Each time a period of calm sets in, it is shattered by more violence.
-- Duraid Adnan, "Bombings in Iraq Kill at Least 48" (New York Times).
Sunday, December 02, 2012
Truest statement of the week II
The very existence of what the CRP/Hearst report [here, here and here] calls the “drone caucus” is an indication of the profound degeneration of American democracy. It was not so long ago, in the 1970s, that leading Democrat Henry Jackson became notorious as the “senator from Boeing.” Now an entire caucus has been formed of promoters of weapons of mass murder. What is next: The napalm caucus? The poison gas caucus?
According to the CRP/Hearst report, the principal activity of the “drone” caucus has been to promote the use of these weapons within the United States, including passage of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act, signed into law by President Obama on February 14, which requires the FAA to complete the integration of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) into the national airspace by September 2015.
--- Patrick Martin, "Bipartisan group in US Congress promotes drone killings" (WSWS).
A note to our readers
Hey --
Another Sunday.
First up, we thank all who participated this edition which includes Dallas and the following:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.
And what did we come up with
See you next week.
Peace.
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.
Another Sunday.
First up, we thank all who participated this edition which includes Dallas and the following:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.
And what did we come up with
This was an obvious pick when it appeared in print Friday morning.
We've included links to the report Patrick Martin's highlighting because it's an important report.
Our Bradley piece. AP seems really eager to slant coverage the way a columnist -- or a Bob Somerby -- might while pretending they were just sticking to the facts.
Ava and C.I. had a planned piece. I (Jim) asked them to tackle the topic of Assange's presentation instead. Do they like the piece they wrote? Not really, they say, but they're glad they worked Lynne Stewart in and hope that reminds people that Lynne remains a political prisoner.
Ann and Ava and C.I. weren't planning on reteaming for a piece this week. But they asked her about a segment she'd blogged about, how it had ticked her off. She explained that the segment was supposed to be about what women thought but all she heard were men. That fit with Ava and C.I.'s plan to write about Don Gonyea's ridiculous 'report' on a female senator.
For our Iraq coverage, we had a number of possibilities but went with Kobler's presentation and how it omitted women.
Rebecca asked if we'd seen the list of the honorees? We hadn't. Does anyone take that family seriously anymore? Ava and C.I. pointed out that Latino groups had earlier complained that none of the nominees were Hispanic and so Dona said, "Well then we really have to cover this."
Hint: It's not who you think.
A press release from Senator Murray's office.
I wanted to respost this regardless. I was also hoping that we could do a piece similar to this on a variation topic; however, Rebecca was under the weather, Ava and C.I. didn't feel good and Ty was "tired and bored" so the idea died quickly. Maybe next week.
A repost from Workers World.
Mike and the gang wrote this and we thank them for it.
See you next week.
Peace.
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.
Editorial: Did the AP forget journalism?
One of the biggest surprises about the pre-trail of alleged whistle blower Bradley Manning was how eager some in the press was to ignore the political prisoner and provide cover for a government that has held Bradley for 923 days despite the fact that he's still not been found guilty of a single crime.
There are a few basics in journalism. They include that reporting is not opinion, reporting is fact. And, when evaluating information that requires special knowledge, reporters seek out those with special knowledge.
AP decided to forgo that last week during the pre-trial of Bradley Manning:
His pretrial testimony appeared to support the military's argument that it was trying to protect Manning from harming himself by keeping him in strict isolation, taking away his clothes and shakling him when he was outside his cell.
Is that what it appeared?
To whom?
To the medical practitioners of the Associated Press?
We weren't aware that AP now required a double major (journalism and medical degree) of its correspondents or that the AMA and AP had merged to form the AMAAP.
It was as if there weren't public concerns about the treatment of Bradley Manning already in the public record. AFP reminded everyone last week, "A UN rapporteur on torture concluded Manning was subjected to cruel and inhumane treatment at the Quantico brig." And along with that public concern, the week saw medical professionals give testimony -- testimony AP ignored when reaching their own 'medical finding.'
RT reported that the navy doctor who the government had charged with evaluating Bradley testified Wednesday. Capt William Hoctor stated, "I had been a senior medical officer for 24 years at the time, and I had never experienced anything like this. It was clear to me they had made up their mind on a certain cause of action, and my recommendations had no impact." Larry Shaughnessy (CNN) adds, "But Capt. William Hocter said his regular recommendations to ease Manning's heightened confinement status within weeks of his arrival in Virginia were not acted upon by commanders." BBC News continues, "Pte Manning's glasses were confiscated, he had to request toilet paper and was forced to remove his underwear at night." Hoctor felt frustrated and stymied. John Bailey (NBC News) quotes the doctor testifying, "It was clear to me that they had made up their mind on a certain course of actions and my recommendations didn't really matter."
Perhaps most damning of all, Ed Pilkington (Guardian) reported, "Three Quantico forensic psychiatrists who gave evidence to the court this week agreed that within days of arriving at the marine base Manning had recovered his mental health and was no longer a risk to himself. They consistently recommended that the soldier be put on a much looser regime. But the authorities would not listen."
Authorities would not listen.
Authorities ignored the medical professionals.
And AP wants to rush to suggest this was out of concern?
AP would do damn well to learn its own limitations.
Unless an AP consultation is now covered by ObamaCare, we'd suggest it stop attempting to render medical findings before it gets slapped on the wrist for practicing medicine without a license.
There are a few basics in journalism. They include that reporting is not opinion, reporting is fact. And, when evaluating information that requires special knowledge, reporters seek out those with special knowledge.
AP decided to forgo that last week during the pre-trial of Bradley Manning:
His pretrial testimony appeared to support the military's argument that it was trying to protect Manning from harming himself by keeping him in strict isolation, taking away his clothes and shakling him when he was outside his cell.
Is that what it appeared?
To whom?
To the medical practitioners of the Associated Press?
We weren't aware that AP now required a double major (journalism and medical degree) of its correspondents or that the AMA and AP had merged to form the AMAAP.
It was as if there weren't public concerns about the treatment of Bradley Manning already in the public record. AFP reminded everyone last week, "A UN rapporteur on torture concluded Manning was subjected to cruel and inhumane treatment at the Quantico brig." And along with that public concern, the week saw medical professionals give testimony -- testimony AP ignored when reaching their own 'medical finding.'
RT reported that the navy doctor who the government had charged with evaluating Bradley testified Wednesday. Capt William Hoctor stated, "I had been a senior medical officer for 24 years at the time, and I had never experienced anything like this. It was clear to me they had made up their mind on a certain cause of action, and my recommendations had no impact." Larry Shaughnessy (CNN) adds, "But Capt. William Hocter said his regular recommendations to ease Manning's heightened confinement status within weeks of his arrival in Virginia were not acted upon by commanders." BBC News continues, "Pte Manning's glasses were confiscated, he had to request toilet paper and was forced to remove his underwear at night." Hoctor felt frustrated and stymied. John Bailey (NBC News) quotes the doctor testifying, "It was clear to me that they had made up their mind on a certain course of actions and my recommendations didn't really matter."
Perhaps most damning of all, Ed Pilkington (Guardian) reported, "Three Quantico forensic psychiatrists who gave evidence to the court this week agreed that within days of arriving at the marine base Manning had recovered his mental health and was no longer a risk to himself. They consistently recommended that the soldier be put on a much looser regime. But the authorities would not listen."
Authorities would not listen.
Authorities ignored the medical professionals.
And AP wants to rush to suggest this was out of concern?
AP would do damn well to learn its own limitations.
Unless an AP consultation is now covered by ObamaCare, we'd suggest it stop attempting to render medical findings before it gets slapped on the wrist for practicing medicine without a license.
Media: Losing big in the court of public opinion
Julian Assange has been many things. Right now he's trouble and in trouble. He's got a fleet of attorneys at his beck and call yet they don't appear how to do a damn thing.
Last week, as Bradley Manning was preparing to speak for the first time in court (first time at any length), Assange and his handlers seemed to feel it was time for a media blitz. How shifting the focus from Bradley to Assange was supposed to help Assange was anyone's guess. But the lengthy interview with Democracy Now! and the piece at The Huffington Post just made clear that it's all about Julian.
Vanity isn't a legal defense.
Putting Assange on Democracy Now! at any time was never going to be a smart move. Amy Goodman's an idiot and a menace. It was her interview with Lynne Stewart that provided the ammo for those attempting to destroy Lynne. That is not forgotten by the real left. Nor is it forgotten that after doing that -- whether via incompetence or a deliberate effort to 'work with the government' -- Amy Goodman lost all interest in political prisoner Lynne Stewart. Maybe it was guilt or, maybe as some whisper, she'd completed her assignment?
Regardless, when you go on with Amy the crazy runs free.
And the last thing Julian Assange can afford to look like is crazy.
The point that his legal team probably wanted to resonate was this:
AMY GOODMAN: Are you saying, Julian, that you would go to Sweden, if they assured you that you wouldn't be extradited to the United States, to answer questions about these two women who have made charges on sex abuse on your count?
JULIAN ASSANGE: Yes, that has been our public position for quite a long time.
And for that to carry weight now, he really needs to seem dignified, organized and upright.
That's really important because the reality is that he skipped out on Sweden before. He did so unknowingly, according to the official story, but he did. He's never copped to it publicly. He's never acknowledged that the judge forced his first attorney to admit, in court, that the Swedish authorities had contacted him and told him they were now ready to question Julian Assange but Assange left the country because the attorney didn't pass that on.
It's known and it's suspected, rightly or wrongly, that the first attorney really did pass on the message. Every time Julian Assange talks about being willing to submit to questioning now, in the back of many minds is the fact that he didn't do so the first time.
Equally true, when you're wanted for questioning, you really don't get to dictate the terms.
The only way he has any power at this point is by getting public support. And that's not been present. He hasn't had that kind of support.
To garner it now, with all the bad press already out there, he has to be the sharpest, most well spoken, most organized person in the world.
That requires a simple and coherent narrative.
Are you just like the press with The Pentagon Papers?
It's a talking point Assange and his supporters love to repeat.
But thing is Katharine Graham never gave interviews whining about herself. Benjamin Bradlee didn't pen columns about himself. The Washington Post stayed focused on the news. WikiLeaks should have done the same.
Every time Julian Assange leaves larger issues to talk about himself, it harms his case.
Such as here:
Amy, being in prison, house arrest, and now held captive in an embassy, with a bunch of cops outside, of course is a difficult circumstance, but it is not more difficult than the circumstance that is faced by Bradley Manning in Fort Leavenworth or by Jeremy Hammond, an alleged source related to the Stratfor files in New York, or by many other prisoners around the world.
That probably sounded the increasingly out-of-touch defense team as wonderful.
But as two who have long advocated Assange note what he went through is nothing compared to what Bradley Manning does, we couldn't believe that nonsense.
What he's going through, even now, is nothing. House arrest? He did a talk show during house arrest -- Hulu carried it in the US -- and the 'house' was an English manor. Even today, at the Ecuadorian Embassy, he's certainly got more space than Bradley Manning did in a six foot by eight foot cell or, for that matter, than Anne Frank did in an attic.
It's called perspective. It includes knowing that a heavy weight boxer goes into the ring with someone in his or her division. Meaning leave out Joe Biden. On the world stage, Joe is the grinning holy gofus of the administration. Julian Assange wants to be taken seriously, members of the White House Cabinet aren't his foes. The foe is Barack Obama. In 1974, when Joe Frazier was hoping to become the heavyweight champion of the world, he wasn't boxing Rodolfo Martinez.
Joe said, Hillary said, blah blah said, is a distraction that lowers the issues. It's Barack's administration. You take on Barack. That's so basic. Even a Hollywood starlet desperate for attention knows to pick a public rivalry with someone high up the chain.
Assange versus Obama? That's a conflict the world will give you a few seconds to make a case for.
For a few seconds.
Which means you organize and simplify the message.
Drop the petty and make it about David versus Goliath issues and people will respond.
The crazy hasn't worked. It hasn't delivered the support so many just knew was coming. So it's time to make some hard choices.
First up, does Assange want to spend the rest of his life in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London?
Interviews like the one last week on Democracy Now! will help ensure that he does. "Let's talk Stratfor, let's talk this, let's talk that . . ." There's no point in it. And, honestly, you don't put your client in that situation. You don't let them face these erratic free form questions.
Not when your defense counsel, not when you know that they stand a good chance of taking the witness stand in more than one trial.
The legal arguments could go either way. Thus far, the way they've gone has not been in Assange's favor. The public presentation? It's done nothing to increase support for the issues at stake or Assange personally. So exactly what's been accomplished under the current 'strategy'? Time is in short supply, Assange and his team need to get organized and do so quickly or accept that things are very likely not going to go in his favor.
Last week, as Bradley Manning was preparing to speak for the first time in court (first time at any length), Assange and his handlers seemed to feel it was time for a media blitz. How shifting the focus from Bradley to Assange was supposed to help Assange was anyone's guess. But the lengthy interview with Democracy Now! and the piece at The Huffington Post just made clear that it's all about Julian.
Vanity isn't a legal defense.
Putting Assange on Democracy Now! at any time was never going to be a smart move. Amy Goodman's an idiot and a menace. It was her interview with Lynne Stewart that provided the ammo for those attempting to destroy Lynne. That is not forgotten by the real left. Nor is it forgotten that after doing that -- whether via incompetence or a deliberate effort to 'work with the government' -- Amy Goodman lost all interest in political prisoner Lynne Stewart. Maybe it was guilt or, maybe as some whisper, she'd completed her assignment?
Regardless, when you go on with Amy the crazy runs free.
And the last thing Julian Assange can afford to look like is crazy.
The point that his legal team probably wanted to resonate was this:
AMY GOODMAN: Are you saying, Julian, that you would go to Sweden, if they assured you that you wouldn't be extradited to the United States, to answer questions about these two women who have made charges on sex abuse on your count?
JULIAN ASSANGE: Yes, that has been our public position for quite a long time.
And for that to carry weight now, he really needs to seem dignified, organized and upright.
That's really important because the reality is that he skipped out on Sweden before. He did so unknowingly, according to the official story, but he did. He's never copped to it publicly. He's never acknowledged that the judge forced his first attorney to admit, in court, that the Swedish authorities had contacted him and told him they were now ready to question Julian Assange but Assange left the country because the attorney didn't pass that on.
It's known and it's suspected, rightly or wrongly, that the first attorney really did pass on the message. Every time Julian Assange talks about being willing to submit to questioning now, in the back of many minds is the fact that he didn't do so the first time.
Equally true, when you're wanted for questioning, you really don't get to dictate the terms.
The only way he has any power at this point is by getting public support. And that's not been present. He hasn't had that kind of support.
To garner it now, with all the bad press already out there, he has to be the sharpest, most well spoken, most organized person in the world.
That requires a simple and coherent narrative.
Are you just like the press with The Pentagon Papers?
It's a talking point Assange and his supporters love to repeat.
But thing is Katharine Graham never gave interviews whining about herself. Benjamin Bradlee didn't pen columns about himself. The Washington Post stayed focused on the news. WikiLeaks should have done the same.
Every time Julian Assange leaves larger issues to talk about himself, it harms his case.
Such as here:
Amy, being in prison, house arrest, and now held captive in an embassy, with a bunch of cops outside, of course is a difficult circumstance, but it is not more difficult than the circumstance that is faced by Bradley Manning in Fort Leavenworth or by Jeremy Hammond, an alleged source related to the Stratfor files in New York, or by many other prisoners around the world.
That probably sounded the increasingly out-of-touch defense team as wonderful.
But as two who have long advocated Assange note what he went through is nothing compared to what Bradley Manning does, we couldn't believe that nonsense.
What he's going through, even now, is nothing. House arrest? He did a talk show during house arrest -- Hulu carried it in the US -- and the 'house' was an English manor. Even today, at the Ecuadorian Embassy, he's certainly got more space than Bradley Manning did in a six foot by eight foot cell or, for that matter, than Anne Frank did in an attic.
It's called perspective. It includes knowing that a heavy weight boxer goes into the ring with someone in his or her division. Meaning leave out Joe Biden. On the world stage, Joe is the grinning holy gofus of the administration. Julian Assange wants to be taken seriously, members of the White House Cabinet aren't his foes. The foe is Barack Obama. In 1974, when Joe Frazier was hoping to become the heavyweight champion of the world, he wasn't boxing Rodolfo Martinez.
Joe said, Hillary said, blah blah said, is a distraction that lowers the issues. It's Barack's administration. You take on Barack. That's so basic. Even a Hollywood starlet desperate for attention knows to pick a public rivalry with someone high up the chain.
Assange versus Obama? That's a conflict the world will give you a few seconds to make a case for.
For a few seconds.
Which means you organize and simplify the message.
Drop the petty and make it about David versus Goliath issues and people will respond.
The crazy hasn't worked. It hasn't delivered the support so many just knew was coming. So it's time to make some hard choices.
First up, does Assange want to spend the rest of his life in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London?
Interviews like the one last week on Democracy Now! will help ensure that he does. "Let's talk Stratfor, let's talk this, let's talk that . . ." There's no point in it. And, honestly, you don't put your client in that situation. You don't let them face these erratic free form questions.
Not when your defense counsel, not when you know that they stand a good chance of taking the witness stand in more than one trial.
The legal arguments could go either way. Thus far, the way they've gone has not been in Assange's favor. The public presentation? It's done nothing to increase support for the issues at stake or Assange personally. So exactly what's been accomplished under the current 'strategy'? Time is in short supply, Assange and his team need to get organized and do so quickly or accept that things are very likely not going to go in his favor.
How NPR Silences Women (Ann, Ava and C.I.)
NPR is supposed to be public radio governed by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting which is supposed to be under a mandate to provide diversity. Yet over and over, we have seen that NPR books men and ignores women.
We documented how only 18% of Terry Gross' 2010 guests on Fresh Air were women. Next, we documented how over 66% of Diane Rehm's guests in were men. We then went on to document that only 30% of Talk of the Nation's guests were women.
People are always 'puzzled' how this happens. NPR friends insist it's an accident.
Really?
An accident can have a multitude of outcomes.
If these are accidents how come the outcomes is always the same: Men booked more often than women on NPR?
That's not accidental, that sound likes engineering.
Last week, NPR gave us two prominent examples of how they embrace and perpetuate sexism.
Friday on Tell Me More, Michel Martin hosted a segment entitled "Women Fire Back At Working Dads." How many women did she bring on for that segment?
One. Listeners heard one woman speak. How many men were heard in the "Women Fire Back At Working Dads" segment? Two.
Women fire back?
Maybe off air.
Friday was the day NPR let all their women hatred flop out.
Political hack Don Gonyea should have been put out to pasture long ago. If they're not grasping that, maybe they missed his All Things Considered report?
Supposedly, Gonyea was filing a report on Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire.
How did he do that?
By speaking to 'political scientist' Dante Scala (associate professor at University of New Hamsphire -- does not know Ayotte personally), Senator Lindsey Graham and New Hampshire Democratic Party's Peter Burling.
A woman was judged by three men. Not surprisingly she was found not to be "uneasy during speeches" and she prompts "impatience and annoyance."
This is reporting?
On New Hampshire politics, Scala's not the only 'expert' identified by his university. Professor -- not associate professor -- Ellen Fitzpatrick could have been called and all Don Gonyea would have needed to do was to check out the website.
Since she's one of only 20 women in the Senate (there are 100 Senators in the US Senate), he could have checked out the University's identified experts under "politics" under the subheading "feminism" and Gonyea would have had four women to pick from (Jennifer Borda, Marla Brettschneider, Melissa Deem and Svetlana Peshkova).
Why is a woman being judged by three men?
Did Don Gonyea feel his gender was underrepresented on NPR?
As All Things Considered producers and hosts listened to the insulting remarks from men (Scala and Burling were insulting), did it not trigger any alarms? Did no one say, "Isn't this supposed report a little too negative. We're saying nasty stuff about this woman and we've got nothing to back up these nasty claims with? And doesn't it really just seem like we're allowing two men to beat up on a woman?"
No, that never entered their minds because All Things Are Never Considered at NPR.
Maybe if they could learn to police themselves, they wouldn't be wasting $1.5 million in tax dollars on another diversity initiative that's not going to mean a damn thing. If they'd police their own, that $1.5 million could have gone to investigative reporting -- something NPR really doesn't do anymore.
The UN again forgets women
Last week, Martin Kobler briefed the United Nations Security Council on Iraq. Kolber (above) is United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's Special Representative to Iraq. Though Kobler went on for over 20 minutes, this was all he had to report about Iraqi women:
We will also sustain our efforts to promote gender mainstreaming and the empowerment of women. For example, we are supporting access to justice for women, as well as training police officers to provide legal assistance to women survivors of gender-based violence.
That was it.
Two sentences in twenty minutes.
That was it.
Last Sunday, maybe Kobler missed this?, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon declared, "Millions of women and girls around the world are assaulted, beaten, raped, mutilated or even murdered in what constitutes appalling violations of their human rights. [. . .] We must fundamentally challenge the culture of discrimination that allows violence to continue. On this International Day, I call on all governments to make good on their pledges to end all forms of violence against women and girls in all parts of the world, and I urge all people to support this important goal."
Maybe Ban Ki-moon would be smarter to spend less time calling on other governments and spend more time ordering those working for him "to support this important goal."
Two sentences in twenty minutes.
All hell broke loose in Iraq last week.
Iraqiya members and State of Law members got into fistfights in the halls of Parliament. Over? MPs going public with the reports that Iraqi women are being tortured in prisons and detention centers, that some of these women are being raped, that some of these women have been arrested despite the lack of arrest warrants, that some women are being tortured to 'confess' that their husbands are breaking the law.
State of Law did not take kindly to that emerging.
The Ministry of Interior is denying that any torture is taking place.
Who heads the Ministry? Oh, that's right, Nouri never got around to nominating anyone. So Nouri heads it. What's the name of Nouri's political slate?
Oh, that's right: State of Law.
And when Saturday rolled around, Nouri gave a rare public speech making threats -- including arrests -- over the allegations. Mind you, not arrests over anyone who has been torturing Iraqi women. No, he wants to arrest MPs who discussed this issue.
And all Koblert had to offer was two little sentences on Iraqi women?
If the United Nations isn't going to take Iraqi women seriously, why should anyone else?
-------------------
For more on the topic, you can also see C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" and "Iraq snapshot" and Kat's "The real UN slogan."
Kennedy still stands for sexism
If you missed it, Sunday night the Kennedy Center is handing out 'honors.' To Americans. Well, to people. Led Zeppelin's Jimmy Page, John Paul Jones and Robert Plant aren't Americans, are they?
But they are people.
And nine people are getting 'honors.'
If you leave out Natalia Makarova, you've got eight people.
And then you can leave out "people" and just say "men."
That's right, at this late date, someone thought it was acceptable to honor just one woman.
But, hey, they've ignored Latinos for years, as the National Hispanic Foundation for the Arts and the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda pointed out last September.
If Academy Award winner, Grammy winner, Tony winner and Emmy winner Rita Moreno had been honored this year, she would have been only the third Latin to be honored.
The Kennedys do love to pretend that they're for equality and they care, they really care. Remember when Caroline Kennedy, in 2008, suddenly decided she wanted to be a senator?
She just couldn't understand why Americans didn't rush to kiss her feet.
It's because her family's not all the fairy tale has made it out to be.
And all these years later, the Kennedy family name still stands for the same thing: sexism.
Somewhere, one of the family's most famous victims is laughing.
But they are people.
And nine people are getting 'honors.'
If you leave out Natalia Makarova, you've got eight people.
And then you can leave out "people" and just say "men."
That's right, at this late date, someone thought it was acceptable to honor just one woman.
But, hey, they've ignored Latinos for years, as the National Hispanic Foundation for the Arts and the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda pointed out last September.
If Academy Award winner, Grammy winner, Tony winner and Emmy winner Rita Moreno had been honored this year, she would have been only the third Latin to be honored.
The Kennedys do love to pretend that they're for equality and they care, they really care. Remember when Caroline Kennedy, in 2008, suddenly decided she wanted to be a senator?
She just couldn't understand why Americans didn't rush to kiss her feet.
It's because her family's not all the fairy tale has made it out to be.
And all these years later, the Kennedy family name still stands for the same thing: sexism.
Somewhere, one of the family's most famous victims is laughing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
