.



Moving to the larger issue: Privacy concerns are not just an issue when it applies to the government.



The federal government now not only regularly circumvents the law to compile information on individuals, they also go to corporations where they are able to purchase the information that even they apparently fear gathering on their own.



The Patriot Act resulted in many cities and towns passing resolutions against it (see Bill of Rights Defense Committee). One thing many librarians were already doing was disposing of personal information as quickly as possible and many locales passing resolutions adopted those measures.



We were reminded of it often in 2007 and 2006 when we'd see one online blogger break from their weeks off to post a Guess-what-people-who-came-here-also-went-to post. We'd read that (usually in a copy & paste e-mail) and wonder what the point was in either gathering that information or making it public?



Google may gather site statistics here (we're sure they do since they own Blogspot/Blogger) but we do not. You will not find counters or anything that compiles your personal information at any community site including this one. There's already enough personal information gathering and compiling going on and we don't intend to add to it.



The Online Privacy Alliance has this to say on "Choice/Consent:"



Individuals must be given the opportunity to exercise choice regarding how individually identifiable information collected from them online may be used when such use is unrelated to the purpose for which the information was collected. At a minimum, individuals should be given the opportunity to opt out of such use.
Additionally, in the vast majority of circumstances, where there is third party distribution of individually identifiable information, collected online from the individual, unrelated to the purpose for which it was collected, the individual should be given the opportunity to opt out.
Consent for such use or third party distribution may also be obtained through technological tools or opt-in.



Clearly, neither John Kerry nor Stacie Adams share that belief.



Another issue we'd encourage readers to think about would be your right to privacy when you make a complaint? Should your complaint result in a response to the specifics or should be placed on a junk mail list? Feminist Majority Foundation and LeftTurn believe the latter as forwarded e-mails from readers demonstrate. Complain to either of them and get added to their junk mail list.



(For Feminist Majority Foundation, you then begin receiving their monthly calendar. For LeftTurn, you get an e-mail whenever they post something new. Please note, neither bothered to reply to complaints, they just added those complaining to their junk mail list.)



In recent years, attempts to share information gathered on the part of both FaceBook and Google led to a huge outcry. This is a new terrain and each erosion of privacy means futher erorisons -- from corporations, the government and individuals. The future doesn't start tomorrow or even today. It's already began and our lives and our right to privacy are already being determined.

The UN's embarrassment in Iraq

AP reports 4 new cholera cases in Iraq, this time in Karbala. The United Nations' IRIN has released a ridiculous article entitled "Cholera continues to spread in the south" (released today, but dated Monday, September 15th). Ridiculous?

It's a kiss ass article sucking up to the puppet government in Iraq in its first five paragraphs and in its last four paragraphs. The last four is where the World Health Organization (WHO) comes in which is a cute reworking of what happened. The first sentence announces Iraq's Ministry of Health held a press conference Saturday. It ignores Friday's press conference where a WHO representative participated in one of the most disgusting spin sessions of the year.

WHO is a part of the UN as is IRIN. Must be nice to be able to cover up for your own embarrassments. C.I. covered the Friday press conference in "Naeema al-Gasseer: the United Nations' embarrassment in Iraq" and Naeema al-Gasseer is both a doctor and someone who has confused who she works for.

Repeatedly in Friday's press conference she would say "we" and then have to back it up to explain that she meant the Iraqi government. When a UN rep can't even verbally maintain the distance she's supposed to in a press conference, there's a lot of garbage going down.

Which included al-Gasseer joining the two Iraqi government figures in slamming the media. Slamming the media is nothing new in Iraq.


Reporters Without Borders released a statement today which includes that they are "appalled and saddened by the murder of four employees of privately-owned TV station Al-Sharqiya yesterday in the northern city of Mosul. Al-Sharqiya's news director noted that the murders followed a smear campaign against the station by state TV broadcaster Al Iraqiya."

Wow, who could have guessed that the state-owned and state-controlled Al-Sharquiya would launch a verbal attack on the press? Anyone listening to the garbage coming out of al-Gasser's mouth on Friday. Friday a UN rep joined in smearing the press and, the following day, 4 journalists are murdered.



Yeah, the UN can cut off a slice of the blame pie.

Naeema al-Gasseer didn't just stand there passively as two Iraqi government officials verbally attacked the press -- which would have been bad enough considering that she's supposed to represent the United Nations. No, she joined in on the attacks.

Since the start of the illegal war, at least 217 journalists* have died in Iraq. The illegal war is also the deadliest war for journalists in the modern era.

The United Nations is supposed to be an independent body. When one of their representatives joins in verbal attacks on the press, the gloves truly have come off.

It wasn't enough for Naeema al-Gaseer to attack journalists, she also had to attack Iraqi women.

The cholera epidemic can be blamed on Iraqi women -- or, from her wording, whomever allows them to cook the way they do. Considering her constant refrain of how (fundamentalist) clergy must take control and how "cleanliness" must be enforced combined with her verbal assault on Iraqi women, we'd argue Dumb Ass al-Gaseer knowingly or not was encouraging violence towards women. She was certainly scapegoating Iraqi women.

The IRIN article has five middle paragraphs that make the article worth reading. From that section:

However, some experts have criticised some of the health authorities' hygiene recommendations.
Ismaiel Mohammed, a sociology professor at the University of Babil, said the government's recommendations to residents will add to their economic burden as they will have to pay more money for fuel to boil water or for buying bottled water.
"It [cholera] is an endemic disease and there must be real solutions that go to the roots of it and not only immediate measures whenever the disease emerges," Mohammed told IRIN. "By this we are only cutting off the octopus' arms and not killing it."

The 'health authorities' include Naeema al-Gasseer. The IRIN article does not note her but on Friday she joined the two other 'health authorities' in blaming the cholera outbreak on everything but the government.

al-Gasseer dismissed reports of an 'epidemic' and insisted that after last year's outbreak at the same time, it was perfectly normal and expected that another outbreak would take place.

What was perfectly normal was to expect that the central government in Baghdad would have addressed the problem. They have not. Not only does Nouri al-Maliki sit on billions of unspent dollars, he also hasn't cleaned up the area. Empty lots now act as overflowing trash cans. And Iraqis are expected to pay through the nose for fuel.

That would include the fuel that they would need to boil water.

al-Gasseer had plenty of time to lecture and imply that Iraqi women were stupid and just not aware that water needed boiling. She had no time to note how high the fuel costs were (or that electricity is still a joke in Iraq).

al-Gasseer has clearly confused her role within the United Nations as "I work for al-Maliki." In doing so, she has not only refused to outline the real problems of the cholera outbreak, she has not only joined in the attacks on the press and she has not only encouraged violence against Iraqi women, she's made clear to the world that the United Nations is perfectly fine with having an apologist and accomplice for a government that refuses to act. She has lowered the United Nations in the eyes of the world and it is past time for her to be assigned to another post.

------
* 217? We do not draw a line between journalists and media workers. In Iraq the "media worker" is often also the stringer and much more. Many of the media workers are Iraqis who have increased access and trust for that very reason. It is not uncommon for media workers to do the bulk of the work. In a war zone, anyone trying to report -- journalist or media worker -- is a journalist in our eyes.

Meet Charley Johnson 'Journalist'

Meet Charley Johnson.

Location: Toronto Canada
Why I support Barack Obama: The moment of my political awakening came as a teen was in 1960 when Kennedy was president. Not since Bobby Kennedy has a political leader inspired me the way Barack does. Seeing how he has the same impact on millions of others makes me think I can believe in America again, something this old cynic has had trouble doing for 30+ years.
Birth Date: November 3rd
Issues: equality / civil rights; civil liberties / privacy; foreign policy / security; economic fairness / security; environment / conservation; smart energy policy; public infrastructure / transportation; good government / ethics; affordable health care; education
Registered to Vote: Yes




He's a busy guy.

Making a difference

10

Activity Index

Details

Activities

All 7 Days 30 Days

Events Hosted		1 0 1
Events Attended		0 0 0
Calls made		0 0 0
Doors Knocked		0 0 0
Number of blog posts		49 3 32
Donors to your personal fundraising		0 0 0
Amount raised		$0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Groups Joined		5

All in bold are from his page at Barack Obama's campaign site.

In a perfect world, you'd never have to meet Charley Johnson but, as Denzel says in Philadelphia, we don't live in a perfect world.



Bottom feeder Charley surfaced around the web recently with an article entitled "Palin Is 'Racist, Sexist, Vindictive, And Mean'" which opens:





"So Sambo beat the bitch!"
This is how Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin described Barack Obama's win over Hillary Clinton to political colleagues in a restaurant a few days after Obama locked up the Democratic Party presidential nomination.
According to Lucille, the waitress serving her table at the time and who asked that her last name not be used, Gov. Palin was eating lunch with five or six people when the subject of the Democrat's primary battle came up. The governor, seemingly not caring that people at nearby tables would likely hear her, uttered the slur and then laughed loudly as her meal mates joined in appreciatively.
"It was kind of disgusting," Lucille, who is part Aboriginal, said in a phone interview after admitting that she is frightened of being discovered telling folks in the "lower 48" about life near the North Pole.
Then, almost with a sigh, she added, "But that's just Alaska."
Racial and ethnic slurs may be "just Alaska" and, clearly, they are common, everyday chatter for Palin.



First off, there's no reason for Lucille not to use her last name. She's identified as a waitress, as part Aboriginal and as a Lucille. If she really exists, she would have been easy to narrow down. Second off, real reporters don't base a claim on racism on one source. Real reporters ask, "Who else was present?" They get corroboration. Charley Johnson's not a real reporter. He is a Barack supporter.



Palin a racist? If he has evidence, he doesn't supply any and, get honest, "Sambo" isn't really a term a racist Palin's age would use. A racist that age might use any number of other terms if she were a racist but "Sambo" is really something that someone older, say someone who was a teen when JFK was president, would be familiar with. Which is why it's so very hard to take Charley Johnson's scribble seriously.



Another reason is, title aside, he wants to claim that he's outraged by Palin's remark. And where is the outrage? Over the name Barack was called. Setting the title aside, where is any indication that he thinks readers will be offended that Hillary was called a "bitch"?



Johnson's also written a 'follow up' where he explains his 'journalistic' methods and they may fool some people but they aren't journalistic at all.



Johnson's make a very strong charge against Palin in his opening paragraphs. You do not source a charge that huge to one person and certainly not to just one person you've never met. (Johnson reveals he's only spoken to her over the phone, once for ten minutes.) No respectable mainstream outlet would print Johnson's story.



If you're not suspicious that Johnson's putting his own words into other people's mouths, you're not reading closely. He next offers tales of Sarah Palin insulting indigenous people in Alaska yet paragraphs later he's referring "to the governor's igloo". Uh, who's making offensive comments and stereotyping, Johnson?



Despite the fact that news outlets have pulled reporters off other beats and sent them to Alaska to gather information on Palin, no major outlet's reported "racism" or, for that matter, had a conversation with a reporter claiming Palin cost them their job (he or she "now works for an oil company in Anchorage" according to Johnson).





Johnson offers in his 'explanation' that Lucille is in her fifties or sixties and that's supposed to provide something. However, he explains something else about Lucille. She's not just a waitress, she also cleans the home of his friend who hates Palin, the friend he states hooked him up with Lucille. We don't think Lucille exists. However, journalists know that a 'source' who works for a source (who hates someone) is not necessarily telling the truth. Meaning that as Lucille's employer, Johson's friend could have asked his cleaning woman to lie to Johnson for ten minutes and, needing the money, she could have. That's what makes her suspect if she exists. (Again, we don't believe she does.) And no journalist would run with such a charge on the basis of one source especially not someone dependent upon money from a Palin-hater.



We'd further note that "BFF" and "bro" (among other terms Johnson utilizes repeatedly in his writing) really aren't terms we'd associate with a professional journalist who was a teenager when JFK was president.



The story smells and, frankly, so does "Charley Johnson." Having given out Lucille's employment, race/ethnicity and general age, we'd suggest that Lucille has nothing to left to hide because, as Johnson can't stop pointing out, Alaska is such a 'small' state.



Had Charley Johnson just posted it at his own site, that would be one thing. But many outlets have amplified it. It's not only at Black Agenda Report, OpEd News and many other places, it's quoted repeatedly at the official Barack campaign website -- you know, the same one that has the "Fight The Smears" thing going.

Sarah Sewell & Her Cult

It really doesn't matter to us that Sarah Sewell (aka Sarah Sewar) doesn't like Ava and C.I.'s "TV: Charlie Rose by any other name would still be as bad." That article went up December 30th of last year and it's a rare week when The Cult of Sarah doesn't argue for it to come down for a variety of laughable reasons.



Last week, Sarah Sewar dispatched more students to plead to us. It needs to come down, we were instructed, for feminism.



What a laugh.



It's not coming down. It didn't come down when the Cult started their smear campaign on the work of David Price (e-mails from January 12th through Feb. 20th). It didn't come down when the 'Monty McFate is really a sweetheart' e-mails came in (those began the day the piece went up and stopped only when Monty's sister got busted for being a NRA operative infiltrating peace groups -- apparently they then had to work on silencing others and put us on hold). It certainly didn't come down during March when the e-mails focus was how this could 'hurt' Barack. (Sewer is an advisor to Barack.)



None of the attempts have worked and none will.



But the new thread is 'for feminism.'



Sarah Sewar's not a feminist. She's a War Hawk. She's responsible for the counter-insurgency strategy being used in Afghanistan and Iraq. She wants even more war (and apparently thinks Barack will provide her with it -- we don't disagree with her on that).



Sarah Sewar elected to go on The Charlie Rose Show with her running buddy Monty McFate. Don't like what Ava and C.I. wrote?



Well, you don't have to.



But we read over it (Ava and C.I. didn't bother to). We're fine with it.



Sarah Sewar (an adult) goes on TV to preach more war? TV's a visual medium. Ava and C.I. regularly critique the appearances of men and women on TV. Don't like it? Don't read it.



We searched the e-mails pleading Sarah's case on behalf of 'feminism' last week for anything beside Sarah's appearance (we'd say she's "ghastly") and didn't find any. The e-mails had no argument other than Sarah's appearance was judged and that's just not feminism! Well, tell her to stick to radio if she doesn't want her appearance commented on.



Two especially took exception to this:



We weren't sure whether Monty was attempting to play the Marci to Sewer's Patti de Pastilles de menthe or the Alice B. Toklas to Sewer's Gertrude Stein but we did enjoy the sucking up Monty did to Sewer for two main reasons. One, Sewer was basking in it and looking even more the pompous fool than usual. Two, we know Monty. We know how she operates. She butters up a dupe right before she attempts to steal credit. Monty's a backstabber and a publicity hound so we are eager to see exactly what damage she'll inflict on Sewer before this is all over.



Sadly, the two didn't even grasp that "Patti de Pastilles de menthe" is Peppermint Patty (from Peanuts). But we've seen the broadcast and Monty is sucking up to Sarah and, as Ava and C.I. know (Monty's from this area), when Monty sucks up, she's up to something, usually a back stabbing.



One of Sarah's grad students insist that Ava and C.I. called Sarah a "whore" and that is just not feminism! Here's the section and be very scared of the comprehension level of Sewer's grad students:



For those not in the know about Sewer, when not appearing on TV to look like an unwashed freak who just pulled her hair to one side, is a Bloody War Hawk. Some call her a War Whore, but we try to avoid that term and just call her a War Hawk with an "ugly" sometimes tossed in. As a War Hawk she operates out of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy which is really just a fancy way of saying she's a Destruction Pusher. There's no place on the globe that she doesn't feel her big nose can be stuck in and should be stuck in. Granted, it is a large beak, a ski run -- if you will, and it probably is difficult for her to contain it in her so-so dwellings, but not only does no one need to see it, no one wants to.



Though Ava and C.I. don't call her a "War Whore," we will. We're also aware that despite the power Sarah Sewer holds (including on the Barack campaign), no one dares criticize her. When she's discussed, it's one or two quick sentences and then a race to move on.



Sewer needs to be discussed. She is for the Iraq War and is a Barack adviser. Sewer wasn't just for the Iraq War when it started -- as Ava and C.I. document it, she is still for the illegal war:



Sewer came close to unhinging in public when she went into rapid-fire mode, spitting out sentences about the failure of states, her desire to create "a strong, international force," how the illegal war must not be seen "as a failure" and her "concern" that, if Iraq is seen as a failure, "we'll move towards isolationism" or, worse, send in the military to "strike him and get out" (as opposed to occupying -- and "him" wasn't identified by the War Pig). That truly does concern Sewer because her whole existence, her belief system such as it is, is rooted in the notion that she, and only she, possess the wisdom to decide.



The Iraq War, an illegal war, unprovoked, must not be seen "as a failure"?



Again, this is one of Barack's foreign policy advisers. Here's Ava and C.I. pointing out that Charlie and Sewer thought it was cute to have a little insider-baseball talk at the expense of the viewers:



He found it just awful that politicians weren't echoing the War Hawk work that Sewer and Monty were doing, "You don't hear candidates talk about this."

"We do actually," Sewer said in full repression mode. She went on to whine that War Hawk Barack Obama "gave a speech" incorporating their plans for War Eternal but it was lost as people focused on other things. Still, Sewer assured Chuckie, "at least one candidate has done that."

Smirking like the valet that mistook himself for an insider, Chuckie offered, "I'm familiar with some of the people behind the scenes that you know" who wrote Obama's speech. He means, among others, Sammy Power. But she's become such a drag on the Obama campaign that no one's mentioning her, not even her buddy Chuck. Yet, watching, we had to wonder what PBS thought of that nonsense?

He's familiar? So what? Are people watching Public Broadcasting to have Charlie smirk about things he knows but doesn't intend to impart? Isn't he required to mention the names he knows? He brought it up, he wasn't under grand jury questioning. Exactly what, if anything, can our PBS friends find to defend in that moment? (Our answer, when the calls come in, will be "Not a damn thing" only we'll be use stronger language.)



For the record, Ava and C.I. received no complaint from PBS Friends about that commentary. The only feedback on it was that Rose doesn't need to have a private conversation on the public airwaves.



One of the e-mailers last week insists it is embarrassing for Sewer and for Barack that the commentary is up. We'll assume that's because Sewer is the one The Nation, Democracy Now!, The Progressive, et al refuse to explore. They give her a pass and she gets away with a lot of damage.



She went on broadcast TV and bragged about how tight she was with "at least one candidate," insisted the illegal war must not be judged a failure, advocated occupations of other countries and bragged about her counter-insurgency work.



She gets no pass from us.



Don't like the tone, oh well.



Applause to one for identifying herself as a student of Sewer's. We checked the rest, you all are.



Which is another reason the article stays up: Sewell does a lot of damage, including infecting college minds.



She's an adult, she went on television, she looked ghastly. Ava and C.I. are covering TV. If a visual detail strikes them as worth noting, they note it. They noted the strong camera work in Flashpoint. They noted that the Princes of Malibu treated the two young men like they existed from the neck up while zooming in on bikini-bottomless women.



In one of our personal favorites pieces, they write, "Judd Hirsch's belly? Don't get us started. We both gasped when he was shown walking on a golf course. Whatever happened to the cast of Taxi? Apparently Judd ate them."



You don't have to like what they do and you don't have to read it.



You do need to grasp that they're writing about a visual medium (this week's commentary finds time to mention visuals including bad camera work). Children are off-limits to them. That's child actors and children who are non-professionals. They draw the line at that. Anyone else who goes on TV is fair game if they stand out to them.



We grasp that Sewer doesn't like the piece. We grasped that a long time ago, many, many e-mails ago. It doesn't upset us. Again, we're thrilled that Ava and C.I. had the guts to do what the 'brave' voices of 'alternative' media didn't: Call out Sewer.



One of last week's e-mails wanted to insist that Ava and C.I.'s commentary was not "the feminist belief system." There's no "the." Ava and C.I. repeatedly have noted (since 2005) that they are offering "'a' feminist take, not 'the' take."



One of the Cult e-mailed four times last week, noting each time that she had e-mailed before and not gotten a response. You did get a response, the same response that all Cult members have received: Loud laughter on our end.



But in case she's only taking the weekend off and planning to e-mail over and over next week as well, we're putting this up so that she knows we read her e-mails -- her e-mails and the rest from Sarah's Cult. We read them, we laughed at them.



We laughed as the arguments for why the commentary must be taken down shifted over and over. We laughed at the ones explaining they were writing at Sarah's request. As the e-mail count on this multiplied and multiplied, we started to picture that Sewer added Ava and C.I.'s article to a class reading list. That made us laugh even harder.



-- Jim, Dona, Ty and Jess

Highlights

This piece is written by Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Kat of Kat's Korner, Betty of Thomas Friedman is a Great Man, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, Ruth of Ruth's Report, Marcia of SICKOFITRADLZ and Wally of The Daily Jot. Unless otherwise noted, we picked all highlights.

"Naeema al-Gasseer: the United Nations' embarrassment in Iraq" -- if any parent of any of us requests a highlight, they get it. Jim's father requested that we highlight this piece by C.I. He's read over a transcript of the Friday press conference and says the United Nations has allowed one of their employees to completely cross the line and that every reporter he's shown the transcript to are outraged at a UN rep attacking the press, covering for a government and blaming individuals for a government that refuses to address a disease.

"Thomas Friedman mounts his Huffy bike" -- In this chapter, Betinna faces the return (and departure) of husband Thomas Friedman who frets over his new love and fancies himself Mary Tyler Moore.

"Adults in the Kitchen" -- Trina calls out Barack's crap and his refusal to take it seriously -- his refusal and many others.

"sunsara taylor," "Sunsara Taylor and political honesty" and "Iraq snapshot" -- Rebecca, Elaine and C.I. all note Sunsara Taylor's powerful speech.

"Nancy Pelosi: The fold-out politician" and "nancy pelosi donates to cindy sheehan's campaign!" -- Kat and Rebecca note "No offshore drilling!" Pelosi's latest cave and how it helps Cindy Sheehan.

"The company he keeps" & "THIS JUST IN! CAROL FOWLER TERRORIST AND ASS!" -- Cedric and Wally cover the continued decay of the Fowler family with Carol Fowler being the latest embarrassment.

"Jeremiah was a . . . piece of trash" -- The 'upstanding' Jeremiah Wright, portrayed as a man of God to listen to by all the fringe media. And during that? Cheating on his wife with an employee who has now filed a lawsuit against him. Cheating on his second wife, we should add. His first marriage broke up when he gave marriage 'counseling' to a couple -- but wanted one on one sessions with the wife -- the woman who ended up being his second wife. For any who remember his mocking of Bill Clinton at the front of the church which included hip thrusting, Jeremiah's inability to keep it in his own pants probably comes as no shock. His 'standards' were on display for all to see long ago, as Marcia outlines.

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Barack Running Scared" -- Isaiah's comic explaining Barack's reaction to Sarah Palin.


"House Armed Services Committee" & "Iraq snapshot" -- Mike and C.I. cover the House Armed Services Committee hearing.

"Child labor scandal" -- a scandal that didn't get a great deal of attention but should have. Ruth caught it.

"the new 'obama girls'," "How stupid is Michelle Cottle?," "Sexism and bad journalism" "the new 'obama girls'," & "The crazies" -- Rebecca, Marcia, Elaine and Mike's state of the world/media overviews.

"Barack the unwanted," "THIS JUST IN! BARACK NEEDS RESCUING!" & "I don't want Bill campaigning for Barack" -- Cedric, Wally and Kat covering the weak Barack.

"Andrew Romano, Jeff Roca" -- Ruth explaining just how many voters Barack's running off.

Truest statement of the week

Divisive: Senator Obama called Sarah Palin's speech "divisive". Really? Which part? The bit where she said that Obama has written no legislation? The dig at the styrofoam columns? The comment about a "community organizer" having no responsibilities? The laff at his egomaniacal "seal"?
A statement is not a smear if it is true.

Joseph, "Good for the goose . . ." (Cannonfire) [Palin's speech can be read here.]

Truest statement of the Week II

But it is Obama's surrender on the Iraq War front -- or rather, the anti-Iraq War front -- that is most striking, and most disheartening. On the very night that John McCain was putting the "success" of the surge at the center of his campaign, Obama was openly, cravenly laying down one of his chief weapons at the feet of Bill O'Reilly. Obama's cheerleading for the surge -- "beyond our wildest dreams!" -- surpassed anything that McCain himself has claimed for the escalation.

-- Chris Floyd, "Surge Protectors: Obama Embraces Bush-McCain Spin on Iraq" (Baltimore Chronicle)

Truest statement of the week III

I enjoy WMC but I'm seeing that Feminist Wire has apparently finished for the day without noting John McCain's pick of a woman for his running mate. I do however see the following at Daily Kos: "The Old Man and She" by Jimmy Crackcorn to which Geiiga has posted, "You think maybe McCain misunderstood that just because she's his 'running mate' doesn't mean he gets to mate with her." The comments only get worse.
I don't know a thing about the woman. Except she's a "former beauty queen." I see that over and over in the press. And people, reporters, saying she’s not qualified because she's only a 2nd year governor. And then saying "beauty queen" one more time.
She's a Republican and I'm sure we do not agree on abortion or LGBT issues. I have no plans to vote for her.
I will not, however, stand by while another woman is trashed.
And let’s get really damn honest here, she's being trashed by Barack's campaign. The lack of experience line is coming from Barack's campaign and quoted online by The Los Angeles Times and many others. WMC can't make that obvious point ever. That's why I am only a lukewarm supporter. That and the fact that as a LESBIAN
I will not support a man who puts homophobes on stage.
Thank you to my sisters at WMC who refused to call out Barack's use of homophobia. Wave to me when it's my stop. It's a long, long walk from the back of the bus.

-- Heather posting to "Katie Couric & Sexism in the Media" (WMC).