BOB WOODWARD: We pour garbage on people.
ANNOUNCER: And the press knows it.
ANDREA MITCHELL: I think we are really unpopular.
FRONTLINE Show #1503
Air Date: October 22, 1996
"Why America Hates the Press"
The focus of this piece is Bob Woodward but when Andrea Mitchell tells the truth, it is NEWS so we had to include it.
So aging golden boy Woody's argued that some of the criticsm directed his way of late results from the press' natural tendency to tear someone down in order to build them back up. Woody's arguing that the press needs "a story" and will create one when it has to.
We don't disagree. Nor do we think it's a terribly new point that Woody's making. Carly Simon made many similar comments in the eighties. Joni Mitchell's also made similar comments going back to the seventies.
But there are two issues that come to mind.
First, does Woody think he is an "artist." We thought he pushed the fantasy that he was a reporter.
Second, when a Carly Simon or Joni Mitchell makes those comments, they're talking about how their latest release is being trashed. "Torn down to build them up later on because otherwise the press has no story" is the argument.
Woody doesn't record, so exactly what "product" does he believe is being trashed?
There's no new book.
Does Woody think he is the product?
We wouldn't be surprised.
But while we can agree that the Woody's comments are sometimes true, we're having a hard time seeing how they apply to Woody.
He is news now. Something he always wants to be.
But he's news not because of anything he did but for failing to a) tell the public that he was informed Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA operative while publicly weighing in with his opinions on the investigation headed by Patrick Fitzgerald and b) failing to inform his editor that he had knowledge of the Plame leak.
It's frequently amusing to watch Woody attempt to defend himself.
His comments reveal more than he means to.
For instance his most recent Larry King Live appearance, how long did it take him to plug his upcoming book?
It was in his third response:
I'm working on a book, "Bush's Second Term." I'm trying to put the pieces of the puzzle together. There are things I know that I'm just not going to talk about involving that research.
Not "I'm working on a new book." No, "I'm working on a book" plug title "Bush's Second Term."
Ladies and gentlemen, the aging starlet, Bob Woodward. Jacqueline Susann could not have plugged so shamelessly.
It just got better.
According to Woody:
Then, the day of the indictment I read the charges against Libby and looked at the press conference by the special counsel and he said the first disclosure of all of this was on June 23rd, 2003 by Scooter Libby, the vice president's chief of staff to "New York Times" reporter Judy Miller.I went, whoa, because I knew I had learned about this in mid- June, a week, ten days before, so then I say something is up. There's a piece that the special counsel does not have in all of this.
I then went into incredibly aggressive reporting mode and called the source the beginning of the next week and said "Do you realize when we talked about this and exactly what was said?" And the source in this case at this moment, it's a very interesting moment in all of this, said "I have to go to the prosecutor. I have to go to the prosecutor. I have to tell the truth."
And so, I realized I was going to be dragged into this that I was the catalyst and then I asked the source "If you go to the prosecutor am I released to testify" and the source told me yes. So it is the reporting process that set all this in motion.
"Agressive reporting mode"? "Incredibly" or not, we're not seeing it. Agressive reporting mode isn't calling the leak and saying, "We spoke of this!" We're not seeing anything in Woody's narrative indicating he's going to write about it. It reads like Woody's attempt to shoot the breeze. Or possibly to make sure both parties were on the same page. Obviously, they weren't. The source goes to the prosectuion and Woody's disappointment over that development can be inferred from his statement "I realized I was going to be dragged into this . . . "
We chuckled over his talk of his "news juices." We laughed most of all at this:
WOODWARD: It may be but I pressed that source as much as you can and I'm not going to -- if you remember back into Watergate and Mark Felt, the number two in the FBI who was the source "Deep Throat" we kept that secret for 33 years because the source insisted upon it.
Woody's speaking of his "source" for a report he never wrote. He's speaking of the person who leaked on Valerie Plame to him.
Watergate, Woody and Carl Bernstein wrote about. (Woody likes to trot out Carl more these days to hide behind but he's still eager to claim credit for himself.) Mark Felt was kept a secret because he could be retaliated against.
Woody's leak (not source) has informed his superiors of the conversation with Woody. Woody has informed the prosecuters. The only ones who haven't been informed are the public. Woody's seeing commonalities where there are none.
He's also offering a shifting rationale. In the same Larry King interview, he claims initially that it hit him when Scooter Libby was indicted that he had another piece of the story -- one that wasn't known. (Apparently from offhand gossip if his earlier claims are to be believed.) So he picked up the phone to call his leak. But at the end of the King interview, Woody says this:
I made efforts to get the source, this year, earlier, and last year, to give me some information about this so I could put something in the newspaper or a book. So, I could get information out, and totally failed.
This year? Earlier? And in 2004?
When did Woody realize what he knew?
The issue's pressing to him, in some of his accounts, when he learns the date of Judith Miller & Scooter Libby's conversation. In others, he's been trying to get this story out "in the newspaper or a book" as far back as 2004. Since Woody lives by his anonymous, official sources, we're failing to see what "information" he was waiting to be given before writing about it.
But is anyone going to call Woody on the contradictions in his remarks on King's show? Commenting on his minimizing of the investigation on an earlier King telecast (October 27, 2005), Woody states:
At that point and on your show I didn't know what that meant at all because it was such a casual offhand remark.
"I didn't know what all this meant." While claiming, in the same broadcast, that he made efforts earlier this year and in 2004 to press the leak on this matter?
There are a number of journalistic issues that Woody's behavior raises. It's too bad a journalistic watchdog refuses to hunt. Instead of barking, it's preferred to sniff around the old pile of crap that is Judith Miller's career. It's certainly safer. It doesn't even upset The New York Times because the paper doesn't care if Miller's beat up on for her public statements. It's not as though the watchdog's going through Miller's past reporting for the paper. They're just grabbing the stick and hitting the pinata one more time. Pity they're so silent on Bob Woodward.
Sunday, December 04, 2005
10 Movies for the Holidays
Our reader who couldn't be home for Thanksgiving will also miss Christmas. He e-mailed asking if we'd make a list of holiday movies to get someone in the spirit? How about eleven films. We picked ten. The eleventh pick will be a surprise to our reader who requested this feature.
Christmas in Connecticut. The original. Barbara Stanwyck stars in this film as a newspaper writer who's lied to her readers repeatedly and worries she might be found out at any moment. We like to think of it Judy Miller: Year 2002.
Stanwyck is a columnist dispensing advice and sharing warm moments from her own life that are, in fact, made up. A comedy that will make you laugh, the film has just the right amount of warm moments. (Dateline take note.) After The Lady Eve and Double Indemnity, this is our favorite Stanwyck performance. (What? You thought we'd put The Colbys on the list?) (Betty picks this as the movie to watch with a cup of hot chocolate on Christmas Eve.)
Desk Set. Playing drunk at an office Christmas party, Katharine Hepburn pours more soul into "Night and Day" then Bono's been able to muster in countless attempts. the film provides the answer to why we don't smoke in public buildings. Don't kid yourselves about public health, it's all about the computers!
Hepburn and Spencer Tracy star in this romantic comedy set in the work environment. Hepburn's in charge of research and the company's "modernizing" by bringing in computers. Eve Arden provides comic support.
Hepburn and Tracy have real chemistry in this film and there's no need to humiliate Hepburn at the end. (Nor does she give up her job in the film's final scene.) Vastly underrated, Christmas wouldn't be Christmas for some of us (C.I., Mike and Kat) without a yearly viewing of this film. By the way, Hepburn's working for a broadcast network. She heads the research department which fact checks. That's how you know it's a comedy.
Moonstruck. Cher plays a woman her own age who ends up transforming into Cher mid-movie with newly vibrant hair and younger boyfriend (Nicholas Cage).
The film features many actors giving their finest performance. That includes Cher who won her Best Actress Oscar for this film. It also includes Olympia Dukakis, Nicholas Cage, Danny Aiello and John Mahoney.
Cher's engaged with Aiello who's off to Italy to be at the bedside of his dying mother. Aiello asks her to make sure his brother (Cage) is invited to their wedding. What follows is one twist after another in this humorous look at family and romance. (Ava and Rebecca rate it as their favorite.)
Bounce. Gwyneth Paltrow never seemed less stiff and more real than while portraying a widow with young children trying to make sense of her life. The film co-stars Ben Affleck and that may be enough to turn off those suffering from a career that seems bound and determined to turn him into this generation's Burt Reynolds. But ignore the bad films and bad performances, the tabloid romances, and you'll realize he's actually effective in this film.
A great deal of credit for that goes to Johnny Galecki's performance as a character never afraid to call Affleck on his shit. (We're not sure if he's supposed to represent film critics or the poor souls who paid to see Daredevil, Gigli, Reindeer Games, et al.)
It's Paltrow's showcase and, in this film, she justifies every bit of praise she's received for other roles. If she's always left you cold and unmoved in her more lauded work, check out Don Roos' Bounce. (Cedric picks this film as the holiday movie because "it's about rebirth and redemption.")
Hanging Up. This Diane Keaton directed film features a screenplay by two Ephrons, Delia and Nora. Two Ephrons also wrote the screenplay to Desk Set (Phoebe and Henry) and happen to be the parents of Delia and Nora.
Though frequently underutilized in the film, Lisa Kudrow hits strong notes throughout as the youngest sister. Diane Keaton plays the eldest sister (a journalist endlessly fascinated by herself, we'd cast Bob Woodward or Andrea Mitchell). Meg Ryan is the middle child attempting to deal with their dying father, her business and her family and getting shafted by everyone around her.
Best throwaway moment, the reception's location (see the film). Rebecca notes that Adam Arkin plays Meg's husband and it's one of the few times Meg actually is paired with a sexy man.
(Rebecca adds In The Flesh and Proof of Life are the two other times Meg has "sex on a stick" to play opposite.) Ava and C.I. say the moral of the film is "Cooking's much more fun when drinking." (Elaine says this is the film she watches at Christmas.)
Fun With Dick & Jane. The original. If there are two themes running through our choices, it's family and the press. In this one, the focus is family. Dick is laid off and he and Jane must figure out how to keep their family afloat (it'll require more than dropping the book of the month club).
Jane Fonda and George Segal star in this comic look at life in a recession (some audience members may want to take notes since we're living in a Bully Boy economy these days). Best throwaway moment: when the wife of Dick's former boss (Mildred) eats something too spicy for her and Fonda comments, "Is it burning you? Oh that's too bad." (Watch it, you'll see what we mean.) Dona grew up watching this film and says at some point it just became her family's Christmas movie.
Meet John Doe. Capra-corn with bite. Gary Cooper and Barbara Stanwyck star in this film. We think an argument can be made that the "everyman" so popular in Frank Capra's films is, in this film, an "everywoman."
Times are tough, Cooper's a down on his luck baseball player in the minors. Stanwyck's once again playing Judith Miller. In this film, she's fired. As her parting gift to the paper, she writes about a John Doe who will kill himself on Christmas Eve. Being a Miller, Stanwyck's made the whole thing up.
But circulation's up. They want her back. They need to find a "John Doe." Enter Gary Cooper.
As he pretends to be John Doe and Stanwyck writes flattering pieces about him, they fall in love.
(You think Ahmed Chalabi and Judith Miller will get a final onscreen kiss before Bully Boy's Vietnam ends?) While this is going on (it's all so very New York Times), another level up, people are using John Doe for their own political means.
That includes using the lie to win an election. Sometimes "reel life" and "real life" are so close it's almost a documentary. Will John Doe kill himself as promised on Christmas Eve? Will he ignore Stanwyck's pleas? Watch the film. (Jim's family watches it every Christmas.)
Nothing Sacred. This Carole Lombard starring film pretends to be just another screwball comedy but actually offers a modern criticism of today's press.
Lombard plays a small town citizen wrongly diagnosed as terminal. To boost circulation, the press plays up the story. When Lombard learns she's not dying, she plays along for the excitement of an all expense paid trip to New York. When the reporter (Dexter Filkins stand-in?) learns Lombard is not dying, his big concern isn't getting the truth out, it's making sure no one ever learns the truth.
Was a truer portrait ever offered of our modern day press? Purists will want the black & white version but Ty swears by the colorized version which his family pops into the VCR every Christmas Eve.
The Royal Tenenbaums. AKA When Dysfunction is the Norm. This film features Gwyenth Paltrow (honest, no one working on this is a devoted fan of Paltrow), Bill Murray, Anjelica Huston, Danny Glover, Gene Hackman, Ben Stiller, Luke Wilson and his brother Owen.
Huston and Hackman are divorced. Their children's lives are messy. Hackman's trying to con the family, the entire family. There's not a bad performance in the film but we'd argue Hackman comes off best and that this film, and the underrated Heartbreakers, demand more comedic roles for Hackman.
Best throwaway moment? Any scene that mentions or shows Owen Wilson's writing career and Paltrow smoking in the bathroom.
Rebecca advice: Luke Wilson, always keep your hair short.
This has become a Christmas favorite in Jess' family.
Zoolander. Ben Stiller stars as the first male supermodel. (Sorry Marcus.) Derek Zoolander is programmed to kill a world leader.
How does this rank as holiday fare? Wally and Mike swear sometimes you just need to be silly.
Christine Taylor plays a reporter (for Time Magazine) who apologizes for the article she wrote. So it does have a basis in reality.
Best throwaway moment: the explanation of Stiller, Taylor and Owen Wilson's three way and the dance off.
Finally, our reader's sister Cathy picked Meet the Fockers. Which gives Stiller three films on our list.
She notes the chemistry between Barbra Streisand and Dustin Hoffman as among her favorite things. She says the light hands of Streisand and Hoffman make up for the "heavy handed performance by [Robert] DeNiro." She also enjoys the fact that the "peace doves triumph over the hawks." Reason enough to include it.
Best throway moment: Rose's adult classes. (The elderly aren't doing yoga.) Hoffman and Stiller pulled over by a police officer who goes through the trunk.
To the reader that requested this list, Cathy says stay safe. That goes for everyone. Or as they say at the end of Batman Returns (which almost made the list), "Peace on our earth and good will to men. And women."
Christmas in Connecticut. The original. Barbara Stanwyck stars in this film as a newspaper writer who's lied to her readers repeatedly and worries she might be found out at any moment. We like to think of it Judy Miller: Year 2002.
Stanwyck is a columnist dispensing advice and sharing warm moments from her own life that are, in fact, made up. A comedy that will make you laugh, the film has just the right amount of warm moments. (Dateline take note.) After The Lady Eve and Double Indemnity, this is our favorite Stanwyck performance. (What? You thought we'd put The Colbys on the list?) (Betty picks this as the movie to watch with a cup of hot chocolate on Christmas Eve.)
Desk Set. Playing drunk at an office Christmas party, Katharine Hepburn pours more soul into "Night and Day" then Bono's been able to muster in countless attempts. the film provides the answer to why we don't smoke in public buildings. Don't kid yourselves about public health, it's all about the computers!
Hepburn and Spencer Tracy star in this romantic comedy set in the work environment. Hepburn's in charge of research and the company's "modernizing" by bringing in computers. Eve Arden provides comic support.
Hepburn and Tracy have real chemistry in this film and there's no need to humiliate Hepburn at the end. (Nor does she give up her job in the film's final scene.) Vastly underrated, Christmas wouldn't be Christmas for some of us (C.I., Mike and Kat) without a yearly viewing of this film. By the way, Hepburn's working for a broadcast network. She heads the research department which fact checks. That's how you know it's a comedy.
Moonstruck. Cher plays a woman her own age who ends up transforming into Cher mid-movie with newly vibrant hair and younger boyfriend (Nicholas Cage).
The film features many actors giving their finest performance. That includes Cher who won her Best Actress Oscar for this film. It also includes Olympia Dukakis, Nicholas Cage, Danny Aiello and John Mahoney.
Cher's engaged with Aiello who's off to Italy to be at the bedside of his dying mother. Aiello asks her to make sure his brother (Cage) is invited to their wedding. What follows is one twist after another in this humorous look at family and romance. (Ava and Rebecca rate it as their favorite.)
Bounce. Gwyneth Paltrow never seemed less stiff and more real than while portraying a widow with young children trying to make sense of her life. The film co-stars Ben Affleck and that may be enough to turn off those suffering from a career that seems bound and determined to turn him into this generation's Burt Reynolds. But ignore the bad films and bad performances, the tabloid romances, and you'll realize he's actually effective in this film.
A great deal of credit for that goes to Johnny Galecki's performance as a character never afraid to call Affleck on his shit. (We're not sure if he's supposed to represent film critics or the poor souls who paid to see Daredevil, Gigli, Reindeer Games, et al.)
It's Paltrow's showcase and, in this film, she justifies every bit of praise she's received for other roles. If she's always left you cold and unmoved in her more lauded work, check out Don Roos' Bounce. (Cedric picks this film as the holiday movie because "it's about rebirth and redemption.")
Hanging Up. This Diane Keaton directed film features a screenplay by two Ephrons, Delia and Nora. Two Ephrons also wrote the screenplay to Desk Set (Phoebe and Henry) and happen to be the parents of Delia and Nora.
Though frequently underutilized in the film, Lisa Kudrow hits strong notes throughout as the youngest sister. Diane Keaton plays the eldest sister (a journalist endlessly fascinated by herself, we'd cast Bob Woodward or Andrea Mitchell). Meg Ryan is the middle child attempting to deal with their dying father, her business and her family and getting shafted by everyone around her.
Best throwaway moment, the reception's location (see the film). Rebecca notes that Adam Arkin plays Meg's husband and it's one of the few times Meg actually is paired with a sexy man.
(Rebecca adds In The Flesh and Proof of Life are the two other times Meg has "sex on a stick" to play opposite.) Ava and C.I. say the moral of the film is "Cooking's much more fun when drinking." (Elaine says this is the film she watches at Christmas.)
Fun With Dick & Jane. The original. If there are two themes running through our choices, it's family and the press. In this one, the focus is family. Dick is laid off and he and Jane must figure out how to keep their family afloat (it'll require more than dropping the book of the month club).
Jane Fonda and George Segal star in this comic look at life in a recession (some audience members may want to take notes since we're living in a Bully Boy economy these days). Best throwaway moment: when the wife of Dick's former boss (Mildred) eats something too spicy for her and Fonda comments, "Is it burning you? Oh that's too bad." (Watch it, you'll see what we mean.) Dona grew up watching this film and says at some point it just became her family's Christmas movie.
Meet John Doe. Capra-corn with bite. Gary Cooper and Barbara Stanwyck star in this film. We think an argument can be made that the "everyman" so popular in Frank Capra's films is, in this film, an "everywoman."
Times are tough, Cooper's a down on his luck baseball player in the minors. Stanwyck's once again playing Judith Miller. In this film, she's fired. As her parting gift to the paper, she writes about a John Doe who will kill himself on Christmas Eve. Being a Miller, Stanwyck's made the whole thing up.
But circulation's up. They want her back. They need to find a "John Doe." Enter Gary Cooper.
As he pretends to be John Doe and Stanwyck writes flattering pieces about him, they fall in love.
(You think Ahmed Chalabi and Judith Miller will get a final onscreen kiss before Bully Boy's Vietnam ends?) While this is going on (it's all so very New York Times), another level up, people are using John Doe for their own political means.
That includes using the lie to win an election. Sometimes "reel life" and "real life" are so close it's almost a documentary. Will John Doe kill himself as promised on Christmas Eve? Will he ignore Stanwyck's pleas? Watch the film. (Jim's family watches it every Christmas.)
Nothing Sacred. This Carole Lombard starring film pretends to be just another screwball comedy but actually offers a modern criticism of today's press.
Lombard plays a small town citizen wrongly diagnosed as terminal. To boost circulation, the press plays up the story. When Lombard learns she's not dying, she plays along for the excitement of an all expense paid trip to New York. When the reporter (Dexter Filkins stand-in?) learns Lombard is not dying, his big concern isn't getting the truth out, it's making sure no one ever learns the truth.
Was a truer portrait ever offered of our modern day press? Purists will want the black & white version but Ty swears by the colorized version which his family pops into the VCR every Christmas Eve.
The Royal Tenenbaums. AKA When Dysfunction is the Norm. This film features Gwyenth Paltrow (honest, no one working on this is a devoted fan of Paltrow), Bill Murray, Anjelica Huston, Danny Glover, Gene Hackman, Ben Stiller, Luke Wilson and his brother Owen.
Huston and Hackman are divorced. Their children's lives are messy. Hackman's trying to con the family, the entire family. There's not a bad performance in the film but we'd argue Hackman comes off best and that this film, and the underrated Heartbreakers, demand more comedic roles for Hackman.
Best throwaway moment? Any scene that mentions or shows Owen Wilson's writing career and Paltrow smoking in the bathroom.
Rebecca advice: Luke Wilson, always keep your hair short.
This has become a Christmas favorite in Jess' family.
Zoolander. Ben Stiller stars as the first male supermodel. (Sorry Marcus.) Derek Zoolander is programmed to kill a world leader.
How does this rank as holiday fare? Wally and Mike swear sometimes you just need to be silly.
Christine Taylor plays a reporter (for Time Magazine) who apologizes for the article she wrote. So it does have a basis in reality.
Best throwaway moment: the explanation of Stiller, Taylor and Owen Wilson's three way and the dance off.
Finally, our reader's sister Cathy picked Meet the Fockers. Which gives Stiller three films on our list.
She notes the chemistry between Barbra Streisand and Dustin Hoffman as among her favorite things. She says the light hands of Streisand and Hoffman make up for the "heavy handed performance by [Robert] DeNiro." She also enjoys the fact that the "peace doves triumph over the hawks." Reason enough to include it.
Best throway moment: Rose's adult classes. (The elderly aren't doing yoga.) Hoffman and Stiller pulled over by a police officer who goes through the trunk.
To the reader that requested this list, Cathy says stay safe. That goes for everyone. Or as they say at the end of Batman Returns (which almost made the list), "Peace on our earth and good will to men. And women."
Upcoming Pacifica Radio programs via Ruth
Two radio program notes from Ruth's latest Ruth's Morning Edition Report:
One thing that Ms. Lewis and others on Pacifica Radio have been emphasizing is an upcoming special:
Pacifica Radio Archives All-Day Fundraising Special
18-hour natl. simulcast of programming from Pacifica's 50-plus-year history. Focuses: civil rights movement, live music, and the 1970 live reading on WBAI of Tolstoy's War and Peace. On December 6 the entire Pacifica network will pre-empt its regular schedule for an 18-hour simulcast of programming drawn from Pacifica's 50-plus-year history. This will be a fundraiser for the Pacifica Radio Archives that preserves the network's audio treasures. This year we're focusing on three major subject areas: the civil rights movement recordings, live music, and the 1970 live reading on WBAI of Tolstoy's War and Peace.
That airs this Tuesday.
Lou has suggested that I sample KPFA's Sunday Salon. I will do so this Sunday, Lou.
Sunday Salon
In our first hour...Vietnam all over again, or worse? The Iraq War: Lies, Torture, Occupation -- how will we move forward? A discussion with Daniel Ellsberg, Judith Coburn, Aaron Glantz, and Tom Hayden. In the second hour...We'll take another look at the case of Stanley "Tookie" Williams, who's scheduled to be executed at San Quentin State Prison. Tom Hayden will be joined by California Assemblymember Mark Leno, who is a sponsor of the Assembly bill calling for a moratorium on the death penalty.
Listen to past shows, get contact and reference info for guests, see announcements of upcoming programs, and more at: SundaySalon.org
If you listened to Pacifica's live coverage of the John Roberts' confirmation hearings, you are familiar with the host of Sunday Salon Larry Bensky. If you're reading this in the repost on Monday, please note the link above where you can listen to archived broadcasts of Sunday Salon. The first hour addresses the issue members ranked number one in need of more attention from the mainstream media on Gina and Krista's most recent poll and the second hour ranks number five. So four of the five issues in need of further attention have been addressed in this Morning Edition Report. The mainstream media may take pass on all five but if you are listening to Pacifica Radio, you have heard these issues addressed.
iraq
wbai
pacifica archives
larry bensky
andrea lewis
kpfa
sunday salon with larry bensky
ruths morning edition report
the common ills
pacifica radio archives
tom hayden
One thing that Ms. Lewis and others on Pacifica Radio have been emphasizing is an upcoming special:
Pacifica Radio Archives All-Day Fundraising Special
18-hour natl. simulcast of programming from Pacifica's 50-plus-year history. Focuses: civil rights movement, live music, and the 1970 live reading on WBAI of Tolstoy's War and Peace. On December 6 the entire Pacifica network will pre-empt its regular schedule for an 18-hour simulcast of programming drawn from Pacifica's 50-plus-year history. This will be a fundraiser for the Pacifica Radio Archives that preserves the network's audio treasures. This year we're focusing on three major subject areas: the civil rights movement recordings, live music, and the 1970 live reading on WBAI of Tolstoy's War and Peace.
That airs this Tuesday.
Lou has suggested that I sample KPFA's Sunday Salon. I will do so this Sunday, Lou.
Sunday Salon
In our first hour...Vietnam all over again, or worse? The Iraq War: Lies, Torture, Occupation -- how will we move forward? A discussion with Daniel Ellsberg, Judith Coburn, Aaron Glantz, and Tom Hayden. In the second hour...We'll take another look at the case of Stanley "Tookie" Williams, who's scheduled to be executed at San Quentin State Prison. Tom Hayden will be joined by California Assemblymember Mark Leno, who is a sponsor of the Assembly bill calling for a moratorium on the death penalty.
Listen to past shows, get contact and reference info for guests, see announcements of upcoming programs, and more at: SundaySalon.org
If you listened to Pacifica's live coverage of the John Roberts' confirmation hearings, you are familiar with the host of Sunday Salon Larry Bensky. If you're reading this in the repost on Monday, please note the link above where you can listen to archived broadcasts of Sunday Salon. The first hour addresses the issue members ranked number one in need of more attention from the mainstream media on Gina and Krista's most recent poll and the second hour ranks number five. So four of the five issues in need of further attention have been addressed in this Morning Edition Report. The mainstream media may take pass on all five but if you are listening to Pacifica Radio, you have heard these issues addressed.
iraq
wbai
pacifica archives
larry bensky
andrea lewis
kpfa
sunday salon with larry bensky
ruths morning edition report
the common ills
pacifica radio archives
tom hayden
Ex primer ministro iraquí: La tortura es igual de mala ahora que bajo el régimen de Hussein
"Ex primer ministro iraquí: La tortura es igual de mala ahora que bajo el régimen de Hussein"
Maria: Hola. De parte de "Democracy Now!" doce cosas que vale hacer notar este fin de semana. Paz.
Ex primer ministro iraquí: La tortura es igual de mala ahora que bajo el régimen de Hussein
El ex primer ministro de Irak, Iyad Allawi, afirma que las violaciones a los derechos humanos que ocurren hoy en Irak son igual de malas que las que ocurrían bajo el régimen de Saddam Hussein. En una entrevista con el periódico "Observer" de Londres, Allawai dijo: "Nos enteramos sobre la policía secreta, sobre búnkers secretos donde se interroga a las personas. Muchos iraquíes son torturados o asesinados durante los interrogatorios".
Rumsfeld y Pace discrepan acerca de la respuesta que debe dar Estados Unidos ante abusos cometidos por fuerzas iraquíes
En el Pentágono, el Secretario de Defensa, Donald Rumsfeld, se vio envuelto en un intercambio inusual con el presidente de la Junta de los Jefes de Personal, General Peter Pace, en una conferencia de prensa el martes. Cuando se le preguntó al General Pace si los soldados estadounidenses tenían la responsabilidad de evitar violaciones a los derechos humanos por parte de las fuerzas iraquíes, él contesto: "Es totalmente la responsabilidad de todos los integrantes del servicio estadounidense, si presencian algún trato inhumano, intervenir para detenerlo". Mientras Pace respondía, Rumsfeld lo interrumpió y dijo: "Pero no creo que quiera decir que tienen la obligación de detenerlo ellos mismos; deben informarlo". Pero el General Pace replicó: "Si están presentes cuando el trato inhumano se lleva a cabo, tienen la obligación de intentar detenerlo".
Estados Unidos paga a medios iraquíes para publicar informes que ellos mismos escriben
El "Los Ángeles Times" informa que las Fuerzas Armadas estadounidenses están pagando secretamente a los periódicos iraquíes para que publiquen artículos escritos por estadounidenses y que son favorables a la presencia de Estados Unidos en Irak. El "Times" informa que los artículos escritos en el marco de "operaciones de información" de las Fuerzas Armadas estadounidenses son traducidos al árabe y luego publicados en los periódicos iraquíes con la ayuda de la firma Lincoln Group, contratista de defensa de Washington. Los artículos son presentados ante la población iraquí como informes sin prejuicios, escritos por periodistas independientes. El contrato de Lincoln Group es de más de 100 millones de dólares por más cinco años. Un alto funcionario del Pentágono dijo: "Aquí estamos, tratando de crear los principios de democracia en Irak. Cada discurso que damos en ese país es sobre democracia. Y al hacerlo, estamos violando todos los principios básicos de la democracia".
Comité del Senado mantendrá sesión a puertas cerradas sobre propaganda militar en periódicos
Mientras tanto, funcionarios de alto rango del Pentágono comparecerán hoy a una sesión a puertas cerradas del Comité de los Servicios Armados del Senado, para responder a informes de que Estados Unidos paga a periódicos iraquíes por publicar propaganda militar. Altos funcionarios del Pentágono dicen que aún no han recibido una explicación. Luego de que se conoció la historia esta semana, el General George Casey argumentó que el programa no debía ser discutido públicamente porque era reservado. Cuando se le preguntó sobre el asunto al portavoz militar General Rick Lynch, el jueves, defendió el programa sin confirmar sus detalles. El General Lynch dijo: "Nosotros no mentimos. No necesitamos mentir. Damos poder a nuestros comandantes operativos para que informen al público iraquí, pero todo lo que hacemos está basado en hechos, no en ficción".El portavoz del Departamento de Estado, Sean McCormack, dijo a reporteros: "El Departamento de Estado trabaja con periodistas en Irak para ayudarlos a desarrollar las capacidades que todos ustedes tienen en lo que refiere a la ética y prácticas periodísticas... Este es un país (Irak) donde los medios de comunicación libres no existieron por décadas, por lo tanto, están aprendiendo. Consideramos que es importante asistirlos en eso".
Pelosi: Los demócratas apoyan a Murtha
También el miércoles, la líder de la minoría demócrata, Nancy Pelosi, se convirtió en la primer líder del Congreso en apoyar la postura del congresista Murtha. Pelosi y otros demócratas de alto rango inicialmente habían tomado distancia de Murtha. Pero Pelosi dijo al Washington Post: "Claramente, la mayoría de los representantes (demócratas) apoyan a Murtha” en su pedido de retirar a los soldados estadounidenses de Irak".
Informe: Más de 300 vuelos de la CIA a aeropuertos europeos
En un nuevo episodio del creciente revuelo por las presuntas prisiones secretas de la CIA en Europa, el diario "Guardian" de Londres dice que obtuvo registros de vuelos que indican que más de 300 vuelos de la CIA aterrizaron en aeropuertos europeos. El "Washington Post" recientemente informó que la CIA opera prisiones secretas en Estados ex socialistas de Europa del Este. A pedido del Pentágono, el Post no dio a conocer el nombre de los países. La revelación provocó que el Comisario de Justicia de la Unión Europea amenazara con sancionar a cualquier Estado miembro que haya albergado una prisión secreta. Según el Guardian, los aviones de la CIA visitaron tanto Alemania como Gran Bretala más de 80 veces. El miércoles, el Departamento de Estado anunció que respondería a la brevedad al pedido europeo de una explicación acerca de las supuestas prisiones.
Las Naciones de la Unión Europea podrían perder el derecho al voto por albergar prisiones secretas de la CIA
La Comisión Europea advirtió a todos los países miembros de la Unión Europea que se les podría suspender su derecho a votar en los organismos de ese bloque si se descubre que han mantenido prisiones secretas de la CIA. Franco Frattini, Comisario de Justicia de la Unión Europea, dijo: "La protección de los derechos básicos y la libertad esta muy arraigado en nuestra cultura, es el fundamento de la Carta Europea de Derechos Básicos". Y agregó: "Por eso continuaremos buscando un balance entre incrementar la seguridad y confirmar la protección y promoción de nuestras libertades". El "Washington Post" informó recientemente que la CIA ha manejado dos prisiones secretas en países de Europa del Este que tuvieron regímenes comunistas. A pedido del Pentágono, el Post no publicó los nombres de los países, pero Human Rights Watch los identificó como Polonia y Rumania.
Candidato a la Corte Suprema Alito argumentó contra derechos de inmigrantes
Documentos del Departamento de Justicia dados a conocer recientemente indican que Samuel Alito, candidato a ocupar un cargo en la Corte Suprema, argumentó en la década del 80 que los inmigrantes que entraran ilegalmente a Estados Unidos y los extranjeros que no vivieran en sus países no tenían los mismos derechos constitucionales que los estadounidenses. Alito hizo estas afirmaciones cuando era asistente del Fiscal General durante el gobierno de Reagan. El analista constitucional conservador Bruce Fein dijo: "Parece estar diciendo que los funcionarios estadounidenses no tienen ninguna restricción sobre el trato a los extranjeros no residentes o ilegales. ¿Se les puede disparar? ¿Pueden ser torturados?"Martín Redish, un profesor de legislación constitucional en la Northwestern University Law School, dijo al "Washington Post" que la postura de Alito podría ser utilizada para justificar la actual política gubernamental en cuyo marco la CIA realiza interrogatorios en prisiones secretas en el extranjero. El "New York Times" informa que estos documentos también indican que Alito apoyó activamente los esfuerzos del gobierno para aumentar los poderes de las fuerzas de seguridad y limitar las restricciones a la acción de los fiscales.
Chávez acusa a Bush de apoyar el boicot de la oposición
En Venezuela, el Presidente Hugo Chávez acusó al gobierno de Bush de respaldar un boicot de la oposición a las elecciones legislativas de este fin de semana en dicho país.Los grupos de la oposición anunciaron que boicotearán la votación, porque alegan que el Consejo Electoral no aseguró que la votación sea secreta. En las pasadas semanas, los analistas predijeron una victoria arrolladora de los seguidores de Chávez. El "Financial Times" indica que el boicot es inusual, ya que el Consejo Electoral del país no utilizará las controvertidas máquinas de votación de las que la oposición se ha quejado.
Corte Suprema rechaza apelación de Sibel Edmonds
La Corte Suprema rechazó una apelación de la ex informante del FBI Sibel Edmonds, que ha intentado demandar al FBI y al Departamento de Justicia por su despido. Edmonds sostiene que fue despedida luego de hablar acerca de posibles fallas de seguridad, mala conducta y trabajo de traducción incompetente en la agencia. Un Juez de Distrito de Estados Unidos desestimó el caso en primera instancia, luego de que el entonces Fiscal General John Ashcroft invocara el "privilegio de secretos de Estado", rara vez utilizado. Ashcroft había advertido que la revelación de más información acerca de las tareas de Edmonds y de otros traductores podía provocar "un grave daño a los intereses de la seguridad nacional de Estados Unidos". Edmonds fue noticia por primera vez cuando sostuvo que el FBI tenía información antes del 11 de septiembre acerca de que se planificaba un ataque con aviones.
Al Jazeera exige respuestas del gobierno de Bush
El director general de la cadena televisiva árabe Al-Jazeera exigió que Washington responda a los informes que dicen que el Presidente Bush quería bombardear las oficinas de la cadena en Doha. La semana pasada, el periódico "Daily Mirror" citó un memorando británico secreto que revelaba que Bush le comunicó a Tony Blair el año pasado su deseo de bombardear la sede del canal. El gobierno de Bush dijo que el informe de "Daily Mirror" era "ridículo". Funcionarios de Al Jazeera ponen en duda ahora si Estados Unidos atacó intencionalmente la cadena cuando bombardeó sus oficinas en Afganistán en 2001 y en Bagdad en abril de 2003. El ataque en Irak mató a Tariq Ayub, corresponsal de Al Jazeera. La viuda de Ayub, Dina, dijo que considera la posibilidad de demandar al gobierno estadounidense por la muerte de su marido. Dina dijo: "Estados Unidos siempre afirmó que fue un accidente. Pero creo que las nuevas revelaciones prueban que esa afirmación era falsa o al menos no era digna de confianza." Mientras tanto, en Gran Bretaña continúa vigente la prohibición para todos los medios de comunicación de revelar los contenidos del memorando secreto. Pero un miembro del Parlamento, Boris Johnson, prometió publicar el memorando y arriesgarse a ir preso si alguien le entrega ese documento.
Informe: El Pentágono expande capacidad de espiar en Estados Unidos
El "Washington Post" informa que el Pentágono expandió su capacidad de espiar a los ciudadanos de Estados Unidos. Según el Post, el gobierno de Bush está considerando permitirle a una agencia poco conocida del Pentágono, llamada Campo de Actividad Contra la Inteligencia, investigar ciertos crímenes a nivel local. El Pentágono también presiona en Capitol Hill por una norma que exima a las actividades de inteligencia de la Ley de Privacidad, y que permitiría al FBI y a otros organismos compartir información sobre los ciudadanos estadounidenses con el Pentágono, la CIA y otras agencias de inteligencia. Kate Martín, del Centro de Estudios de Seguridad Nacional, dijo que esa legislación eliminaría una de las pocas protecciones de la privacidad existentes, contra la creación de expedientes secretos de ciudadanos estadounidenses por parte de las agencias de inteligencia del gobierno". El Senador demócrata Ron Wyden de Oregon dijo: "Estamos habilitando a los militares a espiar a estadounidenses que cumplen con la ley en Estados Unidos. Esto es un gran salto sin siquiera una audiencia (del Congreso)".
Maria: In English, here are twelve headlines fom Democracy Now! Remember that the headlines are provided daily in English and Spanish and please pass on to your friends. Peace.
Ex-Iraqi PM: Torture As Bad Now As Under Hussein
Iraq's former prime minister Iyad Allawi is claming that the human rights abuses occurring today in Iraq are as bad as they were under Saddam Hussein. In an interview with the Observer newspaper of London Allawai said "We are hearing about secret police, secret bunkers where people are being interrogated. A lot of Iraqis are being tortured or killed in the course of interrogations."
Rumsfeld, Pace Differ on US Response to Iraqi Abuse
At the Pentagon, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld engaged in an unusual exchange with Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman General Peter Pace at a press conference Tuesday. Asked whether US troops are responsible for preventing human rights abuses by Iraqi forces, General Pace answered: "It is absolutely the responsibility of every U.S. service member, if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to intervene to stop it." As Pace elaborated, Rumsfeld interrupted him, saying: "But I don't think you mean they have an obligation to physically stop it; it's to report it." But General Pace replied: "If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it", he said.
US Paying Iraqi Media to Publish US-Authored Reports
The Los Angeles Times is reporting the US military is secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish American-written articles favorable to the U.S. presence in Iraq. The Times reports articles written by U.S. military "information operations" are translated into Arabic and then placed in Iraqi newspapers with the help of Washington-based defense contractor the Lincoln Group. The articles are presented to an Iraqi audience as unbiased news accounts written by independent journalists. The Lincoln Group’s contract is worth up to $100 million dollars over five years. A senior Pentagon official commented : "Here we are trying to create the principles of democracy in Iraq. Every speech we give in that country is about democracy. And we're breaking all the first principles of democracy when we're doing it."
Senate Committee to Hold Session on Newspaper Propaganda
Meanwhile, top Pentagon officials will appear before a closed-door session of the Senate Armed Services Committee today to answer reports the US is paying Iraqi newspapers to publish military propaganda. Senior Pentagon officials say they have yet to receive an explanation. After the story broke earlier this week, General George Casey argued the program should not be publicly discussed because it was classified. Asked about the issue Thursday, military spokesperson Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch appeared to defend the program without confirming its specifics. Major General Lynch said: "We don't lie. We don't need to lie. We do empower our operational commanders with the ability to inform the Iraqi public, but everything we do is based on fact, not based on fiction." State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters: "The State Department is working with journalists in Iraq to help them develop the skills that you all have in terms of reporting and journalistic ethics and practices… This is a country where free media didn't exist for decades, so they are learning. We think it's important to assist them in that."
Pelosi Backs Murtha Call for Withdrawal
Calls for a troop withdrawal have been bolstered by the stance taken by hawkish Democratic Congressman John Murtha. On Wednesday, Democratic minority leader Nancy Pelosi became the first congressional leader to endorse Congressman Murtha's position. Pelosi and other top Democrats had initially distanced themselves from Murtha's call to end the deployment in Iraq to and maintain rapid reaction force in the region. But Pelosi told the Washington Post: "clearly a majority of the [Democratic] caucus supports Mr. Murtha" in his call to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq.
Report: Over 300 CIA Flights at European Airports
In a new development in the growing uproar over alleged CIA secret prisons in Europe, the Guardian of London says it has obtained flight logs showing more than 300 CIA flights have landed at European airports. The Washington Post recently reported the CIA has been operating secret prisons in former Soviet states in Eastern Europe. At the request of the Pentagon, the Post did not name the countries. The disclosure prompted the European Union Justice Commissioner to threaten sanctions against any member state found to have hosted a secret CIA prison. According to the Guardian, CIA planes visited both Germany and Britain over 80 times. On Wednesday, the State Department announced it will respond shortly to European requests for an explanation on the alleged prisons.
EU Nations Could Lose Voting Rights For Housing Secret CIA Prisons
The European Commission has warned all member states of the European Union that they could have their voting rights suspended if they are found to have operated secret CIA prisons. "The protection of basic rights and liberty is deeply rooted in our culture, is the basis of the European charter for fundamental rights," said Franco Frattini, European Union Justice Commissioner. "That's why we will continue following a balanced approach between increasing security and confirming protection and promotion of our liberties" The Washington Post recently reported the CIA has been operating two secret prisons in former Soviet states in Eastern Europe. At the request of the Pentagon, the "Post" did not name the countries but Human Rights Watch has idenitified them as Poland and Romania.
Supreme Court Nominee Alito Argued Against Immigrant Rights
Newly released Justice Department documents show that Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito argued in the 1980s that immigrants who enter the United States illegally and foreigners living outside their countries are not entitled to the constitutional rights afforded to Americans. Alito made the argument at a time when he was deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration. Conservative constitutional analyst Bruce Fein said QUOTE "He seems to be saying that there is no constitutional constraints placed on U.S. officials in their treatment of nonresident aliens or illegal aliens. Could you shoot them? Could you torture them?" Martin Redish, a constitutional law professor at Northwestern University Law School, told the Washington Post that Alito's view could be used to justify the current administration policy under which the CIA conducts interrogations in secret prisons overseas. The New York Times reports the newly released documents also show Alito played an active role in advancing the administration's efforts to expand law enforcement powers and limit restrictions on prosecutors.
Chavez Accuses Bush of Backing Opposition Boycott
In Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez has accused the Bush administration of backing an opposition boycott of this weekend’s legislative elections in the country. Chavez said: "I denounce him before the world from here, from the Miraflores palace. The one responsible for this new conspiracy is the head of the empire: Mr. Danger. To give him his proper name, the president of the United States of America, Mr. George W. Bush. That's the new head of this conspiracy." Opposition groups have announced a boycott of the vote, alleging that the electoral council has not ensured voter secrecy. In recent weeks, analysts had been predicting a sweeping victory for Chavez supporters. The Financial Times notes the boycott is unusual since the country’s electoral council has withdrawn the use of controversial voting machines the opposition complained about.
Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From Sibel Edmonds
The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds who has been trying to sue the FBI and Justice Department over her dismissal. Edmonds says she was fired after speaking out about possible security breaches, misconduct and incompetent translation work. A U.S. District Judge originally dismissed the case after then-Attorney General John Ashcroft invoked the rarely used "state secrets privilege." Ashcroft had warned that further disclosure of the duties of Edmonds and other translators could cause QUOTE "serious damage to the national security interests of the United States." Edmonds first made headlines when she claimed the FBI had information that an attack using airplanes was being planned before Sept. 11.
Al Jazeera Demands Answers from Bush Administration
The director-general of the Arabic tv network Al-Jazeera has demanded Washington respond to reports that President Bush wanted to bomb the network's headquarters in Doha. Last week the Daily Mirror cited a secret British memo revealing that Bush told Tony Blair last year of his desire to bomb the news outlet. The Bush administration has described the Daily Mirror's report as "outlandish." Officials at Al Jazeera are now questioning whether the U.S. might have been targeting the network when it bombed its bureaus in Afghanistan in 2001 and in Baghdad in April 2003. The attack in Iraq killed Al Jazeera's correspondent Tariq Ayub. Ayub's widow, Dina, said she is now considering suing the U.S. government for her husband's death. She said "America always claimed it was an accident. But I believe the new revelations prove that claim was false or at least not trustworthy." Meanwhile in Britain a ban remains in place on all media outlets from disclosing the contents of the secret memo. But a member of parliament - Boris Johnson - has vowed to publish the memo and risk jail time if anyone leaks him the document.
Report: Pentagon Expands Ability to Spy At Home
The Washington Post is reporting the Pentagon has expanded its ability to spy on citizens within the United States. According to the Post, the Bush administration is considering allowing a little known Pentagon agency called the Counterintelligence Field Activity to investigate certain crimes domestically . The Pentagon is also pushing legislation on Capitol Hill that would create an intelligence exemption to the Privacy Act, allowing the FBI and others to share information gathered about U.S. citizens with the Pentagon, CIA and other intelligence agencies. Kate Martin of the Center for National Security Studies, said such an exemption would remove one of the few existing privacy protections against the creation of secret dossiers on Americans by government intelligence agencies." Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon said "We are deputizing the military to spy on law-abiding Americans in America. This is a huge leap without even a [congressional] hearing."
democracy now
news
iraq
irak
noticias
Maria: Hola. De parte de "Democracy Now!" doce cosas que vale hacer notar este fin de semana. Paz.
Ex primer ministro iraquí: La tortura es igual de mala ahora que bajo el régimen de Hussein
El ex primer ministro de Irak, Iyad Allawi, afirma que las violaciones a los derechos humanos que ocurren hoy en Irak son igual de malas que las que ocurrían bajo el régimen de Saddam Hussein. En una entrevista con el periódico "Observer" de Londres, Allawai dijo: "Nos enteramos sobre la policía secreta, sobre búnkers secretos donde se interroga a las personas. Muchos iraquíes son torturados o asesinados durante los interrogatorios".
Rumsfeld y Pace discrepan acerca de la respuesta que debe dar Estados Unidos ante abusos cometidos por fuerzas iraquíes
En el Pentágono, el Secretario de Defensa, Donald Rumsfeld, se vio envuelto en un intercambio inusual con el presidente de la Junta de los Jefes de Personal, General Peter Pace, en una conferencia de prensa el martes. Cuando se le preguntó al General Pace si los soldados estadounidenses tenían la responsabilidad de evitar violaciones a los derechos humanos por parte de las fuerzas iraquíes, él contesto: "Es totalmente la responsabilidad de todos los integrantes del servicio estadounidense, si presencian algún trato inhumano, intervenir para detenerlo". Mientras Pace respondía, Rumsfeld lo interrumpió y dijo: "Pero no creo que quiera decir que tienen la obligación de detenerlo ellos mismos; deben informarlo". Pero el General Pace replicó: "Si están presentes cuando el trato inhumano se lleva a cabo, tienen la obligación de intentar detenerlo".
Estados Unidos paga a medios iraquíes para publicar informes que ellos mismos escriben
El "Los Ángeles Times" informa que las Fuerzas Armadas estadounidenses están pagando secretamente a los periódicos iraquíes para que publiquen artículos escritos por estadounidenses y que son favorables a la presencia de Estados Unidos en Irak. El "Times" informa que los artículos escritos en el marco de "operaciones de información" de las Fuerzas Armadas estadounidenses son traducidos al árabe y luego publicados en los periódicos iraquíes con la ayuda de la firma Lincoln Group, contratista de defensa de Washington. Los artículos son presentados ante la población iraquí como informes sin prejuicios, escritos por periodistas independientes. El contrato de Lincoln Group es de más de 100 millones de dólares por más cinco años. Un alto funcionario del Pentágono dijo: "Aquí estamos, tratando de crear los principios de democracia en Irak. Cada discurso que damos en ese país es sobre democracia. Y al hacerlo, estamos violando todos los principios básicos de la democracia".
Comité del Senado mantendrá sesión a puertas cerradas sobre propaganda militar en periódicos
Mientras tanto, funcionarios de alto rango del Pentágono comparecerán hoy a una sesión a puertas cerradas del Comité de los Servicios Armados del Senado, para responder a informes de que Estados Unidos paga a periódicos iraquíes por publicar propaganda militar. Altos funcionarios del Pentágono dicen que aún no han recibido una explicación. Luego de que se conoció la historia esta semana, el General George Casey argumentó que el programa no debía ser discutido públicamente porque era reservado. Cuando se le preguntó sobre el asunto al portavoz militar General Rick Lynch, el jueves, defendió el programa sin confirmar sus detalles. El General Lynch dijo: "Nosotros no mentimos. No necesitamos mentir. Damos poder a nuestros comandantes operativos para que informen al público iraquí, pero todo lo que hacemos está basado en hechos, no en ficción".El portavoz del Departamento de Estado, Sean McCormack, dijo a reporteros: "El Departamento de Estado trabaja con periodistas en Irak para ayudarlos a desarrollar las capacidades que todos ustedes tienen en lo que refiere a la ética y prácticas periodísticas... Este es un país (Irak) donde los medios de comunicación libres no existieron por décadas, por lo tanto, están aprendiendo. Consideramos que es importante asistirlos en eso".
Pelosi: Los demócratas apoyan a Murtha
También el miércoles, la líder de la minoría demócrata, Nancy Pelosi, se convirtió en la primer líder del Congreso en apoyar la postura del congresista Murtha. Pelosi y otros demócratas de alto rango inicialmente habían tomado distancia de Murtha. Pero Pelosi dijo al Washington Post: "Claramente, la mayoría de los representantes (demócratas) apoyan a Murtha” en su pedido de retirar a los soldados estadounidenses de Irak".
Informe: Más de 300 vuelos de la CIA a aeropuertos europeos
En un nuevo episodio del creciente revuelo por las presuntas prisiones secretas de la CIA en Europa, el diario "Guardian" de Londres dice que obtuvo registros de vuelos que indican que más de 300 vuelos de la CIA aterrizaron en aeropuertos europeos. El "Washington Post" recientemente informó que la CIA opera prisiones secretas en Estados ex socialistas de Europa del Este. A pedido del Pentágono, el Post no dio a conocer el nombre de los países. La revelación provocó que el Comisario de Justicia de la Unión Europea amenazara con sancionar a cualquier Estado miembro que haya albergado una prisión secreta. Según el Guardian, los aviones de la CIA visitaron tanto Alemania como Gran Bretala más de 80 veces. El miércoles, el Departamento de Estado anunció que respondería a la brevedad al pedido europeo de una explicación acerca de las supuestas prisiones.
Las Naciones de la Unión Europea podrían perder el derecho al voto por albergar prisiones secretas de la CIA
La Comisión Europea advirtió a todos los países miembros de la Unión Europea que se les podría suspender su derecho a votar en los organismos de ese bloque si se descubre que han mantenido prisiones secretas de la CIA. Franco Frattini, Comisario de Justicia de la Unión Europea, dijo: "La protección de los derechos básicos y la libertad esta muy arraigado en nuestra cultura, es el fundamento de la Carta Europea de Derechos Básicos". Y agregó: "Por eso continuaremos buscando un balance entre incrementar la seguridad y confirmar la protección y promoción de nuestras libertades". El "Washington Post" informó recientemente que la CIA ha manejado dos prisiones secretas en países de Europa del Este que tuvieron regímenes comunistas. A pedido del Pentágono, el Post no publicó los nombres de los países, pero Human Rights Watch los identificó como Polonia y Rumania.
Candidato a la Corte Suprema Alito argumentó contra derechos de inmigrantes
Documentos del Departamento de Justicia dados a conocer recientemente indican que Samuel Alito, candidato a ocupar un cargo en la Corte Suprema, argumentó en la década del 80 que los inmigrantes que entraran ilegalmente a Estados Unidos y los extranjeros que no vivieran en sus países no tenían los mismos derechos constitucionales que los estadounidenses. Alito hizo estas afirmaciones cuando era asistente del Fiscal General durante el gobierno de Reagan. El analista constitucional conservador Bruce Fein dijo: "Parece estar diciendo que los funcionarios estadounidenses no tienen ninguna restricción sobre el trato a los extranjeros no residentes o ilegales. ¿Se les puede disparar? ¿Pueden ser torturados?"Martín Redish, un profesor de legislación constitucional en la Northwestern University Law School, dijo al "Washington Post" que la postura de Alito podría ser utilizada para justificar la actual política gubernamental en cuyo marco la CIA realiza interrogatorios en prisiones secretas en el extranjero. El "New York Times" informa que estos documentos también indican que Alito apoyó activamente los esfuerzos del gobierno para aumentar los poderes de las fuerzas de seguridad y limitar las restricciones a la acción de los fiscales.
Chávez acusa a Bush de apoyar el boicot de la oposición
En Venezuela, el Presidente Hugo Chávez acusó al gobierno de Bush de respaldar un boicot de la oposición a las elecciones legislativas de este fin de semana en dicho país.Los grupos de la oposición anunciaron que boicotearán la votación, porque alegan que el Consejo Electoral no aseguró que la votación sea secreta. En las pasadas semanas, los analistas predijeron una victoria arrolladora de los seguidores de Chávez. El "Financial Times" indica que el boicot es inusual, ya que el Consejo Electoral del país no utilizará las controvertidas máquinas de votación de las que la oposición se ha quejado.
Corte Suprema rechaza apelación de Sibel Edmonds
La Corte Suprema rechazó una apelación de la ex informante del FBI Sibel Edmonds, que ha intentado demandar al FBI y al Departamento de Justicia por su despido. Edmonds sostiene que fue despedida luego de hablar acerca de posibles fallas de seguridad, mala conducta y trabajo de traducción incompetente en la agencia. Un Juez de Distrito de Estados Unidos desestimó el caso en primera instancia, luego de que el entonces Fiscal General John Ashcroft invocara el "privilegio de secretos de Estado", rara vez utilizado. Ashcroft había advertido que la revelación de más información acerca de las tareas de Edmonds y de otros traductores podía provocar "un grave daño a los intereses de la seguridad nacional de Estados Unidos". Edmonds fue noticia por primera vez cuando sostuvo que el FBI tenía información antes del 11 de septiembre acerca de que se planificaba un ataque con aviones.
Al Jazeera exige respuestas del gobierno de Bush
El director general de la cadena televisiva árabe Al-Jazeera exigió que Washington responda a los informes que dicen que el Presidente Bush quería bombardear las oficinas de la cadena en Doha. La semana pasada, el periódico "Daily Mirror" citó un memorando británico secreto que revelaba que Bush le comunicó a Tony Blair el año pasado su deseo de bombardear la sede del canal. El gobierno de Bush dijo que el informe de "Daily Mirror" era "ridículo". Funcionarios de Al Jazeera ponen en duda ahora si Estados Unidos atacó intencionalmente la cadena cuando bombardeó sus oficinas en Afganistán en 2001 y en Bagdad en abril de 2003. El ataque en Irak mató a Tariq Ayub, corresponsal de Al Jazeera. La viuda de Ayub, Dina, dijo que considera la posibilidad de demandar al gobierno estadounidense por la muerte de su marido. Dina dijo: "Estados Unidos siempre afirmó que fue un accidente. Pero creo que las nuevas revelaciones prueban que esa afirmación era falsa o al menos no era digna de confianza." Mientras tanto, en Gran Bretaña continúa vigente la prohibición para todos los medios de comunicación de revelar los contenidos del memorando secreto. Pero un miembro del Parlamento, Boris Johnson, prometió publicar el memorando y arriesgarse a ir preso si alguien le entrega ese documento.
Informe: El Pentágono expande capacidad de espiar en Estados Unidos
El "Washington Post" informa que el Pentágono expandió su capacidad de espiar a los ciudadanos de Estados Unidos. Según el Post, el gobierno de Bush está considerando permitirle a una agencia poco conocida del Pentágono, llamada Campo de Actividad Contra la Inteligencia, investigar ciertos crímenes a nivel local. El Pentágono también presiona en Capitol Hill por una norma que exima a las actividades de inteligencia de la Ley de Privacidad, y que permitiría al FBI y a otros organismos compartir información sobre los ciudadanos estadounidenses con el Pentágono, la CIA y otras agencias de inteligencia. Kate Martín, del Centro de Estudios de Seguridad Nacional, dijo que esa legislación eliminaría una de las pocas protecciones de la privacidad existentes, contra la creación de expedientes secretos de ciudadanos estadounidenses por parte de las agencias de inteligencia del gobierno". El Senador demócrata Ron Wyden de Oregon dijo: "Estamos habilitando a los militares a espiar a estadounidenses que cumplen con la ley en Estados Unidos. Esto es un gran salto sin siquiera una audiencia (del Congreso)".
Maria: In English, here are twelve headlines fom Democracy Now! Remember that the headlines are provided daily in English and Spanish and please pass on to your friends. Peace.
Ex-Iraqi PM: Torture As Bad Now As Under Hussein
Iraq's former prime minister Iyad Allawi is claming that the human rights abuses occurring today in Iraq are as bad as they were under Saddam Hussein. In an interview with the Observer newspaper of London Allawai said "We are hearing about secret police, secret bunkers where people are being interrogated. A lot of Iraqis are being tortured or killed in the course of interrogations."
Rumsfeld, Pace Differ on US Response to Iraqi Abuse
At the Pentagon, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld engaged in an unusual exchange with Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman General Peter Pace at a press conference Tuesday. Asked whether US troops are responsible for preventing human rights abuses by Iraqi forces, General Pace answered: "It is absolutely the responsibility of every U.S. service member, if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to intervene to stop it." As Pace elaborated, Rumsfeld interrupted him, saying: "But I don't think you mean they have an obligation to physically stop it; it's to report it." But General Pace replied: "If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it", he said.
US Paying Iraqi Media to Publish US-Authored Reports
The Los Angeles Times is reporting the US military is secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish American-written articles favorable to the U.S. presence in Iraq. The Times reports articles written by U.S. military "information operations" are translated into Arabic and then placed in Iraqi newspapers with the help of Washington-based defense contractor the Lincoln Group. The articles are presented to an Iraqi audience as unbiased news accounts written by independent journalists. The Lincoln Group’s contract is worth up to $100 million dollars over five years. A senior Pentagon official commented : "Here we are trying to create the principles of democracy in Iraq. Every speech we give in that country is about democracy. And we're breaking all the first principles of democracy when we're doing it."
Senate Committee to Hold Session on Newspaper Propaganda
Meanwhile, top Pentagon officials will appear before a closed-door session of the Senate Armed Services Committee today to answer reports the US is paying Iraqi newspapers to publish military propaganda. Senior Pentagon officials say they have yet to receive an explanation. After the story broke earlier this week, General George Casey argued the program should not be publicly discussed because it was classified. Asked about the issue Thursday, military spokesperson Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch appeared to defend the program without confirming its specifics. Major General Lynch said: "We don't lie. We don't need to lie. We do empower our operational commanders with the ability to inform the Iraqi public, but everything we do is based on fact, not based on fiction." State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters: "The State Department is working with journalists in Iraq to help them develop the skills that you all have in terms of reporting and journalistic ethics and practices… This is a country where free media didn't exist for decades, so they are learning. We think it's important to assist them in that."
Pelosi Backs Murtha Call for Withdrawal
Calls for a troop withdrawal have been bolstered by the stance taken by hawkish Democratic Congressman John Murtha. On Wednesday, Democratic minority leader Nancy Pelosi became the first congressional leader to endorse Congressman Murtha's position. Pelosi and other top Democrats had initially distanced themselves from Murtha's call to end the deployment in Iraq to and maintain rapid reaction force in the region. But Pelosi told the Washington Post: "clearly a majority of the [Democratic] caucus supports Mr. Murtha" in his call to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq.
Report: Over 300 CIA Flights at European Airports
In a new development in the growing uproar over alleged CIA secret prisons in Europe, the Guardian of London says it has obtained flight logs showing more than 300 CIA flights have landed at European airports. The Washington Post recently reported the CIA has been operating secret prisons in former Soviet states in Eastern Europe. At the request of the Pentagon, the Post did not name the countries. The disclosure prompted the European Union Justice Commissioner to threaten sanctions against any member state found to have hosted a secret CIA prison. According to the Guardian, CIA planes visited both Germany and Britain over 80 times. On Wednesday, the State Department announced it will respond shortly to European requests for an explanation on the alleged prisons.
EU Nations Could Lose Voting Rights For Housing Secret CIA Prisons
The European Commission has warned all member states of the European Union that they could have their voting rights suspended if they are found to have operated secret CIA prisons. "The protection of basic rights and liberty is deeply rooted in our culture, is the basis of the European charter for fundamental rights," said Franco Frattini, European Union Justice Commissioner. "That's why we will continue following a balanced approach between increasing security and confirming protection and promotion of our liberties" The Washington Post recently reported the CIA has been operating two secret prisons in former Soviet states in Eastern Europe. At the request of the Pentagon, the "Post" did not name the countries but Human Rights Watch has idenitified them as Poland and Romania.
Supreme Court Nominee Alito Argued Against Immigrant Rights
Newly released Justice Department documents show that Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito argued in the 1980s that immigrants who enter the United States illegally and foreigners living outside their countries are not entitled to the constitutional rights afforded to Americans. Alito made the argument at a time when he was deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration. Conservative constitutional analyst Bruce Fein said QUOTE "He seems to be saying that there is no constitutional constraints placed on U.S. officials in their treatment of nonresident aliens or illegal aliens. Could you shoot them? Could you torture them?" Martin Redish, a constitutional law professor at Northwestern University Law School, told the Washington Post that Alito's view could be used to justify the current administration policy under which the CIA conducts interrogations in secret prisons overseas. The New York Times reports the newly released documents also show Alito played an active role in advancing the administration's efforts to expand law enforcement powers and limit restrictions on prosecutors.
Chavez Accuses Bush of Backing Opposition Boycott
In Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez has accused the Bush administration of backing an opposition boycott of this weekend’s legislative elections in the country. Chavez said: "I denounce him before the world from here, from the Miraflores palace. The one responsible for this new conspiracy is the head of the empire: Mr. Danger. To give him his proper name, the president of the United States of America, Mr. George W. Bush. That's the new head of this conspiracy." Opposition groups have announced a boycott of the vote, alleging that the electoral council has not ensured voter secrecy. In recent weeks, analysts had been predicting a sweeping victory for Chavez supporters. The Financial Times notes the boycott is unusual since the country’s electoral council has withdrawn the use of controversial voting machines the opposition complained about.
Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From Sibel Edmonds
The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds who has been trying to sue the FBI and Justice Department over her dismissal. Edmonds says she was fired after speaking out about possible security breaches, misconduct and incompetent translation work. A U.S. District Judge originally dismissed the case after then-Attorney General John Ashcroft invoked the rarely used "state secrets privilege." Ashcroft had warned that further disclosure of the duties of Edmonds and other translators could cause QUOTE "serious damage to the national security interests of the United States." Edmonds first made headlines when she claimed the FBI had information that an attack using airplanes was being planned before Sept. 11.
Al Jazeera Demands Answers from Bush Administration
The director-general of the Arabic tv network Al-Jazeera has demanded Washington respond to reports that President Bush wanted to bomb the network's headquarters in Doha. Last week the Daily Mirror cited a secret British memo revealing that Bush told Tony Blair last year of his desire to bomb the news outlet. The Bush administration has described the Daily Mirror's report as "outlandish." Officials at Al Jazeera are now questioning whether the U.S. might have been targeting the network when it bombed its bureaus in Afghanistan in 2001 and in Baghdad in April 2003. The attack in Iraq killed Al Jazeera's correspondent Tariq Ayub. Ayub's widow, Dina, said she is now considering suing the U.S. government for her husband's death. She said "America always claimed it was an accident. But I believe the new revelations prove that claim was false or at least not trustworthy." Meanwhile in Britain a ban remains in place on all media outlets from disclosing the contents of the secret memo. But a member of parliament - Boris Johnson - has vowed to publish the memo and risk jail time if anyone leaks him the document.
Report: Pentagon Expands Ability to Spy At Home
The Washington Post is reporting the Pentagon has expanded its ability to spy on citizens within the United States. According to the Post, the Bush administration is considering allowing a little known Pentagon agency called the Counterintelligence Field Activity to investigate certain crimes domestically . The Pentagon is also pushing legislation on Capitol Hill that would create an intelligence exemption to the Privacy Act, allowing the FBI and others to share information gathered about U.S. citizens with the Pentagon, CIA and other intelligence agencies. Kate Martin of the Center for National Security Studies, said such an exemption would remove one of the few existing privacy protections against the creation of secret dossiers on Americans by government intelligence agencies." Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon said "We are deputizing the military to spy on law-abiding Americans in America. This is a huge leap without even a [congressional] hearing."
democracy now
news
iraq
irak
noticias
Highlight: "Target: the 9th Circuit (The Republican war on the judiciary continues)"
We got C.I.'s permission to highlight an entry here. Never an easy thing. Elaine wrote the backstory on this at her site.
Elaine: We were on the phone and just talking. I think I tossed out a news story that had surprised me that day and then C.I. mentioned the 9th Circuit. I didn't think I heard correctly.
C.I. starts reading the story to me over the phone and I told him it wasn't in any of the papers I read, it hadn't been on the radio stations I listen to and no one had mentioned it to me. C.I. said, "Oh come on, Elaine, everyone must already be talking about this. It's a perfect example of how underhanded the Republican Party can be and of how much they want to destroy the judiciary." I kept saying, "Write about this. Write about it now." It's one of those things that if you read papers, you'd pick up on. But it wasn't being pointed out on the net. And I think that's one of the hallmarks of The Common Ills. It's done by someone who reads and doesn't just look to see what the top story on Yahoo is. There are people who still don't know about "The Night Letter." You have to be a reader to come across that kind of information.
"Target: the 9th Circuit (The Republican war on the judiciary continues)"
From the December issue of The Progressive, Ruth Conniff's "The Progressive Interview: Bernie Sanders:"
[Bernie Sanders]: In my view this happens to be one of the most dangerous moments in American history. These guys are not just reactionaries. They are changing the rules of the game so they will stay in power for the indefinite futere. We see this abuse of power on the floor of the House. They kept the voting rolls open for three hours to pass the Medicare prescription drug bill. I had an amendment, which won, on the Patriot Act. They kept the voting open twenty minutes longer to defeat it. They break the rules. It's like having a football game go into the fifth quareter because you don't like the results at the end of the fourth quarter. We know what DeLay did in Texas. They have taken chairmen -- yanked them out -- because they defy the leadership of the House. They are now attempting to destroy the judiciary system, which will have profound implications for the future of this country.
Note Sanders' last sentence, "They are now attempting to destroy the judiciary system, which will have profound implications for the future of this country." (The article's from the latest issue of the magazine and it's not available online at present.) Why note the last sentence? Zachary Coile's "A quiet move in House to split the 9th Circuit" (San Francisco Chronicle):
A little-noticed provision in the massive House budget bill would fulfill the longtime goal of conservatives to split the San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, creating a new 12th circuit appellate court and allowing President Bush to name a slate of new federal judges.
Conservatives long have claimed that the Ninth Circuit is too liberal, and that reputation was reinforced by the court's 2002 ruling that reciting the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
But legal observers say the outcome of such a split is likely to be a more liberal court making decisions for California, Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands and a more conservative court serving seven other Western states now part of the Ninth Circuit -- Alaska, Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Nevada and Arizona.
In the article, Reagan appointee Judge Alex Kozinski is noted as testifying before the Senate last month:
Dividing a circuit should only take place when: one, there is demonstrated proof that a circuit is not operating effectively, and two, there is a consensus among the bench and bar and public that it serves that division is the appropriate remedy. Neither of those conditions exists today.
The article also notes that: "Of the 28 active judges on Ninth Circuit, only three have expressed support for splitting the court."
Though Diane Feinstein opposes the plan, Bully Boy has signed on to it.And who would pack the newly created circuit? (You know the answer.) It's thought that one of the states effected would be Oregon. (We have several members in Oregon.) Oregon hasbeen very active with measures that Bully Boy's Justice Department has opposed. For instance, Oregon's physician-assisted suicide. From CNN's "Federal judge upholds Oregon assisted-suicide law" (April 17, 2002):
In his ruling, Judge Robert E. Jones criticized U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft for seeking to nullify the state law, saying he "fired the first shot in the battle" and had sought to "stifle" a debate on the matter through a Nov. 6 directive.
Jones ordered the federal government to halt any efforts to prosecute Oregon physicians, pharmacists and other health-care providers who participate in assisted suicide of terminally ill patients under Oregon's law.
How bothered is the Bully Boy's Justice Department over this law? When the Ninth Circuit upheld Oregon's law, the Justice Department appealed to the Supreme Court. The case that began as Ashcroft v. Oregon became Gonzales v. Oregon and the Court heard testimony on it in October. (Oral arguments before the Court can be found here.)
The article in the Chronicle focuses on the effects to California. This would impact much more than California. Bully Boy's Justice Department has often proved successful in circuit shopping their cases.
physician-assisted suicide
bernie sanders
ruth conniff
the progressive
death with dignity
ninth circuit
judiciary
[Note: Typos pointed out by Betty have been corrected.]
Mike's Motto: The Common Ills community is important and the Common Ills community is important to me. So I'll do my part for the Common Ills community.
Elaine: We were on the phone and just talking. I think I tossed out a news story that had surprised me that day and then C.I. mentioned the 9th Circuit. I didn't think I heard correctly.
C.I. starts reading the story to me over the phone and I told him it wasn't in any of the papers I read, it hadn't been on the radio stations I listen to and no one had mentioned it to me. C.I. said, "Oh come on, Elaine, everyone must already be talking about this. It's a perfect example of how underhanded the Republican Party can be and of how much they want to destroy the judiciary." I kept saying, "Write about this. Write about it now." It's one of those things that if you read papers, you'd pick up on. But it wasn't being pointed out on the net. And I think that's one of the hallmarks of The Common Ills. It's done by someone who reads and doesn't just look to see what the top story on Yahoo is. There are people who still don't know about "The Night Letter." You have to be a reader to come across that kind of information.
"Target: the 9th Circuit (The Republican war on the judiciary continues)"
From the December issue of The Progressive, Ruth Conniff's "The Progressive Interview: Bernie Sanders:"
[Bernie Sanders]: In my view this happens to be one of the most dangerous moments in American history. These guys are not just reactionaries. They are changing the rules of the game so they will stay in power for the indefinite futere. We see this abuse of power on the floor of the House. They kept the voting rolls open for three hours to pass the Medicare prescription drug bill. I had an amendment, which won, on the Patriot Act. They kept the voting open twenty minutes longer to defeat it. They break the rules. It's like having a football game go into the fifth quareter because you don't like the results at the end of the fourth quarter. We know what DeLay did in Texas. They have taken chairmen -- yanked them out -- because they defy the leadership of the House. They are now attempting to destroy the judiciary system, which will have profound implications for the future of this country.
Note Sanders' last sentence, "They are now attempting to destroy the judiciary system, which will have profound implications for the future of this country." (The article's from the latest issue of the magazine and it's not available online at present.) Why note the last sentence? Zachary Coile's "A quiet move in House to split the 9th Circuit" (San Francisco Chronicle):
A little-noticed provision in the massive House budget bill would fulfill the longtime goal of conservatives to split the San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, creating a new 12th circuit appellate court and allowing President Bush to name a slate of new federal judges.
Conservatives long have claimed that the Ninth Circuit is too liberal, and that reputation was reinforced by the court's 2002 ruling that reciting the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
But legal observers say the outcome of such a split is likely to be a more liberal court making decisions for California, Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands and a more conservative court serving seven other Western states now part of the Ninth Circuit -- Alaska, Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Nevada and Arizona.
In the article, Reagan appointee Judge Alex Kozinski is noted as testifying before the Senate last month:
Dividing a circuit should only take place when: one, there is demonstrated proof that a circuit is not operating effectively, and two, there is a consensus among the bench and bar and public that it serves that division is the appropriate remedy. Neither of those conditions exists today.
The article also notes that: "Of the 28 active judges on Ninth Circuit, only three have expressed support for splitting the court."
Though Diane Feinstein opposes the plan, Bully Boy has signed on to it.And who would pack the newly created circuit? (You know the answer.) It's thought that one of the states effected would be Oregon. (We have several members in Oregon.) Oregon hasbeen very active with measures that Bully Boy's Justice Department has opposed. For instance, Oregon's physician-assisted suicide. From CNN's "Federal judge upholds Oregon assisted-suicide law" (April 17, 2002):
In his ruling, Judge Robert E. Jones criticized U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft for seeking to nullify the state law, saying he "fired the first shot in the battle" and had sought to "stifle" a debate on the matter through a Nov. 6 directive.
Jones ordered the federal government to halt any efforts to prosecute Oregon physicians, pharmacists and other health-care providers who participate in assisted suicide of terminally ill patients under Oregon's law.
How bothered is the Bully Boy's Justice Department over this law? When the Ninth Circuit upheld Oregon's law, the Justice Department appealed to the Supreme Court. The case that began as Ashcroft v. Oregon became Gonzales v. Oregon and the Court heard testimony on it in October. (Oral arguments before the Court can be found here.)
The article in the Chronicle focuses on the effects to California. This would impact much more than California. Bully Boy's Justice Department has often proved successful in circuit shopping their cases.
physician-assisted suicide
bernie sanders
ruth conniff
the progressive
death with dignity
ninth circuit
judiciary
[Note: Typos pointed out by Betty have been corrected.]
Mike's Motto: The Common Ills community is important and the Common Ills community is important to me. So I'll do my part for the Common Ills community.
Blog spotlight: Mike & Betty on race and more
Mike (Mikey Likes It!) and Betty (Thomas Friedman is a Great Man) did a joint entry on racism, "Betty and me on race." Mike states that Betty was on the phone throughout as he wrote the entry and he feels she's added to the entire entry and deserves credit for the entire entry but turned it down. Betty states that Mike's got his own framework and that anything she offered while he was working on the commentaries regarding Democracy Now! "were not that big." Betty maintains she was "like a guest that wonders into the kitchen while you're cooking and you ask her to sample. She says needs more whatever and you add it. But she didn't co-cook the meal. Mike did the other stuff and deserves credit for it."
Regardless of who deserves what credit, here's "Betty and me on race:"
Good evening, we'll start off with Democracy Now!
Pelosi Backs Murtha Call for Withdrawal
Calls for a troop withdrawal have been bolstered by the stance taken by hawkish Democratic Congressman John Murtha. On Wednesday, Democratic minority leader Nancy Pelosi became the first congressional leader to endorse Congressman Murtha’s position. Pelosi and other top Democrats had initially distanced themselves from Murtha’s call to end the deployment in Iraq to and maintain rapid reaction force in the region. But Pelosi told the Washington Post: "clearly a majority of the [Democratic] caucus supports Mr. Murtha" in his call to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq.
She took her time but she found her voice which is more than anyone can say about General Hillary who's got the war lust so bad you worry about her being caught in the oval office not with an intern but a missile.
Do you think Hillary watched the last Democratic primaries and told herself, "I know what I'm going to do, I'm going to be the next Joe Lieberman!" That's what it seems like.
Dec. 1st Marks 25th Anniversary of World AIDS Day
And today marks the 25th anniversary of World AIDS day. Since 1981, AIDS has claimed the lives of more than an estimated 20 million people. In the United States alone, an estimated 1 million Americans are now living with HIV, with at least 35,000 new infections occurring a year. In the southern African country of Malawi, UNICEF estimates over half a million children have lost at least one parent to AIDS. In India, at least 4.5 million people live with HIV, the most in any country outside of South Africa.
25 years is more years than I am old. It's weird to realize that there was a time without AIDS because in my life, it's always been around.
I know it's somewhere at The Common Ills lots of times and probably at The Third Estate Sunday Review too. I'd provide a link if I could find it, but I agree with C.I. that Bully Boy has really damaged the fight against AIDS. He's injected his personal beliefs into a scientific discussion. Doing that confuses the message. So if you're stressing a condom one year and the next year you're saying "Just say no to sex" you're confusing the message. Science money should go for science. It should teach how to prevent the transmission of AIDS. Instead it's been diverting into teaching someone's religion. It's not reasonable to expect people to just wait until marriage to avoid AIDS. What happens is you may say, "Okay, I'll wait a bit." Then you tell yourself, "Okay, this is one time and we will get married." Then you break up and pretty soon it's back to saying "This one time . . ."Can people wait until marriage to have sex? Some can. (But some people will never get married.) (And some people might like to be married but can't because only 5 countries have gay marriage if I'm remembering Democracy Now! right.) Better to teach people what to do if they do have sex and leave the religious teachings to a church.
Instead Bully Boy's putting money into stuff that's not going to work and has no science backing up that "I will wait" pledges work. C.I. noted this today:
At Corrente Wire, Leah's asking everyone to "Help Make Thursday, December 1st 'Blog Against Racism Day.'"
We're supposed to write about race or racism. Wally already did his part on this today. He focused on Florida's 2000 election and the media not caring about the disenfranchisment of African-American voters. Today's also the 50th anniversary of Rosa Park's brave stand as Betty just pointed out. These are our thoughts on race because at her site, she has to stay in character but she wanted to weigh in.
Race is an issue that's come up a lot in the community. Like when John H. Johnson died and all anyone (media or bloggers) wanted to talk about was Peter Jennings. Was that racism? Was it just people focusing on the obvious?
Democracy Now! covered John H. Johnson's death. Some people think that Oprah had to be strong armed into covering it and, when she did cover it, my sister says it was like a three minute tribute that mainly showed celebrities on the cover of Ebony. Oprah goes for the obvious. Democracy Now! tries to shine a light where no one else does.
That matters. Grace Lee Boggs is a voice we never knew about until Liang noted her for women's history month. A lot of voices are left out of the mainstream media period but it's even more obvious when it comes to people of color. How often does Tim Russert have a person of color on? If you leave out Condi the number's even lower. There's a tendency to just go for the obvious voices and if we do that we just end up with white voices because that's what we get on the airwaves and in print.
Oprah was supposed to be a big breakthrough and for awhile there were a lot of copycat shows but in the end there's really just Oprah. And the shows she does on whatever Hollywood couple is in love or whatever big budget movie has come out don't really challenge much. Betty's old enough that she can remember Phil Donahue's daytime show and she talks about how she wishes Oprah would try to be a little less inspirational and a little more practical by informing people. But Betty and I both wonder how fair it is to just pin that on Oprah?
She's not the only person in the mainstream with a TV show. And she did get taken to court when she did her mad cow show. Ma says if Oprah's a breakthrough that it's the people of all color who need to build the roads now that Oprah's opened the door. That's probably a better take than Betty or I have on it. (Betty also said it was a kinder take than our take.)
But where is the mainstream's interest with non-whites? In entertainment or in news, they really don't seem that concerned that they basically present all whites. We've seen three African-Americans win best acting Oscars (Denzel Washington, Halle Berry and Jamie Foxx) but what's shocking is that the Oscars are older are than me and those were the first three African-Americans to win.
And when it's time to replace white male anchors, we get white males. Is there a reason that the networks refuse to go beyond that?
I think it's because racism is institutional and self-perpuates. The mainstream says "These are the important voices" and we all nod along.
It can be hard to go beyond the mainstream but if the world's going to change, we're going to have to. Think about The Daily Jerk Off and how it's all white all the time. On the left the problem is that we're already shut out of the mainstream. That's all of us. But think about how much more difficult it must be to be left and a person of a color.
Margaret Kimberley has a funny essay today called "Republican Sex Freaks." And I know her voice because of The Common Ills. Salim Muwakkil is another voice I've learned of due to The Common Ills. He is a senior editor and columnist for In These Times. When C.I. gripes about the fact that Patricia J. Williams' columns at The Nation are hardly ever made available to anyone other than subscribers, that's because she's missing an audience that others get. Eric Alterman has his own weblog. If they don't want to make the whole issue available to nonsubscribers, they should do some sort of rotation because Williams is a law professor and a really strong voice.
When we review books at The Third Estate Sunday Review, we've got a lot of people with a lot of ideas (and readers suggest things too). I think that's why we've had a pretty good mix. Like Cedric said in the last book discussion, we try to go for something besides the obvious. If every big paper in the world's talking a book, we probably aren't interested. That's how we ended up with a book of Bayard Rustin's writings last time.
I think that's the only real answer, going for the less obvious. It's probably easier to give shout outs to an all white cast all the time because that's what the mainstream media does but if the net's going to be any different than the mainstream media, fundamentally different, we need to work to make the range of voices wider.
Everyone's got time constraints and is rushing to do what they can. But if there's not a real effort made to enlarge the landscape now, the internet's going to end up exactly like the mainstream.I'd already decided to highlight something and then decided against it but Betty said to go with it because the topic's important and she likes sports as much as me. So here's Dave Zirin's "The Fight to Save Stan Tookie Williams" (The Nation):
"Years ago, I recognized my kinship with all living things, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." --Eugene V. Debs
These words of the fabled social activist also define the life of NFL hall of famer and actor Jim Brown. He has mediated truces between the toughest gangs in Los Angeles and fought racism from South Central to Soweto. But today he is involved in a different kind of fight: the race to save Stan Tookie Williams, who now awaits execution on California's death row. Williams is due to be executed December 13, and Brown has linked arms with a motley crew of activists from Archbishop Desmond Tutu to hip-hop artist Snoop Dogg demanding that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger spare his life. Schwarzenegger, who has set a clemency hearing for December 8, recently told reporters he is "dreading" the decision he is about to make.
The clemency hearing comes at a critical time. On December 2, North Carolina death row inmate Kenneth Lee Boyd is expected to be the 1,000th person to be executed since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. Boyd' scheduled execution comes days after Virginia Gov. Mike Warner granted clemency to Robin Lovitts, who was originally slated for that spot. After the California Supreme Court decided this week to refuse to re-open the Williams case, the race is on to persuade Schwarzenegger to follow Warner's lead.
Now I'm adding for everyone to be sure and check out Betty's "Hell is your house-bound husband on house arrest with you serving the sentence."
Remember the motto: The Common Ills community is important and the Common Ills community is important to me. So I'll do my part for the Common Ills community.
democracy now
thomas friedman is a great man
the daily jot
the common ills
mikey likes it
the third estate sunday review
Motto: The Common Ills community is important and the Common Ills community is important to me. So I'll do my part for the Common Ills community.
Regardless of who deserves what credit, here's "Betty and me on race:"
Good evening, we'll start off with Democracy Now!
Pelosi Backs Murtha Call for Withdrawal
Calls for a troop withdrawal have been bolstered by the stance taken by hawkish Democratic Congressman John Murtha. On Wednesday, Democratic minority leader Nancy Pelosi became the first congressional leader to endorse Congressman Murtha’s position. Pelosi and other top Democrats had initially distanced themselves from Murtha’s call to end the deployment in Iraq to and maintain rapid reaction force in the region. But Pelosi told the Washington Post: "clearly a majority of the [Democratic] caucus supports Mr. Murtha" in his call to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq.
She took her time but she found her voice which is more than anyone can say about General Hillary who's got the war lust so bad you worry about her being caught in the oval office not with an intern but a missile.
Do you think Hillary watched the last Democratic primaries and told herself, "I know what I'm going to do, I'm going to be the next Joe Lieberman!" That's what it seems like.
Dec. 1st Marks 25th Anniversary of World AIDS Day
And today marks the 25th anniversary of World AIDS day. Since 1981, AIDS has claimed the lives of more than an estimated 20 million people. In the United States alone, an estimated 1 million Americans are now living with HIV, with at least 35,000 new infections occurring a year. In the southern African country of Malawi, UNICEF estimates over half a million children have lost at least one parent to AIDS. In India, at least 4.5 million people live with HIV, the most in any country outside of South Africa.
25 years is more years than I am old. It's weird to realize that there was a time without AIDS because in my life, it's always been around.
I know it's somewhere at The Common Ills lots of times and probably at The Third Estate Sunday Review too. I'd provide a link if I could find it, but I agree with C.I. that Bully Boy has really damaged the fight against AIDS. He's injected his personal beliefs into a scientific discussion. Doing that confuses the message. So if you're stressing a condom one year and the next year you're saying "Just say no to sex" you're confusing the message. Science money should go for science. It should teach how to prevent the transmission of AIDS. Instead it's been diverting into teaching someone's religion. It's not reasonable to expect people to just wait until marriage to avoid AIDS. What happens is you may say, "Okay, I'll wait a bit." Then you tell yourself, "Okay, this is one time and we will get married." Then you break up and pretty soon it's back to saying "This one time . . ."Can people wait until marriage to have sex? Some can. (But some people will never get married.) (And some people might like to be married but can't because only 5 countries have gay marriage if I'm remembering Democracy Now! right.) Better to teach people what to do if they do have sex and leave the religious teachings to a church.
Instead Bully Boy's putting money into stuff that's not going to work and has no science backing up that "I will wait" pledges work. C.I. noted this today:
At Corrente Wire, Leah's asking everyone to "Help Make Thursday, December 1st 'Blog Against Racism Day.'"
We're supposed to write about race or racism. Wally already did his part on this today. He focused on Florida's 2000 election and the media not caring about the disenfranchisment of African-American voters. Today's also the 50th anniversary of Rosa Park's brave stand as Betty just pointed out. These are our thoughts on race because at her site, she has to stay in character but she wanted to weigh in.
Race is an issue that's come up a lot in the community. Like when John H. Johnson died and all anyone (media or bloggers) wanted to talk about was Peter Jennings. Was that racism? Was it just people focusing on the obvious?
Democracy Now! covered John H. Johnson's death. Some people think that Oprah had to be strong armed into covering it and, when she did cover it, my sister says it was like a three minute tribute that mainly showed celebrities on the cover of Ebony. Oprah goes for the obvious. Democracy Now! tries to shine a light where no one else does.
That matters. Grace Lee Boggs is a voice we never knew about until Liang noted her for women's history month. A lot of voices are left out of the mainstream media period but it's even more obvious when it comes to people of color. How often does Tim Russert have a person of color on? If you leave out Condi the number's even lower. There's a tendency to just go for the obvious voices and if we do that we just end up with white voices because that's what we get on the airwaves and in print.
Oprah was supposed to be a big breakthrough and for awhile there were a lot of copycat shows but in the end there's really just Oprah. And the shows she does on whatever Hollywood couple is in love or whatever big budget movie has come out don't really challenge much. Betty's old enough that she can remember Phil Donahue's daytime show and she talks about how she wishes Oprah would try to be a little less inspirational and a little more practical by informing people. But Betty and I both wonder how fair it is to just pin that on Oprah?
She's not the only person in the mainstream with a TV show. And she did get taken to court when she did her mad cow show. Ma says if Oprah's a breakthrough that it's the people of all color who need to build the roads now that Oprah's opened the door. That's probably a better take than Betty or I have on it. (Betty also said it was a kinder take than our take.)
But where is the mainstream's interest with non-whites? In entertainment or in news, they really don't seem that concerned that they basically present all whites. We've seen three African-Americans win best acting Oscars (Denzel Washington, Halle Berry and Jamie Foxx) but what's shocking is that the Oscars are older are than me and those were the first three African-Americans to win.
And when it's time to replace white male anchors, we get white males. Is there a reason that the networks refuse to go beyond that?
I think it's because racism is institutional and self-perpuates. The mainstream says "These are the important voices" and we all nod along.
It can be hard to go beyond the mainstream but if the world's going to change, we're going to have to. Think about The Daily Jerk Off and how it's all white all the time. On the left the problem is that we're already shut out of the mainstream. That's all of us. But think about how much more difficult it must be to be left and a person of a color.
Margaret Kimberley has a funny essay today called "Republican Sex Freaks." And I know her voice because of The Common Ills. Salim Muwakkil is another voice I've learned of due to The Common Ills. He is a senior editor and columnist for In These Times. When C.I. gripes about the fact that Patricia J. Williams' columns at The Nation are hardly ever made available to anyone other than subscribers, that's because she's missing an audience that others get. Eric Alterman has his own weblog. If they don't want to make the whole issue available to nonsubscribers, they should do some sort of rotation because Williams is a law professor and a really strong voice.
When we review books at The Third Estate Sunday Review, we've got a lot of people with a lot of ideas (and readers suggest things too). I think that's why we've had a pretty good mix. Like Cedric said in the last book discussion, we try to go for something besides the obvious. If every big paper in the world's talking a book, we probably aren't interested. That's how we ended up with a book of Bayard Rustin's writings last time.
I think that's the only real answer, going for the less obvious. It's probably easier to give shout outs to an all white cast all the time because that's what the mainstream media does but if the net's going to be any different than the mainstream media, fundamentally different, we need to work to make the range of voices wider.
Everyone's got time constraints and is rushing to do what they can. But if there's not a real effort made to enlarge the landscape now, the internet's going to end up exactly like the mainstream.I'd already decided to highlight something and then decided against it but Betty said to go with it because the topic's important and she likes sports as much as me. So here's Dave Zirin's "The Fight to Save Stan Tookie Williams" (The Nation):
"Years ago, I recognized my kinship with all living things, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." --Eugene V. Debs
These words of the fabled social activist also define the life of NFL hall of famer and actor Jim Brown. He has mediated truces between the toughest gangs in Los Angeles and fought racism from South Central to Soweto. But today he is involved in a different kind of fight: the race to save Stan Tookie Williams, who now awaits execution on California's death row. Williams is due to be executed December 13, and Brown has linked arms with a motley crew of activists from Archbishop Desmond Tutu to hip-hop artist Snoop Dogg demanding that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger spare his life. Schwarzenegger, who has set a clemency hearing for December 8, recently told reporters he is "dreading" the decision he is about to make.
The clemency hearing comes at a critical time. On December 2, North Carolina death row inmate Kenneth Lee Boyd is expected to be the 1,000th person to be executed since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. Boyd' scheduled execution comes days after Virginia Gov. Mike Warner granted clemency to Robin Lovitts, who was originally slated for that spot. After the California Supreme Court decided this week to refuse to re-open the Williams case, the race is on to persuade Schwarzenegger to follow Warner's lead.
Now I'm adding for everyone to be sure and check out Betty's "Hell is your house-bound husband on house arrest with you serving the sentence."
Remember the motto: The Common Ills community is important and the Common Ills community is important to me. So I'll do my part for the Common Ills community.
democracy now
thomas friedman is a great man
the daily jot
the common ills
mikey likes it
the third estate sunday review
Motto: The Common Ills community is important and the Common Ills community is important to me. So I'll do my part for the Common Ills community.
Blog spotlight: Rebecca's "thoughts on racism"
Rebecca was one of the community members weighing in on racism Thursday. She looked to her own actions. Cedric praised this post and Rebecca says that was very kind but she didn't realize, until C.I. pointed it out, that she was close to quoting "I Am The Walrus" at one point.
Rebecca: I try not to call C.I. on Thursday evenings because I know the Indymedia posts require a lot of concentration to whittle down the selections members e-mail and to try to organize them into something. But if I had read it to C.I. over the phone and had the Beatles song pointed out then, I would have loved to have included it. I'm with Susan and most readers of this site, we need more music in our lives. Add Mike's motto to the bottom.
"thoughts on racism"
c.i. noted this: "Help Make Thursday, December 1st 'Blog Against Racism Day.'" which is a thing by leah at corrente. which just sent me into a panic because i couldn't remember if i'd added them to my blog roll or not. (i had.)
so the thing is to talk about race or racism today.
so here are my thoughts on the matter and you can nod along or spit nails or whatever gets you going. i'm going to focus on an issue where white people who aren't racist enable racism.
'we are we and they are they' is the biggest narrative going. it's how we end up demonizing others. and it depends upon ignorance.
and it depends on our ignoring our commonalities and and not respecting our differences.
instead a difference becomes a reason to demonize.
race is 1 of the easiest ways to play the other (gender is another) because it requires only our eyes to scan quickly and fall for whatever stereotype is being promoted in which ever generation.
we have a bully boy in the white house who loves to play the country against one another and loves to create divisions.
this is also world aids day and that's another example of demonizing. 25 years later the stigma's not as great as it once was. provided you're a child or contracted the disease through blood transfusions. you saw it with those crappy e-mails from bono's organization always about 'the children' as though that's the only focus for empathy.
ruth in her ruth's morning edition report talks about how 1 of the things she enjoys most is learning about things and i honestly believe that a lot of people feel that way. but sometimes we act like we don't feel that way because 'what would some 1 say?' i've been amazed at, for instance, the number of people who will say something as stupid as 'i hate that will & grace. they say things like "who's homo?"' but if some 1, usually me, says 'i like that show' the same person fronting 2 minutes ago will suddenly say, 'isn't it funny?'
we're all so worried about what some 1 might think.
that's why bully boy managed to pull off 4 years with so little criticism. we were scared to state the obvious.
so we fear other's reactions. when we find out their reaction, we're usually okay with being open.
and that goes to racism because we fear what we don't know.and ignorance is encouraged in our culture.
c.i. taught me long ago to say fuck it.
if you're not black and you're around white people fairly often, you've probably been in a group or 1 on 1 with someone that you thought was wonderful only to hear them utter a racist saying.
years ago, it would make me uncomfortable and i'd excuse myself and avoid the person from then on. but c.i. would always say 'that is racist' and not care what their reaction was.
when i was younger, believe it or not, i was not always quick to share my opinion and i was loathe to disagree.
i would see c.i., who really doesn't care - i mean really doesn't care, tell some 1 off for being racist or being sexist or being homophobic or go down the list. it could be any 1 and it never bothered c.i. it took me awhile to get to that point. and my silence perpetuated racism. i could tell myself 'well i just won't be around ___ anymore' but that didn't change anything. the person might wonder why i avoided them after the shocked look but they didn't get that their remarks were offensive and wrong.
we need to let people know when they are wrong. if we don't we are perpetuating racism with our silence. it's easy to say 'well i'm not racist' and go on about your life and i did that with race, gender, you name it.
there was a couple that is friends with my ex-in-laws. they would make the most racist jokes and i would walk away from them. then i would whine to c.i. on the phone. c.i. would always say 'they need to be called on it. it won't change what they are probably, but it will make them twice about assuming that just because every 1 present is white, they can get away with that shit.'so when we announced our engagement, i was telling myself, i can't be silent tonight.it was hard for me because back then i really did want every 1 to like me. but that night, when the husband came over to make another 1 of his 'jokes' i let him have it.
the couple avoided me, and our wedding, which is fine. in fact it's better because i didn't have to work to avoid them since they were avoiding me.
and after that, it was honestly easier for me to say to any 1, 'that's wrong.'
for me it was a road to finding my voice and to being able to speak up for what i believe in.there was a friend that t and i had who we used to do stuff with, us and a group of women. she pulled that nonsense 1 day after we'd all been hanging out for some time.when i called her on it, she told me i had no sense of humor (they always go there, racists, sexists and homophobes) and started saying stuff like 'you know me, you know i'm not racist.'
i thought i knew you. i thought you weren't racist. then you tell that 'joke.'and of course she doesn't do it around t.which is how you know it's not just a 'joke.' if it's just a joke, why say it only when no african-americans are present? this woman was all 'you go, girl!' and 'girlfriend' this and 'girlfriend' that when t was around. (which t always found strange.)
so that's my point for the night.
it's easy for you to tell yourself that since you're not racist, you don't need to worry about it. that turns it into a problem for 'others.' that kind of thinking, for instance, would really push it off on t.it would be my way of saying, 't, you're african-american, so this is your problem.'
but racism is a problem for every 1 that every 1 needs to address. so if you've grimaced at a 'joke' and said nothing, i want you to think about speaking your mind and calling people out.
maybe it will open some 1's eyes. maybe it will only make them avoid you.
regardless, you'll feel better about yourself. you'll probably also be doing your friends a favor.
i don't mean the ones telling 'jokes.' i mean your own c.i., the person you whine to on the phone about this or that. you'll free up your time to talk about things that really matter instead of constantly needing pep talks. and if you have enough respect to say 'no' you'll be a stronger person.
i'm not sure if this is the sort of thing they were hoping for today but, to quote kat, it is what it is.
and what it is is this: if you're biting your tongue around 'jokes' or worse, you're perpetuating racism.
mike's motto: The Common Ills community is important and the Common Ills community is important to me. So I'll do my part for the Common Ills community.
Rebecca: I try not to call C.I. on Thursday evenings because I know the Indymedia posts require a lot of concentration to whittle down the selections members e-mail and to try to organize them into something. But if I had read it to C.I. over the phone and had the Beatles song pointed out then, I would have loved to have included it. I'm with Susan and most readers of this site, we need more music in our lives. Add Mike's motto to the bottom.
"thoughts on racism"
c.i. noted this: "Help Make Thursday, December 1st 'Blog Against Racism Day.'" which is a thing by leah at corrente. which just sent me into a panic because i couldn't remember if i'd added them to my blog roll or not. (i had.)
so the thing is to talk about race or racism today.
so here are my thoughts on the matter and you can nod along or spit nails or whatever gets you going. i'm going to focus on an issue where white people who aren't racist enable racism.
'we are we and they are they' is the biggest narrative going. it's how we end up demonizing others. and it depends upon ignorance.
and it depends on our ignoring our commonalities and and not respecting our differences.
instead a difference becomes a reason to demonize.
race is 1 of the easiest ways to play the other (gender is another) because it requires only our eyes to scan quickly and fall for whatever stereotype is being promoted in which ever generation.
we have a bully boy in the white house who loves to play the country against one another and loves to create divisions.
this is also world aids day and that's another example of demonizing. 25 years later the stigma's not as great as it once was. provided you're a child or contracted the disease through blood transfusions. you saw it with those crappy e-mails from bono's organization always about 'the children' as though that's the only focus for empathy.
ruth in her ruth's morning edition report talks about how 1 of the things she enjoys most is learning about things and i honestly believe that a lot of people feel that way. but sometimes we act like we don't feel that way because 'what would some 1 say?' i've been amazed at, for instance, the number of people who will say something as stupid as 'i hate that will & grace. they say things like "who's homo?"' but if some 1, usually me, says 'i like that show' the same person fronting 2 minutes ago will suddenly say, 'isn't it funny?'
we're all so worried about what some 1 might think.
that's why bully boy managed to pull off 4 years with so little criticism. we were scared to state the obvious.
so we fear other's reactions. when we find out their reaction, we're usually okay with being open.
and that goes to racism because we fear what we don't know.and ignorance is encouraged in our culture.
c.i. taught me long ago to say fuck it.
if you're not black and you're around white people fairly often, you've probably been in a group or 1 on 1 with someone that you thought was wonderful only to hear them utter a racist saying.
years ago, it would make me uncomfortable and i'd excuse myself and avoid the person from then on. but c.i. would always say 'that is racist' and not care what their reaction was.
when i was younger, believe it or not, i was not always quick to share my opinion and i was loathe to disagree.
i would see c.i., who really doesn't care - i mean really doesn't care, tell some 1 off for being racist or being sexist or being homophobic or go down the list. it could be any 1 and it never bothered c.i. it took me awhile to get to that point. and my silence perpetuated racism. i could tell myself 'well i just won't be around ___ anymore' but that didn't change anything. the person might wonder why i avoided them after the shocked look but they didn't get that their remarks were offensive and wrong.
we need to let people know when they are wrong. if we don't we are perpetuating racism with our silence. it's easy to say 'well i'm not racist' and go on about your life and i did that with race, gender, you name it.
there was a couple that is friends with my ex-in-laws. they would make the most racist jokes and i would walk away from them. then i would whine to c.i. on the phone. c.i. would always say 'they need to be called on it. it won't change what they are probably, but it will make them twice about assuming that just because every 1 present is white, they can get away with that shit.'so when we announced our engagement, i was telling myself, i can't be silent tonight.it was hard for me because back then i really did want every 1 to like me. but that night, when the husband came over to make another 1 of his 'jokes' i let him have it.
the couple avoided me, and our wedding, which is fine. in fact it's better because i didn't have to work to avoid them since they were avoiding me.
and after that, it was honestly easier for me to say to any 1, 'that's wrong.'
for me it was a road to finding my voice and to being able to speak up for what i believe in.there was a friend that t and i had who we used to do stuff with, us and a group of women. she pulled that nonsense 1 day after we'd all been hanging out for some time.when i called her on it, she told me i had no sense of humor (they always go there, racists, sexists and homophobes) and started saying stuff like 'you know me, you know i'm not racist.'
i thought i knew you. i thought you weren't racist. then you tell that 'joke.'and of course she doesn't do it around t.which is how you know it's not just a 'joke.' if it's just a joke, why say it only when no african-americans are present? this woman was all 'you go, girl!' and 'girlfriend' this and 'girlfriend' that when t was around. (which t always found strange.)
so that's my point for the night.
it's easy for you to tell yourself that since you're not racist, you don't need to worry about it. that turns it into a problem for 'others.' that kind of thinking, for instance, would really push it off on t.it would be my way of saying, 't, you're african-american, so this is your problem.'
but racism is a problem for every 1 that every 1 needs to address. so if you've grimaced at a 'joke' and said nothing, i want you to think about speaking your mind and calling people out.
maybe it will open some 1's eyes. maybe it will only make them avoid you.
regardless, you'll feel better about yourself. you'll probably also be doing your friends a favor.
i don't mean the ones telling 'jokes.' i mean your own c.i., the person you whine to on the phone about this or that. you'll free up your time to talk about things that really matter instead of constantly needing pep talks. and if you have enough respect to say 'no' you'll be a stronger person.
i'm not sure if this is the sort of thing they were hoping for today but, to quote kat, it is what it is.
and what it is is this: if you're biting your tongue around 'jokes' or worse, you're perpetuating racism.
mike's motto: The Common Ills community is important and the Common Ills community is important to me. So I'll do my part for the Common Ills community.
Blog spotlight: Cedric on "Race"
Thursday people were asked to write about race. Cedric's post ("Race") was one we all enjoyed and begged him to let us spotlight here. Thankfully, he said okay. Be sure to check out his site Cedric's Big Mix.
"Race"
This post is in reference to "Help Make Thursday, December 1st 'Blog Against Racism Day'" which Leah posted at Corrente Wire.
So we're all supposed to write about race today. Everyone in the community. It's a web project and here I thought I was done with homework a long time ago.
I told C.I. that I would be happy to write about it but that I might not have anything anyone wanted to hear. C.I. said, "Even better. Be true to you."
Is this the day where the web purges the guilt for being white-white-white every other day of the year?
Will we see "fab post! hat tip to . . ." nonsense all over the net?
Rebecca wrote something brave. In it she talked about the ways Whites can aid racists. It was brave, it was Rebecca. But maybe some White person will write a "moving post" about Rosa Parks and it will gather steam all over the net and we'll once again here how wonderful the net is and how brave.
I don't expect much from it.
I'd love to be wrong but we can't talk about racism online.
We're not supposed to. We're supposed to look the other way.
Certainly if the net was racist, people of color would be shut out.
Oh wait, we are.
There's a token voice they include on their blog rolls and we're all supposed to be happy about that.
"One of us made it!"
Today is apparently Black day.
Women get ready because you're day will be coming soon.
People of color and women get a day or two each year.
Otherwise it's white-white-white male-male-male.
So today a lot of people will get to feel good about themselves and sleep easy knowing that they did "their part."
Or maybe they'll kid themselves that because they blogged on TD Jakes/TD Jokes they're down with the peeps. You have to be pretty white to think TD Jokes speaks to African-American liberals.
But hey, you looked in the paper, you saw a Black man and thought, "I'll write about this!"
Didn't matter that he's got nothing to say to the left. Doesn't matter what he preaches because us Blacks just love our preachers, right?
The net's racist as hell and that's what we're not supposed to talk about.
Ron of Why Are We Back In Iraq? links to Betty and links to me. He could play it safe and avoid that. I'll give him praise for linking to us. I don't know that I see a lot of other people offering support to emerging voices of color.
I don't see a lot of people offering any support to any emerging voices regardless of color or gender.
I see a lot of gas bags. If they'd had the internet 40 years ago, I bet Cokie Roberts would be blogging. She'd probably be starting some pac or some circle to promote other people like herself (white) and probably not many women on that list because she wants to be the token.
She's probably offer "sage" advice like "Don't use Blogspot!"And she'd work talking points from the Democratic Party into every entry because she'd really, really want to be a player.
That's pretty much what the net is today.
Instead of a day of everyone "reflecting" on race and racism, how about a day where everyone found a voice that they'd never highlighted before and provided a link?
Especially to people of color?
Because the reality of racism is that it takes root in ignorance.
You don't know me, I don't know you. Easiest thing in the world to do is to reduce an issue to our skin colors. When we get to know each other, we can see beyond stereotypes and we can start to relate as people.
This African-American man doesn't need a web day of essays on race and racism. Most people won't have the bravery to do what Rebecca did which was to be honest. Most people won't have the brains to do what Mike did which is bring on a person of another color, Betty, and actually have a conversation while they write. (That's not meant as an insult to Wally. His site is "jots." If you asked him if he wrote about race today he'd tell you he "jotted." A lot of other people will kid themselves. Kat's thinking up something, trying to, about music. I thought she had some good ideas when we were discussing what we were going to blog on. But I told her, "Kat, if it doesn't come, don't worry about it. You link to women, you linke to people of color, you link to straight and gay. You don't need a day to talk about inclusion because you practice it.")
I don't really see this as anything for African-Americans. I see it as a way for Whites not to feel guilty. Not all Whites.
But it reminds me of Black History Month. I didn't see that get much attention elsewhere. C.I. spot lighted it each day at The Common Ills and whenever Gina and Krista interview an African-American for their round-robin, they always point that out. It's a plate set at the table. It says, "You are welcome here." I don't know that one day of essays around the net says much of anything.
I'm not ragging on Leah. I think it's great that she and the guy (I think his name is Chris) wanted to get something started. But my problem is these things tend to be a once a year thing.
And then six months from now, you end up with a Blogger pointing back to it and saying, "See, I'm not racist."
My guess is Leah wouldn't do that. She's a woman. She knows the score which is that she has to write something ten times better than any man (White) just to get a little attention for it.
Tomorrow, some (White) man could blog on a new found bullet that hit JFK and Leah could post the true events of what happened. Leah wouldn't be spotlighted all over the net. Air America wouldn't have her on as a guest.
So when she blogs, it's because something has happened that she wants to comment on. (I'd assume it's the same with all the bloggers at Corrente Wire, but I only know her work and Lambert's.) So I believe she really believes in this and I don't mean to piss all over it.
But for everyone who means it, there are a lot more who don't.
And to me, that's part of the problem. Someone writing their truth will get the same pat on the back as someone phoning in it just to say, "See, I care about racial issues."
I hope I'm wrong. I hope the excercise starts a really in depth conversation.
In the meantime, the reality is that there is a ceiling and that if you're not in the club, don't look to crack it.
C.I. did a great post yesterday, "Target: the 9th Circuit (The Republican war on the judiciary continues)" and where did you see it? You saw it on BuzzFlash, you saw it at the community sites and that was really it.
That's what I mean when I say Leah has to write something 10 times better than a (White) man just to get any attention for it. I don't know how Leah does it. I don't know how C.I. does it. Unless it's that they've accepted that they're not going to be the most linked on the net.
I assume Leah's built up a following the way C.I. has. Hopefully they are as fiercely loyal as C.I.'s is. But I know The Common Ills, that's my community. And when I see someone "stumble" upon something and I know that it was noted by C.I. days before or that C.I.'s words (usually a joke) are being reassembled and passed off as some blogger's at his site, I know that the net isn't going to be the brave new world Joe Trippie and others claim.
The gatekeepers are already in place. The new Cokie Roberts and Sam Donaldsons. "Cokie Roberts" singular. Apparently that's Wonkette. She's the leading token.
Chris' idea could be huge. If it was, how much you want to bet Leah would be written out of it?Credit would be given to some male blogger that we've all heard too much about.
I hate to be so negative. I wish I could just tell you about how I first learned of Rosa Parks and act like "It's all good." But that's not reality.
But to end on a positive note, Wally and Mike have pointed out the obvious, C.I. broke through. Not with the gatekeepers (and not with help from them).
So hopefully it's changing. But the change is coming from outside the tight circle and in spite of the tight circle.
The reason C.I.'s turning down interviews is because The Common Ills found an audience. It can happen. But it doesn't happen with help from the gatekeepers, it happens in spite of them.
Hopefully, out there right now there's a blogger of color. I've never heard of him or her because, being of color, they won't get any attention. But hopefully, they are a voice that will break through. If they do, they'll do it the way C.I. did by peer to peer sharing. The way The Common Ills has taken off at colleges (and at the nursing home of Three Cool Old Guys).
To me racism is about closed minds and I just don't see a closed net being able to talk honestly about it. But I wish Leah (and Chris) luck.
corrente
the common ills
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
the daily jot
kats korner
thomas friedman is a great man
"Race"
This post is in reference to "Help Make Thursday, December 1st 'Blog Against Racism Day'" which Leah posted at Corrente Wire.
So we're all supposed to write about race today. Everyone in the community. It's a web project and here I thought I was done with homework a long time ago.
I told C.I. that I would be happy to write about it but that I might not have anything anyone wanted to hear. C.I. said, "Even better. Be true to you."
Is this the day where the web purges the guilt for being white-white-white every other day of the year?
Will we see "fab post! hat tip to . . ." nonsense all over the net?
Rebecca wrote something brave. In it she talked about the ways Whites can aid racists. It was brave, it was Rebecca. But maybe some White person will write a "moving post" about Rosa Parks and it will gather steam all over the net and we'll once again here how wonderful the net is and how brave.
I don't expect much from it.
I'd love to be wrong but we can't talk about racism online.
We're not supposed to. We're supposed to look the other way.
Certainly if the net was racist, people of color would be shut out.
Oh wait, we are.
There's a token voice they include on their blog rolls and we're all supposed to be happy about that.
"One of us made it!"
Today is apparently Black day.
Women get ready because you're day will be coming soon.
People of color and women get a day or two each year.
Otherwise it's white-white-white male-male-male.
So today a lot of people will get to feel good about themselves and sleep easy knowing that they did "their part."
Or maybe they'll kid themselves that because they blogged on TD Jakes/TD Jokes they're down with the peeps. You have to be pretty white to think TD Jokes speaks to African-American liberals.
But hey, you looked in the paper, you saw a Black man and thought, "I'll write about this!"
Didn't matter that he's got nothing to say to the left. Doesn't matter what he preaches because us Blacks just love our preachers, right?
The net's racist as hell and that's what we're not supposed to talk about.
Ron of Why Are We Back In Iraq? links to Betty and links to me. He could play it safe and avoid that. I'll give him praise for linking to us. I don't know that I see a lot of other people offering support to emerging voices of color.
I don't see a lot of people offering any support to any emerging voices regardless of color or gender.
I see a lot of gas bags. If they'd had the internet 40 years ago, I bet Cokie Roberts would be blogging. She'd probably be starting some pac or some circle to promote other people like herself (white) and probably not many women on that list because she wants to be the token.
She's probably offer "sage" advice like "Don't use Blogspot!"And she'd work talking points from the Democratic Party into every entry because she'd really, really want to be a player.
That's pretty much what the net is today.
Instead of a day of everyone "reflecting" on race and racism, how about a day where everyone found a voice that they'd never highlighted before and provided a link?
Especially to people of color?
Because the reality of racism is that it takes root in ignorance.
You don't know me, I don't know you. Easiest thing in the world to do is to reduce an issue to our skin colors. When we get to know each other, we can see beyond stereotypes and we can start to relate as people.
This African-American man doesn't need a web day of essays on race and racism. Most people won't have the bravery to do what Rebecca did which was to be honest. Most people won't have the brains to do what Mike did which is bring on a person of another color, Betty, and actually have a conversation while they write. (That's not meant as an insult to Wally. His site is "jots." If you asked him if he wrote about race today he'd tell you he "jotted." A lot of other people will kid themselves. Kat's thinking up something, trying to, about music. I thought she had some good ideas when we were discussing what we were going to blog on. But I told her, "Kat, if it doesn't come, don't worry about it. You link to women, you linke to people of color, you link to straight and gay. You don't need a day to talk about inclusion because you practice it.")
I don't really see this as anything for African-Americans. I see it as a way for Whites not to feel guilty. Not all Whites.
But it reminds me of Black History Month. I didn't see that get much attention elsewhere. C.I. spot lighted it each day at The Common Ills and whenever Gina and Krista interview an African-American for their round-robin, they always point that out. It's a plate set at the table. It says, "You are welcome here." I don't know that one day of essays around the net says much of anything.
I'm not ragging on Leah. I think it's great that she and the guy (I think his name is Chris) wanted to get something started. But my problem is these things tend to be a once a year thing.
And then six months from now, you end up with a Blogger pointing back to it and saying, "See, I'm not racist."
My guess is Leah wouldn't do that. She's a woman. She knows the score which is that she has to write something ten times better than any man (White) just to get a little attention for it.
Tomorrow, some (White) man could blog on a new found bullet that hit JFK and Leah could post the true events of what happened. Leah wouldn't be spotlighted all over the net. Air America wouldn't have her on as a guest.
So when she blogs, it's because something has happened that she wants to comment on. (I'd assume it's the same with all the bloggers at Corrente Wire, but I only know her work and Lambert's.) So I believe she really believes in this and I don't mean to piss all over it.
But for everyone who means it, there are a lot more who don't.
And to me, that's part of the problem. Someone writing their truth will get the same pat on the back as someone phoning in it just to say, "See, I care about racial issues."
I hope I'm wrong. I hope the excercise starts a really in depth conversation.
In the meantime, the reality is that there is a ceiling and that if you're not in the club, don't look to crack it.
C.I. did a great post yesterday, "Target: the 9th Circuit (The Republican war on the judiciary continues)" and where did you see it? You saw it on BuzzFlash, you saw it at the community sites and that was really it.
That's what I mean when I say Leah has to write something 10 times better than a (White) man just to get any attention for it. I don't know how Leah does it. I don't know how C.I. does it. Unless it's that they've accepted that they're not going to be the most linked on the net.
I assume Leah's built up a following the way C.I. has. Hopefully they are as fiercely loyal as C.I.'s is. But I know The Common Ills, that's my community. And when I see someone "stumble" upon something and I know that it was noted by C.I. days before or that C.I.'s words (usually a joke) are being reassembled and passed off as some blogger's at his site, I know that the net isn't going to be the brave new world Joe Trippie and others claim.
The gatekeepers are already in place. The new Cokie Roberts and Sam Donaldsons. "Cokie Roberts" singular. Apparently that's Wonkette. She's the leading token.
Chris' idea could be huge. If it was, how much you want to bet Leah would be written out of it?Credit would be given to some male blogger that we've all heard too much about.
I hate to be so negative. I wish I could just tell you about how I first learned of Rosa Parks and act like "It's all good." But that's not reality.
But to end on a positive note, Wally and Mike have pointed out the obvious, C.I. broke through. Not with the gatekeepers (and not with help from them).
So hopefully it's changing. But the change is coming from outside the tight circle and in spite of the tight circle.
The reason C.I.'s turning down interviews is because The Common Ills found an audience. It can happen. But it doesn't happen with help from the gatekeepers, it happens in spite of them.
Hopefully, out there right now there's a blogger of color. I've never heard of him or her because, being of color, they won't get any attention. But hopefully, they are a voice that will break through. If they do, they'll do it the way C.I. did by peer to peer sharing. The way The Common Ills has taken off at colleges (and at the nursing home of Three Cool Old Guys).
To me racism is about closed minds and I just don't see a closed net being able to talk honestly about it. But I wish Leah (and Chris) luck.
corrente
the common ills
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
the daily jot
kats korner
thomas friedman is a great man
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
