Sue in Waterbury writes, "I am a Christian and I'm about to dump your site. If you ever link to a story by that ___ Tom Hayden or his hideous wife, I ____ing swear I'll never come back to this site."
I'm assuming Sue (and what strange language for someone who's first statement is to explain she's a Christian) means Jane Fonda -- who would be Hayden's ex-wife. Sue, you're almost two decades behind.
Tom Hayden was linked to (and quoted) in "Snapshots of Iraq." I liked what he wrote then, I like it now. I'd link to it again. (In fact, I may at the end of this post.)
Sue tells me that Hayden and Fonda "are killers!" (Sue says a lot more but we do have a language policy on this site.) I don't remember reading that Hayden showed up on the set of Steelyard Blues or Klute to say, "Jane, I need you to come with me now. We've got to start bombing Cambodia." I guess I missed that?
Marcia writes in on the Michael Moore link to say thank you for it and note that he's going to be "Jane Fondad by the party." She feels it's already beginning and "it's disgusting when we eat our own." Agreed.
Michael Moore's comments this summer were the only thing prompting the media to finally (Boston Globe and a few others excepted) look into Bush's military service.
I'll also give Wesley Clark credit for refusing to trash Moore when prompted to do so by Peter Jennings. (Moore had called Bush a deserter at a Clark rally and Jennings called it a reckless charge attempting to force Clark to distance himself from Moore.)
Marcia, I agree with you.
Michael Moore's a film maker. And you can bet, since he's been successful, the Democratic party will be going to him for contributions but distancing themselves to appear "moderate" and "reasonable." Translation, like Fonda, they want him as their personal ATM.
It is disgusting.
I have not always agreed with everything Moore has said or done but not only did he make a powerful film (an incredible one), he also raised issues that needed raising. There are no plans to draw a line between this site and Moore to appear "resonable" or "reasoned."
The same goes for Fonda or Hayden or anyone else who's been demonized by the right while too many cowardly Democrats have moved quickly to disassociate themselves from anyone that's tarred by the right.
Sorry Sue, but there's a plate for Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda at this table. If you're uncomfortable dining with them, we'll miss you but the evening will go on.
The Nation did a cover story on Jane Fonda not that long ago. Tom Hayden's "You Gotta Love Her" (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040322&c=1&s=hayden) and Carol Burke's Why They Love to Hate Her" (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040322&s=burke) were featured in that issue. (If those are subscriber only links and you're unable to access them, e-mail the site at common_ills@yahoo.com and they'll be sent to you because they are worth reading.)
Marcia's right. The attacks on Moore aren't about Moore, as she notes, they're an effort to say, "Oh the extreme right is correct, Moore's crazy, but look at me, I'm insulting Moore, I'm distancing myself, so see I'm normal and reasonable."
Robert Novak can out a CIA agent (Valerie Plame) and though he committed no crime (if this needs to be explained, let me know), what he did was shocking. And that the right continues to stick their heads in the sand over this is shocking. The right's not doing purges with Novak.
But we let them make a Moore or a Fonda or a Joan Baez or whomever a liability and instead of us saying enough, we quickly rush to the "center" and tsk-tsk to prove how reasonable we are.
Not on this site.
If Michael Moore wants to turn into a Bush supporter cheerleading us into another war, we may have a few comments for him. At present we wish him all the best.
Toby e-mails that he's a Green and wants to be sure he's welcome here. Yes, you're welcome here.
I don't see the site endorsing in a "We endorse . . ." because that would be only my view. I don't see that happening ever. But when we're in the election cycle, if you write in about a candidate and why you're for them, it'll be posted. The Greens are of the left.
I don't, personal opinion, think a Green president in 2008 is the answer. Not because I think the Democrats are better than the Greens but because historically you see huge power grabs among the three branches. Under Bush, we've seen the executive branch grab power repeatedly. At some point the legislative branch (Congress) will reassert their power if history holds true. That should start in the near future, Congress grabbing back the powers they've freely handed over
as they marched willingly behind Bush.
And if that happened with a Green in the oval office, we'd see Congress cripple her/him. Because there's no block of Greens in Congress.
That, however, is my opinion. Not only could I be wrong right now, but events between now and 2008 could shift or change so that the issues I'm fretting over aren't issues in four years.
If Joey Jones (trying to grab a non-gender specific name) runs for president as a Green in 2008 and you want to argue Jones' case, it has a place on this site.
If Ralph Nader runs again and someone wants to argue for him in 2008, you have a place here.
If NOW starts their own party and runs Gloria Steinem in 2008 (or anyone), a supporter will have a place at this table.
I don't think I did a good job in the "Red" State series explaining two points. One point was I'm not ready to write off all Bush voters. My point there was that I don't think everyone who voted for him understood what he stood for. I think, regardless of reframing or not, we really have to work on getting our message out. ("Our" being the left.) And I think a lot was accomplished and, in many ways, it was amazing when you think about where we were in 2002.
By noting the clowning of the press, that point might have been underscored if, largely, unstated. But I don't think I got across, second point, that I don't see the Greens as the enemy and though I wasn't for Nader, I don't see him or those who voted for him as the enemy either.
The Green party deserves a lot of praise for what they've done in the last few years in the states. They are building a strong party structure. If you look at historical trends, it's very likely that they may emerge as one of the main parties in our system (which tends to only support two main parties). The Whigs vanished. The Democrats could as well.
That's why I've griped so much about the party infrastructure of the Democratic party. It needs an infusion.
If you're a Green party member, please feel that you're success stories are welcome here. You can e-mail to say, "We elected . . ." or "We didn't get the office but we got __% of the vote."
Medea Benjamin of Code Pink, of Global Exchange and of the Green party is someone this site will gladly praise. And her bravery at both the Republican and Democratic conventions this summer is to be applauded.
If you saw the coverage of the conventions on Democracy Now!, I can't imagine you not being impressed with Benjamin. She (and Code Pink) have also bravely stood up to the FCC's drive for deregulation.
Elizabeth DiNovella has a great interview with Benjamin in this month's The Progressive (http://www.progressive.org/dec04/intv1204.html). If you like the battles Medea Benjamin fights or if you're unaware of who she is, I would urge you to check out the interview. (The issue is a strong one -- The Progressive comes out strong with no hand wringing dramatics -- so if you have the money to do so, you might want to consider purchasing this month's issue.)
Here's one section of the interview:
Medea Benjamin: Kerry lost because he never provided a clear message or an inspiring vision about the direction this country should take. And we have to admit that Bush's fearmongering and gay-bashing worked. Bush kept on message, while Kerry didn't. On Iraq, Kerry had a terribly mixed message. It was very confusing to people to understand where he stood on that issue.
Up until the debates, it was a pretty lackluster campaign. It was almost as if those of us from the anti-war movement grimaced every time Kerry would open his mouth and say something about Iraq. I never put on a Kerry sticker, button, bumper sticker. Not for a person who supported the war in Iraq. And I know a lot of people like that.
The Democrats have really lost touch with their base. In this campaign, the ones who were out there going door to door for Kerry were the 527 groups like America Coming Together and MoveOn. While these organizations galvanized thousands of activists, I witnessed a lot of duplicated efforts and wasted money by bringing in a lot of volunteers from out of state. Whereas when you look at the Republicans, they were more organized, united under a "central command" in the party, and rooted in community through church networks. The Republicans emphasized local volunteers.
Domnick e-mails that he's a Green and that he's not sure what term we're using on this site. He's asking about "liberal," "leftist," "progressive," etc. Use whatever term you're comfortable with.
There's a lot of commenting on how the Republicans have made "liberal" a dirty word. That's true. It's also true that the left began sending up the term themselves. In the sixties, it was a term that many on the left lampooned. There were reasons for that which go beyond this post but I do think it's worth noting that the Repube attacks were not the only attacks on the term.
(Then or now.)
And "Repube"s is a term I'm using that some of use as well. Wynter writes in to ask why that term is used as opposed to "Repugnant." I can't tell you why others use the term (but if others write in on it, I'll be happy to share their responses). For me, when the plastic, fabricated music came along and so many in Gen-Y (though not all) lept on the Disney-fication of music, the term seemed appropriate. For me, we saw a lot of play acting. Various starlets (I can't call them musicians) went around bragging about the virginity while attempting to peddle sex. (Starlet is a term I use for the females and males.)
It's an unquestioning music, an uninformed music. So when Britney Spears made that ridiculous statement of support for Bush and how we should always support the president on CNN (which Michael Moore includes in Fahrenheit 9-11), it was so fitting. It was the rebirth of the party, to me, the Republican party, their born again, pre-adolescent stage. Hence "repubes."
I want to be clear that not everyone of Gen-Y (or whatever term you want to dub the baby boomlet) fell for that music. But it was shocking to me that from grunge we swung so quickly into "music" that would have been ridiculed (and startlets who would have been ridiculed as well) not just a few years before, but for years and years before.
And whenever anything went "wrong," these starlets (mindful of those endorsement contracts?) would immediately rush out to say they had no idea that was going to happen -- from being kissed by Madonna to Janet's top coming off, they were innocent. Completely innocent.
Whether it was that or trying to act raunchy while still assuring us they were Polly & Paul Pure, it was hypocritical. (So very fitting with today's strain of Republicanism.) But maybe when you put out so much plastic, there's little left to talk about other than your supposedly well maintained, well tended virginity?
Sheryl Crow made a comment awhile back about how seeing these "performances" was like watching a high school talent show, I felt that captured the "artistry" involved as well.
I'm going on a great deal about music but I think that's one thing we need to do, reclaim music.
When these people have exceeded their 15 minutes by several years, it's time to ridicule them and demand real music. You can be into classical or jazz, vintage rock or soul, post-modern, neo-soul, alternative or what have you. But we need to get some authenticity back into our world that's become such a wasteland. And start pointing out that these famous for being famous persons aren't contributing anything.
I'm curious about who some of your favorites are. (I'll try to remember to put a song quote in before I post for those who keep writing, "I miss the lyric opening!")
But I don't think we dumbed down overnight or that it happened just because the news failed us. I think we've been headed down this infotainment path for some time. And the standards have just been lowered and lowered. I don't mean morally, I'm speaking of professional standards. Cokie Roberts turns out yet another clip-job (relying on the works of others) and she's hailed as an "author. " James Carville publishes a PowerPoint presentation in book form and we hail him as an "author."
We've chicken-souped our souls and deprived our brains in our easy access, lust for entertainment world. And when we hail a film as "great" or "must see" because of how well it did opening weekend at the box office instead of on it's merits, there's a problem. It's as though we went to sleep while in the middle of an all night concert given by Kurt Cobain, Tori Amos and Living Colour and woke up in the Eisenhower fifites but it doesn't appear there's any Odettas, Bob Dylans, Joan Baezs, et al that are about to come along and jar us out of the easy chair.
Jack e-mailed that he found both "Snapshots of Iraq" and "The Fifth Book of Peace by Maxine Hong Kingston" posts jarring; and that he's grateful for that. I am too. There are disturbing things going on and I don't think we tune out and pretend everything's wonderful because we can zone out in front of the TV.
Brad shared a story that I know was similar to what I experienced and I'm guessing many of you have a similar story as well. A few months after 9-11, he began speaking out against a policy (in his case, the rounding up of immigrants) and he was told to be quiet both by people who disagreed with him and by people who agreed with him. He decided to keep speaking his truth. It was uncomfortable for about six weeks but slowly he noticed a thaw in some people.
That's all it take sometimes. Just having the faith and bravery to say, "No, that's not right. I don't agree with that, I don't support that." Brad did that and found that others around him were then able to speak out in the space he created.
That's what I meant about how things were in 2002 earlier in the posts. Anyone daring to criticize a tax cut or any other policy move by the administration was "against the country" or some other nonsense. A lot of people were intimidated into silence, some were bullied. We can't control what our leaders (elected or otherwise) do. We can control what we do. And when we carve out a space and refuse to say, "Because I'm an American, I won't object" we're making it easier for the people around us to be a little more honest. (And being an American, in fact, is all about speaking out.)
The emperor's got no clothes on
No clothes -- that can't be
He's the emperor
Take that child away
Don't let the people hear the words he has to say
One small voice
Speakin' out in harmony
Silenced but not for long
One small voice
Speakin' with the values we were taught as children
[. . .]
Tell the truth
You can change the world but you better be strong
-- "One Small Voice" by Gerry Goffin & Carole King
Available on Carole King's Speeding Time album which was just re-released in September.
One voice can change things. That may be all the power that we have, our own voices. So we need to be sure that we're using them. We have the power of "no" and the power of "yes," as Erika notes, yet too often "we're just being silent and giving the appearence we agree."
Sue at the top of the post wants to silence (eradicate?) Hayden and Fonda. Our problem is not that Hayden and Fonda are too out there, it's that we're not seeing enough people of the left speaking out. Tonja writes in that she rented The Game Is Over (sixites film starring Fonda and directed by Roger Vadim) and the clerk behind the counter leaned in towards her to whisper, "I really like Fonda." He had to whisper that? Tonja responded loudly, "Well I love her."
Andrew feels we're rabbits hiding in holes in the ground and Tobias feels we're ostriches with our heads submerged. But both agree that our elected leaders have moved to the ever right-shifting center so much that we're damaging our national discourse.
Kara writes that the reason Bush is able to appear to be a "compassionate conservative" is because the right doesn't silence their members. "By rejecting and silencing those on the left who have spoken out, we've let the spectrum of opinion become very narrow. It's time to say no to the gate keepers and let people start speaking their minds."
And we can say "no." Erika's right that we have the power to say "no" and to say "yes." Or as Jodi noted, "Feminists always say that if everyone told their truth then the world as we know it would be altered forever. That's what we need to be doing, speaking our truths."
So when Sue comes along and says that this site "better never" link to Hayden again or she's no longer going to visit it, then we have to say, "Okay, Sue, nice knowing you. Come back again if you change your mind." Or when someone says, "Michael Moore costs us the election" we need to use common sense -- does Moore have that much power?
When we refuse to draw lines to play "safe," we can increase the number of voices we have. As Tamara wrote, "Being a liberal is a thankless job in the Dem party. You speak out, you motivate people, you rally people and you're thanks for that is to be shoved aside the minute the right attacks because suddenly you're 'controversial.'"
When the right can distort things so that James Carville is an out and out lefty, it only demonstrates to me that we need to be more vocal on the left. They think that's left?
"We never had a this great liberal media," Bill feels. "What we had was an active right and an active left so the media went for the center. Now we've got an active right and a too quiet left. The center's moved to the right as a result. And if we don't start showing some guts, it's going to move further to the right."
This is why so many of you were so upset by two of the people posting on this blog. They came along with the attitude (one Sue apparently shares) that we could be silenced or cajoled into moving to the center. This is a left blog, as I said before, we're not moving.
Some of you feel that blogs you've invested a great deal of time into are now selling you out. I don't see that happening here because your voices are as important as my voice. I'll confess to a repeat nightmare where, in my dream, I'm suddenly a Joe Lieberman spouting centerist. Talk about bad dreams. God forbid that ever happens, but even were I too (shudder) shift, I think you're voices (which are a huge part of this blog) would keep us from moving towards what Joel dubbed "appeasement."
Which brings us to Thomas who is really upset that I've not noted some "shout outs" we've gotten. I really don't feel that's what this blog is about. I'm happy to link to things I find worthwhile and it's great if someone finds us worthwhile. But it smacks of self-promotion to me, to be trumpeting, "Well we were linked on ____!" Or to exclaim, "We were mentioned on ___!"
Jimmy wonders why an e-mail from ____ wasn't published on this site. Because it was a private e-mail. It wasn't written to this site, it was written to Jimmy. I was uncomfortable discussing Marty Kaplin's e-mail that was forwarded to this site but did so because a number of you had complained and Kaplin's e-mail expressed that he hadn't meant to offend and that he was being sincere.
I may have made the wrong call on mentioning Kaplin's e-mail but the point was to make sure that people who were writing that they were hurt understood that he was surprised and hadn't intended that all. To me, there's a world of difference between that and an e-mail from ____ (to Jimmy) justifying his own actions. If ____ wants to speak publicly on issue this site has raised, he can do so. He can e-mail this site and we'll post it in full (editing only for swear words). Or he can write something or give an interview. All of those we'll comment on. But I'm not comfortable with using a private e-mail. (This goes back to Daniel Okrent outing a reader of the Times via a private e-mail that he wrote to a journalist. And Rob, I really do intend to write about that. I'll try for Saturday, okay?)
Were it an e-mail from an elected official's official site, I don't know that I'd feel the same hesitation.
Now if someone e-mails someone that they're wanting a reply and intend to share it, that's a different story. I just don't see the point in posting or addressing what was intended to be a private e-mail.
Remember that Howard Dean has a webcast tomorrow at noon eastern (http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2004/12/howard-dean-online-wednesday-12oo-pm.html)
and that you can view it at www.democracyforamerica.com.
Seventeen of you weighed in on the NY Times story "As Questions Keep Coming, Ohio Certifies Its Vote Count." Nine of you felt it was too little too late. Eight of you felt that at least the Times had finally done an article on it that didn't have a snide tone. Of the seventeen, fifteen of you said that if this is it for the paper (on this topic), it's shameful. I agree that it works as an opening piece, not a stand alone. So I guess we're all waiting to see what the paper will do next on this story.
Again, the e-mail address for the site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
[Note, Toby e-mailed me that I mispelled Ralph Nader's name. I had. It's "Nader," not "Nadar" as I had typed. It's been corrected. Thanks for catching that Toby. I'm sure there are a ton of typos in this but "Nader" is someone's name and I am glad Toby caught my mistake.]
Tuesday, December 07, 2004
U.S. Dollars for Tyrants Scandal?
One more story from this morning's Times.
Front page of business section, Timothy L. O'Brien and Larry Rohter's "U.S. and Others Gave Millions to Pinochet" (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/business/07bank.html):
Gen. Augusto Pinochet, the former Chilean dictator, received multimillion-dollar payments from the governments of several countries, including the
The documents, including General Pinochet's sworn financial statements, show that he received $3 million from the United States government in 1976 and, in other years, $1.5 million from Paraguay, $1 million from
[. . .]
General Pinochet, who is 89, assumed control in Chile after overthrowing the elected government of Salvador Allende in 1973. He instituted a police state, oversaw the kidnapping and killing of some 4,000 political dissidents, laid the foundation of a stable economy and kept a tight grip on power until 1990. Until 1998, he remained commander in chief of the military. Now he faces potential charges of human rights abuses in Chile as well as legislative and tax service investigations there of his financial dealings.
In 1976, the year General Pinochet received his payment from the United States, there were two pivotal events for Chile. The intelligence services of Chile and other South American countries agreed on a wide-ranging campaign to kill exiled political opponents. Shortly after that, a former Chilean foreign minister, Orlando Letelier, and his American assistant were blown up in their car on a busy street in Washington, an event that led to a reassessment of the United States' relationship with the Pinochet government.
Ben e-mailed this story and wondered why it wasn't on the front page? Ben noted: "Wonder if this will get the play that Judy Miller's bash the UN pieces get?" Good question. Thanks for sending it in and your allusion to Miller's recent pieces resulted in the naming of this entry.
I'll also note (since seven people have already e-mailed on this) that Paul Krugman returns from his vacation -- his first column since the week of the election runs in this morning's paper. It's regarding social security (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fPaul%20Krugman) and remember that Bob Somerby is also addressing the myths being used in an attemp to privatize social security at The Daily Howler (www.dailyhowler.com).
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Elsewhere in the Times
Tuesday morning's New York Times has some other stories worth checking out. From the front page, I'd recommend Diana B. Henriques' "Seeking Quick Loans, Soldiers Race Into High-Interest Traps" (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/business/07military.html):
From Puget Sound in the Northwest to the
[. . .]
Getting the loan was fast and convenient, too. To borrow $500, they wrote a $575 check to the lender, to be cashed on their next payday, less than two weeks away. But in accepting that instant loan, the couple, who would talk about their experience only if their identities were not disclosed, were also agreeing to pay a staggering annual interest rate of more than 390 percent. By contrast, a loan from a credit union would have taken several days or longer but cost no more than 18 percent.
Repaying their fast-money loan took a big bite out of the couple's next paycheck, leaving them short when other bills fell due. So they borrowed again, and again, until they had raised about $4,000 through more instant loans, some of them with official-sounding names like Military Financial Network.
The cost of this new money also mounted, ranging as high as 650 percent when expressed as an annual percentage rate, as the law requires. And as the couple continued to fall behind, they borrowed even more, from other kinds of expensive lenders.
By October, just days before the petty officer had to ship out for duty in the Persian Gulf, the debts had grown so large that the couple and their young children were about to lose their home to foreclosure.
Douglas Jehl's "2 C.I.A. Reports Offer Warnings on Iraq's Path" is a worthy front page topic and one that you will, no doubt, here mentioned all day, so I'll just provide this link http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/international/middleeast/07intell.html and leave it at that. Eric Schmitt's "Rumsfeld Sees an Iraq Pullout Within 4 Years" (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/international/middleeast/07rumsfeld.html):
Looking back over the past four years, he acknowledged that the two biggest mistakes or misjudgments that had been made - though not necessarily by him - were the failure to discover any prohibited weapons in Iraq ("that's clearly a disappointment") and a lack of intelligence that predicted "the degree of insurgency today."
He remained defiant in the face of critics who say the United States failed to send enough troops to Iraq initially to handle postwar security and, now, to combat the insurgents.
Just wondering, does Abu Ghraib make the Rumsfeld 'hot list?'
Let's note that Schmitt points out (re: troop numbers which Rumsfled claims was "out of my control" and a decision made by the Gens. Tommy Franks, John P. Abizaid and George W. Casey, Jr.):
While that may be technically true, Mr. Rumsfeld approves all decisions on troop levels in Iraq, and his commanders and top civilian aides have indicated that he routinely demands detailed explanations for troop increases and movements.
At a time where spin is passed off as truth and is then simply repeated, I think that paragraph of Schimitt's deserves noting.
Page A18 has one of the many stories worthy of the front page -- "F.B.I. Memos Criticized Practices at Guantanamo" by Neil A. Lewis (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/national/07gitmo.html):
Confidential memorandums from F.B.I. officials that were disclosed Monday show the bureau repeatedly criticized "aggressive interrogation practices" that its agents observed being used by military personnel at Guantá
[. . .]
The memorandums show that relations between agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and senior military officials at the detention facility in Cuba grew heated as agents at Guantánamo objected to the interrogation techniques, arguing that they were not effective. It is not clear whether the bureau raised ethical questions regarding the treatment of detainees.
An F.B.I. official whose name was edited from a memorandum dated May 10 wrote that a sharp exchange of views occurred at a meeting with Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, then the commander of the detention facility at Guantánamo, and Maj. Gen. Michael B. Dunleavey, who was in charge of the intelligence operation there.
"Both sides agreed that the bureau has its way of doing things and the D.O.D. has their marching orders from SecDef," using abbreviations for the Department of Defense and the secretary of defense. "Although the two techniques differed drastically, both generals believed they had a job to do."
"SecDef?" "Department of Defense and the secretary of defense?" Rumsfeld. Another 'mistake' that didn't make his 'hot list.' Granted, with a plethora of egregious mistakes it can be hard to select just two. If anyone out there wants to compile a 'Rumsfeld Hot List' of ten boneheaded and/or egregious mistakes, e-mail it to this site (common_ills@yahoo.com) and we'll try to include in the end of the year wrap up. (And Kara I read your suggested category and winner this morning. It'll be included.)
Please consider checking out Robert F. Worth's "Army Punishes 23 for Refusing Convoy Order" (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/international/middleeast/07convoy.html) and John Files "Gays Ousted from Military Challenge Policy in Lawsuit" (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/national/07gays.html).
Lastly, in response to Carl's e-mail, I agree that this is questionable:
There is wide agreement that rapes have occurred, although some opportunistic women eyeing a payoff have also taken advantage of the situation and falsely claimed that they were assaulted. Some of those women have come to the area from other parts of Kenya with mixed-race children, the result of liaisons with white foreigners.
Possibly the journalist included "may" in an earlier draft and it fell out in the editing or it could be a printing error. But I agree that "may" is needed in the first sentence ". . . although some opportunistic women eyeing a payoff may have also taken advantage . . ." I think that's the very least that's required in that sentence.
The article that caught Carl's attention is Marc Lacey's "Umoja Journal: From Broken Lives, Kenyan Women Build Place of Unity" (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/international/africa/07kenya.html).
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more.
OHIO VOTING STORY FINALLY MAKES THE NEW YORK TIMES!!!!
Page A15 of today's New York Times contains an eighteen paragraph story by James Dao and Albert Salvato "As Questions Keep Coming, Ohio Certifies Its Vote Count" (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/national/07ohio.html?oref=login).
Many may remember that Tom Zeller wrote a front page story that derided and ridiculed people but never dealt with any issues. Call Zeller's Nov. 12 piece snide, gate-keeping or op-ed passing for news but that's been it from the Times' writers except for two single paragraphs in the National Briefs section. (Both written by Salvato.)
The Times doesn't need to believe Kerry was robbed or that he wasn't to cover this issue. They only need to address the events in Ohio. Read it and e-mail your thoughts. We'll do an entry tonight on your reaction to the story.
"What Corporate America Can't Build: A Sentence" by Sam Dillon seems a questionable front page story considering the other stories inside that could have have been there instead. But for a puff piece passes as news, it surely beats Lee Jenkins front page story "Baseball and Players Union said to Outline Tougher Drug Policy." A two paragraph, four sentence opening sets the tone for this apparently single-sourced story, unnamed source at that. (Woodward & Bernstein had to provide confirming sources -- how things change.)
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more.
Monday, December 06, 2004
John Dean on the "Red" States
Beth sent this column by John Dean entitled, "A Closer Look At The Red/Blue Cultural Divide: It Is Mostly Hokum." It's not news to those e-mailing this site but it's a rare day that someone's not writing in to say someone repeated the myth yet again on radio or on the net. Read Dean's column and think about passing it on.
Highlights:
The 2004 post-election map, with all those red states filling the middle of the country, gives the appearance of a very divided America. Pundit and commentators have talked endlessly of the two Americas. A closer look, however, shows the nation not anywhere near to being as deeply divided as many would have us believe.
In truth, it is not the overwhelming majority of Americans who are pushing the claim of these rifts -- cultural and political differences supposedly tearing our country apart. Rather, for this theory, we can thank the chattering class: the journalists, writers, religious leaders, politicians, along with various advocate activists and some social commentators. It is, as Vice President Spiro Agnew once famously said, the nattering nabobs of negativism.
[. . .]
As [Thomas] Frank explains, a key part of the whole bait-and-switch, one of the tactics that maintains the illusion, is to make a big deal out of the red states/blue states divide. This television graphic has provided conservative activists with a rhetorical device which they have used (and continue to use) effectively to marshal their followers.
[. . .]
Frank says, however, that the red states/blue states dichotomy is, in the end, fallacious -- although this fact has not limited its usefulness to conservatives. For example, in 2000, Frank tells us, the "red-state narrative brought [the appearance of] majoritarian legitimacy to a president who had actually lost the popular vote."
As a partisan weapon, the dichotomy has evolved. Now it pits the vast heartlands against the urban sophisticates: Fords and Chevys versus Volvos and BMWs; Mel Gibson versus Michael Moore.
The column can be found at Find Law (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20041203.html).
I'm going to repeat a point from the "Red" States series. The need to find an enemy is understandable. But this "Red" state myth isn't based in reality. And it serves the right (and has served, as John Dean notes re: 2000 election) in terms of this simple color-the-map scheme offers "proof" of Bush's "mandate." This garbage also provides Repube-lights in the Democratic party with a weapon to argue that the party needs to move to the "center."
Some of you are still very angry with people on the left who've repeated this myth. There is a strong point to be made that "our voices" are very good at debunking the media spin in other areas so why not here? I think it goes to how shocked so many of us are over the "results" of the election. The "red" states myth comes along and is repeated all over the place, we're in a vulnerable state so, instead of using our critical thinking skills the way we normally would, we end up nodding along with and repeating "conventional wisdom."
I said at one point in the "Red" State series that if you were so angry that you needed to stop listening to whomever or stop visiting whatever site, then do that. A lot of you are very hurt by this myth, I understand that. But I'm going to repeat that we seem to be in search of heroes and then getting disappointed when we find people instead.
We all make mistakes, check out my corrections via Kim and Shirley to the Howard Dean post (remember, Wednesday, online at noon eastern time) and "Snapshots of Iraq." If there's a repeated pattern of harmful errors (Judith Miller's reporting for the Times) that's one thing, but if this is people making honest mistakes, I know I'd want to be forgiven and I'm betting you would as well.
It's late and I'm probably going to keep restating the same point in different words (a hazard of posting late for me). But the point of this site (which even I lose sight of) is common sense. You don't have to have the "biggest brain" (to use Ely's wording) or know every fact and figure to realize you're being spun. A lot of times, we just need to use our common sense. I went over and over the polling numbers in the Times/CBS News poll to explain how wrong Adam Nagourney and Janet Elder were in their article/summary ""Americans Show Clear Concerns on Bush Agenda." But common sense alone tells you that a poll with less than 900 respondents is never going to be representative of an entire nation as populated as this one is.
I doubt even such a "random" sample focusing on one state could be representative. But when it's used to "speak for" the entire nation, it's sloppy and it's not doing the social sciences any good. (This is exactly why people, in college, would sneer "psuedo science" at those of us who majored in those areas.)
Probing into the polling data, it was possible to speculate that either Nagourney & Elder hurried through the results (the results were lengthy) and missed key data or possibly they framed the story to fit the popular narrative. (If you missed the entries on Nagourney & Elder's piece, go to November archives.)
But beyond their article/summary, there were problems with the questions themselves. The Times never addressed that. Questions requiring a two-part answer of "yes" and "no" -- complex questions -- but expecting respondents to answer either a single "yes" or "no" to a two part question should not have been asked. I seriously question the skills that went into devising the questions. I also believe that if anyone at the Times other than Elder & Nagourney looked at the actual data, the story should never have run.
This poll was trumpeted on the front page of a newspaper that carries great weight with the chattering classes and trumpted on TV as well. The poll had the "power" and "prestige" of one our highest circulated papers and one of our top three networks behind it. To me that's different from an off hand remark made by someone on Air America or a local radio host and different from a web site. That's my view and I could be wrong.
Besides sending John Dean's column, Beth also wanted to note something. She lives in Dallas, TX and her county elected the following Democrats: "Lupe Valdez – our new Sheriff; Don Adams - our new 2nd Criminal District Judge; Lorraine Raggio – our new 162nd Civil District; and Judge Dennise Garcia – our new 303rd District Court Judge." She says that until this election, the "Republicans have owned the judicial slots." She adds, "We're all proud of Lupe Valdez and the attention she's gotten from the national media like the Washington Post and the New York Times but we made inroads in the judicial races as well and that was big news for us."
Kara's emailed from Dallas as well to note that her State Senator Royce West is a Democrat, as is her Congressional Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson. This was in response to a radio program Kara heard today talking about how the southern states should, according to Kara, be written off and states such as Montanna should be focused on instead.
I think a number of so-called "red" states had similar results. And that's why we shouldn't be focusing on writing anyone off. (Which goes to the point about the party's infrastructure needing to be strengthened in all states.) (And how the DNC needs to address that issue.)
As David Brock and others have documented, we're up against a right wing echo chamber. Regardless of whether the "results" of the 2004 presidential election are correct at present, we need to realize what we're up against. And we need as many voices as possible speaking to combat that right wing echo chamber. That's why I've urged that if something isn't speaking exactly as you would 100% of the time, you take from it what you can.
That's not to say if someone says, "The party needs to dump these gay issues and stop supporting reproductive rights and blah, blah, blah" that you sit there and nod along with a smile on your face. But I believe there's a world of difference between that sort of person and voices on the left committed to supporting what we should stand for. As always, I could be wrong.
Highlights:
The 2004 post-election map, with all those red states filling the middle of the country, gives the appearance of a very divided America. Pundit and commentators have talked endlessly of the two Americas. A closer look, however, shows the nation not anywhere near to being as deeply divided as many would have us believe.
In truth, it is not the overwhelming majority of Americans who are pushing the claim of these rifts -- cultural and political differences supposedly tearing our country apart. Rather, for this theory, we can thank the chattering class: the journalists, writers, religious leaders, politicians, along with various advocate activists and some social commentators. It is, as Vice President Spiro Agnew once famously said, the nattering nabobs of negativism.
[. . .]
As [Thomas] Frank explains, a key part of the whole bait-and-switch, one of the tactics that maintains the illusion, is to make a big deal out of the red states/blue states divide. This television graphic has provided conservative activists with a rhetorical device which they have used (and continue to use) effectively to marshal their followers.
[. . .]
Frank says, however, that the red states/blue states dichotomy is, in the end, fallacious -- although this fact has not limited its usefulness to conservatives. For example, in 2000, Frank tells us, the "red-state narrative brought [the appearance of] majoritarian legitimacy to a president who had actually lost the popular vote."
As a partisan weapon, the dichotomy has evolved. Now it pits the vast heartlands against the urban sophisticates: Fords and Chevys versus Volvos and BMWs; Mel Gibson versus Michael Moore.
The column can be found at Find Law (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20041203.html).
I'm going to repeat a point from the "Red" States series. The need to find an enemy is understandable. But this "Red" state myth isn't based in reality. And it serves the right (and has served, as John Dean notes re: 2000 election) in terms of this simple color-the-map scheme offers "proof" of Bush's "mandate." This garbage also provides Repube-lights in the Democratic party with a weapon to argue that the party needs to move to the "center."
Some of you are still very angry with people on the left who've repeated this myth. There is a strong point to be made that "our voices" are very good at debunking the media spin in other areas so why not here? I think it goes to how shocked so many of us are over the "results" of the election. The "red" states myth comes along and is repeated all over the place, we're in a vulnerable state so, instead of using our critical thinking skills the way we normally would, we end up nodding along with and repeating "conventional wisdom."
I said at one point in the "Red" State series that if you were so angry that you needed to stop listening to whomever or stop visiting whatever site, then do that. A lot of you are very hurt by this myth, I understand that. But I'm going to repeat that we seem to be in search of heroes and then getting disappointed when we find people instead.
We all make mistakes, check out my corrections via Kim and Shirley to the Howard Dean post (remember, Wednesday, online at noon eastern time) and "Snapshots of Iraq." If there's a repeated pattern of harmful errors (Judith Miller's reporting for the Times) that's one thing, but if this is people making honest mistakes, I know I'd want to be forgiven and I'm betting you would as well.
It's late and I'm probably going to keep restating the same point in different words (a hazard of posting late for me). But the point of this site (which even I lose sight of) is common sense. You don't have to have the "biggest brain" (to use Ely's wording) or know every fact and figure to realize you're being spun. A lot of times, we just need to use our common sense. I went over and over the polling numbers in the Times/CBS News poll to explain how wrong Adam Nagourney and Janet Elder were in their article/summary ""Americans Show Clear Concerns on Bush Agenda." But common sense alone tells you that a poll with less than 900 respondents is never going to be representative of an entire nation as populated as this one is.
I doubt even such a "random" sample focusing on one state could be representative. But when it's used to "speak for" the entire nation, it's sloppy and it's not doing the social sciences any good. (This is exactly why people, in college, would sneer "psuedo science" at those of us who majored in those areas.)
Probing into the polling data, it was possible to speculate that either Nagourney & Elder hurried through the results (the results were lengthy) and missed key data or possibly they framed the story to fit the popular narrative. (If you missed the entries on Nagourney & Elder's piece, go to November archives.)
But beyond their article/summary, there were problems with the questions themselves. The Times never addressed that. Questions requiring a two-part answer of "yes" and "no" -- complex questions -- but expecting respondents to answer either a single "yes" or "no" to a two part question should not have been asked. I seriously question the skills that went into devising the questions. I also believe that if anyone at the Times other than Elder & Nagourney looked at the actual data, the story should never have run.
This poll was trumpeted on the front page of a newspaper that carries great weight with the chattering classes and trumpted on TV as well. The poll had the "power" and "prestige" of one our highest circulated papers and one of our top three networks behind it. To me that's different from an off hand remark made by someone on Air America or a local radio host and different from a web site. That's my view and I could be wrong.
Besides sending John Dean's column, Beth also wanted to note something. She lives in Dallas, TX and her county elected the following Democrats: "Lupe Valdez – our new Sheriff; Don Adams - our new 2nd Criminal District Judge; Lorraine Raggio – our new 162nd Civil District; and Judge Dennise Garcia – our new 303rd District Court Judge." She says that until this election, the "Republicans have owned the judicial slots." She adds, "We're all proud of Lupe Valdez and the attention she's gotten from the national media like the Washington Post and the New York Times but we made inroads in the judicial races as well and that was big news for us."
Kara's emailed from Dallas as well to note that her State Senator Royce West is a Democrat, as is her Congressional Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson. This was in response to a radio program Kara heard today talking about how the southern states should, according to Kara, be written off and states such as Montanna should be focused on instead.
I think a number of so-called "red" states had similar results. And that's why we shouldn't be focusing on writing anyone off. (Which goes to the point about the party's infrastructure needing to be strengthened in all states.) (And how the DNC needs to address that issue.)
As David Brock and others have documented, we're up against a right wing echo chamber. Regardless of whether the "results" of the 2004 presidential election are correct at present, we need to realize what we're up against. And we need as many voices as possible speaking to combat that right wing echo chamber. That's why I've urged that if something isn't speaking exactly as you would 100% of the time, you take from it what you can.
That's not to say if someone says, "The party needs to dump these gay issues and stop supporting reproductive rights and blah, blah, blah" that you sit there and nod along with a smile on your face. But I believe there's a world of difference between that sort of person and voices on the left committed to supporting what we should stand for. As always, I could be wrong.
So What Else Is News?
It's hard to know which reason given by the networks for refusing to air the United Church of Christ's TV ads is the most preposterous. The ads say there church will accept you even if
you're not white, even if you're gay or lesbian. They say it's what Jesus would do. NBC said no because "they don't do advocacy ads." Oh really? Those SUV ads don't advocate gas guzzling? Those fashion ads don't advocate eating disorders? Those luxury ads don't advocate going into hock up to your eye balls?
At least CBS had the . . . [spine] to admit what's really going on. They said the ad is unacceptable because "the executive branch has recently proposed a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Wait a minute. The executive branch wants to privatize social security. Does that mean the AARP and labor unions can't buy airtime to protect their retirement? Dennis Hastert won't let intelligence reform come to a vote because he doesn't have a majority of Republicans with him. Does that mean the 9-11 families can't air ads calling him on his outrageous partisanship?
And for the matter, George Bush says Hollywood hates America. Doesn't that mean CBS can't air movie ads anymore? Dick Cheney says dissent emboldens the enemy. Doesn't that mean CBS has to pull the plug on 60 Minutes?
The networks are always yelling about how free TV is in jepordy. If this is freedom, I wonder what bondage looks like?
-- Marty Kaplin, So What Else Is News?
Those were Kaplin's opening remarks to his two hour show this past Saturday. So What Else Is News? airs Saturday afternoons on Air America Radio and repeats on Sunday.
That's just to give you a sense of him in case you haven't listened to the show yet. (If you don't live in an area with an AAR station, you can listen online at www.airamericaradio.com.
Last Saturday, he also interviewed Bob Fitrakis on the Columbus, Ohio rally & the status of the recounts, Senator Barbara Boxer on the intelligence reform bill, West Virginia Governor-elect Joe Manchin, addressed the HBO movie about Peter Sellers with the film's director Stephen Hopkins, and much more.
To hear last Saturday's show (or any previous broadcast), check out the archives at
http://airamericaplace.com/upload/aasw120404.mp3.
Bob Fitrakis is a reporter for the Columbus Free Press (http://www.freepress.org/) which is covering the Ohio voting issue.
you're not white, even if you're gay or lesbian. They say it's what Jesus would do. NBC said no because "they don't do advocacy ads." Oh really? Those SUV ads don't advocate gas guzzling? Those fashion ads don't advocate eating disorders? Those luxury ads don't advocate going into hock up to your eye balls?
At least CBS had the . . . [spine] to admit what's really going on. They said the ad is unacceptable because "the executive branch has recently proposed a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Wait a minute. The executive branch wants to privatize social security. Does that mean the AARP and labor unions can't buy airtime to protect their retirement? Dennis Hastert won't let intelligence reform come to a vote because he doesn't have a majority of Republicans with him. Does that mean the 9-11 families can't air ads calling him on his outrageous partisanship?
And for the matter, George Bush says Hollywood hates America. Doesn't that mean CBS can't air movie ads anymore? Dick Cheney says dissent emboldens the enemy. Doesn't that mean CBS has to pull the plug on 60 Minutes?
The networks are always yelling about how free TV is in jepordy. If this is freedom, I wonder what bondage looks like?
-- Marty Kaplin, So What Else Is News?
Those were Kaplin's opening remarks to his two hour show this past Saturday. So What Else Is News? airs Saturday afternoons on Air America Radio and repeats on Sunday.
That's just to give you a sense of him in case you haven't listened to the show yet. (If you don't live in an area with an AAR station, you can listen online at www.airamericaradio.com.
Last Saturday, he also interviewed Bob Fitrakis on the Columbus, Ohio rally & the status of the recounts, Senator Barbara Boxer on the intelligence reform bill, West Virginia Governor-elect Joe Manchin, addressed the HBO movie about Peter Sellers with the film's director Stephen Hopkins, and much more.
To hear last Saturday's show (or any previous broadcast), check out the archives at
http://airamericaplace.com/upload/aasw120404.mp3.
Bob Fitrakis is a reporter for the Columbus Free Press (http://www.freepress.org/) which is covering the Ohio voting issue.
HOWARD DEAN ONLINE WEDNESDAY 12:OO PM EST
If you heard The Randi Rhodes Show today, you know that Howard Dean is supposed to make an "important speech" this Wednesday.
Statement from Democracy for America's Blog for America:
Governor Dean will lay out a vision for the future of the Democratic Party this Wednesday at 12 p.m. Eastern in Washington, D.C.
He will outline not just a direction for our party, but a concrete destination: a party built from the ground up.
That means a party powered by millions of small donors, not millionaires. It means a party that speaks plainly and commits to concrete outcomes that affect real people. And it means a party thatcompetes in every single race, for every single vote, in all fifty states.
You can watch live video of the speech on Wednesday morning at the Democracy for America web site:
www.democracyforamerica.com
Be sure to join us for the live webcast on Wednesday at 12 p.m. Eastern. Thank you.
Tom McMahon Executive Director Democracy for America
(http://www.blogforamerica.com/archives/005625.html)
Visit the web site for more information. If you're able to, please view the live webcast this Wednesday. (I'll try to remember to do a reminder on Tuesday.)
[Correction, headline said "AM" instead of "PM." It's noon eastern time. Thanks to Shirley for catching that.]
Statement from Democracy for America's Blog for America:
Governor Dean will lay out a vision for the future of the Democratic Party this Wednesday at 12 p.m. Eastern in Washington, D.C.
He will outline not just a direction for our party, but a concrete destination: a party built from the ground up.
That means a party powered by millions of small donors, not millionaires. It means a party that speaks plainly and commits to concrete outcomes that affect real people. And it means a party thatcompetes in every single race, for every single vote, in all fifty states.
You can watch live video of the speech on Wednesday morning at the Democracy for America web site:
www.democracyforamerica.com
Be sure to join us for the live webcast on Wednesday at 12 p.m. Eastern. Thank you.
Tom McMahon Executive Director Democracy for America
(http://www.blogforamerica.com/archives/005625.html)
Visit the web site for more information. If you're able to, please view the live webcast this Wednesday. (I'll try to remember to do a reminder on Tuesday.)
[Correction, headline said "AM" instead of "PM." It's noon eastern time. Thanks to Shirley for catching that.]
The Fifth Book of Peace by Maxine Hong Kingston
A lot of e-mails on Maxine Hong Kingston's The Fifth Book of Peace. To a question about which part they enjoyed most, it seemed everyone was on the same page so I'm going to quote that section here (pp. 136-137).
Clifton, the driver, said, "When the VISTA job is over, and if the war is still going on, I'll resist the draft. I'm not a draft evader. I'm not a draft dodger. I don't believe in dodging and evading. I'm a draft resister." He looked Wittman eye-to-eye in the rearview mirror. "Do you get the difference? I keep my draft board and the SSS informed exactly where I'm at, and what I'm doing. My every activity on the outside of the army is political activity. Everything I do, I'm resisting. I'm practicing for my confrontation day with the army. I look forward to it; I'm not evading it. When my number comes up, I'm going straight to my induction center. They'll call out my name -- Anderson, Clifton. That's a crucial moment, when they call out your name. You're supposed to take one step forward. That one step is a very symbolic step. It means that you are volunteering of your own free will even if you've been drafted. You're assenting. I am a soldier. You're obeying your first order. I'll use willpower, that I not take that step. I'll resist. I'm practing not to take that step. My telling you about it right now is practice. I think about not taking that step. I am developing a resistance state of mind. Everybody else will step forward, so I naturally will want to step forward too. My good friends rehearse me; they call out, 'Anderson, Clifton,' and I freeze. You take a step, and that's the step that takes you from walking the walk of a free man to walking the walk of a Government Issue. The army may try to coax me or ridicule me or threaten me, but I'm forewarned and prepared. I will not step forward. Then they'll see that I heard my name but am purposefully not stepping forward, and they'll arrest me. They could jail me then and there. Or they could dangle me, send me home for two weeks or an indefinite time. I know a guy who didn't hear from them for nine months. They want you to stew over the possible consequences. Jail. A record. Unemployed from now on. Losing the vote. A lot of people can't take the suspense. They'll leave for Canada, or they'll induct themselves. Me, I'm withstanding the pressure. They call me up again, I'll resist some more. I'm resisting evil. 'In times of evil, resist evil, even if you have no hope to stop it.'"
Clifton, the driver, said, "When the VISTA job is over, and if the war is still going on, I'll resist the draft. I'm not a draft evader. I'm not a draft dodger. I don't believe in dodging and evading. I'm a draft resister." He looked Wittman eye-to-eye in the rearview mirror. "Do you get the difference? I keep my draft board and the SSS informed exactly where I'm at, and what I'm doing. My every activity on the outside of the army is political activity. Everything I do, I'm resisting. I'm practicing for my confrontation day with the army. I look forward to it; I'm not evading it. When my number comes up, I'm going straight to my induction center. They'll call out my name -- Anderson, Clifton. That's a crucial moment, when they call out your name. You're supposed to take one step forward. That one step is a very symbolic step. It means that you are volunteering of your own free will even if you've been drafted. You're assenting. I am a soldier. You're obeying your first order. I'll use willpower, that I not take that step. I'll resist. I'm practing not to take that step. My telling you about it right now is practice. I think about not taking that step. I am developing a resistance state of mind. Everybody else will step forward, so I naturally will want to step forward too. My good friends rehearse me; they call out, 'Anderson, Clifton,' and I freeze. You take a step, and that's the step that takes you from walking the walk of a free man to walking the walk of a Government Issue. The army may try to coax me or ridicule me or threaten me, but I'm forewarned and prepared. I will not step forward. Then they'll see that I heard my name but am purposefully not stepping forward, and they'll arrest me. They could jail me then and there. Or they could dangle me, send me home for two weeks or an indefinite time. I know a guy who didn't hear from them for nine months. They want you to stew over the possible consequences. Jail. A record. Unemployed from now on. Losing the vote. A lot of people can't take the suspense. They'll leave for Canada, or they'll induct themselves. Me, I'm withstanding the pressure. They call me up again, I'll resist some more. I'm resisting evil. 'In times of evil, resist evil, even if you have no hope to stop it.'"
Democracy Now! "Ex-CIA Head Tenet Calls for Greater Gov't Control of Internet"
Ex-CIA Head Tenet Calls for Greater Gov't Control of Internet
Former CIA Director George Tenet has called for the government to take greater control of the Internet because he claims the openness of the Internet poses a security problem. He said last week, "I know that these actions will be controversial in this age when we still think the Internet is a free and open society with no control or accountability, but ultimately the Wild West must give way to governance and control." He went on to say that access to networks like the World Wide Web might need to be limited to those who can show they take security seriously. Tenet's comments during an IT conference in Washington. The national press was barred from attending the event.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/06/1453236
Watching Democracy Now! (Dahr Jamail is reporting from Iraq) and the above item stood out in the headlines section of the show due to several e-mails that have been coming in to the site (primarily from Janeane, Carl, Shondra & Matt).
http://www.democracynow.org/ web site for Democracy Now!
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! – Try it today!
News returns to the front page of the New York Times (Iraq, FDA, Ukraine, etc.)
Monday's New York Times hopefully demonstrates that yesterday's masquerade as a tabloid was an abberation and not a sign of more to come.
The front page has actual news.
Steven Lee Myer's "Ukraine Leader Attacking Rival Won't Halt Vote" informs us of what President Leonid D. Kuchma thinks of Yanukovich and Yushchenko.
Gardiner Harris' "At F.D.A., Strong Drug Ties and Less Monitoring":
Dozens of former and current F.D.A. officials, outside scientists and advocates for patients say the agency's efforts to monitor the ill effects of drugs that are on the market are a shadow of what they should be because the White House and Congress forced a marriage between the agency and industry years ago for the rich dowry that industry offered.
Under the 1992 agreement, the industry promised to give the agency millions -- in the 2003 fiscal year, $200 million -- but only if the agency spent a specified level of money on new drug approvals.
Robert F. Worth and John F. Burns weigh in on Iraq. Worth's "Wave of Violence By Iraqi Rebels Kills 80 in 3 Days":
Citing the deepening violence, more political leaders added their voices to a growing movement to delay the national and provincial elections now scheduled for Jan. 30. Leaders of Iraq's majority Shiite community have responded to earlier calls by insisting that the election go forward as planned, and President Bush said Thursday that they must not be postponed.
But the political leaders who gathered in Baghdad on Sunday, mostly Sunni Arabs reprsenting about 40 political parties and individuals, said that the insurgents' campaign of violence and intimidation made credible elections impossible for the moment, and that holding them in January would achieve an illegitimate result that could provoke futher civil conflict.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/06/international/middleeast/06iraq.html?oref=login
Burns' "Marines' Raids Underline Push in Crucial Area":
The four brothers fit the profile marines have come to expect of insurgents: Sunni Arabs, with experience in Mr. Hussein's armed forces, followed by government-assigned jobs in local industries, living comfortably off a plot of government-granted land. After their capture, they were handcuffed and loaded onto an armored truck for the ride back to the base.
There, they were bundled into a detainee-processing center known among the marines as "the tent of no return," electronically fingerprinted, photographed and lined up for an iris-recognition test.
[. . .]
"It looks like the snitch in Abu Ghraib was acting on a grudge," Mr. Roussell said. "But that's O.K. We're following American principles here, and that means that we've got to be pretty darned sure we've got the right men before we lock them away. We don't want to be sending innocent men to Abu Ghraib."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/06/international/middleeast/06guerrillas.html
And jumping inside to A8, Monica Davey's "Eight Soldiers Plan to Sue Over Army Tours of Duty." Here's the opening:
The eight soldiers come from places scattered across the country, from this small town an hour northwest of Little Rock to cities in
But the eight share a bond of anger: each says he has been prevented from coming home for good by an Army policy that has barred thousands of soldiers from leaving Iraq this year even though the terms of enlistment they signed up for have run out. And each of these eight soldiers has separately taken the extraordinary step of seeking legal help, through late-night Internet searches and e-mail inquiries from their camps in the conflict zone, or through rounds of phone calls by an equally frustrated wife or mother back home.
With legal support from the Center for Constitutional Rights, a liberal-leaning public interest group, lawyers for the eight men say they will file a lawsuit on Monday in federal court in Washington challenging the Army policy known as stop-loss.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/06/national/06soldiers.html
Richard W. Stevenson's "Treasury Secretary Is Likely to Leave Soon" says "Bush has decided to replace John W. Snow as treasury secretary" and the article mentions Andrew Card, Gerald L. Parsky and "other candidates."
And in "equal time" department, after focusing strictly on the Republican side of the equation Sunday (re: intell bill), Philip Shenon (page A12) actually has some quotes from Democrats: Senator Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. It's a shame no one at the Times apparently knows how to reach Senator Barbara Boxer since she did an excellent job of outlining the hold up re: intell bill on Uniflltered Friday and on Marty Kaplan's So What Else Is News? -- maybe NY Times journalists are missing not only contact info for Senator Boxer but also can't find Air America Radio on their radio dial? (Hint, in NYC it's WLIB 1190 AM.)
Speaking of AAR, Senator Harry Reid will be on The Al Franken Show today (according to the AAR web site).
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Sunday, December 05, 2004
Snapshots of Iraq
The situation in Falloojeh is worse than anyone can possibly describe. It has turned into one of those cities you see in your darkest nightmares- broken streets strewn with corpses, crumbling houses and fallen mosques... The worst part is that for the last couple of weeks we've been hearing about the use of chemical weapons inside Falloojeh by the Americans. Today we heard that the delegation from the Iraqi Ministry of Health isn't being allowed into the city, for some reason.I don't know about the chemical weapons. It's not that I think the American military is above the use of chemical weapons, it's just that I keep wondering if they'd be crazy enough to do it. I keep having flashbacks of that video they showed on tv, the mosque and all the corpses. There was one brief video that showed the same mosque a day before, strewn with many of the same bodies- but some of them were alive. In that video, there's this old man leaning against the wall and there was blood running out of his eyes- almost like he was crying tears of blood. What 'conventional' weaponry makes the eyes bleed? They say that a morgue in Baghdad has received the corpses of citizens in Falloojeh who have died under seemingly mysterious conditions. The wounded in Falloojeh aren't getting treatment and today we heard about a family with six children being bombed in the city. It's difficult to believe that in this day and age, when people are blogging, emailing and communicating at the speed of light, a whole city is being destroyed and genocide is being committed- and the whole world is aware and silent. Darfur, Americans? Take a look at what you've done in Falloojeh.
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
This past Sunday a small Iraqi Red Crescent aid convoy was allowed into Fallujah at 4:30pm. I interviewed a member of the convoy today. Speaking on condition of anonymity, (so I’ll call her Suthir), the first thing she said to me was, “I need another heart and eyes to bear it because my own are not enough to bear what I saw. Nothing justifies what was done to this city. I didn’t see a house or mosque that wasn’t destroyed.”
Suthir paused often to collect herself, but then as usual with those of us who have witnessed atrocities first hand, when she started to talk, she barely stopped to breath.
“There were families with nothing. I met a family with three daughters and two sons. One of their sons, Mustafa who was 16 years old, was killed by American snipers. Then their house was burned. They had nothing to eat. Just rice and cold water-dirty water…they put the rice in the dirty water, let it sit for one or two hours, then they ate the rice. Fatma, the 17 year-old daughter, said she was praying for God to take her soul because she couldn’t bear the horrors anymore.”
The families’ 12 year old boy told Suthir he used to want to be a doctor or a journalist. She paused then added, “He said that now he has no more dreams. He could no longer even sleep.”
“I’m sure the Americans committed bad things there, but who can discover and say this,” she said, “They didn’t allow us to go to the Julan area or any of the others where there was heavy fighting, and I’m sure that is where the horrible things took place.”
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/dispatches/000144.php#more
“Doctors in Fallujah are reporting there are patients in the hospital there who were forced out by the Americans,” said Mehdi Abdulla, a 33 year-old ambulance driver at a hospital in Baghdad, “Some doctors there told me they had a major operation going, but the soldiers took the doctors away and left the patient to die.” He looks at the ground, then away to the distance.
Honking cars fill the chaotic street outside the hospital where they’d just received brand new desks. The empty boxes are strewn about outside. Um Mohammed, a doctor at the hospital sat behind her old, wooden desk. “How can I take a new desk when there are patients dying because we don’t have medicine for them,” she asked while holding her hands in the air, “They should build a lift so patients who can’t walk can be taken to surgery, and instead we have these new desks!” Her eyes were piercing with fire, while yet another layer of frustration is folded into her work.
“And there are still a few Iraqis who think the Americans came to liberate them,” she added while looking out the broken window. The glass lay about outside-shattered from a car bomb that had detonated in front of the hospital. “These people will change their minds about the liberators when they, too, have had a family member killed by them.”
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/dispatches/000136.php#more
The first major operation by US marines and Iraqi soldiers was to storm Falluja general hospital, arresting doctors and placing the facility under military control. The New York Times reported that "the hospital was selected as an early target because the American military believed that it was the source of rumours about heavy casual ties", noting that "this time around, the American military intends to fight its own information war, countering or squelching what has been one of the insurgents' most potent weapons". The Los Angeles Times quoted a doctor as saying that the soldiers "stole the mobile phones" at the hospital - preventing doctors from communicating with the outside world.
But this was not the worst of the attacks on health workers. Two days earlier, a crucial emergency health clinic was bombed to rubble, as well as a medical supplies dispensary next door. Dr Sami al-Jumaili, who was working in the clinic, says the bombs took the lives of 15 medics, four nurses and 35 patients. The Los Angeles Times reported that the manager of Falluja general hospital "had told a US general the location of the downtown makeshift medical centre" before it was hit.
Whether the clinic was targeted or destroyed accidentally, the effect was the same: to eliminate many of Falluja's doctors from the war zone. As Dr Jumaili told the Independent on November 14: "There is not a single surgeon in Falluja." When fighting moved to Mosul, a similar tactic was used: on entering the city, US and Iraqi forces immediately seized control of the al-Zaharawi hospital.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1366278,00.html
As I write, American troops are pursuing an estimated 2,000 insurgents, blasting away at Falluja, a city of approximately 300,000 residents. Some civilians have fled, but certainly not hundreds of thousands. It is interesting: The first thing our soldiers did when they entered the city was to take over the hospital, reportedly because our leaders worry that doctors there are really operating propaganda mills and and milking sympathy for untoward ends. They believe that the number of civilian deaths reported by hospitals, in international mortality reports and by the Red Cross has been inflated. All those pictures of weeping families and bloody sheets are merely the heresy of freedom's nonbelievers, we are left to suppose. And so the Red Cross is no longer in the city. Médecins Sans Frontières was forced to pull out of Iraq weeks ago. A report from the British medical journal The Lancet, putting the Iraqi death toll at 100,000 since the US invasion began, has been denounced as methodologically flawed, flat-out false and no more than a theory.
I waited for the non-propaganda figures to come out of this assault on Falluja, the truthful toll, some data to assure us that numbers of civilian deaths distinguish us from Saddam Hussein. At the end of three days of heavy fighting, the news was "good." Coalition casualties were reported to be light. But nowhere could I find any mention of numbers of residents killed. The silence has been light as a feather, warm as a blanket, gentle as faith. Perhaps they never existed, maybe it was all in our heads. But as American forces level this city in our name, let us stop acting stricken about what Jesus is supposedly whispering in the ears of our nation's home-grown fundamentalists. In the name of sanity, we must demand that this Administration, not God, start talking some talk about our evolution to this dreadful point.
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041129&s=williams
Not too surprising, however, because there are also eyewitness reports now from refugees that some soldiers in Fallujah were tying the dead bodies of resistance fighters to tanks and driving around with their “trophies.”
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/dispatches/000148.php#more
Did you know that Fallujah was the birthplace of the Talmud.Neither did I. The Shalom Report, a progressive Jewish site notes: "Fred Astren, professor of Jewish studies at San Francisco State University, writes on the Jewish-studies listserve ---
"While recently reviewing lecture notes on early medieval messianism, I realized that Fallujah is Pumbeditha (re: the messiah of Pallughta).
"Pumbeditha, one of the great centers of Jewish learning 1800 years ago in "Babylonia," one of the centers where Talmud Bavli and Rabbinic Judaism were shaped. Where great teachers and great students wove words into a civilization.
"Falluja, the city of 300,000 people just shattered by the US military in a war created and continued by lies. Words woven into bloodshed and destruction.
http://www.newsdissector.org/weblog/indy_post.cfm?logID=D7B95071-0777-42AB-A6F622FA6380B6B4
http://www.newsdissector.org/weblog/
The Pentagon has admitted that the war on terror and the invasion and occupation of Iraq have increased support for al-Qaeda, made ordinary Muslims hate the US and caused a global backlash against America because of the “self-serving hypocrisy” of George W Bush’s administration over the Middle East.
The mea culpa is contained in a shockingly frank “strategic communications” report, written this autumn by the Defence Science Board for Pentagon supremo Donald Rumsfeld.
On “the war of ideas or the struggle for hearts and minds”, the report says, “American efforts have not only failed, they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended”.
http://www.sundayherald.com/46389
Well, the slaughter in Iraq continues apace anyway. Our occupation only compounds the horror of it all.
We ferociously destroyed ancient Fallujah to clear it of the Iraqi resistance, as if there were a geographic center for the insurgency that knows no map coordinates.
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/helenthomas/3970162/detail.html
He said it was difficult to move around the city due to the number of dead bodies.
"Bodies can be seen everywhere and people were crying when receiving the food parcels. It is very sad, it is a human disaster," Mr Nuri reportedly said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4047469.stm
“I feel hatred. I hurt. This is my city and it has been destroyed,” Ibrahim said, sitting on a thin mattress on the floor of a room he shares with his wife, seven children and another family.
“The people of Fallujah are people of revenge. If they don’t get their revenge now, they will next year or even after 50 years. But they will get it.”
http://nsnlb.us.publicus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041205/NEWS03/112050088/-1/news
JULES LOBEL: Kevin Sites, the NBC cameraman, what he does is he shows that -- he puts up quotes from different Marines. He says the Marines say they were operating under rules of engagement, which said this was a weapons-free zone. And what they meant by weapons-free was that they could shoot at anything. They didn't have to determine whether it was hostile. Anything that they saw was deemed to be hostile in Fallujah. It reminds you of the free-fire zones in Vietnam. Under the Geneva Conventions, commanders have a responsibility to ensure that civilians are not indiscriminately harmed and that prisoners are not executed. The real problem here is coming from the top, not from the individual soldiers. I think the investigation should really be on what the rules of engagement were that these Marines were operating under, and whether they were given instructions not to kill prisoners, not to discriminate between insurgents and civilians, and my hunch is that they weren't.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/19/1524257
To those who warn that it would be inhumane and wrong to leave Iraq soon, I ask: What's so humane about sticking around and killing again and again?
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/helenthomas/3970162/detail.html
Ending this bloodbath is the most honorable task Americans can perform to restore progressive priorities and our respect in the world. We have passed the point for graceful exit strategies. Our policy is to go on mechanically killing people unless they vote in January for us to keep on killing people.
By any moral or economic accounting, we now are worsening the lives of Iraqi since the fall of Saddam. We have turned innocent young Americans into torturers in places like Abu Ghraib. When going into battle, we close hospitals first. We make sure that television and newspapers are not "able to show pictures of bleeding women and children being taken into hospital wards" – this reported on Veterans Day in the Times. Not even our friends like us anymore, whether we are tourists in Europe or diplomats at the United Nations.
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/20571/
Here is a list of sources for the "snapshots" (all have direct links above):
Baghdad Burning. Baghdad Burning: Girl Blog From Iraq.
BBC News. "Aid reaches Falluja's citizens." BBC.
Mariam Fam. "Rebuilding Fallujah a big task for Iraqi leaders." The Telegraph Online.
Amy Goodman interviews Jules Lobel. "U.S. War Crimes in Fallujah." Democracy Now!
Tom Hayden. "How to End the Iraq War." AlterNet.
Dar Jamail. Iraq Dispatches.
Naomi Klein. "You asked for my evidence, Mr Ambassador. Here it is." The Guardian.
Neil Mackay. "US admits the war for ‘hearts and minds’ in Iraq is now lost." The Sunday Herald.
Danny Schechter. "Dec. 3 Who Are Our Prophets Now?." News Dissector.
Helen Thomas. "Declare Victory And Leave: Administration Claims Killing Leads To Peace."
The Boston Channel Com.
Patricia J. Williams. "Taking the Hospital." The Nation.
[This post was edited when Kim caught that the link to Schecter's excerpt was to his web log and not to the actual post "Dec. 3 Who Are Our Prophets Now?" so the permalink to that entry has been added; the original link to his site has been left in. I've also changed "Profits" to "Prophets"
which I got wrong in the original version of this post. Thank you, Kim.]
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
This past Sunday a small Iraqi Red Crescent aid convoy was allowed into Fallujah at 4:30pm. I interviewed a member of the convoy today. Speaking on condition of anonymity, (so I’ll call her Suthir), the first thing she said to me was, “I need another heart and eyes to bear it because my own are not enough to bear what I saw. Nothing justifies what was done to this city. I didn’t see a house or mosque that wasn’t destroyed.”
Suthir paused often to collect herself, but then as usual with those of us who have witnessed atrocities first hand, when she started to talk, she barely stopped to breath.
“There were families with nothing. I met a family with three daughters and two sons. One of their sons, Mustafa who was 16 years old, was killed by American snipers. Then their house was burned. They had nothing to eat. Just rice and cold water-dirty water…they put the rice in the dirty water, let it sit for one or two hours, then they ate the rice. Fatma, the 17 year-old daughter, said she was praying for God to take her soul because she couldn’t bear the horrors anymore.”
The families’ 12 year old boy told Suthir he used to want to be a doctor or a journalist. She paused then added, “He said that now he has no more dreams. He could no longer even sleep.”
“I’m sure the Americans committed bad things there, but who can discover and say this,” she said, “They didn’t allow us to go to the Julan area or any of the others where there was heavy fighting, and I’m sure that is where the horrible things took place.”
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/dispatches/000144.php#more
“Doctors in Fallujah are reporting there are patients in the hospital there who were forced out by the Americans,” said Mehdi Abdulla, a 33 year-old ambulance driver at a hospital in Baghdad, “Some doctors there told me they had a major operation going, but the soldiers took the doctors away and left the patient to die.” He looks at the ground, then away to the distance.
Honking cars fill the chaotic street outside the hospital where they’d just received brand new desks. The empty boxes are strewn about outside. Um Mohammed, a doctor at the hospital sat behind her old, wooden desk. “How can I take a new desk when there are patients dying because we don’t have medicine for them,” she asked while holding her hands in the air, “They should build a lift so patients who can’t walk can be taken to surgery, and instead we have these new desks!” Her eyes were piercing with fire, while yet another layer of frustration is folded into her work.
“And there are still a few Iraqis who think the Americans came to liberate them,” she added while looking out the broken window. The glass lay about outside-shattered from a car bomb that had detonated in front of the hospital. “These people will change their minds about the liberators when they, too, have had a family member killed by them.”
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/dispatches/000136.php#more
The first major operation by US marines and Iraqi soldiers was to storm Falluja general hospital, arresting doctors and placing the facility under military control. The New York Times reported that "the hospital was selected as an early target because the American military believed that it was the source of rumours about heavy casual ties", noting that "this time around, the American military intends to fight its own information war, countering or squelching what has been one of the insurgents' most potent weapons". The Los Angeles Times quoted a doctor as saying that the soldiers "stole the mobile phones" at the hospital - preventing doctors from communicating with the outside world.
But this was not the worst of the attacks on health workers. Two days earlier, a crucial emergency health clinic was bombed to rubble, as well as a medical supplies dispensary next door. Dr Sami al-Jumaili, who was working in the clinic, says the bombs took the lives of 15 medics, four nurses and 35 patients. The Los Angeles Times reported that the manager of Falluja general hospital "had told a US general the location of the downtown makeshift medical centre" before it was hit.
Whether the clinic was targeted or destroyed accidentally, the effect was the same: to eliminate many of Falluja's doctors from the war zone. As Dr Jumaili told the Independent on November 14: "There is not a single surgeon in Falluja." When fighting moved to Mosul, a similar tactic was used: on entering the city, US and Iraqi forces immediately seized control of the al-Zaharawi hospital.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1366278,00.html
As I write, American troops are pursuing an estimated 2,000 insurgents, blasting away at Falluja, a city of approximately 300,000 residents. Some civilians have fled, but certainly not hundreds of thousands. It is interesting: The first thing our soldiers did when they entered the city was to take over the hospital, reportedly because our leaders worry that doctors there are really operating propaganda mills and and milking sympathy for untoward ends. They believe that the number of civilian deaths reported by hospitals, in international mortality reports and by the Red Cross has been inflated. All those pictures of weeping families and bloody sheets are merely the heresy of freedom's nonbelievers, we are left to suppose. And so the Red Cross is no longer in the city. Médecins Sans Frontières was forced to pull out of Iraq weeks ago. A report from the British medical journal The Lancet, putting the Iraqi death toll at 100,000 since the US invasion began, has been denounced as methodologically flawed, flat-out false and no more than a theory.
I waited for the non-propaganda figures to come out of this assault on Falluja, the truthful toll, some data to assure us that numbers of civilian deaths distinguish us from Saddam Hussein. At the end of three days of heavy fighting, the news was "good." Coalition casualties were reported to be light. But nowhere could I find any mention of numbers of residents killed. The silence has been light as a feather, warm as a blanket, gentle as faith. Perhaps they never existed, maybe it was all in our heads. But as American forces level this city in our name, let us stop acting stricken about what Jesus is supposedly whispering in the ears of our nation's home-grown fundamentalists. In the name of sanity, we must demand that this Administration, not God, start talking some talk about our evolution to this dreadful point.
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041129&s=williams
Not too surprising, however, because there are also eyewitness reports now from refugees that some soldiers in Fallujah were tying the dead bodies of resistance fighters to tanks and driving around with their “trophies.”
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/dispatches/000148.php#more
Did you know that Fallujah was the birthplace of the Talmud.Neither did I. The Shalom Report, a progressive Jewish site notes: "Fred Astren, professor of Jewish studies at San Francisco State University, writes on the Jewish-studies listserve ---
"While recently reviewing lecture notes on early medieval messianism, I realized that Fallujah is Pumbeditha (re: the messiah of Pallughta).
"Pumbeditha, one of the great centers of Jewish learning 1800 years ago in "Babylonia," one of the centers where Talmud Bavli and Rabbinic Judaism were shaped. Where great teachers and great students wove words into a civilization.
"Falluja, the city of 300,000 people just shattered by the US military in a war created and continued by lies. Words woven into bloodshed and destruction.
http://www.newsdissector.org/weblog/indy_post.cfm?logID=D7B95071-0777-42AB-A6F622FA6380B6B4
http://www.newsdissector.org/weblog/
The Pentagon has admitted that the war on terror and the invasion and occupation of Iraq have increased support for al-Qaeda, made ordinary Muslims hate the US and caused a global backlash against America because of the “self-serving hypocrisy” of George W Bush’s administration over the Middle East.
The mea culpa is contained in a shockingly frank “strategic communications” report, written this autumn by the Defence Science Board for Pentagon supremo Donald Rumsfeld.
On “the war of ideas or the struggle for hearts and minds”, the report says, “American efforts have not only failed, they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended”.
http://www.sundayherald.com/46389
Well, the slaughter in Iraq continues apace anyway. Our occupation only compounds the horror of it all.
We ferociously destroyed ancient Fallujah to clear it of the Iraqi resistance, as if there were a geographic center for the insurgency that knows no map coordinates.
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/helenthomas/3970162/detail.html
He said it was difficult to move around the city due to the number of dead bodies.
"Bodies can be seen everywhere and people were crying when receiving the food parcels. It is very sad, it is a human disaster," Mr Nuri reportedly said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4047469.stm
“I feel hatred. I hurt. This is my city and it has been destroyed,” Ibrahim said, sitting on a thin mattress on the floor of a room he shares with his wife, seven children and another family.
“The people of Fallujah are people of revenge. If they don’t get their revenge now, they will next year or even after 50 years. But they will get it.”
http://nsnlb.us.publicus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041205/NEWS03/112050088/-1/news
JULES LOBEL: Kevin Sites, the NBC cameraman, what he does is he shows that -- he puts up quotes from different Marines. He says the Marines say they were operating under rules of engagement, which said this was a weapons-free zone. And what they meant by weapons-free was that they could shoot at anything. They didn't have to determine whether it was hostile. Anything that they saw was deemed to be hostile in Fallujah. It reminds you of the free-fire zones in Vietnam. Under the Geneva Conventions, commanders have a responsibility to ensure that civilians are not indiscriminately harmed and that prisoners are not executed. The real problem here is coming from the top, not from the individual soldiers. I think the investigation should really be on what the rules of engagement were that these Marines were operating under, and whether they were given instructions not to kill prisoners, not to discriminate between insurgents and civilians, and my hunch is that they weren't.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/19/1524257
To those who warn that it would be inhumane and wrong to leave Iraq soon, I ask: What's so humane about sticking around and killing again and again?
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/helenthomas/3970162/detail.html
Ending this bloodbath is the most honorable task Americans can perform to restore progressive priorities and our respect in the world. We have passed the point for graceful exit strategies. Our policy is to go on mechanically killing people unless they vote in January for us to keep on killing people.
By any moral or economic accounting, we now are worsening the lives of Iraqi since the fall of Saddam. We have turned innocent young Americans into torturers in places like Abu Ghraib. When going into battle, we close hospitals first. We make sure that television and newspapers are not "able to show pictures of bleeding women and children being taken into hospital wards" – this reported on Veterans Day in the Times. Not even our friends like us anymore, whether we are tourists in Europe or diplomats at the United Nations.
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/20571/
Here is a list of sources for the "snapshots" (all have direct links above):
Baghdad Burning. Baghdad Burning: Girl Blog From Iraq.
BBC News. "Aid reaches Falluja's citizens." BBC.
Mariam Fam. "Rebuilding Fallujah a big task for Iraqi leaders." The Telegraph Online.
Amy Goodman interviews Jules Lobel. "U.S. War Crimes in Fallujah." Democracy Now!
Tom Hayden. "How to End the Iraq War." AlterNet.
Dar Jamail. Iraq Dispatches.
Naomi Klein. "You asked for my evidence, Mr Ambassador. Here it is." The Guardian.
Neil Mackay. "US admits the war for ‘hearts and minds’ in Iraq is now lost." The Sunday Herald.
Danny Schechter. "Dec. 3 Who Are Our Prophets Now?." News Dissector.
Helen Thomas. "Declare Victory And Leave: Administration Claims Killing Leads To Peace."
The Boston Channel Com.
Patricia J. Williams. "Taking the Hospital." The Nation.
[This post was edited when Kim caught that the link to Schecter's excerpt was to his web log and not to the actual post "Dec. 3 Who Are Our Prophets Now?" so the permalink to that entry has been added; the original link to his site has been left in. I've also changed "Profits" to "Prophets"
which I got wrong in the original version of this post. Thank you, Kim.]
Your comments on who should be the DNC head
Before we get too deep into this entry, I want to highlight a blog. Interesting Times at
http://interestingtimes.blogspot.com/ and I don't see anything that could land a write up if you check it out in the work place but, as always, click at your own risk.
I'm highlighting that site because so many of you writing on the DNC issue are expressing anger, frustration and outrage over sites that you feel are attempting to "sell out the left" (Trini) and
"have turned their backs on the people who made them important sites" (Burt). Interesting Times was forwarded to me and I'd say it's on the same page as all of you writing in terms of what direction we need to go. (I'm not commenting on the person who keeps blogging. Read him if you find it helpful or amusing but his ideas and notions don't reflect this site. Hopefully, that's the last I'll have to say on his posts.)
"safer" is a codeword for the same business-as-usual type leaders we have had in the past. We've been lead by "safe" people for years now. We need leadership that is willing to risk losing some battles in order to win the larger war. -- Interesting Times
Since the Democratic Leadership Council, with its mantra of "moderate, moderate, moderate," took hold in D.C., the party has been in decline at just about every level of government. Forget the Kerry loss. Today the number of Democrats in the House is the lowest it's been since 1948. Democrats are on the brink of becoming a permanent minority party. Can the oldest democratic institution on earth wake from its stupor? -- Joe Trippi (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005960)
“We don’t need two Republican Parties in this country,” Dean said. “Truman once said, ‘If you run a Republican against a Democrat who acts like a Republican, the real Republican wins every time.’” -- Howard Dean (http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=15485&repository=0001_article)
The "Red" States series (check archives) was an attempt to debunk a myth that would be used against the left. (Saturday night's The Laura Flanders Show had some good comments on this issue. http://airamericaplace.com/ is the location to hear an archived version of Saturday's show.)
Besides the fact that readers of this site were noting that people were being hurt by this myth, another concern was over how this myth would be used -- to suggest that the Democratic party must turn right to win. That's a serious concern among readers, that the party will turn right.
Whomever gets picked to head the DNC will set a tone for the party and, for that reason, a number of you are very concerned about the names being mentioned.
According to several press reports emerging this weekend, eight people will be meeting in Florida this week seeking the position. (The selection itself will be done in February.) The eight names mentioned are Howard Dean, Wellington Webb (former mayor of Denver), Harold Ickes (Clinton administration), Leo Hindery ("New York businessman"), Donnie Fowler ("political strategist"), Martin Frost (soon to be former U.S. Congress rep from Texas) and Ron Kirk (mayor of Dallas who ran for an open Senate seat in 2002 and lost to Republican John Cornyn).
Leo Hindery has strong support from Sondra who wants to advise everyone to check out the 1999 speech he gave (http://www.league-att.org/conference/hindery990513.html) to League (which is a Gay Employees Business Resource Group). Sondra also notes that Hindery received the Oates-Shrum Award in 2002 for his work on GLBT issues.
"Everytime I hear [Senator Diane] Feinstein trashing [San Francisco] Mayor [Gavin] Newsom,
I cringe," says Sondra. "After [Harvey] Milk was murdered, I found Feinstein's 'leadership' less than enlightening. I get the feeling that it would be so simple for the party to sweep gay & lesbian issues under the rug and ignore them but if they betray that group the only question is 'which group comes next?' I know Hindery is someone most people probably haven't heard of but he worked very hard raising money for the Kerry campaign and I think he genuninely cares that we stay committed to our party base."
Sondra also provided a comment of support for Hindery from Kate Michelman.
Sondra may be right about him being someone that we haven't heard a great deal about because she's the only one who wrote in regarding Hindery. So look into his history and see whether or not you agree with her call.
Burt is wary of Wellington Webb because of "DLC connections" (http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=104&subid=210&contentid=1838 and
http://www.scdlc.org/content/news_article.asp?id=37).
Webb's largely off our radar as well since only Burt wrote in on him.
Seven of you sent in this http://www.chrisnolan.com/archives/000616.html saying it proved Donnie Fowler was the person for the job.
Clint objected to Fowler because he "worked on the Gropinator's transition team."
(Fowler also briefly worked for the Wesley Clark presidential campaign.) Fowler's history in the Silicon Valley suggest to Jimmy that Fowler "is the next Joe Trippi" while, to Andi, the history begs the question of "if he's so smart, why didn't he realize what Trippi did?" Theresa adds to the discussion by noting that Fowler drove the grass roots action campaign that resulted in Clark announcing a presidential run. And M'lissa writes in that Fowler "is an amazing speaker, I've heard him speak twice and he's totally believable and inspirational. He rouses the crowd."
Harold Ickes was another one that doesn't appear to have registered with many.
I'll post Ickes' biography (http://www.lawyers.com/find_a_lawyer/search/atty_profile.php?attylid=372955&firstname=Harold&lastname=Ickes&searchtype=N&termtype=2&CMP=KA16725&site=729) :
Biography: Author: "An Alternative Proposal for the State Debt Provisions of the New York State Constitution," Essays of the New York Constitution, Weinstein, J.B., (ed) 1966. Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff for Political Affairs and Policy to President Clinton, 1994-1997. White House Coordinator of the Presidential Inaugural, 1997. Director of Summit Affairs for the 1997 Denver Summit of the Eight, 1997. Deputy Director of the Clinton - Gore Presidential Transition Team, 1992-1993. Deputy Chair of the Democratic National Committee, 1992. Director for the Clinton Presidential Campaign of the 1992 Democratic National Convention, 1992. Partner: The Iches an Enright Group, 1997—. (Also at Mineola, New York Office)
There were people you were interested in who didn't make it into this weekend's press accounts. Some really good suggestions and some of people once mentioned who may now be out of the running. (Or may not be.) To narrow down the e-mails for tonight, we're focusing on the eight who apparently are going to Florida. (Hopefully next weekend, we can address the other people you mentioned.)
Who were the majority interested in commenting on? Ron Kirk, Martin Frost and Howard Dean.
99 e-mails for Kirk, all opposing him.
Gina highlighted this section from an article she sent in:
In 1998, before the $246 million Trinity project bond election, Albers was invited to a small black church where Kirk was making a speech urging passage of the bonds. When she attempted to question Kirk outside the church, he told her that he didn't have to answer her questions because her side was going to lose the election.
Kirk was upset that Albers had come to the church in the company of black community activists. He said to her--and this is her version of the quote, which I have asked her to repeat to me at least three times over the period of years since it happened--"And now, Anna, you're pimping black men."
She doesn't have witnesses. I faxed a written request for comment to Kirk's campaign headquarters at the end of last week, but I didn't hear back. I do know that a number of female leaders in the community spoke to Kirk about the incident right after it happened to express their displeasure.
I believe Albers. Several years after the fact when I discussed it with her over a sandwich in the cafeteria on the seventh floor of City Hall, her eyes teared up and she begged me not to write about it. She said she doesn't know exactly what Kirk's remark meant.
"I don't know what it means," she said, "but it's degrading. It's racist, and it's sexist, and it's degrading."
It's Ron. And it's all based on the assumption that the best way to manipulate white people is to exploit their racial fear of black people. He goes for the card every time, one way or another.
http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/2002-03-14/news/schutze.html
Gary e-mailed that, "Kirk claims all the credit for the American Airlines arena and it's his to claim. The agreement led to the destruction of nearby Reunion Tower and concert business in Dallas has moved on to the Next Stage in Grand Prairie. Like most of Kirk's plans as mayor this was either ill thought or defines a loose grasp on reality."
But the bulk of e-mails revolved around one word "weak." (A smaller number also spoke of Kirk's opposition to collective barganing.)
Charlie points out that Kirk only knows how to win a local race and that he lost the non-local race he ran for (U.S. Senator). On that, I'll add that sometimes you can learn more from a loss than a win. (Which isn't an endorsement of Kirk.)
Martin Frost as the DNC head was the topic of 159 e-mails. The themes of those e-mails were strong language and "no way."
In addition to his 2004 campaign's refusal to advertise that he was a Democrat, other comments focused on the Democratic convention in Boston this year.
"Where was he?" wondered Millicent. "Safely tucked away in the non-partisan closet? Scared rabbit afraid to show at the convention?"
Bernie brings up Frost's attempt to win the House Minority Leader post in 2002 and comments he made regarding Nancy Pelosi: ""Her politics are to the left. And I think that the party, to be successful, must speak to the broad center of the country."
The issue of Frost's failed bid for House Minority Leader was also an issue with Ricardo who writes, "I live in San Francisco and don't see that as anything to be ashamed of. When Frost was running around tarring Pelosi as a 'San Francisco Democrat' I thought why is he uses the right's tactics? Why is he insulting my city? Who is this dull, slow speaking bald man speaking with a sense of entitlement?"
Inez in New Mexico just wishes Frost "would go away. You lost. You lost against Pelosi for the leadership post. You lost against the Republican for a House seat. You're supposed to have all the answers about what the party needs to do but you couldn't even win your own re-election.
Loser, go home!"
If there's a bright spot for Kirk, it's that readers seem to dislike him but they loathe Frost.
Who did you like? Over 300 e-mails came in supporting Howard Dean.
Tammy: "He's got style! He's got guts! He's got drive!"
Ken in Laredo: "The only one who can steer the party now is Howard Dean. He electrifies the base. "
Janeane: "3 words: Dean! Dean! Dean!"
Ben: "Nursing wounds from the election, the only thing that gives me hope is the thought of Howard Dean heading the DNC."
Sally: "Dean can't be denied!"
Abhilasha: "Want to keep losing elections? Pick Frost. Want to win? Pick Dean."
Ricky: "It's a mess [the party] and I'm not sure anyone can clean [it] up but I'd hand the job to Howard because he's the only real hope."
Shondra: "Dean could have sulked off after Kerry got the nomination. Instead, he continued hitting the road. This time to campaign for Kerry and to focus on local and state wide races. See, that's the thing. I keep hearing that someone can raise money but who on the list has created their organization that went out and did grass roots action to get people elected?"
Matt: "It's Dean or I may go Green!"
Brenda: Does the country need two Republican parties? Don't think so. Talk about quagmires, look at our party. Dean's the one who can lead us out of this."
Ted: "I refuse to grin and bear it as another DLCer gets installed to leadership and cautions us that we can't be who we are. Or we can be who we are in private but publicly we need to look, act and talk like Repubs. I'm sick of it. The DNC is so out of touch with the average Democratic voter. We only hear from them when they want money. And they're interested only in our financial contributions. Dean speaks clearly and plainly. You know where he stands and he's not afraid to take a stand."
Eli: "I may not have the biggest brains but in seventy-one years I've learned one thing and that's how to spot a phoney. Howard Dean is no phoney."
Whether your choice is Dean or not, please take the time to look into the other names mentioned because you may see something that stands out to you (good or bad). Who knows which one the DNC will go with? It might be someone not yet named. But if they choose someone you're not familiar with right now, you'll be ahead of the game if you take the time now to look into the other names.
This entry was based on the e-mails and that's really something more enjoyable to put together than, for instance, a Times' entry. (Heads up, if the paper is still in tabloid territory tomorrow, I may just post "no comment.") If anyone mentioned as a nominee (or a spokesperson for them) wishes to comment, we'll post that in full. I can imagine Ron Kirk might want to address the issue of collective barganing because his position on it has been a complex one (re: local versus national). By the same token, should a group wish to comment, we'll post their e-mail as well.
A number of you are recommending this post http://mathewgross.com/blog/archives/001041.html which discusses the Republican party in terms of domestic abuse.
Shondra wanted everyone to have a heads up to Al From & Will Marshall's attacks on Michael Moore and what it could mean for the party:
Well, I noticed. I also noticed that unless something is done about it, this unelected bund of corporate pawns is once again going to end up writing the party platform and arranging things to make sure that no antiwar candidate is allowed to compete for votes in the primaries. It will push one of its own—probably Harold Ickes, or Brazile—in next year's election for the chairman of the Democratic Party. And when that person wins, the tens of millions of Democrats who opposed the war will have to get used to people like Will Marshall referring to them as "we" in front of roomfuls of reporters—Marshall, who this year wrote, in Blueprint, an article entitled "Stay and Win in Iraq" that offered the following view of the progress of the war:
"Coalition forces still face daily attacks but the body count tilts massively in their favor."
Uh-huh. And Michael Moore and Hollywood are the problem with the Democratic Party.
http://nypress.com/17/48/news%26columns/taibbi.cfm
I'll also pass on Matthew Rothschild's "This Just In" which is on the Ohio voting:
http://www.progressive.org/webex04/wx120304.html.
http://interestingtimes.blogspot.com/ and I don't see anything that could land a write up if you check it out in the work place but, as always, click at your own risk.
I'm highlighting that site because so many of you writing on the DNC issue are expressing anger, frustration and outrage over sites that you feel are attempting to "sell out the left" (Trini) and
"have turned their backs on the people who made them important sites" (Burt). Interesting Times was forwarded to me and I'd say it's on the same page as all of you writing in terms of what direction we need to go. (I'm not commenting on the person who keeps blogging. Read him if you find it helpful or amusing but his ideas and notions don't reflect this site. Hopefully, that's the last I'll have to say on his posts.)
"safer" is a codeword for the same business-as-usual type leaders we have had in the past. We've been lead by "safe" people for years now. We need leadership that is willing to risk losing some battles in order to win the larger war. -- Interesting Times
Since the Democratic Leadership Council, with its mantra of "moderate, moderate, moderate," took hold in D.C., the party has been in decline at just about every level of government. Forget the Kerry loss. Today the number of Democrats in the House is the lowest it's been since 1948. Democrats are on the brink of becoming a permanent minority party. Can the oldest democratic institution on earth wake from its stupor? -- Joe Trippi (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005960)
“We don’t need two Republican Parties in this country,” Dean said. “Truman once said, ‘If you run a Republican against a Democrat who acts like a Republican, the real Republican wins every time.’” -- Howard Dean (http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=15485&repository=0001_article)
The "Red" States series (check archives) was an attempt to debunk a myth that would be used against the left. (Saturday night's The Laura Flanders Show had some good comments on this issue. http://airamericaplace.com/ is the location to hear an archived version of Saturday's show.)
Besides the fact that readers of this site were noting that people were being hurt by this myth, another concern was over how this myth would be used -- to suggest that the Democratic party must turn right to win. That's a serious concern among readers, that the party will turn right.
Whomever gets picked to head the DNC will set a tone for the party and, for that reason, a number of you are very concerned about the names being mentioned.
According to several press reports emerging this weekend, eight people will be meeting in Florida this week seeking the position. (The selection itself will be done in February.) The eight names mentioned are Howard Dean, Wellington Webb (former mayor of Denver), Harold Ickes (Clinton administration), Leo Hindery ("New York businessman"), Donnie Fowler ("political strategist"), Martin Frost (soon to be former U.S. Congress rep from Texas) and Ron Kirk (mayor of Dallas who ran for an open Senate seat in 2002 and lost to Republican John Cornyn).
Leo Hindery has strong support from Sondra who wants to advise everyone to check out the 1999 speech he gave (http://www.league-att.org/conference/hindery990513.html) to League (which is a Gay Employees Business Resource Group). Sondra also notes that Hindery received the Oates-Shrum Award in 2002 for his work on GLBT issues.
"Everytime I hear [Senator Diane] Feinstein trashing [San Francisco] Mayor [Gavin] Newsom,
I cringe," says Sondra. "After [Harvey] Milk was murdered, I found Feinstein's 'leadership' less than enlightening. I get the feeling that it would be so simple for the party to sweep gay & lesbian issues under the rug and ignore them but if they betray that group the only question is 'which group comes next?' I know Hindery is someone most people probably haven't heard of but he worked very hard raising money for the Kerry campaign and I think he genuninely cares that we stay committed to our party base."
Sondra also provided a comment of support for Hindery from Kate Michelman.
Sondra may be right about him being someone that we haven't heard a great deal about because she's the only one who wrote in regarding Hindery. So look into his history and see whether or not you agree with her call.
Burt is wary of Wellington Webb because of "DLC connections" (http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=104&subid=210&contentid=1838 and
http://www.scdlc.org/content/news_article.asp?id=37).
Webb's largely off our radar as well since only Burt wrote in on him.
Seven of you sent in this http://www.chrisnolan.com/archives/000616.html saying it proved Donnie Fowler was the person for the job.
Clint objected to Fowler because he "worked on the Gropinator's transition team."
(Fowler also briefly worked for the Wesley Clark presidential campaign.) Fowler's history in the Silicon Valley suggest to Jimmy that Fowler "is the next Joe Trippi" while, to Andi, the history begs the question of "if he's so smart, why didn't he realize what Trippi did?" Theresa adds to the discussion by noting that Fowler drove the grass roots action campaign that resulted in Clark announcing a presidential run. And M'lissa writes in that Fowler "is an amazing speaker, I've heard him speak twice and he's totally believable and inspirational. He rouses the crowd."
Harold Ickes was another one that doesn't appear to have registered with many.
I'll post Ickes' biography (http://www.lawyers.com/find_a_lawyer/search/atty_profile.php?attylid=372955&firstname=Harold&lastname=Ickes&searchtype=N&termtype=2&CMP=KA16725&site=729) :
Biography: Author: "An Alternative Proposal for the State Debt Provisions of the New York State Constitution," Essays of the New York Constitution, Weinstein, J.B., (ed) 1966. Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff for Political Affairs and Policy to President Clinton, 1994-1997. White House Coordinator of the Presidential Inaugural, 1997. Director of Summit Affairs for the 1997 Denver Summit of the Eight, 1997. Deputy Director of the Clinton - Gore Presidential Transition Team, 1992-1993. Deputy Chair of the Democratic National Committee, 1992. Director for the Clinton Presidential Campaign of the 1992 Democratic National Convention, 1992. Partner: The Iches an Enright Group, 1997—. (Also at Mineola, New York Office)
There were people you were interested in who didn't make it into this weekend's press accounts. Some really good suggestions and some of people once mentioned who may now be out of the running. (Or may not be.) To narrow down the e-mails for tonight, we're focusing on the eight who apparently are going to Florida. (Hopefully next weekend, we can address the other people you mentioned.)
Who were the majority interested in commenting on? Ron Kirk, Martin Frost and Howard Dean.
99 e-mails for Kirk, all opposing him.
Gina highlighted this section from an article she sent in:
In 1998, before the $246 million Trinity project bond election, Albers was invited to a small black church where Kirk was making a speech urging passage of the bonds. When she attempted to question Kirk outside the church, he told her that he didn't have to answer her questions because her side was going to lose the election.
Kirk was upset that Albers had come to the church in the company of black community activists. He said to her--and this is her version of the quote, which I have asked her to repeat to me at least three times over the period of years since it happened--"And now, Anna, you're pimping black men."
She doesn't have witnesses. I faxed a written request for comment to Kirk's campaign headquarters at the end of last week, but I didn't hear back. I do know that a number of female leaders in the community spoke to Kirk about the incident right after it happened to express their displeasure.
I believe Albers. Several years after the fact when I discussed it with her over a sandwich in the cafeteria on the seventh floor of City Hall, her eyes teared up and she begged me not to write about it. She said she doesn't know exactly what Kirk's remark meant.
"I don't know what it means," she said, "but it's degrading. It's racist, and it's sexist, and it's degrading."
It's Ron. And it's all based on the assumption that the best way to manipulate white people is to exploit their racial fear of black people. He goes for the card every time, one way or another.
http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/2002-03-14/news/schutze.html
Gary e-mailed that, "Kirk claims all the credit for the American Airlines arena and it's his to claim. The agreement led to the destruction of nearby Reunion Tower and concert business in Dallas has moved on to the Next Stage in Grand Prairie. Like most of Kirk's plans as mayor this was either ill thought or defines a loose grasp on reality."
But the bulk of e-mails revolved around one word "weak." (A smaller number also spoke of Kirk's opposition to collective barganing.)
Charlie points out that Kirk only knows how to win a local race and that he lost the non-local race he ran for (U.S. Senator). On that, I'll add that sometimes you can learn more from a loss than a win. (Which isn't an endorsement of Kirk.)
Martin Frost as the DNC head was the topic of 159 e-mails. The themes of those e-mails were strong language and "no way."
In addition to his 2004 campaign's refusal to advertise that he was a Democrat, other comments focused on the Democratic convention in Boston this year.
"Where was he?" wondered Millicent. "Safely tucked away in the non-partisan closet? Scared rabbit afraid to show at the convention?"
Bernie brings up Frost's attempt to win the House Minority Leader post in 2002 and comments he made regarding Nancy Pelosi: ""Her politics are to the left. And I think that the party, to be successful, must speak to the broad center of the country."
The issue of Frost's failed bid for House Minority Leader was also an issue with Ricardo who writes, "I live in San Francisco and don't see that as anything to be ashamed of. When Frost was running around tarring Pelosi as a 'San Francisco Democrat' I thought why is he uses the right's tactics? Why is he insulting my city? Who is this dull, slow speaking bald man speaking with a sense of entitlement?"
Inez in New Mexico just wishes Frost "would go away. You lost. You lost against Pelosi for the leadership post. You lost against the Republican for a House seat. You're supposed to have all the answers about what the party needs to do but you couldn't even win your own re-election.
Loser, go home!"
If there's a bright spot for Kirk, it's that readers seem to dislike him but they loathe Frost.
Who did you like? Over 300 e-mails came in supporting Howard Dean.
Tammy: "He's got style! He's got guts! He's got drive!"
Ken in Laredo: "The only one who can steer the party now is Howard Dean. He electrifies the base. "
Janeane: "3 words: Dean! Dean! Dean!"
Ben: "Nursing wounds from the election, the only thing that gives me hope is the thought of Howard Dean heading the DNC."
Sally: "Dean can't be denied!"
Abhilasha: "Want to keep losing elections? Pick Frost. Want to win? Pick Dean."
Ricky: "It's a mess [the party] and I'm not sure anyone can clean [it] up but I'd hand the job to Howard because he's the only real hope."
Shondra: "Dean could have sulked off after Kerry got the nomination. Instead, he continued hitting the road. This time to campaign for Kerry and to focus on local and state wide races. See, that's the thing. I keep hearing that someone can raise money but who on the list has created their organization that went out and did grass roots action to get people elected?"
Matt: "It's Dean or I may go Green!"
Brenda: Does the country need two Republican parties? Don't think so. Talk about quagmires, look at our party. Dean's the one who can lead us out of this."
Ted: "I refuse to grin and bear it as another DLCer gets installed to leadership and cautions us that we can't be who we are. Or we can be who we are in private but publicly we need to look, act and talk like Repubs. I'm sick of it. The DNC is so out of touch with the average Democratic voter. We only hear from them when they want money. And they're interested only in our financial contributions. Dean speaks clearly and plainly. You know where he stands and he's not afraid to take a stand."
Eli: "I may not have the biggest brains but in seventy-one years I've learned one thing and that's how to spot a phoney. Howard Dean is no phoney."
Whether your choice is Dean or not, please take the time to look into the other names mentioned because you may see something that stands out to you (good or bad). Who knows which one the DNC will go with? It might be someone not yet named. But if they choose someone you're not familiar with right now, you'll be ahead of the game if you take the time now to look into the other names.
This entry was based on the e-mails and that's really something more enjoyable to put together than, for instance, a Times' entry. (Heads up, if the paper is still in tabloid territory tomorrow, I may just post "no comment.") If anyone mentioned as a nominee (or a spokesperson for them) wishes to comment, we'll post that in full. I can imagine Ron Kirk might want to address the issue of collective barganing because his position on it has been a complex one (re: local versus national). By the same token, should a group wish to comment, we'll post their e-mail as well.
A number of you are recommending this post http://mathewgross.com/blog/archives/001041.html which discusses the Republican party in terms of domestic abuse.
Shondra wanted everyone to have a heads up to Al From & Will Marshall's attacks on Michael Moore and what it could mean for the party:
Well, I noticed. I also noticed that unless something is done about it, this unelected bund of corporate pawns is once again going to end up writing the party platform and arranging things to make sure that no antiwar candidate is allowed to compete for votes in the primaries. It will push one of its own—probably Harold Ickes, or Brazile—in next year's election for the chairman of the Democratic Party. And when that person wins, the tens of millions of Democrats who opposed the war will have to get used to people like Will Marshall referring to them as "we" in front of roomfuls of reporters—Marshall, who this year wrote, in Blueprint, an article entitled "Stay and Win in Iraq" that offered the following view of the progress of the war:
"Coalition forces still face daily attacks but the body count tilts massively in their favor."
Uh-huh. And Michael Moore and Hollywood are the problem with the Democratic Party.
http://nypress.com/17/48/news%26columns/taibbi.cfm
I'll also pass on Matthew Rothschild's "This Just In" which is on the Ohio voting:
http://www.progressive.org/webex04/wx120304.html.
COUP: Today Show Seizes Control of the New York Times' front page
Short of numerous "___!"s, I don't know how to express my shock, outrage, disappointment over this morning's Times front page. This is news? This is front page news? Carl's e-mailed this morning to say today's front page is "total ___" and I'm going to agree with that.
I've read the main section twice. There are numerous stories that are worthy of attention inside. But let's highlight how bad the front page is. ("How bad is it!") So bad, that it's like the opening segment of Today. Hence the following send up.
"AND NOW HERE'S MATT LAUER."
MATT: Good morning. Katie's on vacation. Important news, folks, the Supreme Court has issued what some are calling a "harsh rebuke" in three death row appeals. But first, here's Campbell Scott with a report on one of the most important issues of our day. Campbell?
CAMPBELL: Thank you, Matt. Exploding stereotypes it turns out that 'younger Latinos' are shifting to 'smaller families.' Apparently, education and jobs are preventing many, I'm not sure of a number here, from having 12 children. 12 children may be shocking but I spoke with a woman named Rocio and she said she can't imagine having more than 3 children. Now she didn't come from a family with 12 children, Matt. But at least once, she saw a photo at the home of friends' of her parents, she was quite young so the details are sketchy. But in that photo, that she saw once, when she was a child, there was a portrait of a family with 12 children!
"Demographers say the decline is significant because of the size of the Latino population." Back to you.
[Yes, Rocio really does refer to that photo in the article in this morning's Times. She also notes that as a child in Jalisco, Mexico, she was one of seven children.]
MATT: (nods seriously) Shocking. 12 children? (Grinning) I thought the saying was, "Eight is enough!" (Guffaws). Norah O'Donnell now has an exclusive report on the fate of the intelligence bill.
NORAH: Thank you, Matt. NBC has learned that (big smile) our President George W. Bush is fighting hard to save the intell bill. This reporter secluded herself to a secret location where she listened to (big smile) our president speak. Proving how off the cuff and spontaneous and "impassioned" he is, (big smile) our president gave his weekly radio address to the nation and when (big smile) my president speaks, I listen. After listening to the radio address, I called various Republicans who all support (smile) our president and they agree that (smile) our president is doing everything he can. Matt, (big smile) our commander-in-chief is on this!
[Yes, we do get a front page story based upon a radio address.]
MATT: Thank you, Norah. For some truth squading we bring in the Truth Squad, Lisa Myers.
LISA: Squad? Was that a weight crack? (chortles) Seriously, Matt. President Bush is working hard to get this bill passed. (Grimacing) The obstructionists? Democrats who want to harm our soliders as usual. And that's the truth from this squad!
[The same front page story "Norah" "reported on" also gives us anonymous officials. The Democrats crack by "Lisa" doesn't appear. In fact, no Democrat appears. Not a single one. Senator Barbara Boxer, among others, has been very vocal about this bill but apparently she wasn't on someone's rolodex. It's strange to read a piece on Congressional legislation and not find a single Democrat quoted. Is Bush pressuring Republicans in Congress? Who knows. The Times has a tendency to swallow his posturing as truth. Wonder what the Democrats think? Keep wondering because the Times is no help there.]
MATT: Thanks for setting us straight as always, Lisa. And leading us into the next segment. (Pained expression) I think you and the rest of the nation will be very interested in this next story, it's an issue that touches all of our lives. Here is NBC's legal correspondent Dan Abrams. Danno!
DAN: Right back at ya', Matty! (Solemn expression) "To people who have struggled for a lifetime to lose weight, the new drug called rimonabant sounds like a dream come true."
[Footage of thin people emerging from a building]
DAN: "At obesity treatment centers nearly every patient asks for rimonabant -- or Acomplia, as it will be called if its maker, Sanofi-Aventis gets approval to market it in the United States."
MATT: Thanks for giving us the skinny on the fat!
DAN: (Laughing) Stop! Stop! I'm about to lose control of my bladder!
MATT: Now here's NBC correspondent Pete Williams. Pete, tell us about the pressing legal issue you're working on?
PETE: Matt, "Donald Fehr, executive director of the Major Leauge Baseball Players Association, said yesterday that it's executive board planned to discuss steroids when it convened this week as the baseball union and professional sports were reeling from a series of damaging revelations."
[The Times can't get over the idea that this story is THE STORY of our time. I'm not sure if this is the third or fourth front page story on steroids in baseball in the last six days but it must be
LIFE ALTERNING because the Times can't seem to let go of it.]
MATT: Shocking! And very sad. This effects us all. I mean if children can't turn sports players into God, Pete, what will the nation do? Do we have footage? This is the most important thing since Janet Jackson's boob. We don't have footage? Can we get footage? Okay, we will get footage because this story matters more than anything else that could ever happen in the world.
Now, with Katie on vacation, newsreader Ann Curry sits down with Bernard Kerik.
ANN: Commissioner Kerik, you are nominated for the top post of Homeland Security. So I'm going to have to ask you some toughies!
KERIK: "What gets measured gets done."
ANN: (Laughing) True that! Now Mr. Kerik, America's Mayor Rudy Giuliani has said of you, "He was always doing better than even I thought he would."
KERIK NODS.
ANN: Okay, I'm convinced! Back to you, Matt.
[That's about the whole story. None of the 9-11 families objections were noted nor was there any serious exploration of any questions regarding his qualifications or anything else that might have made this biographical sketch worthy of the front page.]
MATT: Hard hitting stuff, Ann. Hard hitting. Andrea Mitchell, you're waiting outside the Supreme Court all this time to tell us about the "harsh rebukes" the Court has issued.
ANDREA: Matt, "three appeals from inmates on death row in Texas" have been heard by the Supreme Court in the past year, "and in each case the prosecutors --"
MATT: (Interrupting) Death row?
ANDREA: Yes.
MATT: That's all you got? No obesity? No praise for our leader? No trend story about what might happen in 2040? Anything with sports or drugs?
ANDREA: Uh . . .
[Which appears to be the Times' attitude as well. But hey, nice main photo on the front page of five little girls and their ballet teacher. It's not connected to a story on the front page, mind you. But hey, it's light. It's frivilous. It totally fits with this morning's front page when the Times, apparently bored with being a newspaper, decides to crossdress as a tabloid.]
MATT: Okay, we'll be back after these commercials with our usual segment entitled Chris Matthews Screams About Democrats! Keep smiling, America, this is Today!
[All bold words from the Times.]
I've read the main section twice. There are numerous stories that are worthy of attention inside. But let's highlight how bad the front page is. ("How bad is it!") So bad, that it's like the opening segment of Today. Hence the following send up.
"AND NOW HERE'S MATT LAUER."
MATT: Good morning. Katie's on vacation. Important news, folks, the Supreme Court has issued what some are calling a "harsh rebuke" in three death row appeals. But first, here's Campbell Scott with a report on one of the most important issues of our day. Campbell?
CAMPBELL: Thank you, Matt. Exploding stereotypes it turns out that 'younger Latinos' are shifting to 'smaller families.' Apparently, education and jobs are preventing many, I'm not sure of a number here, from having 12 children. 12 children may be shocking but I spoke with a woman named Rocio and she said she can't imagine having more than 3 children. Now she didn't come from a family with 12 children, Matt. But at least once, she saw a photo at the home of friends' of her parents, she was quite young so the details are sketchy. But in that photo, that she saw once, when she was a child, there was a portrait of a family with 12 children!
"Demographers say the decline is significant because of the size of the Latino population." Back to you.
[Yes, Rocio really does refer to that photo in the article in this morning's Times. She also notes that as a child in Jalisco, Mexico, she was one of seven children.]
MATT: (nods seriously) Shocking. 12 children? (Grinning) I thought the saying was, "Eight is enough!" (Guffaws). Norah O'Donnell now has an exclusive report on the fate of the intelligence bill.
NORAH: Thank you, Matt. NBC has learned that (big smile) our President George W. Bush is fighting hard to save the intell bill. This reporter secluded herself to a secret location where she listened to (big smile) our president speak. Proving how off the cuff and spontaneous and "impassioned" he is, (big smile) our president gave his weekly radio address to the nation and when (big smile) my president speaks, I listen. After listening to the radio address, I called various Republicans who all support (smile) our president and they agree that (smile) our president is doing everything he can. Matt, (big smile) our commander-in-chief is on this!
[Yes, we do get a front page story based upon a radio address.]
MATT: Thank you, Norah. For some truth squading we bring in the Truth Squad, Lisa Myers.
LISA: Squad? Was that a weight crack? (chortles) Seriously, Matt. President Bush is working hard to get this bill passed. (Grimacing) The obstructionists? Democrats who want to harm our soliders as usual. And that's the truth from this squad!
[The same front page story "Norah" "reported on" also gives us anonymous officials. The Democrats crack by "Lisa" doesn't appear. In fact, no Democrat appears. Not a single one. Senator Barbara Boxer, among others, has been very vocal about this bill but apparently she wasn't on someone's rolodex. It's strange to read a piece on Congressional legislation and not find a single Democrat quoted. Is Bush pressuring Republicans in Congress? Who knows. The Times has a tendency to swallow his posturing as truth. Wonder what the Democrats think? Keep wondering because the Times is no help there.]
MATT: Thanks for setting us straight as always, Lisa. And leading us into the next segment. (Pained expression) I think you and the rest of the nation will be very interested in this next story, it's an issue that touches all of our lives. Here is NBC's legal correspondent Dan Abrams. Danno!
DAN: Right back at ya', Matty! (Solemn expression) "To people who have struggled for a lifetime to lose weight, the new drug called rimonabant sounds like a dream come true."
[Footage of thin people emerging from a building]
DAN: "At obesity treatment centers nearly every patient asks for rimonabant -- or Acomplia, as it will be called if its maker, Sanofi-Aventis gets approval to market it in the United States."
MATT: Thanks for giving us the skinny on the fat!
DAN: (Laughing) Stop! Stop! I'm about to lose control of my bladder!
MATT: Now here's NBC correspondent Pete Williams. Pete, tell us about the pressing legal issue you're working on?
PETE: Matt, "Donald Fehr, executive director of the Major Leauge Baseball Players Association, said yesterday that it's executive board planned to discuss steroids when it convened this week as the baseball union and professional sports were reeling from a series of damaging revelations."
[The Times can't get over the idea that this story is THE STORY of our time. I'm not sure if this is the third or fourth front page story on steroids in baseball in the last six days but it must be
LIFE ALTERNING because the Times can't seem to let go of it.]
MATT: Shocking! And very sad. This effects us all. I mean if children can't turn sports players into God, Pete, what will the nation do? Do we have footage? This is the most important thing since Janet Jackson's boob. We don't have footage? Can we get footage? Okay, we will get footage because this story matters more than anything else that could ever happen in the world.
Now, with Katie on vacation, newsreader Ann Curry sits down with Bernard Kerik.
ANN: Commissioner Kerik, you are nominated for the top post of Homeland Security. So I'm going to have to ask you some toughies!
KERIK: "What gets measured gets done."
ANN: (Laughing) True that! Now Mr. Kerik, America's Mayor Rudy Giuliani has said of you, "He was always doing better than even I thought he would."
KERIK NODS.
ANN: Okay, I'm convinced! Back to you, Matt.
[That's about the whole story. None of the 9-11 families objections were noted nor was there any serious exploration of any questions regarding his qualifications or anything else that might have made this biographical sketch worthy of the front page.]
MATT: Hard hitting stuff, Ann. Hard hitting. Andrea Mitchell, you're waiting outside the Supreme Court all this time to tell us about the "harsh rebukes" the Court has issued.
ANDREA: Matt, "three appeals from inmates on death row in Texas" have been heard by the Supreme Court in the past year, "and in each case the prosecutors --"
MATT: (Interrupting) Death row?
ANDREA: Yes.
MATT: That's all you got? No obesity? No praise for our leader? No trend story about what might happen in 2040? Anything with sports or drugs?
ANDREA: Uh . . .
[Which appears to be the Times' attitude as well. But hey, nice main photo on the front page of five little girls and their ballet teacher. It's not connected to a story on the front page, mind you. But hey, it's light. It's frivilous. It totally fits with this morning's front page when the Times, apparently bored with being a newspaper, decides to crossdress as a tabloid.]
MATT: Okay, we'll be back after these commercials with our usual segment entitled Chris Matthews Screams About Democrats! Keep smiling, America, this is Today!
[All bold words from the Times.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)