I always like summer
Best
You can eat fresh corn
From daddy's garden
And okra
And greens
And cabbage
And lots of
Barbeque
And buttermilk
And homemade ice-cream
Lisa: That's from the poem "Knoxville Tennessee" by Nikki Giovanni and Knoxville is where Ms. Giovanni was born (June 7, 1943) and where her grandparents lived.
In the sixties, she began her professional poetry career and was part of Black Arts movement. Her poems have always been influenced by the world around. She could write with insight and heart about Angela Davis or about children, about hopes and about pain.
Among her many books of poetry are Black Talk, Black Judgement, Love Poems, Those Who Ride the Night Winds and, my favorite, Quilting the Black-Eyed Pea: Poems and Not-Quite Poems.
Ms. Giovani has won many awards and honors including the Langston Hughes award for Distinguished Contributions to Arts and Letters (1996). Like Langston Hughes, Richard Wright, Lorraine Hansberry and Alice Walker, Nikki Giovanni is a part of the legacy of African-American contributions to the arts.
With Ms. Giovanni there is no wall between the personal and the political or between the lived life and art. It is all a mosaic that informs our understanding of what we were, what we are and who we can be.
Saturday, February 26, 2005
Reinventing Lawrence Summers in this morning's Times
Tears on the sleeve of a boy
Don't want to be a man today
-- Tori Amos, "Pretty Good Year" (Under the Pink)
On the front page of this morning's paper, Patrick D. Healy and Sara Rimer offer up " Amid Uproar, Harvard Head Ponders Style." In print, it's entitled "Amid Uproar, Harvard Head Lists His Goals." There's a lot to be said for the content of this article but we can start by noting that Lawrence Summers' goals never get around to addressing the apparently trivial issues like, gee, detailing a plan for improving the hiring practices -- so the internet headline is probably more appropriate. This is more a study of "style" than an article on "goals."
Summers is on a personal journey of sorts. Having seen Hitch with his children, the reporters use this as a framing device for much of the article with Summers in the Kevin James role seeking numerous guides (just Will Smith in the film) to teach him social graces.
Well they must have stripped off the back hair, but Summers is still "the man with the golden gun, thinks he knows so much, thinks he knows so much" (Amos again, "Cornflake Girl," Under the Pink).
Summers still doesn't get it, even with his couture consultants. From the article, "I think I do have a tendency to challenge dialogue in the way of a graduate seminar." Uh, what graduate seminar would that be? The one where students demand you back up your half-baked theories with academic citations? Having failed at defending his statements with earlier excuses, Summers now wants to try to move it over to grad student area and maybe people are either uninformed or foolish enough to belive him. Granted, not everyone went to grad school.
I remember a seminar that was supposed to be on Plato's ladder of love and how an annoying twerp tried to hijack by turning it into a hagiographic session on the "works and talents" of Ayn Rand. We suffered through about three minutes of that nonsense politely before we started demanding that the statements be backed up.
And that's what would have happened in a graduate seminar. Summers' 'challenging dialogue' would have been met with a real challenge that he back up his statements with sources.
Note, that's something Summers still refuses to do. He didn't do so following his speech and he still hasn't.
Look at the transcript for the Q&A.
Divorced from reality and academia, some responses of note:
I don't think that. I don't actually think that's the point at all. My point was a very different one. My point was simply that the field of behavioral genetics had a revolution in the last fifteen years, and the principal thrust of that revolution was the discovery that a large number of things that people thought were due to socialization weren't, and were in fact due to more intrinsic human nature, and that set of discoveries, it seemed to me, ought to influence the way one thought about other areas where there was a perception of the importance of socialization. I wasn't at all trying to connect those studies to the particular experiences of women and minorities who were thinking about academic careers.
I don't think that's the point? I can't answer your question because it's specific and takes into account a number of variables and since I'm offering a sweeping summary I can't address the academic studies that you're aware of because I haven't taken the time to explore those studies let alone contemplate them. I wasn't at all trying to connect those studies to the particular experiences of women and minorities who were thinking about acadmeic careers.
As for not "at all trying to connect those studies to the particular experiences of women and minorities who were thinking about academic careers," oh, wasn't he?
From the speech:
First, most of what we've learned from empirical psychology in the last fifteen years has been that people naturally attribute things to socialization that are in fact not attributable to socialization. We've been astounded by the results of separated twins studies. The confident assertions that autism was a reflection of parental characteristics that were absolutely supported and that people knew from years of observational evidence have now been proven to be wrong. And so, the human mind has a tendency to grab to the socialization hypothesis when you can see it, and it often turns out not to be true. The second empirical problem is that girls are persisting longer and longer. When there were no girls majoring in chemistry, when there were no girls majoring in biology, it was much easier to blame parental socialization. Then, as we are increasingly finding today, the problem is what's happening when people are twenty, or when people are twenty-five, in terms of their patterns, with which they drop out. Again, to the extent it can be addressed, it's a terrific thing to address.
"First" and "Second"? But he's not suggesting a correlation?
He's relied on 'personal talks' with 'prominent people' (in industries such as banking where apparently he and 'prominent people' bemoan the lack of diversity but rush to reassure one another that no one's at fault except for those people who choose 'free time') and a recent trip to a kibbutz. He bases his remarks on 'conventional wisdom' that he mistakes for research. He cites, by name, one author whom he finds flawed. (But apparently, that's the only author he's aware of. I can't say he's read the work because his statements are so couched and nonspecific that it appears he hasn't read the work.)
As we'll see in the quote below, Summers gets all jazzed when he can discuss baseball but even there he can't cite an author, the study or, for that matter, when it appeared (he guesses it was sometime in the seventies).
I understand. I think you're obviously right that there's no absolute objectivity, and you're-there's no question about that. My own instincts actually are that you could go wrong in a number of respects fetishizing objectivity for exactly the reasons that you suggest. There is a very simple and straightforward methodology that was used many years ago in the case of baseball. Somebody wrote a very powerful article about baseball, probably in the seventies, in which they basically said, "Look, it is true that if you look at people's salaries, and you control for their batting averages and their fielding averages and whatnot, whites and blacks are in the same salary once you control. It is also true that there are no black .240 hitters in the major leagues, that the only blacks who are in the major leagues are people who bat over .300-I'm exaggerating-and that is exactly what you'd predict on a model of discrimination, that because there's a natural bias against. And there's an absolute and clear prediction. The prediction is that if there's a discriminated-against group, that if you measure subsequent performance, their subsequent performance will be stronger than that of the non-discriminated-against group. And that's a simple prediction of a theory of discrimination. And it's a testable prediction of a theory of discrimination, and it would be a revolution, and it would be an enormously powerful finding in this field, to demonstrate, and I suspect there are contexts in which that can be demonstrated, but there's a straightforward methodology, it seems to me, for testing exactly that idea. I'm going to run out of time. But, let me take-if people ask very short questions, I will give very short answers.
Standard grad school bullsh*t response (that most grad students and profs would have called Summers on): "I'm not prepared to address the issue because I'm uninformed, so let me carry it over to an issue I do know something about and that's baseball. And maybe no one will notice that I have nothing to say about the actual issue being addressed."
The lack of respect for research and the lack of candor in the above response do not belong at an academic conference (which Summers is attempting to downgrade to a grad school seminar -- and that still won't wash). "I'm going to run out of time" he notes and asks that "people ask very short questions" so he can "give very short answers." The fast-food approach takes over academia?
"My own instincts" suggests that, not unlike Vivian in Pretty Woman, Summers is a fly-by-the-seat-of-her-pants kind of gal.
If time is short, here's a suggestion drop the sports talk that has no bearing on the topic but does prove you can play beat the clock better than Condi Rice sitting before the 9-11 Commission.
Good question. Good question. I don't know much about it. My guess is that you'll find that in most of those places, the pressure to be high powered, to work eighty hours a week, is not the same as it is in the United States. And therefore it is easier to balance on both sides. But I thought about that, and I think that you'll find that's probably at least part of the explanation.
"I don't know much about it. My guess is . . ." This wasn't an Amway convention. Summers wasn't appearing as a motivational speaker. For those who just don't get it, this isn't an appropriate level of "engagement" for an academic conference.
Yeah, look anything could be social, ultimately in all of that. I think that if you look at the literature on behavioral genetics and you look at the impact, the changed view as to what difference parenting makes, the evidence is really quite striking and amazing. I mean, just read Judith Rich Harris's book. It is just very striking that people's-and her book is probably wrong and its probably more than she says it is, and I know there are thirteen critiques and you can argue about it and I am not certainly a leading expert on that-but there is a lot there. And I think what it surely establishes is that human intuition tends to substantially overestimate the role-just like teachers overestimate their impact on their students relative to fellow students on other students-I think we all have a tendency with our intuitions to do it. So, you may be right, but my guess is that there are some very deep forces here that are going to be with us for a long time.
I'm getting the idea that some of his defenders may have never been in an academic challenging environment, so read the above quote again but take it to a simpler form, a high school debate.
Summers weak, rambling, psuedo citing then back pedaling would have clearly given that point to his opponent.
He appears to be referring to Rich's book The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do. If so, he apparently failed to grasp Rich's repeatedly underscored point about social context which is at the heart of the problems Harvard was having prior to his speech and continues to have now.
It's not clear at all. I think I said it wasn't clear. I was giving you my best guess but I hope we could argue on the basis of as much evidence as we can marshal.
How will that be done? With short questions and answers that don't address the studies done or the work in the field? With your best guess based on your ill informed view?
No, no, no. Let me say. I have actually read that and I'm not saying there aren't rooms to debate this in, but if somebody, but with the greatest respect-I think there's an enormous amount one can learn from the papers in this conference and from those two books-but if somebody thinks that there is proof in these two books, that these phenomenon are caused by something else, I guess I would very respectfully have to disagree very very strongly with that. I don't presume to have proved any view that I expressed here, but if you think there is proof for an alternative theory, I'd want you to be hesitant about that.
That's a standard non-answer from a grad student (soon to be dumped from the program) who hasn't done the reading.
I think there are two different things, frankly, actually, is my guess-I'm not an expert. Somebody reported to me that-someone who is knowledgeable-said that it is surprisingly hard to get Americans rather than immigrants or the children of immigrants to be cardiac surgeons. Cardiac surgeon is about prestigious, certain kind of prestige as you can be, fact is that people want control of their lifestyles, people want flexibility, they don't want to do it, and it's disproportionately immigrants that want to do some of the careers that are most demanding in terms of time and most interfering with your lifestyle. So I think that's exactly right and I think it's precisely the package of number of hours' work what it is, that's leading more Americans to choose to have careers of one kind or another in business that are less demanding of passionate thought all the time and that includes white males as well.
No, he's not an expert. And "somebody reported to me" ("someone who is knowledgeable") is an indication of the sloppiness in his "research."
He gave an insulting presentation that's insulting for a number of reasons but chief among them is the fact that his shoot-from-the-hip, 'conventional wisdom' wasn't up to the standards of an academic conference (nor of a grad student seminar, don't kid yourself). In the Q&A, facing questioning, he immediately fall back on "time constraints" and ask for short questions so you can give short replies. Sadly this is after he delivers a hundred or so words on the apparently very pressing topic of major league baseball, on a study he doesn't don't know the author of or the date of publication. That's not meeting the criteria for an academic engagement.
Summers want to couch this on the grounds of some sort of academic pursuit of intellectual truth but he's yet to engage in any academic, informed dialogue or to cite academic studies.
His defenders would be well advised to consider the academic process and not reduce it to some understanding of undergraduate freshman note-takers attending lectures. And, for the record, it wasn't a grad school seminar, it was an academic conference.
Tidbits gleamed from this morning's calls (I spent four hours on the phone):
Popular theory among people who interacted with Summers in the Clinton administration: he always wanted to be the Big Dog and now that he is, he's finding it's not as much fun as it appeared from the outside.
David Gergen's nickname behind his back is "Davey Gurgles."
Most amusing evaluation of the photo of Summers accompanying the article: "Check out the Mildred Pierce pose! From Clintonista to [Joan] Crawford addict! Oh what a strange trip it's been!"
One person who's known Summers for many years noted that, from the picture, he appears very lonely if the pose wasn't staged: "Only lonely people touch themselves that much." That's not a sexual jab. The person was honestly concerned about Summers and feels that he failed to grasp that his remarks would be studied to such degree. "They were off the cuff remarks that he hoped would shake things up and lead to a free wheeling discussion. He failed to grasp that this wasn't a closed door adminstration meeting but a public forum and that devil's advocate isn't a role he can play currently even when he begins by noting he's speaking as himself and not [as] the president of Harvard."
Don't want to be a man today
-- Tori Amos, "Pretty Good Year" (Under the Pink)
On the front page of this morning's paper, Patrick D. Healy and Sara Rimer offer up " Amid Uproar, Harvard Head Ponders Style." In print, it's entitled "Amid Uproar, Harvard Head Lists His Goals." There's a lot to be said for the content of this article but we can start by noting that Lawrence Summers' goals never get around to addressing the apparently trivial issues like, gee, detailing a plan for improving the hiring practices -- so the internet headline is probably more appropriate. This is more a study of "style" than an article on "goals."
Summers is on a personal journey of sorts. Having seen Hitch with his children, the reporters use this as a framing device for much of the article with Summers in the Kevin James role seeking numerous guides (just Will Smith in the film) to teach him social graces.
Well they must have stripped off the back hair, but Summers is still "the man with the golden gun, thinks he knows so much, thinks he knows so much" (Amos again, "Cornflake Girl," Under the Pink).
Summers still doesn't get it, even with his couture consultants. From the article, "I think I do have a tendency to challenge dialogue in the way of a graduate seminar." Uh, what graduate seminar would that be? The one where students demand you back up your half-baked theories with academic citations? Having failed at defending his statements with earlier excuses, Summers now wants to try to move it over to grad student area and maybe people are either uninformed or foolish enough to belive him. Granted, not everyone went to grad school.
I remember a seminar that was supposed to be on Plato's ladder of love and how an annoying twerp tried to hijack by turning it into a hagiographic session on the "works and talents" of Ayn Rand. We suffered through about three minutes of that nonsense politely before we started demanding that the statements be backed up.
And that's what would have happened in a graduate seminar. Summers' 'challenging dialogue' would have been met with a real challenge that he back up his statements with sources.
Note, that's something Summers still refuses to do. He didn't do so following his speech and he still hasn't.
Look at the transcript for the Q&A.
Divorced from reality and academia, some responses of note:
I don't think that. I don't actually think that's the point at all. My point was a very different one. My point was simply that the field of behavioral genetics had a revolution in the last fifteen years, and the principal thrust of that revolution was the discovery that a large number of things that people thought were due to socialization weren't, and were in fact due to more intrinsic human nature, and that set of discoveries, it seemed to me, ought to influence the way one thought about other areas where there was a perception of the importance of socialization. I wasn't at all trying to connect those studies to the particular experiences of women and minorities who were thinking about academic careers.
I don't think that's the point? I can't answer your question because it's specific and takes into account a number of variables and since I'm offering a sweeping summary I can't address the academic studies that you're aware of because I haven't taken the time to explore those studies let alone contemplate them. I wasn't at all trying to connect those studies to the particular experiences of women and minorities who were thinking about acadmeic careers.
As for not "at all trying to connect those studies to the particular experiences of women and minorities who were thinking about academic careers," oh, wasn't he?
From the speech:
First, most of what we've learned from empirical psychology in the last fifteen years has been that people naturally attribute things to socialization that are in fact not attributable to socialization. We've been astounded by the results of separated twins studies. The confident assertions that autism was a reflection of parental characteristics that were absolutely supported and that people knew from years of observational evidence have now been proven to be wrong. And so, the human mind has a tendency to grab to the socialization hypothesis when you can see it, and it often turns out not to be true. The second empirical problem is that girls are persisting longer and longer. When there were no girls majoring in chemistry, when there were no girls majoring in biology, it was much easier to blame parental socialization. Then, as we are increasingly finding today, the problem is what's happening when people are twenty, or when people are twenty-five, in terms of their patterns, with which they drop out. Again, to the extent it can be addressed, it's a terrific thing to address.
"First" and "Second"? But he's not suggesting a correlation?
He's relied on 'personal talks' with 'prominent people' (in industries such as banking where apparently he and 'prominent people' bemoan the lack of diversity but rush to reassure one another that no one's at fault except for those people who choose 'free time') and a recent trip to a kibbutz. He bases his remarks on 'conventional wisdom' that he mistakes for research. He cites, by name, one author whom he finds flawed. (But apparently, that's the only author he's aware of. I can't say he's read the work because his statements are so couched and nonspecific that it appears he hasn't read the work.)
As we'll see in the quote below, Summers gets all jazzed when he can discuss baseball but even there he can't cite an author, the study or, for that matter, when it appeared (he guesses it was sometime in the seventies).
I understand. I think you're obviously right that there's no absolute objectivity, and you're-there's no question about that. My own instincts actually are that you could go wrong in a number of respects fetishizing objectivity for exactly the reasons that you suggest. There is a very simple and straightforward methodology that was used many years ago in the case of baseball. Somebody wrote a very powerful article about baseball, probably in the seventies, in which they basically said, "Look, it is true that if you look at people's salaries, and you control for their batting averages and their fielding averages and whatnot, whites and blacks are in the same salary once you control. It is also true that there are no black .240 hitters in the major leagues, that the only blacks who are in the major leagues are people who bat over .300-I'm exaggerating-and that is exactly what you'd predict on a model of discrimination, that because there's a natural bias against. And there's an absolute and clear prediction. The prediction is that if there's a discriminated-against group, that if you measure subsequent performance, their subsequent performance will be stronger than that of the non-discriminated-against group. And that's a simple prediction of a theory of discrimination. And it's a testable prediction of a theory of discrimination, and it would be a revolution, and it would be an enormously powerful finding in this field, to demonstrate, and I suspect there are contexts in which that can be demonstrated, but there's a straightforward methodology, it seems to me, for testing exactly that idea. I'm going to run out of time. But, let me take-if people ask very short questions, I will give very short answers.
Standard grad school bullsh*t response (that most grad students and profs would have called Summers on): "I'm not prepared to address the issue because I'm uninformed, so let me carry it over to an issue I do know something about and that's baseball. And maybe no one will notice that I have nothing to say about the actual issue being addressed."
The lack of respect for research and the lack of candor in the above response do not belong at an academic conference (which Summers is attempting to downgrade to a grad school seminar -- and that still won't wash). "I'm going to run out of time" he notes and asks that "people ask very short questions" so he can "give very short answers." The fast-food approach takes over academia?
"My own instincts" suggests that, not unlike Vivian in Pretty Woman, Summers is a fly-by-the-seat-of-her-pants kind of gal.
If time is short, here's a suggestion drop the sports talk that has no bearing on the topic but does prove you can play beat the clock better than Condi Rice sitting before the 9-11 Commission.
Good question. Good question. I don't know much about it. My guess is that you'll find that in most of those places, the pressure to be high powered, to work eighty hours a week, is not the same as it is in the United States. And therefore it is easier to balance on both sides. But I thought about that, and I think that you'll find that's probably at least part of the explanation.
"I don't know much about it. My guess is . . ." This wasn't an Amway convention. Summers wasn't appearing as a motivational speaker. For those who just don't get it, this isn't an appropriate level of "engagement" for an academic conference.
Yeah, look anything could be social, ultimately in all of that. I think that if you look at the literature on behavioral genetics and you look at the impact, the changed view as to what difference parenting makes, the evidence is really quite striking and amazing. I mean, just read Judith Rich Harris's book. It is just very striking that people's-and her book is probably wrong and its probably more than she says it is, and I know there are thirteen critiques and you can argue about it and I am not certainly a leading expert on that-but there is a lot there. And I think what it surely establishes is that human intuition tends to substantially overestimate the role-just like teachers overestimate their impact on their students relative to fellow students on other students-I think we all have a tendency with our intuitions to do it. So, you may be right, but my guess is that there are some very deep forces here that are going to be with us for a long time.
I'm getting the idea that some of his defenders may have never been in an academic challenging environment, so read the above quote again but take it to a simpler form, a high school debate.
Summers weak, rambling, psuedo citing then back pedaling would have clearly given that point to his opponent.
He appears to be referring to Rich's book The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do. If so, he apparently failed to grasp Rich's repeatedly underscored point about social context which is at the heart of the problems Harvard was having prior to his speech and continues to have now.
It's not clear at all. I think I said it wasn't clear. I was giving you my best guess but I hope we could argue on the basis of as much evidence as we can marshal.
How will that be done? With short questions and answers that don't address the studies done or the work in the field? With your best guess based on your ill informed view?
No, no, no. Let me say. I have actually read that and I'm not saying there aren't rooms to debate this in, but if somebody, but with the greatest respect-I think there's an enormous amount one can learn from the papers in this conference and from those two books-but if somebody thinks that there is proof in these two books, that these phenomenon are caused by something else, I guess I would very respectfully have to disagree very very strongly with that. I don't presume to have proved any view that I expressed here, but if you think there is proof for an alternative theory, I'd want you to be hesitant about that.
That's a standard non-answer from a grad student (soon to be dumped from the program) who hasn't done the reading.
I think there are two different things, frankly, actually, is my guess-I'm not an expert. Somebody reported to me that-someone who is knowledgeable-said that it is surprisingly hard to get Americans rather than immigrants or the children of immigrants to be cardiac surgeons. Cardiac surgeon is about prestigious, certain kind of prestige as you can be, fact is that people want control of their lifestyles, people want flexibility, they don't want to do it, and it's disproportionately immigrants that want to do some of the careers that are most demanding in terms of time and most interfering with your lifestyle. So I think that's exactly right and I think it's precisely the package of number of hours' work what it is, that's leading more Americans to choose to have careers of one kind or another in business that are less demanding of passionate thought all the time and that includes white males as well.
No, he's not an expert. And "somebody reported to me" ("someone who is knowledgeable") is an indication of the sloppiness in his "research."
He gave an insulting presentation that's insulting for a number of reasons but chief among them is the fact that his shoot-from-the-hip, 'conventional wisdom' wasn't up to the standards of an academic conference (nor of a grad student seminar, don't kid yourself). In the Q&A, facing questioning, he immediately fall back on "time constraints" and ask for short questions so you can give short replies. Sadly this is after he delivers a hundred or so words on the apparently very pressing topic of major league baseball, on a study he doesn't don't know the author of or the date of publication. That's not meeting the criteria for an academic engagement.
Summers want to couch this on the grounds of some sort of academic pursuit of intellectual truth but he's yet to engage in any academic, informed dialogue or to cite academic studies.
His defenders would be well advised to consider the academic process and not reduce it to some understanding of undergraduate freshman note-takers attending lectures. And, for the record, it wasn't a grad school seminar, it was an academic conference.
Tidbits gleamed from this morning's calls (I spent four hours on the phone):
Popular theory among people who interacted with Summers in the Clinton administration: he always wanted to be the Big Dog and now that he is, he's finding it's not as much fun as it appeared from the outside.
David Gergen's nickname behind his back is "Davey Gurgles."
Most amusing evaluation of the photo of Summers accompanying the article: "Check out the Mildred Pierce pose! From Clintonista to [Joan] Crawford addict! Oh what a strange trip it's been!"
One person who's known Summers for many years noted that, from the picture, he appears very lonely if the pose wasn't staged: "Only lonely people touch themselves that much." That's not a sexual jab. The person was honestly concerned about Summers and feels that he failed to grasp that his remarks would be studied to such degree. "They were off the cuff remarks that he hoped would shake things up and lead to a free wheeling discussion. He failed to grasp that this wasn't a closed door adminstration meeting but a public forum and that devil's advocate isn't a role he can play currently even when he begins by noting he's speaking as himself and not [as] the president of Harvard."
Friday, February 25, 2005
Lonnie Highlights the Struggles for Equality and the need for Black History Month
Lonnie: We've been Negroes, colored, black and a lot of other words. Now most of us use the term African-American. I want to highlight us as a people.
Many of the blacks, though not all, that were in this country originally were brought over via slavery. Free blacks before the civil war were no doubt victims of the perceptions of other people. But a person who was a slave wasn't even considered a full person by the law. What's known as "The Great Compromise" (Great Embarrassment is more accurate) decided that for representation, slaves would be counted as 3/5s of a person.
On January 1st of 1863, President Abrahm Lincoln issued The Emancipation Proclamation which declared:
"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.
"That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that day be, in good faith, represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States."
Next of note are three Constitutional Amendments. Briefly, the thirteenth amendment made slavery illegal (and thereby freed the slaves); the fourteenth amendment said everyone born in the United States (including slaves) were natural citizens and had the same rights as any other citizen (in practice, this largely applied only to men); the fifteenth amendment guaranteed the voting rights of black men.
The 19th amendment was a battle fought and won so that all people, not just men, could vote.
Following the passage of all four amendments, things did not become equal. Not even in the eyes of the law. You had segregation in housing, dining, travel, etc. You had racial barriers to job advancement and education.
Thus was needed a civil rights movement.
We have had many leaders (and lost a huge number before their time) and we have had many struggles. And we have often seen our accomplishments overlooked or outright ignored.
So I take tremendous offense at someone (who is thankfully no longer a community member) when he suggests that Black History Month doesn't matter. His ignorance proves not only does it matter but that there are some people who still don't get the point.
I'll assume that the man suffers under the belief that we now have an equal playing field with equal opportunites for all. That is far from true but let's just move past for that a moment.
If we were now at an equal level, that would not erase the fact that our accomplishments or our history were now being taught in such a way that we had equal visibility. Talk of slavery makes some people uncomfortable (of all races including African-Americans).
It is our nation's shame. (Though not the only one.)
The former member seemed to feel that all was now great and that blacks were getting special treatment by having a month of history devoted to them. I am very proud of the people of my race who have overcome and led or inspired in all forms. And I have enjoyed hearing each choice of a highlight for Black History Month.
But even if things were now as equal as that man seems to think, the fact would remain that the enslavement of a people was not only factual, it was also historical. So Black History Month is needed to spotlight an ugly chapter in our nation and the accomplishments of individuals or of a people working together for change are necessary to teach everyone (male, female, gay, straight) regardless of race that a struggle for equality is a part of the American character.
Yes, blacks were enslaved. And there is still so much work needing to be done. But Black History Month should not be viewed by someone as special treatment for African-Americans because there's a larger story here: the pursuit of equality and opportunity.
For someone who claimed to be so interested in his country as that former member did not to appreciate a lesson in what we can overcome and strive towards suggest to me that he chooses to only identify with people who look exactly like him. The faces of this month are black, yes.
The theme, the goal is very much a part of America and who and what we can all be.
28 days (29 in a leap year) of history on a people fighting against bias and overcoming is a story that all Americans should be able to take an interest in. They may have to look beyond their own limited experiences to do that. But MLK, Sojourner Truth, Alice Walker, Malcolm X and others belong to all. They are studies in America.
And if the former member couldn't get behind the sharing because he seems to feel Black History Month is unnecessary, he is missing the fact that the struggles of one group towards equality does not mean that someone else loses out. When one group struggles for equality, all our boats can be lifted.
As a black man (I'm too old to use the term "African-American" but I take no offense by it), I may see the story from my own viewpoint. I certainly do celebrate the accomplishments of people of my own race. But I never forget that any narrative, even Oprah Winfrey's, fits into a larger story of our nation, of who we are all. I am sad that there are people who would choose to
see an opportunity to learn about our nation as "special rights."
Black History Month is important to many people of my race (though I'm sure there have to be some who feel as the former member does) because it gives us not just a perspective of where we came from but also an idea of where we could go. As a black man, I know that. As a human being regardless of race, I feel that it also offers lessons for all. When I learned of George Washington in school for the first time, I did not say, "Oh there's a white man with money and a white wig, so I have nothing in common in with him and my time is wasted if I study him."
To imply that Black History Month's focus on blacks prevents nonblacks from sharing and learning suggests that we are nothing but skin color. Such a belief suggests to me that Black History Month still has a remedial purpose for some people and it is the people who think the month has nothing to say to them.
The struggle of the colonies to break free from the empire is very much an American story. So is Black History Month. Without that month, blacks would largely be reduced in most history lessons to two periods, the civil war and the civil rights era of the last century. Any person wise enough to seek out information should grasp that emphasizing only those two periods does a disservice to history and to all Americans.
Many of the blacks, though not all, that were in this country originally were brought over via slavery. Free blacks before the civil war were no doubt victims of the perceptions of other people. But a person who was a slave wasn't even considered a full person by the law. What's known as "The Great Compromise" (Great Embarrassment is more accurate) decided that for representation, slaves would be counted as 3/5s of a person.
On January 1st of 1863, President Abrahm Lincoln issued The Emancipation Proclamation which declared:
"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.
"That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that day be, in good faith, represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States."
Next of note are three Constitutional Amendments. Briefly, the thirteenth amendment made slavery illegal (and thereby freed the slaves); the fourteenth amendment said everyone born in the United States (including slaves) were natural citizens and had the same rights as any other citizen (in practice, this largely applied only to men); the fifteenth amendment guaranteed the voting rights of black men.
The 19th amendment was a battle fought and won so that all people, not just men, could vote.
Following the passage of all four amendments, things did not become equal. Not even in the eyes of the law. You had segregation in housing, dining, travel, etc. You had racial barriers to job advancement and education.
Thus was needed a civil rights movement.
We have had many leaders (and lost a huge number before their time) and we have had many struggles. And we have often seen our accomplishments overlooked or outright ignored.
So I take tremendous offense at someone (who is thankfully no longer a community member) when he suggests that Black History Month doesn't matter. His ignorance proves not only does it matter but that there are some people who still don't get the point.
I'll assume that the man suffers under the belief that we now have an equal playing field with equal opportunites for all. That is far from true but let's just move past for that a moment.
If we were now at an equal level, that would not erase the fact that our accomplishments or our history were now being taught in such a way that we had equal visibility. Talk of slavery makes some people uncomfortable (of all races including African-Americans).
It is our nation's shame. (Though not the only one.)
The former member seemed to feel that all was now great and that blacks were getting special treatment by having a month of history devoted to them. I am very proud of the people of my race who have overcome and led or inspired in all forms. And I have enjoyed hearing each choice of a highlight for Black History Month.
But even if things were now as equal as that man seems to think, the fact would remain that the enslavement of a people was not only factual, it was also historical. So Black History Month is needed to spotlight an ugly chapter in our nation and the accomplishments of individuals or of a people working together for change are necessary to teach everyone (male, female, gay, straight) regardless of race that a struggle for equality is a part of the American character.
Yes, blacks were enslaved. And there is still so much work needing to be done. But Black History Month should not be viewed by someone as special treatment for African-Americans because there's a larger story here: the pursuit of equality and opportunity.
For someone who claimed to be so interested in his country as that former member did not to appreciate a lesson in what we can overcome and strive towards suggest to me that he chooses to only identify with people who look exactly like him. The faces of this month are black, yes.
The theme, the goal is very much a part of America and who and what we can all be.
28 days (29 in a leap year) of history on a people fighting against bias and overcoming is a story that all Americans should be able to take an interest in. They may have to look beyond their own limited experiences to do that. But MLK, Sojourner Truth, Alice Walker, Malcolm X and others belong to all. They are studies in America.
And if the former member couldn't get behind the sharing because he seems to feel Black History Month is unnecessary, he is missing the fact that the struggles of one group towards equality does not mean that someone else loses out. When one group struggles for equality, all our boats can be lifted.
As a black man (I'm too old to use the term "African-American" but I take no offense by it), I may see the story from my own viewpoint. I certainly do celebrate the accomplishments of people of my own race. But I never forget that any narrative, even Oprah Winfrey's, fits into a larger story of our nation, of who we are all. I am sad that there are people who would choose to
see an opportunity to learn about our nation as "special rights."
Black History Month is important to many people of my race (though I'm sure there have to be some who feel as the former member does) because it gives us not just a perspective of where we came from but also an idea of where we could go. As a black man, I know that. As a human being regardless of race, I feel that it also offers lessons for all. When I learned of George Washington in school for the first time, I did not say, "Oh there's a white man with money and a white wig, so I have nothing in common in with him and my time is wasted if I study him."
To imply that Black History Month's focus on blacks prevents nonblacks from sharing and learning suggests that we are nothing but skin color. Such a belief suggests to me that Black History Month still has a remedial purpose for some people and it is the people who think the month has nothing to say to them.
The struggle of the colonies to break free from the empire is very much an American story. So is Black History Month. Without that month, blacks would largely be reduced in most history lessons to two periods, the civil war and the civil rights era of the last century. Any person wise enough to seek out information should grasp that emphasizing only those two periods does a disservice to history and to all Americans.
Note
Do your eyes deceive you? Do we have repeat posts?
We often do. From entries I e-mail in that don't hit the site so they're done through standard posting only to have the e-mail entry hit hours later.
Tonight?
I have no idea.
I know that for over two hours I tried to get the single post to post and got an error message each time. So I finally gave up and started doing individual entries. And finishing with those, I go to read the site and there are the individual entries and there's also the long entry that works through them.
I'm not in the mood to take them down.
They were worth highlighting so they can be highlighted twice.
The plan, two hours ago, was to get that post up, post the e-mailed entry on Black History Month, take a quick nap and then do a lenthy "Mag Report" entry. I doubt right now that there will be another entry tonight due to my frustration (and the consumption of time) after the Black History Month. Sorry.
We often do. From entries I e-mail in that don't hit the site so they're done through standard posting only to have the e-mail entry hit hours later.
Tonight?
I have no idea.
I know that for over two hours I tried to get the single post to post and got an error message each time. So I finally gave up and started doing individual entries. And finishing with those, I go to read the site and there are the individual entries and there's also the long entry that works through them.
I'm not in the mood to take them down.
They were worth highlighting so they can be highlighted twice.
The plan, two hours ago, was to get that post up, post the e-mailed entry on Black History Month, take a quick nap and then do a lenthy "Mag Report" entry. I doubt right now that there will be another entry tonight due to my frustration (and the consumption of time) after the Black History Month. Sorry.
CounterPunch's Sharon Smith on the Anti-War movement
Over at CounterPunch, Sharon Smith has (my opinion) an important commentary entitled"The Anti-War Movement After Kerry: Learning All the Wrong Lessons."
Here's the opening:
It is unfortunately a little-known fact that thousands of high school and college students across the country organized walkouts against the war on January 20, marching as organized contingents to counter-inaugural demonstrations in Boulder, Colo.; Los Angeles; Chicago; San Francisco; Austin, Texas; and other cities.
At Seattle Central Community College (SCCC), students took a few minutes on their way out of the building to confront military recruiters--forcing them to flee under the protection of campus security officers. One of the recruiters, claiming student protesters flung newspapers and water bottles in his direction, told the Seattle Post Intelligencer, "They were all going by, making offhand comments and saying 'no war.' We just waved at them. Five minutes later, there was just a mob of 500 people surrounding the table."
There is a student rebellion in the making, coalescing around opposition to the war and its military recruiters--with students by the hundreds defying threats of disciplinary action.Despite their potential to transform the political landscape, however, the significance of these militant student actions has so far escaped the leaders of the nation's established antiwar organizations.
Indeed, after fostering the illusion that supporting pro-war, neoliberal John Kerry represented the only "realistic" strategy for those who oppose the war, these antiwar leaders now seem to have learned all the wrong lessons from Kerry's defeat in November.
Rather than seizing the opportunity in the months before the election to strengthen the antiwar movement as a clear alternative for the millions opposed to Bush, virtually the entire movement came to a standstill to support the Democratic Party's chosen candidate--leaving those against the war with no organized expression to the left of Kerry's "hunt down and kill the terrorists" mantra. Even as the torture scandal at Abu Ghraib surfaced, and the U.S. invaded Falluja and Najaf, finally flattening Falluja in November, the U.S. antiwar movement maintained its silence.
Here's the opening:
It is unfortunately a little-known fact that thousands of high school and college students across the country organized walkouts against the war on January 20, marching as organized contingents to counter-inaugural demonstrations in Boulder, Colo.; Los Angeles; Chicago; San Francisco; Austin, Texas; and other cities.
At Seattle Central Community College (SCCC), students took a few minutes on their way out of the building to confront military recruiters--forcing them to flee under the protection of campus security officers. One of the recruiters, claiming student protesters flung newspapers and water bottles in his direction, told the Seattle Post Intelligencer, "They were all going by, making offhand comments and saying 'no war.' We just waved at them. Five minutes later, there was just a mob of 500 people surrounding the table."
There is a student rebellion in the making, coalescing around opposition to the war and its military recruiters--with students by the hundreds defying threats of disciplinary action.Despite their potential to transform the political landscape, however, the significance of these militant student actions has so far escaped the leaders of the nation's established antiwar organizations.
Indeed, after fostering the illusion that supporting pro-war, neoliberal John Kerry represented the only "realistic" strategy for those who oppose the war, these antiwar leaders now seem to have learned all the wrong lessons from Kerry's defeat in November.
Rather than seizing the opportunity in the months before the election to strengthen the antiwar movement as a clear alternative for the millions opposed to Bush, virtually the entire movement came to a standstill to support the Democratic Party's chosen candidate--leaving those against the war with no organized expression to the left of Kerry's "hunt down and kill the terrorists" mantra. Even as the torture scandal at Abu Ghraib surfaced, and the U.S. invaded Falluja and Najaf, finally flattening Falluja in November, the U.S. antiwar movement maintained its silence.
NOW on Phill Kline's war on medical privacy
Don't miss NOW's item in Phill Kline:
"The National Organization for Women condemns the latest action by anti-abortion zealots bent on invading the privacy of women and girls," said NOW President Kim Gandy. "This is outrageous harassment of women and their doctors for base political motives."
The Kansas Attorney General, Phill Kline, is seeking medical records of women—including their name, medical history, sexual history, birth control practices and psychological profiles—from two state abortion clinics as part of an alleged criminal investigation he claims is about sexual abuse of minors.
[. . .]
Kline has a pattern of trying to force medical providers to report information about the past sexual history of women. In 2003, his office tried to obtain information about girls younger than 16 who engaged in sexual activity.
"There's obviously no allegation of wrongdoing or criminal behavior by these women -- if there were, they'd have the right to know the charges, the right to challenge release of their information, the right to confront their accusers, the right to due process and the right to an attorney," said Gandy. "But these women don't even have basic rights in Kansas. Phill Kline should be impeached for gross misuse of his office and abuse of public trust."
[And in answer to Sylvia's question today, "Phill" is the spelling. Sylvia wondered if I'd mispelled the name in this morning's entry. Never hesitate to ask that. If "I" had two letters, I'm sure I could find a way to mispell it. But "Phill" is the correct spelling.]
"The National Organization for Women condemns the latest action by anti-abortion zealots bent on invading the privacy of women and girls," said NOW President Kim Gandy. "This is outrageous harassment of women and their doctors for base political motives."
The Kansas Attorney General, Phill Kline, is seeking medical records of women—including their name, medical history, sexual history, birth control practices and psychological profiles—from two state abortion clinics as part of an alleged criminal investigation he claims is about sexual abuse of minors.
[. . .]
Kline has a pattern of trying to force medical providers to report information about the past sexual history of women. In 2003, his office tried to obtain information about girls younger than 16 who engaged in sexual activity.
"There's obviously no allegation of wrongdoing or criminal behavior by these women -- if there were, they'd have the right to know the charges, the right to challenge release of their information, the right to confront their accusers, the right to due process and the right to an attorney," said Gandy. "But these women don't even have basic rights in Kansas. Phill Kline should be impeached for gross misuse of his office and abuse of public trust."
[And in answer to Sylvia's question today, "Phill" is the spelling. Sylvia wondered if I'd mispelled the name in this morning's entry. Never hesitate to ask that. If "I" had two letters, I'm sure I could find a way to mispell it. But "Phill" is the correct spelling.]
Bill Scher of Liberal Oasis addresses Iran & the media
Speaking of Liberal Oasis, Bill Scher has an entry we need to highlight today:
You’d think folks would learn.
Recall that back in November 2002, the US persuaded the UN to vote to send inspectors back into Iraq.
And the pundits were in consensus: Powell wins! The neocons are defeated! Bush embraces multilateralism!
But it is clear, in retrospect, that the UN was used by Bush so he could pretend every diplomatic channel was exhausted before going in (and appease a skittish Tony Blair).
Similarly, how many times have we heard that Bush has shifted course in North Korea, and is serious about negotiating an agreement?Now, the media are falling for it again, as a “senior administration official” told reporters trailing Bush in Europe that there is a “shift” in “attitude” (as opposed to actual policy) regarding how to handle Iran.
You’d think folks would learn.
Recall that back in November 2002, the US persuaded the UN to vote to send inspectors back into Iraq.
And the pundits were in consensus: Powell wins! The neocons are defeated! Bush embraces multilateralism!
But it is clear, in retrospect, that the UN was used by Bush so he could pretend every diplomatic channel was exhausted before going in (and appease a skittish Tony Blair).
Similarly, how many times have we heard that Bush has shifted course in North Korea, and is serious about negotiating an agreement?Now, the media are falling for it again, as a “senior administration official” told reporters trailing Bush in Europe that there is a “shift” in “attitude” (as opposed to actual policy) regarding how to handle Iran.
On the Sunday Chat & Chews
For all you Cokie Roberts' fans . . . Oh, that's right, she doesn't have any here. If you find yourself in need of a good laugh, Sunday morning on This Week (ABC) Cokie will appear on the panel. Will she do her usual clutch-the-pearls 'journalism' or will she try to highlight her lighter side by stealing jokes from Maureen Dowd? One never knows what to expect from Cokie. (Donna Brazille will also be on the panel. Along with fashion plate George Will. Watch if you must. If it helps you decide, Ahnuld will be on.)
What's over at NBC's Meet the Press? They'll have the real Maureen Dowd. Along with Rick Santorum, Joe Biden, neighborhood crank William Safire and global crank Thomas Friedman.
I won't be watching either. The shows descend to theatrics and posturing and are too damaging to my mood. But an e-mail asked if I had any idea of who was on. If you go the show's web sites, you can sign up for web alerts. [No links provided -- search it if you must -- because we try to link to worthy things.] If Katrina vanden Heuvel were on either, or Amy Goodman, Dahr Jamail or anyone who would make a strong case and speak from informed view we'd highlight the shows. But the shows are a joke to me and they reduce the people to an aside. (This was not always the case with Meet the Press which was once home -- pre-Tim Russert -- to some actual discussions.)
You can check Liberal Oasis on Monday for a summary of the Sunday chat and chews. You can also be sure that if anything noteworthy occurs, Bob Somerby will highlight iton The Daily Howler. But I know many members enjoy Maureen Dowd and that many members loathe Cokie Roberts. So that's the heads up. (And we'll provide it anytime someone requests it.)
What's over at NBC's Meet the Press? They'll have the real Maureen Dowd. Along with Rick Santorum, Joe Biden, neighborhood crank William Safire and global crank Thomas Friedman.
I won't be watching either. The shows descend to theatrics and posturing and are too damaging to my mood. But an e-mail asked if I had any idea of who was on. If you go the show's web sites, you can sign up for web alerts. [No links provided -- search it if you must -- because we try to link to worthy things.] If Katrina vanden Heuvel were on either, or Amy Goodman, Dahr Jamail or anyone who would make a strong case and speak from informed view we'd highlight the shows. But the shows are a joke to me and they reduce the people to an aside. (This was not always the case with Meet the Press which was once home -- pre-Tim Russert -- to some actual discussions.)
You can check Liberal Oasis on Monday for a summary of the Sunday chat and chews. You can also be sure that if anything noteworthy occurs, Bob Somerby will highlight iton The Daily Howler. But I know many members enjoy Maureen Dowd and that many members loathe Cokie Roberts. So that's the heads up. (And we'll provide it anytime someone requests it.)
Bob Somerby evaluates master narratives at The Daily Howler
Over at The Daily Howler, Bob Somerby's dealing with a number of issues today. (And please note, it appears we'll have a Saturday Howler tomorrow.) Here he's evaluating Rachel Maddow's appearence on MSNBC (Maddow is a co-host of Unfiltered -- yes, I'm a big fan of Unfiltered and of Lizz Winstead, Chuck D and Rachel Maddow):
Just yesterday, we mentioned the need for the liberal web to develop controlling Master Narratives for liberals. Why do Dems, libs and centrists need Master Narratives?
. . .
The stage was set for a Big Liberal Triumph. Amazingly, Scarborough had assembled a panel which featured two liberals and only one conservative. And how absurd was the conduct at issue? USA Next's attacks on the AARP had been so absurd that even Scarborough rolled his eyes at the pseudo-con group as he introduced the discussion. ("They went so far as to say AARP supports gay marriage and is anti-soldier.") Here was the perfect chance for liberal spokesmen to state the obvious: Conservatives keep making a joke of your discourse. These groups keep trying to treat us like fools. The controlling point for the liberals was obvious: There they go again, dear viewers! But liberals have failed, in the past many years, to establish any Master Narratives. So note what happened when Scarborough began by throwing to Air America's Rachel Maddow:
MADDOW (2/24/05): USA Next has said they want to spend $10 million against AARP. Now, they don't want to spend $10 million promoting the president's plan on Social Security. They literally want to spend $10 million tearing down AARP. I do think it’s kind of funny that they decided to do it by saying that AARP loves gay marriage -- that was a real surprise to me. I think that was an unusual choice. But you know, with $10 million, you can probably make anything stick. I just want to know who funds these guys.
At the very best, that gets a C-minus. Given the chance to state a Large Theme -- conservatives constantly peddle this nonsense -- Maddow fell back on a weak, tired line: I want to know where their money comes from. But readers, who gives a sh*t where their money comes from? Unless you explain what's wrong with what they're saying and doing, it just doesn't matter who gives them their money! But Maddow made little attempt to say what was wrong with what USA Next said. (Her talking-point seemed to be: "USA Next has $10 million." Why should a voter care?) This had been the Perfect Chance to say that they're trying to treat you like fools, just the way the always do -- but Maddow settled for a weak alternative.
Somerby goes on to offer a stronger possible response and to discuss Paul Krugman's column in this morning's New York Times. (Among other topics.)
Just yesterday, we mentioned the need for the liberal web to develop controlling Master Narratives for liberals. Why do Dems, libs and centrists need Master Narratives?
. . .
The stage was set for a Big Liberal Triumph. Amazingly, Scarborough had assembled a panel which featured two liberals and only one conservative. And how absurd was the conduct at issue? USA Next's attacks on the AARP had been so absurd that even Scarborough rolled his eyes at the pseudo-con group as he introduced the discussion. ("They went so far as to say AARP supports gay marriage and is anti-soldier.") Here was the perfect chance for liberal spokesmen to state the obvious: Conservatives keep making a joke of your discourse. These groups keep trying to treat us like fools. The controlling point for the liberals was obvious: There they go again, dear viewers! But liberals have failed, in the past many years, to establish any Master Narratives. So note what happened when Scarborough began by throwing to Air America's Rachel Maddow:
MADDOW (2/24/05): USA Next has said they want to spend $10 million against AARP. Now, they don't want to spend $10 million promoting the president's plan on Social Security. They literally want to spend $10 million tearing down AARP. I do think it’s kind of funny that they decided to do it by saying that AARP loves gay marriage -- that was a real surprise to me. I think that was an unusual choice. But you know, with $10 million, you can probably make anything stick. I just want to know who funds these guys.
At the very best, that gets a C-minus. Given the chance to state a Large Theme -- conservatives constantly peddle this nonsense -- Maddow fell back on a weak, tired line: I want to know where their money comes from. But readers, who gives a sh*t where their money comes from? Unless you explain what's wrong with what they're saying and doing, it just doesn't matter who gives them their money! But Maddow made little attempt to say what was wrong with what USA Next said. (Her talking-point seemed to be: "USA Next has $10 million." Why should a voter care?) This had been the Perfect Chance to say that they're trying to treat you like fools, just the way the always do -- but Maddow settled for a weak alternative.
Somerby goes on to offer a stronger possible response and to discuss Paul Krugman's column in this morning's New York Times. (Among other topics.)
Democracy Now
Democracy Now! has important coverage (as usual) on Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, Tasers and Brian Avery. Also note the headlines.
Headlines for February 25, 2005
- Bush Wraps Up European Trip
- Pope Undergoes Emergency Surgery, Cannot Speak
- FDA Advisors That Supported Return of Vioxx Worked for Company
- Another Brazilian Environmentalist Shot Dead
- "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Costs Taxpayers $200 Million
- Rep. Hinchey Says Rove Behind CBS Documents
Justice Dept. Accuses U.S. Citizen Jailed in Saudi Arabia for 20 Months Without Charge of Plotting to Kill Bush
We take a look at the case of Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, the U.S. citizen who spent nearly two years in a Saudi prison where he says he was tortured before being returned to the United States. He now stands accused of plotting to kill the president. We speak with one of his lawyers and a family friend. [includes rush transcript]
Shocking Weapons: Taser Launches Campaign to Market New Model to U.S. Public
Taser International - the maker of Taser electro-shock weapons - announced this month that they will begin a major campaign to market a new model of the weapon to consumers. We speak with the head of Amnesty International, which issued a new report on Taser, as well as a lawyer representing the family of a man killed by police with a Taser gun in January 2005. [includes rush transcript]
U.S. Peace Activist Brian Avery Returns to Israel Two Years After Being Shot in the Face
We go to Israel to speak with U.S. peace activist Brian Avery. In April 2003, he was shot in the face - he says - by Israeli forces. His face was shattered, with his tongue split in two, forcing him to undergo a series of facial reconstruction surgeries. [includes rush transcript]
Headlines for February 25, 2005
- Bush Wraps Up European Trip
- Pope Undergoes Emergency Surgery, Cannot Speak
- FDA Advisors That Supported Return of Vioxx Worked for Company
- Another Brazilian Environmentalist Shot Dead
- "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Costs Taxpayers $200 Million
- Rep. Hinchey Says Rove Behind CBS Documents
Justice Dept. Accuses U.S. Citizen Jailed in Saudi Arabia for 20 Months Without Charge of Plotting to Kill Bush
We take a look at the case of Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, the U.S. citizen who spent nearly two years in a Saudi prison where he says he was tortured before being returned to the United States. He now stands accused of plotting to kill the president. We speak with one of his lawyers and a family friend. [includes rush transcript]
Shocking Weapons: Taser Launches Campaign to Market New Model to U.S. Public
Taser International - the maker of Taser electro-shock weapons - announced this month that they will begin a major campaign to market a new model of the weapon to consumers. We speak with the head of Amnesty International, which issued a new report on Taser, as well as a lawyer representing the family of a man killed by police with a Taser gun in January 2005. [includes rush transcript]
U.S. Peace Activist Brian Avery Returns to Israel Two Years After Being Shot in the Face
We go to Israel to speak with U.S. peace activist Brian Avery. In April 2003, he was shot in the face - he says - by Israeli forces. His face was shattered, with his tongue split in two, forcing him to undergo a series of facial reconstruction surgeries. [includes rush transcript]
Democracy Now; BuzzFlash, The Daily Howler, CounterPunch, Liberal Oasis . . .
Democracy Now! has important coverage (as usual) on Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, Tasers and Brian Avery. Also note the headlines.
Headlines for February 25, 2005
- Bush Wraps Up European Trip
- Pope Undergoes Emergency Surgery, Cannot Speak
- FDA Advisors That Supported Return of Vioxx Worked for Company
- Another Brazilian Environmentalist Shot Dead
- "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Costs Taxpayers $200 Million
- Rep. Hinchey Says Rove Behind CBS Documents
Justice Dept. Accuses U.S. Citizen Jailed in Saudi Arabia for 20 Months Without Charge of Plotting to Kill Bush
We take a look at the case of Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, the U.S. citizen who spent nearly two years in a Saudi prison where he says he was tortured before being returned to the United States. He now stands accused of plotting to kill the president. We speak with one of his lawyers and a family friend. [includes rush transcript]
Shocking Weapons: Taser Launches Campaign to Market New Model to U.S. Public
Taser International - the maker of Taser electro-shock weapons - announced this month that they will begin a major campaign to market a new model of the weapon to consumers. We speak with the head of Amnesty International, which issued a new report on Taser, as well as a lawyer representing the family of a man killed by police with a Taser gun in January 2005. [includes rush transcript]
U.S. Peace Activist Brian Avery Returns to Israel Two Years After Being Shot in the Face
We go to Israel to speak with U.S. peace activist Brian Avery. In April 2003, he was shot in the face - he says - by Israeli forces. His face was shattered, with his tongue split in two, forcing him to undergo a series of facial reconstruction surgeries. [includes rush transcript]
Over at The Daily Howler, Bob Somerby's dealing with a number of issues today. (And please note, it appears we'll have a Saturday Howler tomorrow.) Here he's evaluating Rachel Maddow's appearence on MSNBC (Maddow is a co-host of Unfiltered -- yes, I'm a big fan of Unfiltered and of Lizz Winstead, Chuck D and Rachel Maddow):
Just yesterday, we mentioned the need for the liberal web to develop controlling Master Narratives for liberals. Why do Dems, libs and centrists need Master Narratives?
[. . .]
The stage was set for a Big Liberal Triumph. Amazingly, Scarborough had assembled a panel which featured two liberals and only one conservative. And how absurd was the conduct at issue? USA Next's attacks on the AARP had been so absurd that even Scarborough rolled his eyes at the pseudo-con group as he introduced the discussion. ("They went so far as to say AARP supports gay marriage and is anti-soldier.") Here was the perfect chance for liberal spokesmen to state the obvious: Conservatives keep making a joke of your discourse. These groups keep trying to treat us like fools. The controlling point for the liberals was obvious: There they go again, dear viewers! But liberals have failed, in the past many years, to establish any Master Narratives. So note what happened when Scarborough began by throwing to Air America's Rachel Maddow:
MADDOW (2/24/05): USA Next has said they want to spend $10 million against AARP. Now, they don't want to spend $10 million promoting the president's plan on Social Security. They literally want to spend $10 million tearing down AARP. I do think it’s kind of funny that they decided to do it by saying that AARP loves gay marriage -- that was a real surprise to me. I think that was an unusual choice. But you know, with $10 million, you can probably make anything stick. I just want to know who funds these guys.
At the very best, that gets a C-minus. Given the chance to state a Large Theme -- conservatives constantly peddle this nonsense -- Maddow fell back on a weak, tired line: I want to know where their money comes from. But readers, who gives a sh*t where their money comes from? Unless you explain what's wrong with what they're saying and doing, it just doesn't matter who gives them their money!
But Maddow made little attempt to say what was wrong with what USA Next said. (Her talking-point seemed to be: "USA Next has $10 million." Why should a voter care?) This had been the Perfect Chance to say that they're trying to treat you like fools, just the way the always do -- but Maddow settled for a weak alternative.
Somerby goes on to offer a stronger possible response and to discuss Paul Krugman's column in this morning's New York Times. (Among other topics.)
For all you Cokie Roberts' fans . . . Oh, that's right, she doesn't have any here. If you find yourself in need of a good laugh, Sunday morning on This Week (ABC) Cokie will appear on the panel. Will she do her usual clutch-the-pearls 'journalism' or will she try to highlight her lighter side by stealing jokes from Maureen Dowd? One never knows what to expect from Cokie. (Donna Brazille will also be on the panel. Along with fashion plate George Will. Watch if you must. If it helps you decide, Ahnuld will be on.)
What's over at NBC's Meet the Press Sunday? They'll have the real Maureen Dowd. Along with Rick Santorum, Joe Biden, neighborhood crank William Safire and global crank Thomas Friedman.
I won't be watching either.
The shows descend to theatrics and posturing and are too damaging to my mood. But an e-mail asked if I had any idea of who was on. If you go the show's web sites, you can sign up for web alerts. [No links provided -- search it if you must -- because we try to link to worthy things.]
If Katrina vanden Heuvel were on either, or Amy Goodman, Dahr Jamail or anyone who would make a strong case and speak from informed view we'd highlight the shows. But the shows are a joke to me and they reduce the people to an aside. (This was not always the case with Meet the Press which was once home -- pre-Tim Russert -- to some actual discussions.)
You can check Liberal Oasis on Monday for a summary of the Sunday chat and chews. You can also be sure that if anything noteworthy occurs, Bob Somerby will highlight it
on The Daily Howler. But I know many members enjoy Maureen Dowd and that many members loathe Cokie Roberts. So that's the heads up. (And we'll provide it anytime someone requests it.)
Speaking of Liberal Oasis, Bill Scher has an entry we need to highlight today:
You’d think folks would learn.
Recall that back in November 2002, the US persuaded the UN to vote to send inspectors back into Iraq.
And the pundits were in consensus: Powell wins! The neocons are defeated! Bush embraces multilateralism!
But it is clear, in retrospect, that the UN was used by Bush so he could pretend every diplomatic channel was exhausted before going in (and appease a skittish Tony Blair).
Similarly, how many times have we heard that Bush has shifted course in North Korea, and is serious about negotiating an agreement?
Now, the media are falling for it again, as a “senior administration official” told reporters trailing Bush in Europe that there is a “shift” in “attitude” (as opposed to actual policy) regarding how to handle Iran.
Don't miss NOW's item in Phill Kline:
"The National Organization for Women condemns the latest action by anti-abortion zealots bent on invading the privacy of women and girls," said NOW President Kim Gandy. "This is outrageous harassment of women and their doctors for base political motives."The Kansas Attorney General, Phill Kline, is seeking medical records of women -- including their name, medical history, sexual history, birth control practices and psychological profiles -- from two state abortion clinics as part of an alleged criminal investigation he claims is about sexual abuse of minors.
[. . .]
Kline has a pattern of trying to force medical providers to report information about the past sexual history of women. In 2003, his office tried to obtain information about girls younger than 16 who engaged in sexual activity."There's obviously no allegation of wrongdoing or criminal behavior by these women -- if there were, they'd have the right to know the charges, the right to challenge release of their information, the right to confront their accusers, the right to due process and the right to an attorney," said Gandy. "But these women don't even have basic rights in Kansas. Phill Kline should be impeached for gross misuse of his office and abuse of public trust."
[And in answer to Sylvia's question today, "Phill" is the spelling. Sylvia wondered if I'd mispelled the name in this morning's entry. Never hesitate to ask that. If "I" had two letters, I'm sure I could find a way to mispell it. But "Phill" is the correct spelling.]
Who's the BuzzFlash Hypocrite of the week?"A Day Early: George W. Bush Makes His First Appearance of THIS Year as the BuzzFlash GOP Hypocrite of the Year. A Must Read and Listen."
Over at CounterPunch, Sharon Smith has (my opinion) an important commentary entitled"The Anti-War Movement After Kerry: Learning All the Wrong Lessons." Here's the opening:
It is unfortunately a little-known fact that thousands of high school and college students across the country organized walkouts against the war on January 20, marching as organized contingents to counter-inaugural demonstrations in Boulder, Colo.; Los Angeles; Chicago; San Francisco; Austin, Texas; and other cities.
At Seattle Central Community College (SCCC), students took a few minutes on their way out of the building to confront military recruiters--forcing them to flee under the protection of campus security officers. One of the recruiters, claiming student protesters flung newspapers and water bottles in his direction, told the Seattle Post Intelligencer, "They were all going by, making offhand comments and saying 'no war.' We just waved at them. Five minutes later, there was just a mob of 500 people surrounding the table."
There is a student rebellion in the making, coalescing around opposition to the war and its military recruiters--with students by the hundreds defying threats of disciplinary action.
Despite their potential to transform the political landscape, however, the significance of these militant student actions has so far escaped the leaders of the nation's established antiwar organizations.
Indeed, after fostering the illusion that supporting pro-war, neoliberal John Kerry represented the only "realistic" strategy for those who oppose the war, these antiwar leaders now seem to have learned all the wrong lessons from Kerry's defeat in November.
Rather than seizing the opportunity in the months before the election to strengthen the antiwar movement as a clear alternative for the millions opposed to Bush, virtually the entire movement came to a standstill to support the Democratic Party's chosen candidate--leaving those against the war with no organized expression to the left of Kerry's "hunt down and kill the terrorists" mantra. Even as the torture scandal at Abu Ghraib surfaced, and the U.S. invaded Falluja and Najaf, finally flattening Falluja in November, the U.S. antiwar movement maintained its silence.
Headlines for February 25, 2005
- Bush Wraps Up European Trip
- Pope Undergoes Emergency Surgery, Cannot Speak
- FDA Advisors That Supported Return of Vioxx Worked for Company
- Another Brazilian Environmentalist Shot Dead
- "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Costs Taxpayers $200 Million
- Rep. Hinchey Says Rove Behind CBS Documents
Justice Dept. Accuses U.S. Citizen Jailed in Saudi Arabia for 20 Months Without Charge of Plotting to Kill Bush
We take a look at the case of Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, the U.S. citizen who spent nearly two years in a Saudi prison where he says he was tortured before being returned to the United States. He now stands accused of plotting to kill the president. We speak with one of his lawyers and a family friend. [includes rush transcript]
Shocking Weapons: Taser Launches Campaign to Market New Model to U.S. Public
Taser International - the maker of Taser electro-shock weapons - announced this month that they will begin a major campaign to market a new model of the weapon to consumers. We speak with the head of Amnesty International, which issued a new report on Taser, as well as a lawyer representing the family of a man killed by police with a Taser gun in January 2005. [includes rush transcript]
U.S. Peace Activist Brian Avery Returns to Israel Two Years After Being Shot in the Face
We go to Israel to speak with U.S. peace activist Brian Avery. In April 2003, he was shot in the face - he says - by Israeli forces. His face was shattered, with his tongue split in two, forcing him to undergo a series of facial reconstruction surgeries. [includes rush transcript]
Over at The Daily Howler, Bob Somerby's dealing with a number of issues today. (And please note, it appears we'll have a Saturday Howler tomorrow.) Here he's evaluating Rachel Maddow's appearence on MSNBC (Maddow is a co-host of Unfiltered -- yes, I'm a big fan of Unfiltered and of Lizz Winstead, Chuck D and Rachel Maddow):
Just yesterday, we mentioned the need for the liberal web to develop controlling Master Narratives for liberals. Why do Dems, libs and centrists need Master Narratives?
[. . .]
The stage was set for a Big Liberal Triumph. Amazingly, Scarborough had assembled a panel which featured two liberals and only one conservative. And how absurd was the conduct at issue? USA Next's attacks on the AARP had been so absurd that even Scarborough rolled his eyes at the pseudo-con group as he introduced the discussion. ("They went so far as to say AARP supports gay marriage and is anti-soldier.") Here was the perfect chance for liberal spokesmen to state the obvious: Conservatives keep making a joke of your discourse. These groups keep trying to treat us like fools. The controlling point for the liberals was obvious: There they go again, dear viewers! But liberals have failed, in the past many years, to establish any Master Narratives. So note what happened when Scarborough began by throwing to Air America's Rachel Maddow:
MADDOW (2/24/05): USA Next has said they want to spend $10 million against AARP. Now, they don't want to spend $10 million promoting the president's plan on Social Security. They literally want to spend $10 million tearing down AARP. I do think it’s kind of funny that they decided to do it by saying that AARP loves gay marriage -- that was a real surprise to me. I think that was an unusual choice. But you know, with $10 million, you can probably make anything stick. I just want to know who funds these guys.
At the very best, that gets a C-minus. Given the chance to state a Large Theme -- conservatives constantly peddle this nonsense -- Maddow fell back on a weak, tired line: I want to know where their money comes from. But readers, who gives a sh*t where their money comes from? Unless you explain what's wrong with what they're saying and doing, it just doesn't matter who gives them their money!
But Maddow made little attempt to say what was wrong with what USA Next said. (Her talking-point seemed to be: "USA Next has $10 million." Why should a voter care?) This had been the Perfect Chance to say that they're trying to treat you like fools, just the way the always do -- but Maddow settled for a weak alternative.
Somerby goes on to offer a stronger possible response and to discuss Paul Krugman's column in this morning's New York Times. (Among other topics.)
For all you Cokie Roberts' fans . . . Oh, that's right, she doesn't have any here. If you find yourself in need of a good laugh, Sunday morning on This Week (ABC) Cokie will appear on the panel. Will she do her usual clutch-the-pearls 'journalism' or will she try to highlight her lighter side by stealing jokes from Maureen Dowd? One never knows what to expect from Cokie. (Donna Brazille will also be on the panel. Along with fashion plate George Will. Watch if you must. If it helps you decide, Ahnuld will be on.)
What's over at NBC's Meet the Press Sunday? They'll have the real Maureen Dowd. Along with Rick Santorum, Joe Biden, neighborhood crank William Safire and global crank Thomas Friedman.
I won't be watching either.
The shows descend to theatrics and posturing and are too damaging to my mood. But an e-mail asked if I had any idea of who was on. If you go the show's web sites, you can sign up for web alerts. [No links provided -- search it if you must -- because we try to link to worthy things.]
If Katrina vanden Heuvel were on either, or Amy Goodman, Dahr Jamail or anyone who would make a strong case and speak from informed view we'd highlight the shows. But the shows are a joke to me and they reduce the people to an aside. (This was not always the case with Meet the Press which was once home -- pre-Tim Russert -- to some actual discussions.)
You can check Liberal Oasis on Monday for a summary of the Sunday chat and chews. You can also be sure that if anything noteworthy occurs, Bob Somerby will highlight it
on The Daily Howler. But I know many members enjoy Maureen Dowd and that many members loathe Cokie Roberts. So that's the heads up. (And we'll provide it anytime someone requests it.)
Speaking of Liberal Oasis, Bill Scher has an entry we need to highlight today:
You’d think folks would learn.
Recall that back in November 2002, the US persuaded the UN to vote to send inspectors back into Iraq.
And the pundits were in consensus: Powell wins! The neocons are defeated! Bush embraces multilateralism!
But it is clear, in retrospect, that the UN was used by Bush so he could pretend every diplomatic channel was exhausted before going in (and appease a skittish Tony Blair).
Similarly, how many times have we heard that Bush has shifted course in North Korea, and is serious about negotiating an agreement?
Now, the media are falling for it again, as a “senior administration official” told reporters trailing Bush in Europe that there is a “shift” in “attitude” (as opposed to actual policy) regarding how to handle Iran.
Don't miss NOW's item in Phill Kline:
"The National Organization for Women condemns the latest action by anti-abortion zealots bent on invading the privacy of women and girls," said NOW President Kim Gandy. "This is outrageous harassment of women and their doctors for base political motives."The Kansas Attorney General, Phill Kline, is seeking medical records of women -- including their name, medical history, sexual history, birth control practices and psychological profiles -- from two state abortion clinics as part of an alleged criminal investigation he claims is about sexual abuse of minors.
[. . .]
Kline has a pattern of trying to force medical providers to report information about the past sexual history of women. In 2003, his office tried to obtain information about girls younger than 16 who engaged in sexual activity."There's obviously no allegation of wrongdoing or criminal behavior by these women -- if there were, they'd have the right to know the charges, the right to challenge release of their information, the right to confront their accusers, the right to due process and the right to an attorney," said Gandy. "But these women don't even have basic rights in Kansas. Phill Kline should be impeached for gross misuse of his office and abuse of public trust."
[And in answer to Sylvia's question today, "Phill" is the spelling. Sylvia wondered if I'd mispelled the name in this morning's entry. Never hesitate to ask that. If "I" had two letters, I'm sure I could find a way to mispell it. But "Phill" is the correct spelling.]
Who's the BuzzFlash Hypocrite of the week?"A Day Early: George W. Bush Makes His First Appearance of THIS Year as the BuzzFlash GOP Hypocrite of the Year. A Must Read and Listen."
Over at CounterPunch, Sharon Smith has (my opinion) an important commentary entitled"The Anti-War Movement After Kerry: Learning All the Wrong Lessons." Here's the opening:
It is unfortunately a little-known fact that thousands of high school and college students across the country organized walkouts against the war on January 20, marching as organized contingents to counter-inaugural demonstrations in Boulder, Colo.; Los Angeles; Chicago; San Francisco; Austin, Texas; and other cities.
At Seattle Central Community College (SCCC), students took a few minutes on their way out of the building to confront military recruiters--forcing them to flee under the protection of campus security officers. One of the recruiters, claiming student protesters flung newspapers and water bottles in his direction, told the Seattle Post Intelligencer, "They were all going by, making offhand comments and saying 'no war.' We just waved at them. Five minutes later, there was just a mob of 500 people surrounding the table."
There is a student rebellion in the making, coalescing around opposition to the war and its military recruiters--with students by the hundreds defying threats of disciplinary action.
Despite their potential to transform the political landscape, however, the significance of these militant student actions has so far escaped the leaders of the nation's established antiwar organizations.
Indeed, after fostering the illusion that supporting pro-war, neoliberal John Kerry represented the only "realistic" strategy for those who oppose the war, these antiwar leaders now seem to have learned all the wrong lessons from Kerry's defeat in November.
Rather than seizing the opportunity in the months before the election to strengthen the antiwar movement as a clear alternative for the millions opposed to Bush, virtually the entire movement came to a standstill to support the Democratic Party's chosen candidate--leaving those against the war with no organized expression to the left of Kerry's "hunt down and kill the terrorists" mantra. Even as the torture scandal at Abu Ghraib surfaced, and the U.S. invaded Falluja and Najaf, finally flattening Falluja in November, the U.S. antiwar movement maintained its silence.
Public reply to Krista and guest list for The Laura Flanders Show Saturday and Sunday night
Krista: I read the transcript of the interview with Katrina Vanden Heuvel on Democracy Now! and I'm a big fan of Vanden Heuvel's. She's someone I never knew of until I became a part of this community and she's really become my personal hero and someone I try to read every word by. I read this part:
You know, Juan [Gonzalez]. What has to do with Bush's ongoing talk about democracy has more to do with one oil oligarch who sits in prison, who should not be in prison, but who sits in prison because of the looting of a country, stripping the country's assets for his company's use. There has been a campaign in the United States by public relations people, by lobbyists, by senators who have been contacted by those lobbyists to link that man's fate to the future of democracy in Russia. I think that most economists would argue that you need some form of bringing back those assets which were stripped in the 1990's into the control of the state. One hopes that the state would use it wisely for the purposes of the people. But where has the mainstream press been on focusing on the hundreds of thousands of elderly people, of students, of even military people who have gone into the streets in the last month, six weeks, to protest the undermining, the abolition of their social benefits. These are people whose lives were already impoverished by the shock therapy economic policies and the ruble devaluation. So I’m just saying let's focus on the range of problems in that country, and not simply on the fact that you have one oil oligarch sitting in prison, and that's where the campaign and detention in the rollback on democracy was started and it is fixated at this moment.
I feel like I should apologize for going on about what a hottie Mikhail Khodorkovsky was like I've been wasting people's time. And I really feel like I've let down the community and disappointed them.
I disagree with Krista.
For a number of reasons.
It was stated at the time that if she found Khodorkovsky attractive of sexy, great. Better that those qualities peaked her interest in something other than a TV reality show. And that it was an entry point into the story.
Krista e-mails a lot but more often than not doesn't want to be quoted because of the mix up with a name in the year-in-review. (Which was my mix up more because I didn't catch it and I should have.) And in her e-mails, she's talking about what's happening with seniors (cuts to their pensions) and other issues.
Mikhail Khodorkovsky was her entry into Russia. That was a country she hadn't given a great deal of thought to. If that was all she ever focused on, I'd still argue she was better for it because that was one person in another country that she was attempting to understand and follow.
And even just following one specific person, she would gain some sort of understanding of a country she didn't think about before.
But the point made when she first brought up Khodorkovsky was use him as an entry point. And that's what Krista has done. She's a young college student beginning to look at the outside world and she has used this an entry point.
I hesitate to speak for Katrina vanden Heuvel but from the remarks above and the other remarks in the interview, I don't think she's castigating people like Krista who are showing an genuine interest and attempting to inform themselves. (Her comments have to do with the aspects of the story the press, lobbies, et al have been pushing.)
She is pointing out that there's a growing popularity of Khodorkovsky's story that's happening for reasons other than the obvious.
That's a great entry into another focus.
And someone like Katrina vanden Heuvel provides us with a broader understanding because they want us to be better informed. There are probably very few in this country who have a better sense of the country or more knowledge of its history than vanden Heuvel. Her comments are attempts to open discussions and clarify points. She's not someone who says, "You are stupid! Butt out of this issue, you moron!"
As someone who's had so much interest in Russia, I doubt seriously that she would castigate Krista for finding an entry point into Russia.
Krista's e-mail was much, much longer and very down on herself. She doesn't need to be. She's been following not just Mikhail Khodorkovsky but other issues as well. Trying to follow current events to a country new to you is like learning the alphabet.
And Krista's original comment on Khodorkovsky that were posted here (December?) have led other members to pay attention that wouldn't. (There have been e-mails on that and I believe two people have shared their remarks with the community here.)
So Krista has gotten at least the letters A and B (I'd argue more) and helped others get those two letters as well. Now someone far more intelligent than many (including me) is assisting with teaching the other letters in the alphabet.
I responded to Krista's e-mail personally but she still wanted to share some of it here.
I don't think she needs to be down on herself.
It was Krista's entry point into a complex and foreign situation and that was noted when Krista first shared her opinion.
But there are historical issues that will not be learned overnight.
And Katrina vanden Heuvel provides three's "i"s: insight, intelligence and inspiration. Krista's started a journey and her comments that she's shared with the community have provided an entry point for others.
Someone who expresses no interest in anyone not an American or an event not happening in the United States is much more frightening (to me) than someone attempting to get a handle on complex issues beyond their immediate horizons.
Krista's followed comments here on a variety of concerns in Russia and she's been doing work on her own (which I wish she'd share with the community). In December (I think it was December), Mikhail Khodorkovsky led her on a journey to find out more. I can't imagine Katrina vanden Heuvel or anyone wanting to castigate Krista for that.
Krista wanted her comments shared with the community and usually with that, I just let a member have their say because I'm as bored with my voice as I expect many of you are.
But I disagree strongly with Krista on this and I want it to be clear to her that I'm not just saying that to her in a private e-mail.
I'm proud of Krista and I think if she were speak to Katrina vanden Heuvel, she'd find that she hadn't let down someone she looks up to.
Given the time, I could continue to say that in private e-mails repeatedly. But I'm hoping the fact that these remarks are up here, shared with the community, will get across to Krista that she's done nothing wrong and that she's actually helped not just herself but the community.
She's expressed the opinion that she'll just be a silent member now because she so strongly feels that she's let that down the community. After the mistake with a name (that I should have caught, that wasn't Krista's fault and in the correction, I took the blame for it and I made the apology for it because it wasn't her fault), there was a period where she didn't want to share her comments because she was taking a mistake so hard.
I make mistakes all the time, I make errors all the time.
That's part of life. If Krista had done something wrong, she would still be encouraged to share.
But I don't think she's done anything wrong and I'm very proud of her.
Krista (and anyone) can share only in private e-mails (common_ills@yahoo.com) and that's fine. But I do want to be sure that she realizes I'm not just saying something in a private e-mail, I truly believe she found a starting point to begin following something and that she's worked very hard to gain an understanding. I'm very proud of you, Krista, and you have nothing to apologize for or feel guilty about. Share or don't share, but please don't beat yourself over this.
(And reread or listen or watch the segment because I think you're misunderstanding what Katrina vanden Heuvel is saying.)
Note also that Sibel Edmonds will be on The Laura Flanders Show Saturday night. In fact, here's the posted schedule for the shows Saturday and Sunday night:
The Laura Flanders Show (Saturday)
Truth-telling, people power, W’s therapy notes and more! Up first, how W. blew off 1,000 federal whistleblowers with JEFF RUCH of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. Then one whistleblower who won’t go away: FBI translator SIBEL EDMONDS on her big win against the Justice Department. On the anniversary of the first Gulf War, STEPHEN ROBINSON, Executive Director of the National Gulf War Resource Center announces the creation of a functioning safety net for soldiers — the kind the government still won’t build. 1st Lt. JULLIAN-PHILLIP GOODRUM, U.S. Army Reserve, explains why he’s fighting a possible court-martial for checking into a civilian psychiatric ward and YOGIN RICARDO SINGH, Director of the Homeless Veterans Re-integration Program at Black Veterans for Social Justice, says the number of homeless vets is rising.
Then, pop psychologist CAROL NORRIS shares her clinical notes from recent therapy sessions with W, Condi, Dick and Colin. Then soul-folk singer-songwriter, ALANA DAVIS best known for her cover of Ani DiFranco’s song, “32 Flavors,” joins Laura to talk about her relationship with music industry and her new album, “Surrender Dorothy.”
The Laura Flanders Show (Sunday)
Who’s the best actor? W as a pro-Democracy crusader in Europe or those Oscar recipients? And 10 years after the U.N.’s World Conference on Women and Girls in Beijing , what’s changed? And how the Right’s gotten smarter about cloaking their anti-equality policies in the rhetoric of women’s rights. ADRIENNE GERMAIN, President, International Women’s Health Coalition, HIBAAQ OSMAN, V Day Special Representative to Africa, Asia and the Middle East and EMILY REAGAN WILLS, Code Pink o-ordinator for Global Week of Action for Women’s Rights, all weigh in.
Then, someone who knows good acting. ANTHONY KAUFMAN, Film Editor for Time Out Chicago, tells us what to expect at this year’s Academy Awards. And TIM WISE, anti-racist activist, and author of ‘White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son’ talks with commentator and syndicated writer EARL OFARI HUTCHINSON, about what anti-racist white people can do in the 11 remaining “white history months” of 2005.
You know, Juan [Gonzalez]. What has to do with Bush's ongoing talk about democracy has more to do with one oil oligarch who sits in prison, who should not be in prison, but who sits in prison because of the looting of a country, stripping the country's assets for his company's use. There has been a campaign in the United States by public relations people, by lobbyists, by senators who have been contacted by those lobbyists to link that man's fate to the future of democracy in Russia. I think that most economists would argue that you need some form of bringing back those assets which were stripped in the 1990's into the control of the state. One hopes that the state would use it wisely for the purposes of the people. But where has the mainstream press been on focusing on the hundreds of thousands of elderly people, of students, of even military people who have gone into the streets in the last month, six weeks, to protest the undermining, the abolition of their social benefits. These are people whose lives were already impoverished by the shock therapy economic policies and the ruble devaluation. So I’m just saying let's focus on the range of problems in that country, and not simply on the fact that you have one oil oligarch sitting in prison, and that's where the campaign and detention in the rollback on democracy was started and it is fixated at this moment.
I feel like I should apologize for going on about what a hottie Mikhail Khodorkovsky was like I've been wasting people's time. And I really feel like I've let down the community and disappointed them.
I disagree with Krista.
For a number of reasons.
It was stated at the time that if she found Khodorkovsky attractive of sexy, great. Better that those qualities peaked her interest in something other than a TV reality show. And that it was an entry point into the story.
Krista e-mails a lot but more often than not doesn't want to be quoted because of the mix up with a name in the year-in-review. (Which was my mix up more because I didn't catch it and I should have.) And in her e-mails, she's talking about what's happening with seniors (cuts to their pensions) and other issues.
Mikhail Khodorkovsky was her entry into Russia. That was a country she hadn't given a great deal of thought to. If that was all she ever focused on, I'd still argue she was better for it because that was one person in another country that she was attempting to understand and follow.
And even just following one specific person, she would gain some sort of understanding of a country she didn't think about before.
But the point made when she first brought up Khodorkovsky was use him as an entry point. And that's what Krista has done. She's a young college student beginning to look at the outside world and she has used this an entry point.
I hesitate to speak for Katrina vanden Heuvel but from the remarks above and the other remarks in the interview, I don't think she's castigating people like Krista who are showing an genuine interest and attempting to inform themselves. (Her comments have to do with the aspects of the story the press, lobbies, et al have been pushing.)
She is pointing out that there's a growing popularity of Khodorkovsky's story that's happening for reasons other than the obvious.
That's a great entry into another focus.
And someone like Katrina vanden Heuvel provides us with a broader understanding because they want us to be better informed. There are probably very few in this country who have a better sense of the country or more knowledge of its history than vanden Heuvel. Her comments are attempts to open discussions and clarify points. She's not someone who says, "You are stupid! Butt out of this issue, you moron!"
As someone who's had so much interest in Russia, I doubt seriously that she would castigate Krista for finding an entry point into Russia.
Krista's e-mail was much, much longer and very down on herself. She doesn't need to be. She's been following not just Mikhail Khodorkovsky but other issues as well. Trying to follow current events to a country new to you is like learning the alphabet.
And Krista's original comment on Khodorkovsky that were posted here (December?) have led other members to pay attention that wouldn't. (There have been e-mails on that and I believe two people have shared their remarks with the community here.)
So Krista has gotten at least the letters A and B (I'd argue more) and helped others get those two letters as well. Now someone far more intelligent than many (including me) is assisting with teaching the other letters in the alphabet.
I responded to Krista's e-mail personally but she still wanted to share some of it here.
I don't think she needs to be down on herself.
It was Krista's entry point into a complex and foreign situation and that was noted when Krista first shared her opinion.
But there are historical issues that will not be learned overnight.
And Katrina vanden Heuvel provides three's "i"s: insight, intelligence and inspiration. Krista's started a journey and her comments that she's shared with the community have provided an entry point for others.
Someone who expresses no interest in anyone not an American or an event not happening in the United States is much more frightening (to me) than someone attempting to get a handle on complex issues beyond their immediate horizons.
Krista's followed comments here on a variety of concerns in Russia and she's been doing work on her own (which I wish she'd share with the community). In December (I think it was December), Mikhail Khodorkovsky led her on a journey to find out more. I can't imagine Katrina vanden Heuvel or anyone wanting to castigate Krista for that.
Krista wanted her comments shared with the community and usually with that, I just let a member have their say because I'm as bored with my voice as I expect many of you are.
But I disagree strongly with Krista on this and I want it to be clear to her that I'm not just saying that to her in a private e-mail.
I'm proud of Krista and I think if she were speak to Katrina vanden Heuvel, she'd find that she hadn't let down someone she looks up to.
Given the time, I could continue to say that in private e-mails repeatedly. But I'm hoping the fact that these remarks are up here, shared with the community, will get across to Krista that she's done nothing wrong and that she's actually helped not just herself but the community.
She's expressed the opinion that she'll just be a silent member now because she so strongly feels that she's let that down the community. After the mistake with a name (that I should have caught, that wasn't Krista's fault and in the correction, I took the blame for it and I made the apology for it because it wasn't her fault), there was a period where she didn't want to share her comments because she was taking a mistake so hard.
I make mistakes all the time, I make errors all the time.
That's part of life. If Krista had done something wrong, she would still be encouraged to share.
But I don't think she's done anything wrong and I'm very proud of her.
Krista (and anyone) can share only in private e-mails (common_ills@yahoo.com) and that's fine. But I do want to be sure that she realizes I'm not just saying something in a private e-mail, I truly believe she found a starting point to begin following something and that she's worked very hard to gain an understanding. I'm very proud of you, Krista, and you have nothing to apologize for or feel guilty about. Share or don't share, but please don't beat yourself over this.
(And reread or listen or watch the segment because I think you're misunderstanding what Katrina vanden Heuvel is saying.)
Note also that Sibel Edmonds will be on The Laura Flanders Show Saturday night. In fact, here's the posted schedule for the shows Saturday and Sunday night:
The Laura Flanders Show (Saturday)
Truth-telling, people power, W’s therapy notes and more! Up first, how W. blew off 1,000 federal whistleblowers with JEFF RUCH of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. Then one whistleblower who won’t go away: FBI translator SIBEL EDMONDS on her big win against the Justice Department. On the anniversary of the first Gulf War, STEPHEN ROBINSON, Executive Director of the National Gulf War Resource Center announces the creation of a functioning safety net for soldiers — the kind the government still won’t build. 1st Lt. JULLIAN-PHILLIP GOODRUM, U.S. Army Reserve, explains why he’s fighting a possible court-martial for checking into a civilian psychiatric ward and YOGIN RICARDO SINGH, Director of the Homeless Veterans Re-integration Program at Black Veterans for Social Justice, says the number of homeless vets is rising.
Then, pop psychologist CAROL NORRIS shares her clinical notes from recent therapy sessions with W, Condi, Dick and Colin. Then soul-folk singer-songwriter, ALANA DAVIS best known for her cover of Ani DiFranco’s song, “32 Flavors,” joins Laura to talk about her relationship with music industry and her new album, “Surrender Dorothy.”
The Laura Flanders Show (Sunday)
Who’s the best actor? W as a pro-Democracy crusader in Europe or those Oscar recipients? And 10 years after the U.N.’s World Conference on Women and Girls in Beijing , what’s changed? And how the Right’s gotten smarter about cloaking their anti-equality policies in the rhetoric of women’s rights. ADRIENNE GERMAIN, President, International Women’s Health Coalition, HIBAAQ OSMAN, V Day Special Representative to Africa, Asia and the Middle East and EMILY REAGAN WILLS, Code Pink o-ordinator for Global Week of Action for Women’s Rights, all weigh in.
Then, someone who knows good acting. ANTHONY KAUFMAN, Film Editor for Time Out Chicago, tells us what to expect at this year’s Academy Awards. And TIM WISE, anti-racist activist, and author of ‘White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son’ talks with commentator and syndicated writer EARL OFARI HUTCHINSON, about what anti-racist white people can do in the 11 remaining “white history months” of 2005.
Wilgoren almost has the strongest article in the paper
Jodi Wilgoren almost has a strong article, almost. If she had, we'd be celebrating her for it. On the front page, you'll find "Kansas Prosecutor Demands Files on Late-Term Abortion Patients"
which demonstrates some real work in terms of research.
Let's break it down for anyone who's late to the story, Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline wants the medical records "of scores of women and girls who had late-term abortions" because he asserts they are necessary "to prosecute criminal cases." Wilgoren's got perspective in this story (she notes the similar, earlier attempts of J-Ass Ashcroft to do the same), she's got state lawmarkers on record, she's got background on Kline and on one doctor involved.
Here's one section of the article:
"When a 10-, 11- or 12-year-old child is pregnant, under Kansas law that child has been raped, and as the state's chief law enforcement official it is my obligation to investigate child rape in order to protect Kansas children," Mr. Kline said. "There are two things that child predators want, access to children and secrecy. As attorney general, I'm bound and determined not to give them either."
That statement begs questioning and exploration by the journalist. A 12-year-old girl pregnant by a 12-year-old boy is automatic rape? That's what Kline's quoted statement appears to suggest. The age of consent is 16 in Kansas. I think if Kline's going to build his case that sex under the age of consent is automatic rape, we need a legal opinion. I'm not familiar with Kansas law but most states dealing with statutory rape are dealing with situations where one person is of the age of consent and the other isn't and "[i]t is not uncommon for there to be exceptions giving lower ages of consent where young partners are close in age."
Does Phill Kline understand his state law? I don't know. And neither does any reader that's not already familiar with Kansas laws regarding age of consent and statutory rape.
Other than that, I'd argue it's the strongest article Wilgoren's written since 2003. It certainly shows that she might still become a reporter whose work actually means something. And I'll slam her (humorously and seriously) when she's clowning and being inept. If the laws governing age of consent and staturory rape weren't so important to whether Kline grasps his state's law, this would be a damn good article and I'd be praising Wilgoren without reservations for hard work done.
(Medical records, my personal opinion, are private. That goes for women's medical records and for Rush Limbaugh's and anyone else's. I think Kline's overstepped. But I do think it's an issue, if he's making blanket statements that may or may not demonstrate legal comprehension of age of consent, rape -- statuory or otherwise, molestation, etc.)
Ian Fisher's popular with many members for his strong work on the tsunami so let's note that he has a front page story: "Pope Undergoes Tracheotomy After Rush Back to the Hospital." If you have the print edition, you've read it or will read. If you don't and are reading online, skip it and go with "Pope Is Breathing on His Own After Throat Surgery" instead because it's also by Fisher and a recent update (7:03 a.m. this morning).
Stephen Crowley has a photo of Putin and the Bully Boy on the front page that Marcia's e-mailed about this morning to note that "it begs the question of how much filter and lighting is used on previous photos of Bully Boy? Apparently a lot."
Articles to note include Neil A. Lewis' "Senator Critical of Proposal on Filibusters" (Arlen Specter warns against Kitty Killer Bill Frist's 'nuclear option' on the filibuster), Gardiner Harris and Alex Berenson's "10 Voters on Panel Backing Pain Pills Had Industry Ties," Elizabeth Becker and Stephanie Strom's " Groups Pledge to Account for Tsunami Aid," and Annie E.
Kornblut's " Democrats Criticize Social Security Official."
which demonstrates some real work in terms of research.
Let's break it down for anyone who's late to the story, Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline wants the medical records "of scores of women and girls who had late-term abortions" because he asserts they are necessary "to prosecute criminal cases." Wilgoren's got perspective in this story (she notes the similar, earlier attempts of J-Ass Ashcroft to do the same), she's got state lawmarkers on record, she's got background on Kline and on one doctor involved.
Here's one section of the article:
"When a 10-, 11- or 12-year-old child is pregnant, under Kansas law that child has been raped, and as the state's chief law enforcement official it is my obligation to investigate child rape in order to protect Kansas children," Mr. Kline said. "There are two things that child predators want, access to children and secrecy. As attorney general, I'm bound and determined not to give them either."
That statement begs questioning and exploration by the journalist. A 12-year-old girl pregnant by a 12-year-old boy is automatic rape? That's what Kline's quoted statement appears to suggest. The age of consent is 16 in Kansas. I think if Kline's going to build his case that sex under the age of consent is automatic rape, we need a legal opinion. I'm not familiar with Kansas law but most states dealing with statutory rape are dealing with situations where one person is of the age of consent and the other isn't and "[i]t is not uncommon for there to be exceptions giving lower ages of consent where young partners are close in age."
Does Phill Kline understand his state law? I don't know. And neither does any reader that's not already familiar with Kansas laws regarding age of consent and statutory rape.
Other than that, I'd argue it's the strongest article Wilgoren's written since 2003. It certainly shows that she might still become a reporter whose work actually means something. And I'll slam her (humorously and seriously) when she's clowning and being inept. If the laws governing age of consent and staturory rape weren't so important to whether Kline grasps his state's law, this would be a damn good article and I'd be praising Wilgoren without reservations for hard work done.
(Medical records, my personal opinion, are private. That goes for women's medical records and for Rush Limbaugh's and anyone else's. I think Kline's overstepped. But I do think it's an issue, if he's making blanket statements that may or may not demonstrate legal comprehension of age of consent, rape -- statuory or otherwise, molestation, etc.)
Ian Fisher's popular with many members for his strong work on the tsunami so let's note that he has a front page story: "Pope Undergoes Tracheotomy After Rush Back to the Hospital." If you have the print edition, you've read it or will read. If you don't and are reading online, skip it and go with "Pope Is Breathing on His Own After Throat Surgery" instead because it's also by Fisher and a recent update (7:03 a.m. this morning).
Stephen Crowley has a photo of Putin and the Bully Boy on the front page that Marcia's e-mailed about this morning to note that "it begs the question of how much filter and lighting is used on previous photos of Bully Boy? Apparently a lot."
Articles to note include Neil A. Lewis' "Senator Critical of Proposal on Filibusters" (Arlen Specter warns against Kitty Killer Bill Frist's 'nuclear option' on the filibuster), Gardiner Harris and Alex Berenson's "10 Voters on Panel Backing Pain Pills Had Industry Ties," Elizabeth Becker and Stephanie Strom's " Groups Pledge to Account for Tsunami Aid," and Annie E.
Kornblut's " Democrats Criticize Social Security Official."
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Tess Highlights Spelman College for Black History Month
Tess: I would like to shine the spotlight on a legendary institution of higher learning: Spelman College. This college in Atlanta was first established in 1881 under the name Atlanta Baptist Female Seminary. In 1884 the name would be changed to Spelman Seminary and in 1924 the institution would be changed to its present name Spelman College. This is a ationally recognized and ranked institution.
This institution has aided in the formation of many notable women:
Marian Wright Edelman (noted as the founder and president of the Children's Defense Fund)
Alice Walker (actvisit, Pulitizer prize winning author)
Esther Rolle (actress, star of Good Times)
Bernice Johnson Reagon (founder of the Grammy winning group Sweet Honey in the Rock)
Marcelite J. Harris (first African-American woman general in the United States Air Force)
Pearl Cleage (author of many books including What Looks Like Crazy On An Ordinary Day)
Bernice King (attorney & minister; daughter of Coretta Scott King and MLK)
Wanda S. Lloyd (former senior editor of USA Today, now editor of The Montgomery Advertiser)
Though those names are nationally known, Spelman College has allowed many African-American women to advance. As a historical college (over 120 years old) and a nationally known one, it has long served not just as a beacon to those who have attended but as a sign of the possibilities that are out there. Spelman College's glorious past and present enable many to "have a dream."
This institution has aided in the formation of many notable women:
Marian Wright Edelman (noted as the founder and president of the Children's Defense Fund)
Alice Walker (actvisit, Pulitizer prize winning author)
Esther Rolle (actress, star of Good Times)
Bernice Johnson Reagon (founder of the Grammy winning group Sweet Honey in the Rock)
Marcelite J. Harris (first African-American woman general in the United States Air Force)
Pearl Cleage (author of many books including What Looks Like Crazy On An Ordinary Day)
Bernice King (attorney & minister; daughter of Coretta Scott King and MLK)
Wanda S. Lloyd (former senior editor of USA Today, now editor of The Montgomery Advertiser)
Though those names are nationally known, Spelman College has allowed many African-American women to advance. As a historical college (over 120 years old) and a nationally known one, it has long served not just as a beacon to those who have attended but as a sign of the possibilities that are out there. Spelman College's glorious past and present enable many to "have a dream."
A Winding Road on disappointing remarks by two senators
Saturday Folding Star of A Winding Road was kind enough to agree (at the last minute) to an interview. You can find the interview at The Third Estate Sunday Review. What had been sold to Folding Star as "thirty minutes tops" (sold by me) quickly extended to an hour and then an hour and a half (possibly two hours).
During this time, I brought up remarks made by Hillary Clinton. Folding Star hadn't yet heard of the remarks. Without any knowledge of it, FS wisely refrained comment.
(The remarks had been reported -- and one played -- on one of the hourly news breaks during The Laura Flanders Show.)
On Sunday, FS weighed in on the remarks after having checked them out. Martha had e-mailed this in noting that she felt it was important and asking that we highlight it.
There are two things I want to focus on.
Both are comments made by Senators in recent days.
[. . .]
The comment I want to highlight [. . .] came from Senator Rockefeller of West Virginia at the end of last week. After pushing the White House to make a nomination to begin with by pointing out in Committee last week how unacceptable it was that Bush was dragging his feet on the matter, Rockefeller reacted not with the outrage I'd hope for from any decent person, but rather with these words:
"People grow and change over twenty years."
Unbelievable. I've considered placing Rockefeller in our DINO Hall of Shame over this comment, which is too outrageous to be believed.
[. . .]
Rockefeller can be a a center/right voice on some issues, but he can also be an ally on others. For example, the Senator has a 93% rating from NARAL and is generally a strong supporter on pro-choice issues. On other issues, he's not always reliable. For example, he did vote to include sexual orientation in the definition of a hate crime and voted in favor of prohibiting job discrimination because of sexual orientation, but he's also voted against same sex marriage in the past and been in favor of a Constitutional Amendment banning the burning of the American flag.
In the end, I've decided not to include Rockefeller in the DINO Hall of Shame. I don't think Rockefeller can truly be called a DINO at this point and I never want to rush to label someone that unless they truly deserve it, for more than just one vote or comment. But we'll be watching.
His comment just demonstrates how easy this confirmation is going to be for Negroponte. For the third time in less than four years, he's going to be overwhelmingly confirmed by the Senate in spite of the dark stain on his record, a stain which we all bear on our own hands to some degree. After all, it's the people we've elected to be our voices who have confirmed him time and again, turning a blind eye to the past.
[. . .]
The other comment from a Senator that needs addressing came from Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York this weekend.
During the Senate recess, Senators Clinton, Feingold of Wisconsin, McCain of Arizona, Collins of Maine, and Graham of South Carolina took the opportunity to travel to Iraq in a Congressional Delegation and assess the situation there first hand.You'll recall that Senator Clinton made a trip to Iraq and Afghanistan in November of 2003 (many believe, and I'm one of them, that it was the Senator's high profile trip that lead to Bush's surprise Thanksgiving trip that month. Unlike the Senator from New York, however, Bush went no further than the safety of a bunker with hand picked American soldiers surrounding him). Back then, Senator Clinton came home with some criticisms of the way things were being managed.This time around, she seems to have found things more to her liking.
You see, the fact that the bloodshed continues is a good sign, according to the Senator. The very existence of suicide bombers, who killed 55 people the day Clinton made these comments, shows that the insurgency is weakening. Huh? Let me give you her exact words:"The fact that you have these suicide bombers now, wreaking such hatred and violence while people pray, is to me, an indication of their failure."
The Senator went on to say that:"It's regrettable that the security needs have increased so much. On the other hand, I think you can look at the country as a whole and see that there are many parts of Iraq that are functioning quite well."
Quite well? This [in]spite of the fact that things are worse than during visits in 2003, as Senator Susan Collins acknowledged that same day:
"We were able to move more freely in Baghdad (in 2003). And one impression I have is how much more fortified Baghdad is than it was during that summer."
So, Senator Clinton sings the praises of how things are going in Iraq, commenting that things are 'functioning quite well' and that the rash of suicide bombings, instead of showing the continuing rage and bitterness of occupied Iraqis actually shows that they're failing. Meanwhile, her Republican colleague from Maine points out that Baghdad is more of a city under siege now than it was over a year ago. To me, that sounds like things are getting worse, not better.
Why does Senator Clinton feel the need to slap a happy face on this mess, to ignore that we're in a situation where the Iraqi people are never going to stop hating us until we get our soldiers out of their country? The insurgents aren't going to stop. The fact that they still feel strongly enough to be blowing themselves up indicates that they're as dedicated to ending the occupation as ever before.
We need the truth. We don't see it in the media. They strive to cover up harsh realities. Clearly, we can't depend on elected officials for much truth, either. Senator Clinton is just as engaged in Operation Happy Talk as the Bushies. Just as dedicated to ignoring that this war was illegal and that our troops are only causing more problems by remaining in Iraq.
The Senator from New York voted in favor of giving Bush the right to launch his war, as a majority of Democrats in the Senate did at the time. She now compounds her past mistake by trying to pretend like things are getting better every day, when clearly things are falling apart, elections or not.
That was a hard one to highlight because it's so packed with information. (I'm pretty sure that with Folding Star, I could post the entire entry here and that works the other way as well.)
I agree with Martha that this needs to be addressed, the remarks by Rockefeller and Clinton. Since Sunday, I've heard a rush to defend from various commentators, a rush to justify Clinton's comments. Hillary Clinton is a smart woman. No one's accusing her of being stupid.
To those that support her, her strongest characteristic has always been her public honesty. To her detractors, her most visible characteristic is a tendency to change (the right has documented each hair style change -- and don't think that visual won't find itself in an ad -- "Which One Is the Real Hillary?" -- if she attempts to run for president*). Now really isn't a time to be anything less than authentic.
If there's a reason for her disagreeing with Senator Collins' assessment (and John McCain's), she needs to say so. Surrogates rushing out to "explain" the remarks on reproductive rights while she remained silent don't provide an impression of a strong core. As some members pointed out, we're going to ask hard questions and we're not going to go into a primary again without them answered. So any candidate thinking they'll get a pass (any Democratic candidate, my apologies to third party community members) better realize that a lot of people pulled together in 2004 and will probably attempt to pull together in 2008. After the primary.
Point? People better get used to answering for their statements. And those who rush in to silence discussion of the statements of an elected official need to ask themselves why that is?
There are no pin ups on my wall. And I'm not a member of a fan club.
And when elected officials make statements, they need to be responsible for them. (Something Lawrence Summers is learning currently. The long delay in releasing the transcript only allowed the controversy to simmer to its current boil.)
Let's talk about Maureen Dowd for a moment. I'm not going to evaluate her opinions because that's not the point here. [Maureen Dowd, for anyone unaware, is an op-ed writer for the New York Times.] (And again, I do have a copy of Bushworld.) There are people circulating her columns like crazy. With one exception, whenever she writes about Bill or Hillary Clinton. Then we don't see the column linked all over the net (by the left) or shooting up the most e-mailed list at the Times. It's as though Dowd's on some sort of vacation.
I'm not e-mailing out her columns. (I don't e-mail anything out from the Times proper anymore since they no longer allow you to e-mail the article in full. Note, however, the Washington Post still allows that.) But it seems to me, that if someone is, or someone's citing every column that doesn't mention the Clintons, it's kind of strange this imposed silence when she writes about them.
Is she right? Well I guess that's a topic most of us will never discuss because instead we go into silent mode. (Bob Somerby has long addressed Maureen Dowd's columns -- on many topics including the Clintons at The Daily Howler. He is an exception.)
I really don't understand this zone of silence. And when she was First Lady, I defended Hillary Clinton constantly. She's the original reason I was excited about candidate Bill Clinton. However, she's now an elected official. And she's responsible for her remarks.
And if there's a 'cult of Hillary' that's carrying over onto her new role as elected official, I think it needs to stop (my opinion, I could be wrong). With the idea of a presidential run becoming more and more likely, Senator Clinton needs to speak clearly and if she's misunderstood by some, it's incumbent upon her and/or her office to clarify.
It's not incumbent upon some dee jay or commentator to tell us, "Well, these people don't get that she's a lifetime history of support for reproductive rights and that's she's always been . . ."
I don't care. I don't care about that history as a private citizen or as a non-elected public citizen. I do care about her public record as an elected official. And there are questions that arise from her voting record and from her public comments.
The idea that people are going to rush in and say, "You can't question that!" or "You're wrong!" without addressing her voting record feels like (to me) a knee-jerk reaction. We need to be a little more rational than that (my opinion).
This is not about 'hating Hillary.' That cottage industry was created and pioneered by the right and they're welcome to it. But if Joseph Biden made similar remarks, it would be discussed.
This attitude that we're going to fall silent whenever a remark or a vote is made by the junior senator from New York speaks more of a cult of personality than of an evaluation of a public official (my opinion).
Hillary Rodham Clinton was an inspiring person, a strong advocate for many issues and she deserves to be noted for that, no question. Senator Clinton is an elected official and, as such, her comments and her voting record are subject to examination the same way that we would examine Senator Kent Conrad's or Senator Joe Lieberman's. (That's not to equate Conrad and Lieberman. Nor to equate Clinton with either.)
"She's always been a public figure!" someone might attempt to argue. Sonny Bono was always a public figure. Because I knew the words to "I Got You Babe," that didn't really have anything to do with the way Bono voted or the remarks he made while he was in office.
I make no apologies for being a feminist and don't attempt to hide that I am. Point, Gloria Steinem has noted parallel therapy. For those unfamiliar, to apply it to Senator Clinton, that would mean taking her remarks or her vote and applying it to someone else. Would we still have questions?
In the last few rounds, questions have been dismissed (often rudely) by commenators who have argued that in her past (prior to being elected to an office), she did this or she did that. So what's your point?
You're not addressing what was said or how a vote went down if you're bringing up some past issues prior to elected public service. It might even appear that you're using that past to minimize or justify a current reality. And were that the case, then that's a serious problem if we have to drop into the past to justify a current reality resulting from an elected official.
People can (and will) do whatever they want. But my understanding of a democratic, open society is that the elected officials are responsible to the people for their votes and for their public statements. A zone of silence around Senator Clinton won't help the party. If we're slapping Senator X on the wrist for comments he/she made but we're giving Hillary Clinton a free ride, we're also not helping her.
In many ways, she was a great first lady. (And even when I feel she was less than great, she was still a strong one -- my opinion.) She's chosen to serve in public office. Her actions as an elected official are open to positive criticism and to negative criticism the same as anyone else holding an elected office.
Those wanting to support a potential run for president by Senator Clinton should be especially concerned that she not be given a free ride because that will result in a candidate that's never been tested attempting to now secure the highest office in the land.
People imposing a zone of silence aren't doing Senator Clinton any favors. Those who were opposed to the war/occupation (including myself) were encouraged not to press John Kerry on addressing this issue. We were encouraged to go along with the hope that he would have answers. I think, personally, that he did. Some voters don't think he did.
I'm not talking about die hard Republicans. So before commenators, dee jays or whomever attempts to stifle discussions on what Senator Clinton has said or how she has voted, they might want to reflect on that.
Her core is strong enough that she could probably sail through a primary and win or come in a close second. (Unless Senators Barbara Boxer and Russ Feingold both decided to go after the nomination.) No one's questioning her celebrity. But after the primary, her celebrity won't be enough. So when people (predisposed to voting for her) are bothered by something she's done, shutting down discussions hurts Senator Clinton and hurts the notion that our elected officials are supposed to be held accountable.
[Anyone wishing to weigh in is welcome to do so -- common_ills@yahoo.com. And, for the record, this 'failed insurgency' has resulted in 47 official US military fatalities thus far this month -- that would be post-election -- and the official count for US military fatalities since this war began is 1487. The official figure for wounded US military from Feb. 2nd to right now as I type is 161. The overall official figure for wounded US military is 5,312. No official count is kept by our government for Iraqis.]
[*Though a strong visual, the hairstyle motif would probably aid as much as harm Clinton's chances since most people, women and men, have changed their hairstyle at least once as an adult.]
During this time, I brought up remarks made by Hillary Clinton. Folding Star hadn't yet heard of the remarks. Without any knowledge of it, FS wisely refrained comment.
(The remarks had been reported -- and one played -- on one of the hourly news breaks during The Laura Flanders Show.)
On Sunday, FS weighed in on the remarks after having checked them out. Martha had e-mailed this in noting that she felt it was important and asking that we highlight it.
There are two things I want to focus on.
Both are comments made by Senators in recent days.
[. . .]
The comment I want to highlight [. . .] came from Senator Rockefeller of West Virginia at the end of last week. After pushing the White House to make a nomination to begin with by pointing out in Committee last week how unacceptable it was that Bush was dragging his feet on the matter, Rockefeller reacted not with the outrage I'd hope for from any decent person, but rather with these words:
"People grow and change over twenty years."
Unbelievable. I've considered placing Rockefeller in our DINO Hall of Shame over this comment, which is too outrageous to be believed.
[. . .]
Rockefeller can be a a center/right voice on some issues, but he can also be an ally on others. For example, the Senator has a 93% rating from NARAL and is generally a strong supporter on pro-choice issues. On other issues, he's not always reliable. For example, he did vote to include sexual orientation in the definition of a hate crime and voted in favor of prohibiting job discrimination because of sexual orientation, but he's also voted against same sex marriage in the past and been in favor of a Constitutional Amendment banning the burning of the American flag.
In the end, I've decided not to include Rockefeller in the DINO Hall of Shame. I don't think Rockefeller can truly be called a DINO at this point and I never want to rush to label someone that unless they truly deserve it, for more than just one vote or comment. But we'll be watching.
His comment just demonstrates how easy this confirmation is going to be for Negroponte. For the third time in less than four years, he's going to be overwhelmingly confirmed by the Senate in spite of the dark stain on his record, a stain which we all bear on our own hands to some degree. After all, it's the people we've elected to be our voices who have confirmed him time and again, turning a blind eye to the past.
[. . .]
The other comment from a Senator that needs addressing came from Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York this weekend.
During the Senate recess, Senators Clinton, Feingold of Wisconsin, McCain of Arizona, Collins of Maine, and Graham of South Carolina took the opportunity to travel to Iraq in a Congressional Delegation and assess the situation there first hand.You'll recall that Senator Clinton made a trip to Iraq and Afghanistan in November of 2003 (many believe, and I'm one of them, that it was the Senator's high profile trip that lead to Bush's surprise Thanksgiving trip that month. Unlike the Senator from New York, however, Bush went no further than the safety of a bunker with hand picked American soldiers surrounding him). Back then, Senator Clinton came home with some criticisms of the way things were being managed.This time around, she seems to have found things more to her liking.
You see, the fact that the bloodshed continues is a good sign, according to the Senator. The very existence of suicide bombers, who killed 55 people the day Clinton made these comments, shows that the insurgency is weakening. Huh? Let me give you her exact words:"The fact that you have these suicide bombers now, wreaking such hatred and violence while people pray, is to me, an indication of their failure."
The Senator went on to say that:"It's regrettable that the security needs have increased so much. On the other hand, I think you can look at the country as a whole and see that there are many parts of Iraq that are functioning quite well."
Quite well? This [in]spite of the fact that things are worse than during visits in 2003, as Senator Susan Collins acknowledged that same day:
"We were able to move more freely in Baghdad (in 2003). And one impression I have is how much more fortified Baghdad is than it was during that summer."
So, Senator Clinton sings the praises of how things are going in Iraq, commenting that things are 'functioning quite well' and that the rash of suicide bombings, instead of showing the continuing rage and bitterness of occupied Iraqis actually shows that they're failing. Meanwhile, her Republican colleague from Maine points out that Baghdad is more of a city under siege now than it was over a year ago. To me, that sounds like things are getting worse, not better.
Why does Senator Clinton feel the need to slap a happy face on this mess, to ignore that we're in a situation where the Iraqi people are never going to stop hating us until we get our soldiers out of their country? The insurgents aren't going to stop. The fact that they still feel strongly enough to be blowing themselves up indicates that they're as dedicated to ending the occupation as ever before.
We need the truth. We don't see it in the media. They strive to cover up harsh realities. Clearly, we can't depend on elected officials for much truth, either. Senator Clinton is just as engaged in Operation Happy Talk as the Bushies. Just as dedicated to ignoring that this war was illegal and that our troops are only causing more problems by remaining in Iraq.
The Senator from New York voted in favor of giving Bush the right to launch his war, as a majority of Democrats in the Senate did at the time. She now compounds her past mistake by trying to pretend like things are getting better every day, when clearly things are falling apart, elections or not.
That was a hard one to highlight because it's so packed with information. (I'm pretty sure that with Folding Star, I could post the entire entry here and that works the other way as well.)
I agree with Martha that this needs to be addressed, the remarks by Rockefeller and Clinton. Since Sunday, I've heard a rush to defend from various commentators, a rush to justify Clinton's comments. Hillary Clinton is a smart woman. No one's accusing her of being stupid.
To those that support her, her strongest characteristic has always been her public honesty. To her detractors, her most visible characteristic is a tendency to change (the right has documented each hair style change -- and don't think that visual won't find itself in an ad -- "Which One Is the Real Hillary?" -- if she attempts to run for president*). Now really isn't a time to be anything less than authentic.
If there's a reason for her disagreeing with Senator Collins' assessment (and John McCain's), she needs to say so. Surrogates rushing out to "explain" the remarks on reproductive rights while she remained silent don't provide an impression of a strong core. As some members pointed out, we're going to ask hard questions and we're not going to go into a primary again without them answered. So any candidate thinking they'll get a pass (any Democratic candidate, my apologies to third party community members) better realize that a lot of people pulled together in 2004 and will probably attempt to pull together in 2008. After the primary.
Point? People better get used to answering for their statements. And those who rush in to silence discussion of the statements of an elected official need to ask themselves why that is?
There are no pin ups on my wall. And I'm not a member of a fan club.
And when elected officials make statements, they need to be responsible for them. (Something Lawrence Summers is learning currently. The long delay in releasing the transcript only allowed the controversy to simmer to its current boil.)
Let's talk about Maureen Dowd for a moment. I'm not going to evaluate her opinions because that's not the point here. [Maureen Dowd, for anyone unaware, is an op-ed writer for the New York Times.] (And again, I do have a copy of Bushworld.) There are people circulating her columns like crazy. With one exception, whenever she writes about Bill or Hillary Clinton. Then we don't see the column linked all over the net (by the left) or shooting up the most e-mailed list at the Times. It's as though Dowd's on some sort of vacation.
I'm not e-mailing out her columns. (I don't e-mail anything out from the Times proper anymore since they no longer allow you to e-mail the article in full. Note, however, the Washington Post still allows that.) But it seems to me, that if someone is, or someone's citing every column that doesn't mention the Clintons, it's kind of strange this imposed silence when she writes about them.
Is she right? Well I guess that's a topic most of us will never discuss because instead we go into silent mode. (Bob Somerby has long addressed Maureen Dowd's columns -- on many topics including the Clintons at The Daily Howler. He is an exception.)
I really don't understand this zone of silence. And when she was First Lady, I defended Hillary Clinton constantly. She's the original reason I was excited about candidate Bill Clinton. However, she's now an elected official. And she's responsible for her remarks.
And if there's a 'cult of Hillary' that's carrying over onto her new role as elected official, I think it needs to stop (my opinion, I could be wrong). With the idea of a presidential run becoming more and more likely, Senator Clinton needs to speak clearly and if she's misunderstood by some, it's incumbent upon her and/or her office to clarify.
It's not incumbent upon some dee jay or commentator to tell us, "Well, these people don't get that she's a lifetime history of support for reproductive rights and that's she's always been . . ."
I don't care. I don't care about that history as a private citizen or as a non-elected public citizen. I do care about her public record as an elected official. And there are questions that arise from her voting record and from her public comments.
The idea that people are going to rush in and say, "You can't question that!" or "You're wrong!" without addressing her voting record feels like (to me) a knee-jerk reaction. We need to be a little more rational than that (my opinion).
This is not about 'hating Hillary.' That cottage industry was created and pioneered by the right and they're welcome to it. But if Joseph Biden made similar remarks, it would be discussed.
This attitude that we're going to fall silent whenever a remark or a vote is made by the junior senator from New York speaks more of a cult of personality than of an evaluation of a public official (my opinion).
Hillary Rodham Clinton was an inspiring person, a strong advocate for many issues and she deserves to be noted for that, no question. Senator Clinton is an elected official and, as such, her comments and her voting record are subject to examination the same way that we would examine Senator Kent Conrad's or Senator Joe Lieberman's. (That's not to equate Conrad and Lieberman. Nor to equate Clinton with either.)
"She's always been a public figure!" someone might attempt to argue. Sonny Bono was always a public figure. Because I knew the words to "I Got You Babe," that didn't really have anything to do with the way Bono voted or the remarks he made while he was in office.
I make no apologies for being a feminist and don't attempt to hide that I am. Point, Gloria Steinem has noted parallel therapy. For those unfamiliar, to apply it to Senator Clinton, that would mean taking her remarks or her vote and applying it to someone else. Would we still have questions?
In the last few rounds, questions have been dismissed (often rudely) by commenators who have argued that in her past (prior to being elected to an office), she did this or she did that. So what's your point?
You're not addressing what was said or how a vote went down if you're bringing up some past issues prior to elected public service. It might even appear that you're using that past to minimize or justify a current reality. And were that the case, then that's a serious problem if we have to drop into the past to justify a current reality resulting from an elected official.
People can (and will) do whatever they want. But my understanding of a democratic, open society is that the elected officials are responsible to the people for their votes and for their public statements. A zone of silence around Senator Clinton won't help the party. If we're slapping Senator X on the wrist for comments he/she made but we're giving Hillary Clinton a free ride, we're also not helping her.
In many ways, she was a great first lady. (And even when I feel she was less than great, she was still a strong one -- my opinion.) She's chosen to serve in public office. Her actions as an elected official are open to positive criticism and to negative criticism the same as anyone else holding an elected office.
Those wanting to support a potential run for president by Senator Clinton should be especially concerned that she not be given a free ride because that will result in a candidate that's never been tested attempting to now secure the highest office in the land.
People imposing a zone of silence aren't doing Senator Clinton any favors. Those who were opposed to the war/occupation (including myself) were encouraged not to press John Kerry on addressing this issue. We were encouraged to go along with the hope that he would have answers. I think, personally, that he did. Some voters don't think he did.
I'm not talking about die hard Republicans. So before commenators, dee jays or whomever attempts to stifle discussions on what Senator Clinton has said or how she has voted, they might want to reflect on that.
Her core is strong enough that she could probably sail through a primary and win or come in a close second. (Unless Senators Barbara Boxer and Russ Feingold both decided to go after the nomination.) No one's questioning her celebrity. But after the primary, her celebrity won't be enough. So when people (predisposed to voting for her) are bothered by something she's done, shutting down discussions hurts Senator Clinton and hurts the notion that our elected officials are supposed to be held accountable.
[Anyone wishing to weigh in is welcome to do so -- common_ills@yahoo.com. And, for the record, this 'failed insurgency' has resulted in 47 official US military fatalities thus far this month -- that would be post-election -- and the official count for US military fatalities since this war began is 1487. The official figure for wounded US military from Feb. 2nd to right now as I type is 161. The overall official figure for wounded US military is 5,312. No official count is kept by our government for Iraqis.]
[*Though a strong visual, the hairstyle motif would probably aid as much as harm Clinton's chances since most people, women and men, have changed their hairstyle at least once as an adult.]
Off Duty U.S. Customs Officer shoots unarmed 19-year old Arab-American
Off Duty U.S. Customs officer shoots unarmed 19-year old Arab-American in head and face. Authorities state that officer committed no wrong-doing and did not even book him for questioning.
This incident happened about 15 minutes from my house in the Madrid apartment complex in Mission Viejo, CA on Feb 5, 2005.
As far as a political discussion, this would probably fall under the same category as Amadou Diallo Case, and Abner Louima in an example of law enforcement brutality bordering on outright criminality.
Here are the relevant facts: Early in the morning on Saturday February the 6th around 1:30 am, Bassim Chmait along with three other friends were walking through an apartment complex heading towards a college house party. As they were walking through the apartment complex one oo the neighbors threw a soda can at them from above. In frustration, one of the young boys threw the can into the street, and continued walking down the pathway of the apartment heading to the party. At that point Douglas Bates, an off duty U.S. Custom's officer, left his home with his badge in hand and gun drawn confronting the group of 4 to 6 friends. . . he started to yell at them, and when the group of boys turned around, they saw the provoker yelling at them about laughing and being too loud, he was heading towards them pointing his gun a them with a badge in the other hand, yelling "You don't want to f**k with a cop, do you?" Apparently he was upset at the noise and commotion. Mr. Bates then pistol whipped one member of the group. The aggressor was an off duty border patrol/homeland security officer who was not in uniform, his name is Douglas Bates. The four unarmed boys were questioning him, asking why he was pointing his gun at them and begging him to put it down. One of the four boys that were there kept asking the gunman to stop pointing the barrel of the gun in his friends direction. Because of that, the aggressor pistol-whipped his friend on the forehead w/ the gun. Anticipating that the provoker was going to hit his friend again Chmait Bassim got in front of his friends telling the man to please put the gun down. Almost instantly the off duty cop shot Bassim in the head and face by Douglas Bates. After shooting Bassim, Mr. Bates simply walked back into his apartment. While friends were screaming about what happened to Bassim, neighbors dialed 911. About 5 minutes later the murderer opened his door, with the gun still in hand and yelled at neighbors to shut up, and he want back inside his apartment. This story comes straight from four witnesses, and neighbors that were there when the murder took place, they saw and heard everything that occurred that night.
That's from "Off Duty U.S. Customs officer shoots unarmed 19-year old Arab-American in head and face" by CA and it can be found at DC Indymedia. And we can thank Martha for sending that in. [E-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.]
Yes, it's Thursday and that means it's time for our independent media review.
Santa Cruz Indymedia has "39 Cities on the California Coast Call for Peace" which contains photos and audio links to protests from Feb. 19th. So please check out this piece by Ann Simonton and Vinny Lombardo.
To highlight another audio link (e-mailed to this site by Liang), Madison Wisconsin Independent Media Center has "Nepal Journalist Describes Censorship in Nepal" by Norm Stockwell and Stephen Mikesell. I realize that some will not be able to listen, so here's an excerpt of their description of the interview:
Following a movement for democracy in 1980 and creation of a parliamentary monarchy, Nepal developed the most free press in Asia. The first community radio stations in South Asia were also established in this period, and within a decade the country was developing a rich culture of community radio, both in the cities and the countryside. This radical departure from the state-controlled media characterizing the rest of South Asia made for a wide-ranging and vibrant discussion of ideas, viewpoints and ideologies that would set the US corporate press to shame.
This was all taking place within the context of IMF-directed privatization of social resources that coincided with the commencement of democracy and a guerrilla insurgency that started in 1996 in Western Nepal and gradually spread throughout the country. State control of the all except for district headquarters and the capital city had all but collapsed and the mainstream political parties, which were intent only on winning control of the government in fighting among themselves, gave up the democratic prerogatives one by one in attempt to gain advantage while further strengthening the monarchy by going to it to mediate their disputes. Local government was dissolved, the parliament was dissolved, and finally the king dissolved the government as well and appointed the prime minister and cabinet from parties willing for the him to do this as long as the received seats in the parliament.
In this context of inter- and intra-party fighting and indecision, on February 1, 2005, the king of Nepal mobilized the military to disband what semblance of democratic institutions remained and took over direct rule of the country.
[There's more at the site, from the intro, but hopefully that was enough to interest those who are able to listen.]
Also please take time to read "AUSTRALIAN PEACE ACTIVIST ON TRIAL IN IRELAND" by Pit Stop Ploughshares from Melbourne Indymedia:
They're on Trial for Us, We're on the Streets for Them!
AUSTRALIAN PEACE ACTIVIST ON TRIAL IN IRELAND
The trial of Australian peace activist Ciaron O'Reilly begins on his 45th. birthday March 7th. in the Dublin Four Courts. O'Reilly has spent the last two years on bail with four co-defendants charged with $U.S.2million criminal damage to a U.S. Navy War Plane at Shannon Airport (3/2/03) The five pacifist Catholic Workers awaiting trial are known in Ireland as the "Pit Stop Ploughshares". Their claim that the civilian Shannon Airport in County Clare has been transformed into a militarised pit stop for the U.S. war machine occupying Iraq is shared by much of the general population.
Krista e-mails this from Oklahoma Independent Media Center, a story on Camilo Mejia by Rena ("Camilo Mejia freed from Oklahoma Army prison"):
Camilo Mejia was sentenced to one year in an Oklahoma Army prison for "desertion" when he refused to continue to participate in a war he felt was immoral. His release was celebrated by dozens of local activists who were notified of his low-key re-entry into "normal" life.
[. . .]
On February 15, Camilo Mejia was released from the prison at Ft. Sill, Oklahoma, where he had been incarcerated since last June. He was welcomed by members of his family, including his mother, aunt and 5-year-old daughter. The family met with Oklahoma peace activists for a celebratory dinner before going on to Miami, where Camilo will take up residence to be near his daughter (he and her mother are divorced).
Camilo, who holds dual citizenship in Nicaragua and Costa Rico, was a centering and calming influence on the crowd, many of whom expressed concern about how the US government will address his lack of citizenship here. The family had refrained from making any kind of media event out of the release, prefering to give Camilo time to adjust, and to avoid precipitating any adverse reaction by authorities. The dinner was held at Church of the Open Arms in Oklahoma City, a UCC church were many peace-related activities occur. Attenders represented a wide cross-section of the peace and justice community in the Oklahoma City area, and included Mennonites, Quakers and Catholics, as well as non-religious organizations.
From Atlanta Independent Media Center, "2005 Taco Bell Truth Tour- Atlanta" by Shafik Alvarez. Since Shafik Alvarez is attempting to increase awareness and turnout, I'm treating this as a press release and posting it in full:
The Atlanta CIW collective will be holding the 2005 Taco Bell Truth Tour Atlanta on Monday, February 28th and Tuesday, March 1st.
Farm workers who pick tomatoes for Taco Bell and Yum! Brands work in sweatshop conditions, earning 40-45 cents for every 32 pound bucket they pick. Join Florida farmworkers and their allies in Atlanta to tell Taco Bell, and its parent company Yum! Brands, that they must stop profiting from exploitation. A film screening will be held on Monday February 28th at 6pm at Georgia State University and on Tuesday, March 1st following a rally at Unity Plaza at GSU from 12:00 - 1:00, the group will assemble in front of Taco Bell downtown at 63 Broad Street. For more information, the number to call is 404 588 9761.
End Sweatshops in the field TODAY!!!
Contact information Janvieve Williams C 404 588 9761
Taking a moment to check in our Australian friend Luke who blogs at wotisgood4, we find an incredible post entitled "looking for a good cowboy" which provides a better summary of the news for February 22nd than anything I've seen. (This could be a script for a wonderful Headline News.) An excerpt:
* "Scott Ritter, appearing with journalist Dahr Jamail yesterday in Washington State, dropped two shocking bombshells in a talk delivered to a packed house in Olympia’s Capitol Theater. The ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector said that George W. Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, and claimed the U.S. manipulated the results of the recent Jan. 30 elections in Iraq." scott is about the only guy not yet tainted. if he is correct, i guess the good news is that the next war wont happen for a few months - which is good news for those who will die. i guess. http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/2295/
* amongst the war noise, does anyone remember they faked brit torture pix which destroyed piers morgan at the mirror? and now the aclu bring out another 1000 pages of torture dox. in afghan and iraq? is piers vindicated in his unemployedness? thou shalt not question the empire.
* "There currently are about 155,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, according to the U.S. military command in Baghdad. That is the highest number of the entire war, including the initial invasion." http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0%2C1280%2C-4809175%2C00.html
* oz to add 450 trrops to iraq. i think that is about double? if only that other bloke who lost the election had not decided to ignore the war....MEDIA
* in a curious twist, the oz health minister who has recently called for abortion laws to be 're-evaluated' has just discovered his adopted-out son. lots of media coverage. fancy that. the story is too creepy to follow - but it looks totally managed (i wont venture that it is fabricated) - there were coverstories in weekly media the day the story broke. somewhat curiously, they are only using one still picture of the son, on his wedding day (and he is grimacing/faking a smile). i cant bear to watch the media to see if it actually mentions his anti-abortion crusade - but i dont think so - meanwhile the story about his lost son is for some reason the # 1 or 2 story for 24 hours... f**k i hate the media. broken broken. and the media is showing old pix of him showing how handsome he was as a youngster - presumably justifying his behaviour) foul foul. (the same guy was also on tv lying thru his teeth in the week prior to the election denying that he had met the head of the catholic church a few days earlier)
And Brady asks that we pay attention to this:
On 16 February 2005, the Kyoto Protocol came into effect, legally binding most industrialised countries to greenhouse gas emission reductions by 2012. On the same day 35 Greenpeace activists halted trading on the global oil market by occupying the International Petroleum Exchange in London, and disrupting the trading - there were 27 approx arrests [audio report]. The Kyoto treaty was agreed in 1997, but has since been watered down by special provisions and has been often criticised as being too little, too late, and for promoting potentially damaging practices.
Later in the evening more activists blockaded and disrupted the oil industry's most prestigious annual gathering in a Park Lane hotel in London, complete with a banner reading "Climate Change Kills - Oil Industry Parties". There were also actions and events around the world - see global reports and pics. Recently (on 25th January) the Greenpeace Business Lecture itself a target of climate campaigners when the 'Greenwash Guerrillas' from London Rising Tide protested against what they called they Greenwash of Shell's Chairman, Lord Oxburgh [see report and pics].
That's from "Oil Trading Exchange Occupied As Kyoto Becomes Law" and you can find it at UK Indymedia.
This incident happened about 15 minutes from my house in the Madrid apartment complex in Mission Viejo, CA on Feb 5, 2005.
As far as a political discussion, this would probably fall under the same category as Amadou Diallo Case, and Abner Louima in an example of law enforcement brutality bordering on outright criminality.
Here are the relevant facts: Early in the morning on Saturday February the 6th around 1:30 am, Bassim Chmait along with three other friends were walking through an apartment complex heading towards a college house party. As they were walking through the apartment complex one oo the neighbors threw a soda can at them from above. In frustration, one of the young boys threw the can into the street, and continued walking down the pathway of the apartment heading to the party. At that point Douglas Bates, an off duty U.S. Custom's officer, left his home with his badge in hand and gun drawn confronting the group of 4 to 6 friends. . . he started to yell at them, and when the group of boys turned around, they saw the provoker yelling at them about laughing and being too loud, he was heading towards them pointing his gun a them with a badge in the other hand, yelling "You don't want to f**k with a cop, do you?" Apparently he was upset at the noise and commotion. Mr. Bates then pistol whipped one member of the group. The aggressor was an off duty border patrol/homeland security officer who was not in uniform, his name is Douglas Bates. The four unarmed boys were questioning him, asking why he was pointing his gun at them and begging him to put it down. One of the four boys that were there kept asking the gunman to stop pointing the barrel of the gun in his friends direction. Because of that, the aggressor pistol-whipped his friend on the forehead w/ the gun. Anticipating that the provoker was going to hit his friend again Chmait Bassim got in front of his friends telling the man to please put the gun down. Almost instantly the off duty cop shot Bassim in the head and face by Douglas Bates. After shooting Bassim, Mr. Bates simply walked back into his apartment. While friends were screaming about what happened to Bassim, neighbors dialed 911. About 5 minutes later the murderer opened his door, with the gun still in hand and yelled at neighbors to shut up, and he want back inside his apartment. This story comes straight from four witnesses, and neighbors that were there when the murder took place, they saw and heard everything that occurred that night.
That's from "Off Duty U.S. Customs officer shoots unarmed 19-year old Arab-American in head and face" by CA and it can be found at DC Indymedia. And we can thank Martha for sending that in. [E-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.]
Yes, it's Thursday and that means it's time for our independent media review.
Santa Cruz Indymedia has "39 Cities on the California Coast Call for Peace" which contains photos and audio links to protests from Feb. 19th. So please check out this piece by Ann Simonton and Vinny Lombardo.
To highlight another audio link (e-mailed to this site by Liang), Madison Wisconsin Independent Media Center has "Nepal Journalist Describes Censorship in Nepal" by Norm Stockwell and Stephen Mikesell. I realize that some will not be able to listen, so here's an excerpt of their description of the interview:
Following a movement for democracy in 1980 and creation of a parliamentary monarchy, Nepal developed the most free press in Asia. The first community radio stations in South Asia were also established in this period, and within a decade the country was developing a rich culture of community radio, both in the cities and the countryside. This radical departure from the state-controlled media characterizing the rest of South Asia made for a wide-ranging and vibrant discussion of ideas, viewpoints and ideologies that would set the US corporate press to shame.
This was all taking place within the context of IMF-directed privatization of social resources that coincided with the commencement of democracy and a guerrilla insurgency that started in 1996 in Western Nepal and gradually spread throughout the country. State control of the all except for district headquarters and the capital city had all but collapsed and the mainstream political parties, which were intent only on winning control of the government in fighting among themselves, gave up the democratic prerogatives one by one in attempt to gain advantage while further strengthening the monarchy by going to it to mediate their disputes. Local government was dissolved, the parliament was dissolved, and finally the king dissolved the government as well and appointed the prime minister and cabinet from parties willing for the him to do this as long as the received seats in the parliament.
In this context of inter- and intra-party fighting and indecision, on February 1, 2005, the king of Nepal mobilized the military to disband what semblance of democratic institutions remained and took over direct rule of the country.
[There's more at the site, from the intro, but hopefully that was enough to interest those who are able to listen.]
Also please take time to read "AUSTRALIAN PEACE ACTIVIST ON TRIAL IN IRELAND" by Pit Stop Ploughshares from Melbourne Indymedia:
They're on Trial for Us, We're on the Streets for Them!
AUSTRALIAN PEACE ACTIVIST ON TRIAL IN IRELAND
The trial of Australian peace activist Ciaron O'Reilly begins on his 45th. birthday March 7th. in the Dublin Four Courts. O'Reilly has spent the last two years on bail with four co-defendants charged with $U.S.2million criminal damage to a U.S. Navy War Plane at Shannon Airport (3/2/03) The five pacifist Catholic Workers awaiting trial are known in Ireland as the "Pit Stop Ploughshares". Their claim that the civilian Shannon Airport in County Clare has been transformed into a militarised pit stop for the U.S. war machine occupying Iraq is shared by much of the general population.
Krista e-mails this from Oklahoma Independent Media Center, a story on Camilo Mejia by Rena ("Camilo Mejia freed from Oklahoma Army prison"):
Camilo Mejia was sentenced to one year in an Oklahoma Army prison for "desertion" when he refused to continue to participate in a war he felt was immoral. His release was celebrated by dozens of local activists who were notified of his low-key re-entry into "normal" life.
[. . .]
On February 15, Camilo Mejia was released from the prison at Ft. Sill, Oklahoma, where he had been incarcerated since last June. He was welcomed by members of his family, including his mother, aunt and 5-year-old daughter. The family met with Oklahoma peace activists for a celebratory dinner before going on to Miami, where Camilo will take up residence to be near his daughter (he and her mother are divorced).
Camilo, who holds dual citizenship in Nicaragua and Costa Rico, was a centering and calming influence on the crowd, many of whom expressed concern about how the US government will address his lack of citizenship here. The family had refrained from making any kind of media event out of the release, prefering to give Camilo time to adjust, and to avoid precipitating any adverse reaction by authorities. The dinner was held at Church of the Open Arms in Oklahoma City, a UCC church were many peace-related activities occur. Attenders represented a wide cross-section of the peace and justice community in the Oklahoma City area, and included Mennonites, Quakers and Catholics, as well as non-religious organizations.
From Atlanta Independent Media Center, "2005 Taco Bell Truth Tour- Atlanta" by Shafik Alvarez. Since Shafik Alvarez is attempting to increase awareness and turnout, I'm treating this as a press release and posting it in full:
The Atlanta CIW collective will be holding the 2005 Taco Bell Truth Tour Atlanta on Monday, February 28th and Tuesday, March 1st.
Farm workers who pick tomatoes for Taco Bell and Yum! Brands work in sweatshop conditions, earning 40-45 cents for every 32 pound bucket they pick. Join Florida farmworkers and their allies in Atlanta to tell Taco Bell, and its parent company Yum! Brands, that they must stop profiting from exploitation. A film screening will be held on Monday February 28th at 6pm at Georgia State University and on Tuesday, March 1st following a rally at Unity Plaza at GSU from 12:00 - 1:00, the group will assemble in front of Taco Bell downtown at 63 Broad Street. For more information, the number to call is 404 588 9761.
End Sweatshops in the field TODAY!!!
Contact information Janvieve Williams C 404 588 9761
Taking a moment to check in our Australian friend Luke who blogs at wotisgood4, we find an incredible post entitled "looking for a good cowboy" which provides a better summary of the news for February 22nd than anything I've seen. (This could be a script for a wonderful Headline News.) An excerpt:
* "Scott Ritter, appearing with journalist Dahr Jamail yesterday in Washington State, dropped two shocking bombshells in a talk delivered to a packed house in Olympia’s Capitol Theater. The ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector said that George W. Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, and claimed the U.S. manipulated the results of the recent Jan. 30 elections in Iraq." scott is about the only guy not yet tainted. if he is correct, i guess the good news is that the next war wont happen for a few months - which is good news for those who will die. i guess. http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/2295/
* amongst the war noise, does anyone remember they faked brit torture pix which destroyed piers morgan at the mirror? and now the aclu bring out another 1000 pages of torture dox. in afghan and iraq? is piers vindicated in his unemployedness? thou shalt not question the empire.
* "There currently are about 155,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, according to the U.S. military command in Baghdad. That is the highest number of the entire war, including the initial invasion." http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0%2C1280%2C-4809175%2C00.html
* oz to add 450 trrops to iraq. i think that is about double? if only that other bloke who lost the election had not decided to ignore the war....MEDIA
* in a curious twist, the oz health minister who has recently called for abortion laws to be 're-evaluated' has just discovered his adopted-out son. lots of media coverage. fancy that. the story is too creepy to follow - but it looks totally managed (i wont venture that it is fabricated) - there were coverstories in weekly media the day the story broke. somewhat curiously, they are only using one still picture of the son, on his wedding day (and he is grimacing/faking a smile). i cant bear to watch the media to see if it actually mentions his anti-abortion crusade - but i dont think so - meanwhile the story about his lost son is for some reason the # 1 or 2 story for 24 hours... f**k i hate the media. broken broken. and the media is showing old pix of him showing how handsome he was as a youngster - presumably justifying his behaviour) foul foul. (the same guy was also on tv lying thru his teeth in the week prior to the election denying that he had met the head of the catholic church a few days earlier)
And Brady asks that we pay attention to this:
On 16 February 2005, the Kyoto Protocol came into effect, legally binding most industrialised countries to greenhouse gas emission reductions by 2012. On the same day 35 Greenpeace activists halted trading on the global oil market by occupying the International Petroleum Exchange in London, and disrupting the trading - there were 27 approx arrests [audio report]. The Kyoto treaty was agreed in 1997, but has since been watered down by special provisions and has been often criticised as being too little, too late, and for promoting potentially damaging practices.
Later in the evening more activists blockaded and disrupted the oil industry's most prestigious annual gathering in a Park Lane hotel in London, complete with a banner reading "Climate Change Kills - Oil Industry Parties". There were also actions and events around the world - see global reports and pics. Recently (on 25th January) the Greenpeace Business Lecture itself a target of climate campaigners when the 'Greenwash Guerrillas' from London Rising Tide protested against what they called they Greenwash of Shell's Chairman, Lord Oxburgh [see report and pics].
That's from "Oil Trading Exchange Occupied As Kyoto Becomes Law" and you can find it at UK Indymedia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)