Miguel: Hola. En noticias de "Democracy Now!" aquí están quince titularespor la semana. Diga a un amigo.
Bush no se reúne con Sheehan pero habla de ella
El Presidente Bush salió ayer de su rancho en Crawford, Texas y se refirió por primera vez a la creciente protesta contra la guerra fuera de su propiedad. Lo que comenzó como la vigilia de una mujer luego se transformó en la acción central en Estados Unidos contra la guerra. Antes de esta semana, el tema tuvo muy poca cobertura en los medios corporativos acerca de las familias contra la guerra que perdieron a sus hijos en Irak, pero ahora Cindy Sheehan, cuyo hijo Casey murió en Irak, está en la primera plana de los diarios internacionales luego de acampar en las inmediaciones del rancho del presidente en Crawford. El presidente Bush nombró a Sheean mientras se dirigía a los periodistas el jueves.
"Estamos en Estados Unidos. Ella tiene derecho a tener su posición y yo he pensado acerca de su posición con detenimiento. Escuché en boca de otros su posición, que es: Retírense de Irak ahora. Hacer eso sería un error para la seguridad del país y para la posibilidad de sentar las bases de la paz a largo plazo."
El presidente Bush, por consiguiente, se negó a reunirse con Cindy Sheehan en su rancho y envió emisarios en su lugar. Pero Sheehan prometió permanecer en Crawford hasta que Bush acceda a reunirse con ella. También señaló que acampará fuera de la Casa Blanca si es necesario, cuando Bush regrese de una de sus tantas vacaciones. El Presidente ha tomado más de 320 días de vacaciones desde que asumió su cargo por primera vez hace cinco años.
Vigilia de Cindy Sheehan logra apoyo del Congreso
Mientras tanto, en Crawford, Texas, Cindy Sheehan continúa su vigilia en las inmediaciones del rancho donde el Presidente Bush está nuevamente de vacaciones. La campaña de esa mujer, que perdió un hijo en la guerra de Irak y demanda que el Presidente se reúna con ella, obtiene notoriedad y apoyo. Sheehan estuvo en la primera plana de los diarios en los últimos días, desde que comenzó a acampar en Crawford. Familiares de militares de varios estados llegaron para acompañarla, y 38 miembros del Congreso firmaron un carta solicitando al Presidente Bush que la reciba. El sábado, el Asesor sobre Seguridad Nacional, Steve Hadley y el subjefe de personal de la Casa Blanca, Joe Hagin, tuvieron una breve reunión con Sheehan, pero ella calificó el encuentro de "inútil" e insistió en que permanecerá en Crawford hasta que pueda hablar con el Presidente.
General Myers afirma que podría haber una 3ª campaña para los soldados
El General Richard Myers, presidente del Estado Mayor Conjunto, afirmó esta semana que el Pentágono podría considerar el envío de tropas para un tercer período de servicio activo en las actuales ocupaciones de Irak y Afganistán. En general, esta no es la norma del Ejército, pero hay quienes acusan al Pentágono de haber desplegado soldados en tercer período de servicio.
Alcalde de Bagdad derrocado
En Irak, el alcalde de Bagdad fue derrocado. Según informes de prensa, 120 chiítas armados atacaron su oficina e instalaron a un nuevo alcalde en su lugar. El alcalde saliente advirtió que se trataba de una maniobra peligrosa y antidemocrática.
Encuesta: 57% dice que la guerra de Irak hizo menos seguro al país
Mientras tanto, en una nueva encuesta realizada en Estados Unidos por USA Today, 57 por ciento de los consultados dijeron que la guerra de Irak hizo al país más vulnerable a atentados terroristas. Sólo el 34 por ciento respondió que la guerra logró que el país fuera más seguro.
Aprobación al presidente Bush en su nivel más bajo
Mientras tanto, el índice de aprobación al Presidente Bush ha registrado su nivel más bajo hasta ahora. En una nueva encuesta realizada por la revista Newsweek sólo un 38 por ciento de los consultados aprobaron la forma en que el presidente Bush ha manejado la guerra de Irak. Su índice de aprobación general en esa encuesta fue del 42 por ciento, el más bajo desde que es Presidente.
Estados Unidos prepara envío de más tropas a Irak
El Pentágono se prepara para enviar más tropas a Irak antes de la votación de la nueva Constitución de ese país, prevista para octubre,l y de las elecciones de diciembre. Estados Unidos tiene actualmente 138.000 efectivos en Irak. La cifra aumentó a 160.000 antes de las elecciones realizadas a principios de este año. El portavoz del Pentágono, Lawrence Di Rita afirmó que "es esperable que hagamos lo mismo en las próximas elecciones."
Policía iraquí abre fuego contra manifestantes
Oficiales de policía abrieron fuego contra una multitud de manifestantes iraquíes en la ciudad de Samawah y mataron a uno de ellos. Más de 1.000 personas se habían volcado a las calles para exigir electricidad, trabajo y agua. Los manifestantes lanzaron piedras a las oficinas del gobernador y miembros de la milicia chiíta fueron vistos en las calles portando lanzagranadas. Más de 50 personas resultaron heridas, incluyendo 18 oficiales de policía y un manifestante murió en los incidentes, según informó el diario Times of London.
General de cuatro estrellas degradado por relación extramarital
El Pentágono se ha negado a aplicar sanciones a funcionarios militares de jerarquía por los maltratos en las prisiones de Abu Ghraib o Guantánamo, pero el ejército adoptó la inusual decisión de retirar el mando a un general de cuatro estrellas, no por participar en la tortura de prisioneros, sino por estar acusado de mantener una relación extramarital con una civil. El acusado es el general Kevin Byrnes, que dirigió el Comando de Entrenamiento y Adoctrinamiento del Ejército de Fort Monroe, en Virginia, y cuyo retiro estaba previsto para noviembre tras haber cumplido 36 años de servicio. Oficiales del ejército afirman que no hay antecedentes en la historia reciente de que un general de cuatro estrellas fuera relevado de sus tareas.
Tribunal Federal de Florida rechaza procesamientos de los Cinco Cubanos
En Florida, un tribunal federal rechazó los procesamientos de los cinco cubanos arrestados en 1998, luego de que compartieron información con el gobierno de Estados Unidos sobre planes de exiliados anticastristas en Florida para realizar atentados terroristas en Cuba. Los cinco fueron acusados de ser espías y una amenaza para la seguridad nacional de Estados Unidos. Durante años, activistas de todo el mundo se han organizado para pedir su libertad. El martes, el tribunal de Florida dictaminó que los hombres no tuvieron un juicio justo en Miami, el bastión de los exiliados opositores al gobierno cubano. El Comité Nacional para Liberar a los Cinco Cubanos solicita ahora al gobierno de Estados Unidos que los deje en libertad y levante las acusaciones en su contra.
Nuevo juicio para los Cinco Cubanos
Apenas un día después de que un tribunal federal de apelaciones rechazó los procesamientos de los Cinco Cubanos, el principal fiscal federal de Miami sostiene que volverá a someterlos a juicio por espionaje.
El gobierno dice que el nuevo juicio probablemente se realice el año próximo en una ciudad que no sea Miami. Sin embargo, el abogado gubernamental Alexander Acosta comentó que está pensando en apelar la decisión tomada el martes tomada por el Tribunal de Apelaciones de décimo primer turno de Atlanta. Ese tribunal concluyó que el juicio original fue injusto, porque se desarrolló en Miami, el bastión de los exiliados cubanos de derecha. Según expertos en Derecho, el Tribunal de Apelaciones presentó evidencia tan abrumadora que los fiscales no tienen nada que objetar.
El Cantante cubano Ibrahim Ferrer de la Vista de Buena el Club Social Muere
En noticias de Cuba, el cantante Ibrahim Ferrer ha muerto a los 78 años. El ganó la fama internacional en 1997 cuando él fue alistado por formar parte de la Vista de Buena el Club Social. Ibrahim Ferrer murió en un hospital de La Habana el sábado.
Subcomandante Marcos reaparece para hacer declaraciones públicas
En México, el subcomandante Marcos, líder rebelde zapatista, habló públicamente por primera vez desde 2001. Con ropa militar de fajina y pasamontañas negro, Marcos apareció ante una multitud en el fin de semana para criticar a Andrés Manuel López Obrador, del Partido de la Revolución Democrática (PRD) y ex alcalde de la Ciudad de México, que lidera las encuestas para las elecciones presidenciales del próximo año. Marcos prometió no votar a López Obrador ni a ningún otro candidato. "Lo que queremos es ser sinceros: hace 12 años les dijimos que creíamos en el PRD, pero nos equivocamos al pensar que esa gente iba a ser consecuente con lo que decía; no es consecuente y no vamos a repetir el mismo error, porque allá se equivocan y pierden una elección, pero acá si nos equivocamos perdemos todo", afirmó.
Murió el gigante editorial afro-estadounidense John Johnson
El editor de revistas John H. Johnson murió a los 87 años de edad. En 1942, Johnson pidió 500 dólares prestados para lanzar lo que luego se convertiría en el imperio editorial afro-estadounidense más exitoso. Dos de sus revistas más famosas son Ebony y Jet. En 1982 se convirtió en el primer afro-estadounidense en integrar la lista de los 400 estadounidenses más ricos publicada por la revista Forbes. Johnson asistió a una escuela segregada en Arkansas. En su pueblo no había enseñanza secundaria para estudiantes afro-estadounidenses, y Johnson repitió el octavo grado para no abandonar sus estudios.
Mayoría de personas de Texas son de color
Texas se transformó en el cuarto estado del país en que las personas definidas como blancas se han vuelto minoría, junto con California, Nuevo México y Hawaii. El Departamento de Censo de Estados Unidos dijo el jueves que se trata de una tendencia que surge como consecuencia del creciente número de latinos que se mudan a Texas. Otros cinco estados, Maryland, Mississippi, Georgia, Nueva York y Arizona, no se quedan atrás, con un decreciente 60 por ciento de personas definidas como blancas. Muchos especialistas en demografía dicen que ese grupo será minoría en todo el país en 2050.
Miguel: Hello. Here are fifteen headlines from "Democracy Now!" this week. Tell a friend.
Bush Won't Meet With Sheehan, But He'll Talk About Her
President Bush emerged from his ranch in Crawford, Texas yesterday and addressed for the first time the rapidly growing antiwar protest outside of his property. What began as a one woman vigil has now grown into the central antiwar action in the US. Before this week, there was very little coverage in the corporate media of antiwar families whose loved ones have been killed in Iraq, but now Cindy Sheehan--whose son Casey was killed in Iraq-- has grabbed international headlines by camping out in Crawford.
President Bush, speaking to reporters on Thursday:
"This is America. She has a right to her position, and I thought long and hard about her position. I've heard her position from others, which is: Get out of Iraq now. And it would be a mistake for the security of this country and the ability to lay the foundations for peace in the long run if we were to do so."
President Bush has thus far refused to meet with Cindy Sheehan at his ranch, instead sending emissaries. Sheehan has vowed to remain in Crawford until Bush agrees to meet her. She has also indicated she may camp out at the White House once Bush returns from yet another vacation. He has taken more than 320 days of vacation since assuming the presidency 5 years ago.
Cindy Sheehan Vigil Gains Support From Congress
Meanwhile, in Crawford, Texas Cindy Sheehan is continuing her vigil outside the ranch where President Bush is once again vacationing. And her campaign is gaining momentum and support. Sheehan, of course, grabbed headlines in recent days since she began camping near President Bush's ranch. She is the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq. As more military families arrived from several states to join Sheehan, 38 members of Congress signed a letter asking Bush to meet with her. On Saturday, National Security Advisor Steven Hadley and Deputy White House Chief of Staff Joe Hagin met with Sheehan briefly, but she called the exchange "pointless" and has said she will stay in Crawford until the president meets with her.
Gen. Myers Says 3rd Tour of Duty Possible for Soldiers
The Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers, said this week that the Pentagon may consider sending troops on third tours for active-duty as part of the ongoing occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. That is generally not the norm in the military, though some have accused the Pentagon of deploying soldiers for 3 tours already.
Mayor of Baghdad Ousted
In Iraq, the mayor of Baghdad has been ousted after 120 Shiite gunmen reportedly stormed his office and installed a new mayor. The outgoing mayor warned that the move was dangerous and undemocratic.
Poll: 57% of U.S. Says Iraq War Has Made Nation Less Safe
Meanwhile a new poll by USA Today in this country has found that 57 percent of respondents believes the war in Iraq has made the United States more vulnerable to another terrorist attack. Only 34 percent said the war had made the country safer.
President Bush's Approval Rating Reaches New Low
Meanwhile President Bush's poll ratings have reached a new low. A new survey by Newsweek found only 38 percent of the country approve of the president's handling of the war in Iraq. Overall his approval rating is just 42 percent - the lowest of his presidency.
U.S. Prepares to Send More Troops To Iraq
The Pentagon is preparing to send more troops to Iraq ahead of a scheduled vote in October on the new constitution and elections in December. The U.S. currently has 138,000 troops in Iraq. The total jumped to 160,000 ahead of the elections earlier this year. Pentagon spokesperson Lawrence Di Rita said, "It's perfectly plausible to assume we'll do the same thing for this election."
Iraqi Police Open Fire On Demonstrators
U.S. backed-Iraqi police offices opened fire on a crowd of Iraqis demonstrating in the town of Samawah. More than 1,000 people had taken to the streets to demand electricity, jobs and water. This marks the third summer that the residents of Iraq has suffered without regular electricity or water. Demonstrators threw stones at the governor's office and members of a Shiite militia were seen moving around the streets carrying grenade launchers. According to the Times of London, more than 50 people were wounded including 18 police officers. One demonstrator died.
Four-Star General Demoted For Extramarital Affair
The Pentagon has refused to punish any senior military officers for the prison abuse at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo, but the army has taken the rare action of relieving a four-star general of his command. But not for any role in torture of prisoners. Gen. Kevin Byrnes stands accused of having an extramarital affair with a civilian. The General led the Army's Training and Doctrine Command at Fort Monroe, Virginia and he was reportedly set to retire in November after 36 years of service. Army officials say they could find no case of another four-star general being relieved of duty in modern times.
Federal Court Overturns Convictions of the Cuba 5
In Florida, a federal court has overturned the convictions of the Cuba 5. The Cuban nationals were arrested in 1998 after they shared information with the U.S. government on how anti-Castro Cuban exiles in Florida were planning to carry out terrorist attacks in Cuba. The men were accused of being spies and a threat to the national security of the United States. For years activists around the world have organized calling for their freedom. On Tuesday the federal court ruled that the men did not get a fair trial in Miami, a stronghold of Cuban exiles opposed to the Cuban government. The National Committee to Free the Cuban Five is now calling on the U.S. government to release the men and drop all charges. We'll have more on this story in a few minutes.
Retrial for 'Cuban Five'
Just a day after a federal appeals court overturned the convictions of the Cuban Five, Miami's top federal prosecutor says he will retry the men, who stand accused of espionage. The government says the retrial will likely happen next year and in a city other than Miami. But U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta also says he is considering appealing Tuesday's stunning decision by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. That decision found that the original trial was unfair because it took place in the rightwing Cuban exile stronghold of Miami. Legal experts said the three-judge panel cited so much overwhelming evidence that there is nothing for prosecutors to challenge.
Cuban Singer Ibrahim Ferrer of the Buena Vista Social Club Dies
In news from Cuba, singer Ibrahim Ferrer has died at the age of 78. He gained international fame in 1997 when he was recruited to be part of the Buena Vista Social Club. Ibrahim Ferrer died in a Havana hospital on Saturday.
Zapatista Leader Marcos Reemerges to Speak Publicly
In Mexico, Zaptista rebel leader Subcomandante Marcos has spoken publicly for the first time since 2001. Wearing military fatigues and a black ski mask, Marcos appeared before a crowd this weekend to criticize Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador -- the former Mexico City mayor who is the leading candidate in next year's presidential race. Marcos vowed not to vote for him or any other candidate. "What we want is to be sincere, because 12 years ago, we told you and many others that we believed in the PRD party," Marcos said. "We were wrong to think that these people were going to carry out the actions that they spoke about. We are not going to make the same mistake because they make a mistake over there and they lose the elections, we make a mistake here and we lose everything we have."
African-American Publishing Giant John Johnson Dies
And magazine publisher John H. Johnson has died at the age of 87. In 1942, he borrowed $500 to launch what would become the most successful African-American publishing empires. He would go on to start Ebony and Jet magazines. In 1982 he became the first African-American to make Forbes magazine's list of the 400 wealthiest Americans. Johnson was educated in a segregated school in Arkansas. The town had no high school for African-American students so Johnson repeated eighth grade instead of dropping out of school.
Texas is Majority People of Color
Texas has become the fourth state in the country where white people have become a minority. The U.S. Census Bureau said Thursday this is part of a trend driven by a surging number of Latinos moving to the state. Texas joins California, New Mexico and Hawaii as states with majority-people of color populations. Five other states - Maryland, Mississippi, Georgia, New York and Arizona - aren't far behind, with about 40 percent people of color. Many demographic experts say that whites will be in the minority by 2050.
Saturday, August 13, 2005
The Laura Flanders Show reports from Crawford, Brazilian Girls, People's Economic Summit, Bernadette Taylor, Ali Rahnoma and Varda Burstyn
The line up for The Laura Flanders Show (thanks, Martha):
This weekend on Air America Radio, 7-10 PM EST
Saturday, August 13
Who are today's Winter Soldiers? A frontline Iraq war protest report from Crawford, Texas with- Gold Star Families for Peace parents Bill Mitchell and Nadia McCaffrey- Jan Barry, co-founder of Vietnam Veterans Against the War- Then we will speak to 'melting-pop' dance-pop group BRAZILIAN GIRLS- And hear a live report from the Willie Mae Rock n' Roll Camp for Girls
Sunday, August 14
We will hold our own 'People's Economic Summit' and hear what workers across the country think about our economy:- Bernadette Taylor, a Computer Program Developer from California- Ali Rahnoma, student at San Jose State University
- Then, VARDA BURSTYN, author of 'Water Inc.' will tell us the real (and scary) truth behind governmental privatization schemes.
I know I don't have to "sale" the community on Laura Flanders. In fact, I received more e-mails from upset members this week when I didn't note one day that she was filling in for Janeane Garofalo and Sam Seder on The Majority Report this past week then I have on anything else. (It wasn't up at the AAR home page that day or it would have been noted.) But I also know it's been a busy week and some of you have children either back in school or soon to be back in school, it's hot everywhere, go down the list. (Or lists.) So I won't to really stress that Sunday's show is a must listen to for me. The issue of the privatization of water is one that's had effects all over the world and it's one that we think (if we're aware of the topic) that it's not anything that will effect us. That is so very wrong and do yourself a favor and listen.
Looking at Kyle's e-mail, I doubt that plug is needed because he's overjoyed that he's going to get "nine consecutive days of Laura Flanders!!!!!" I count five exclamation points in that. Not everyone used five but the e-mails are all full of praise of Laura Flanders sitting in for Janeane Garofalo (who was taping West Wing) and Sam Seder (whose wife, Nikki Seder, gave birth this week). If you missed any of The Majority Report, remember that you can hear the archived broadcasts at Air America Place.
(And that's how I listened during the week because I wasn't home while it was broadcast. I still need to find time to listen to Friday's broadcast which Edna thinks was the best of the week with "Laura asking for accountability and visibility from everyone including Democratic officials!")
Nine days of three hour broadcasts live. Some members (like Kara and Doug) pointed out that on election night, Laura Flanders was one of the people participating live and then turned around and did the live, overnight broadcast. (Doug says she was "amazing.") The Laura Flanders Show is a community favorite and I'll note that Melody e-mailed to say she'd never listened on the weekends so she got her first exposure to Flanders this week while she was filling in for Garofalo and Seder and "okay, I'm a convert now, I will be listening." Hopefully, her substitute duties this week was heard by people like Melody who'd missed the weekend show and will now be listening.
Remember, you can listen over broadcast radio (if there's an AAR in your area), via XM Satellite Radio or listen online.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
This weekend on Air America Radio, 7-10 PM EST
Saturday, August 13
Who are today's Winter Soldiers? A frontline Iraq war protest report from Crawford, Texas with- Gold Star Families for Peace parents Bill Mitchell and Nadia McCaffrey- Jan Barry, co-founder of Vietnam Veterans Against the War- Then we will speak to 'melting-pop' dance-pop group BRAZILIAN GIRLS- And hear a live report from the Willie Mae Rock n' Roll Camp for Girls
Sunday, August 14
We will hold our own 'People's Economic Summit' and hear what workers across the country think about our economy:- Bernadette Taylor, a Computer Program Developer from California- Ali Rahnoma, student at San Jose State University
- Then, VARDA BURSTYN, author of 'Water Inc.' will tell us the real (and scary) truth behind governmental privatization schemes.
I know I don't have to "sale" the community on Laura Flanders. In fact, I received more e-mails from upset members this week when I didn't note one day that she was filling in for Janeane Garofalo and Sam Seder on The Majority Report this past week then I have on anything else. (It wasn't up at the AAR home page that day or it would have been noted.) But I also know it's been a busy week and some of you have children either back in school or soon to be back in school, it's hot everywhere, go down the list. (Or lists.) So I won't to really stress that Sunday's show is a must listen to for me. The issue of the privatization of water is one that's had effects all over the world and it's one that we think (if we're aware of the topic) that it's not anything that will effect us. That is so very wrong and do yourself a favor and listen.
Looking at Kyle's e-mail, I doubt that plug is needed because he's overjoyed that he's going to get "nine consecutive days of Laura Flanders!!!!!" I count five exclamation points in that. Not everyone used five but the e-mails are all full of praise of Laura Flanders sitting in for Janeane Garofalo (who was taping West Wing) and Sam Seder (whose wife, Nikki Seder, gave birth this week). If you missed any of The Majority Report, remember that you can hear the archived broadcasts at Air America Place.
(And that's how I listened during the week because I wasn't home while it was broadcast. I still need to find time to listen to Friday's broadcast which Edna thinks was the best of the week with "Laura asking for accountability and visibility from everyone including Democratic officials!")
Nine days of three hour broadcasts live. Some members (like Kara and Doug) pointed out that on election night, Laura Flanders was one of the people participating live and then turned around and did the live, overnight broadcast. (Doug says she was "amazing.") The Laura Flanders Show is a community favorite and I'll note that Melody e-mailed to say she'd never listened on the weekends so she got her first exposure to Flanders this week while she was filling in for Garofalo and Seder and "okay, I'm a convert now, I will be listening." Hopefully, her substitute duties this week was heard by people like Melody who'd missed the weekend show and will now be listening.
Remember, you can listen over broadcast radio (if there's an AAR in your area), via XM Satellite Radio or listen online.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
George wonders where was The Daily Howler others wonder about the scope of The Daily Howler
So where was The Daily Howler all week? That was what George wondered.
George, The Daily Howler was where it always is. But I know you're asking where was it in the posts here.
The Daily Howler posts later and later each day. I'm not in the mood to hold posts lately. I'm rushing to get those done and move on. What did we miss?
Friday Bob Somerby continued to split hairs re: Joseph Wilson's trip to Niger. Is there a point to this? It's been noted. And noted. And noted. And . . . He's becoming like Paul Reiser in Diner. The press continues to report on it in a manner Somerby disagrees with. Got it.
And in a slow week, that would be fine. But this wasn't a slow week.
We did a roundtable here. I edited most of my remarks out of that roundtable to be more of a moderator (Ava and Mike discussed that here and Doug e-mailed asking why I edited out my remarks? It should be clear in the following, Doug.). I like Somerby's work. I've learned a great deal from Somerby. I owe a huge debt to Somerby and I'd argue most do.
But in that roundtable, issues were raised.
The site is called The Daily Howler. (Not, as some might suspect, Why Joe Wilson Is Wrong.)
The Daily Howler. The howlers of the day.
Get it?
On Monday, one of the big three evening's newscast led with the news of the death of one of their own. That wasn't a note and then we moved on to stories around the world. It was a tribute. And it opened the news.
"We are not the story." They made one of their own the story. Not for just one story.
If Peter Jennings was all the things they said about him (I have no reason to doubt that he was), I'm having a hard time figuring out how trashing basic journalism guidelines "honored" Peter Jennings. I'm also having a hard time figuring out who thought shots of Jennings in his boxers and cute stories about him qualified as a tribute to a journalist?
That was a Howler.
As the week progressed and we saw the death of a journalist, publisher and owner of his own publications shunted aside, there was an analysis that could have been made about that. It wasn't made by many in the mainstream media. (We've attempted to note stories on John H. Johnson here.)
The subtext was that Jenning's death was more important than Johnson's. There's much I could say about that but we're addressing it at The Third Estate Sunday Review.
A press critique could have been done on it at The Howler. In the roundtable we had here, Gina shared that The Daily Howler didn't really speak to her. She felt that it was a site for white men. That's a criticism I'd never considered. Gina's feelings are valid. Whether or not her reading is one everyone agrees with, I have no idea. (For my opinion, read on.)
However, this was an opportunity for us to see how one racial issue was dealt with at The Howler. The answer in this instance is that it wasn't dealt with at all. Gina watched The Howler this week. She feels that the only time a person of color popped up was when a sports star was noted.
Another issue brought up in the roundtable was the issue of the way women are noted at The Howler. Ruth has raised that issue in a Ruth's Morning Edition Report that she killed. (She asked that it not go up.) It's an issue worth considering. Gina felt that Mary Matalin got air kisses this week.
She also wondered (and I agree with her) why a professional spinner like Matalin is applauded at The Howler? Good question. Apparently she's a 'nice person' who's booked Somerby as a guest before. I don't know if that really excuses the Sonny & Cher sideshow that she and husband James Carville have inflicted upon the nation each time they team up as guests on Meet the Press. (Carville gets to be Cher, he has personality.) To state the obvious, that Carville ties one hand behind his back every time he's on opposite Matalin, is something The Howler should have long ago done. I have no idea why it hasn't.
But as Gina pointed out, the big story this week was Cindy Sheehan. And Sheehan was attacked by the right wing pundits. In the past, that's really all it takes to get a Daily Howler analysis.
Didn't happen.
Those hoping that finally on Friday, Somerby would deal with it were disappointed as he was back to the apparently must note issue of Joe Wilson and the 2002 trip, the 2003 op-ed . . .
Why wasn't Cindy Sheehan the subject of analysis at The Daily Howler? Only Somerby can answer that. Media Matters was covering it. So were bloggers. But it wasn't news at The Daily Howler. (Note: Dallas just e-mailed that Somerby's addressing Sheehan today. I haven't read it and won't, today's too busy.)
Maybe Somerby felt it was being covered enough elsewhere and he didn't have anything to add that couldn't be said by someone else? That's legitimate, that's a solid reason. But no one was addressing (that I'm aware of) that ABC's World News Tonight tossed out news to do a tribute to Peter Jennings or that John H. Johnson didn't receive the kind of play that Jennings did. So that's a topic that Somerby could have analyzed without fearing that it was "the rage of the
net. "
He doesn't like to second guess people's motives (no e-mails on that, that's his stated intent) so maybe he felt that he would have to ask questions about racism involved in the coverage? Considering that The Daily Howler is set up to ask questions, I find that a rather weak excuse.
I wasn't too keen on his sports talk which was isolated to one individual as though the "power players" weren't pushed a few years back by the league itself. A larger issue is reduced to an individual. But if you've got time for the steroids story, you should have time to at least do a paragraph on Johnson's coverage (or lack of it). (To give credit to the New York Times, they ran an obit and a feature article in the arts section as well as an op-ed on his importance.)
I wasn't too impressed with The Daily Howler this week, to be honest. Somerby's arguments (example, Wilson) had been gone over at length previously (not just in 2004, but also in recent months). But, to use an old analogy, the needle was struck in the groove apparently and we were hearing the same thing we'd heard before.
Early in the week we were still getting shout outs. (One of the many sections that led Lewis to e-mail asking if Somerby was aware of the own "chafe" in his columns.) Thankfully that stopped. It's a little sad to see a giant who takes on the mainstream press be caught doing shout outs. Repeatedly. Somerby went for analyizing and critiquing to shout outs the week of the roundtable. And many entries that I worked on that week and after originally included paragraphs that I would take out because I'd think, "I don't really want to say that."
I don't want to say any of the above. Not out of fear. One of the great things (and Somerby knows this) about not taking ads or depending on approval is that you can say whatever you want. (If fear was involved, it was because I have defended Somerby -- and still do -- to members who are bothered by some of his critiques and worried that my including negative criticism would lead some members to think, "Okay, open season on Somerby!")
I didn't want to say anything because everyone can have a bad patch even someone who can be as brilliant as Somerby (who's more often brilliant -- even when I disagree with his opinion -- then he is not -- still). But the bad patch got to be so bad that, to put into an analogy a sports lover like Somerby would grasp, it was as though a once great major league pitcher had been reduced to knuckle balls and other questionable (or once questionable -- his sport's left the glory it once had -- an opinion I doubt he'd quibble too much over -- as always I could be wrong) "tricks."
There were things going on in the world. Real things, important things. I didn't feel that The Daily Howler was really making contributions. Friday last, two members had e-mailed things to highlight (one was from Ron, the other from Delilah) and I couldn't even follow the entries. Not because they were badly written, but because Dallas had just sent The Daily Howler in full with the note that he couldn't find anything to pull from it. And reading it, I was as puzzled as Dallas. (And disappointed, let's be honest. I am a fan of Somerby's work.) But two people didn't get highlighted, not because I thought, "Oh well this is better covered by . . ." but because I couldn't even absorb what they were saying because I was left dumbfounded by The Daily Howler.
Never again is what I told myself. I'd hoped to highlight both Delilah and Ron on Saturday but problems with this site prevented that happening. (That's also why Beth's interview, which was done on Friday to go up on Saturday, didn't go up on Saturday.)
Sunday, of course, The Third Estate Sunday Review couldn't get their last two posts up due to a problem with Blogger. (They're up now.) So we carried that over to this site. Actually, to the mirror site originally because there were problems with the Blogger program here as well. I've tried to get Isaiah's The World Today up each morning this week and there were problems with that as well. (UK Computer Gurus think they have it fixed as of this afternoon. Since Sunday is almost upon us, we'll save it for this Sunday.)
Maybe the problem is me? I'm not feeling well this week (and that probably shows in the morning entries) and from work I go to work on volunteering. When I finally get home, I'm dead tired and about to fall over. I hope for inspiration from The Mike Malloy Show but it doesn't always come. (That's not a slap at Malloy, that's me being tired and feeling ill.)
So Somerby may be doing an excellent job and I might just be missing it due to my own problems and issues. But, again, there were real issues going on this week. And I didn't see anything worth noting at The Daily Howler on the few times that it could have been included in an entry.
We'll hopefully be able to note him next week. But there were other things to note. And there's always a line. I wasn't in the mood to hold the line to wait for The Daily Howler to go up. And I wasn't that impressed with anything that went up there this week.
The issues raised in the roundtable were serious ones. Ava and I had asked, prior to the roundtable (and prior to Ruth's piece that she killed) why it was that a White House Letter led to (deserved) ridicule but a White House Memo (both are floating op-eds in the New York Times) didn't?
Why is it, to carry that issue further, that Kit Seelye, to this day, is a subject of derision at The Howler? Others who were clowns in 2000 have been allowed to move on. Not Seelye. And Jane Mayer is noted over and over (and ridiculed) for stating that the criticism of Seelye (and the Washington Post's CeCe Connelly). I'm really not sure why a statement in 2000 is the sole focus point for Mayer at The Daily Howler. (I'm also not sure I disagree with Mayer.) Mayer's done strong reporting (and we've noted it here) but it doesn't exist at The Daily Howler where she's trotted out (repeatedly) to be trashed for a statement that he disagrees with.
It's his site and he needs to run it the way he sees fit. But if he's not adding anything that some member is inspired by, we've got a list of other suggestions. In the early days, someone e-mailed to highlight something, it went up. There are too many e-mails coming in these days and members know I have to make a call on suggestions. (Which is why you're better off if you're pull quoting yourself and even better if you're stating "This spoke to me because . . ." If I'm reading it, I may not catch what you do on my own.)
When Somerby goes into his critiques of Joseph Wilson, I've been willing to deal with the incoming e-mails that I knew would pour in. That's because, whether I agreed with it or not, I could see the point of his argument. Maybe it's me, but I'm not seeing it. He's like Ellen on thirty-something constantly rehashing a moment when Hope might have, or might not have, intentionally slighted her. (That's not an endorsement of the show thirty-something. The only episode I saw was when Carly Simon guest-starred.)
That's not "get over it!" His main point is that we're doomed to clowning unless we own up to past clowning. That is, however, saying that while his re-reading of Wilson's book might make him predisposed to weighing in on what he'd already spent time on, the fact remains that Wilson wasn't the big story of the week. And that's my opinion. And that's why The Daily Howler wasn't highlighted.
It posted late, it didn't have anything that made me say, "Okay, I'm going to make time to note this."
On the other end of the specturm (things that did matter), we noted Danny Schechter more this week than usual which I was very glad about when Martha copied and pasted Schechter's latest because I don't need more guilt.
My opinion of Friday's News Dissector? Schechter's coming down off traveling. He's been in other countries where active activism really exists. And he had to come back to the land of the Bully Boy. It's enough to depress anyone even someone as dedicated (and hopeful) as Schechter.
Schechter does important work (so does Somerby, just not the last two weeks in my opinion) and he should be noted more. But in a week where even Matthew Rothschild had something that didn't get noted (his piece on Greenspan), there wasn't time to waste when even Dallas (who may be more devoted to The Daily Howler than I am) couldn't find anything of value. The vanishing of the shout-outs was a relief. (By the way, I'm not sure that we didn't note The Daily Howler at all this week. I'm going by what the e-mails are saying.) I don't think many people watch the Grammys for the acceptance speeches. But what remained didn't speak to me.
I've always said that if a voice doesn't speak to you, move on to one that does. That's what we did this week. (Had one member e-mailed to find something to pull quote from The Howler, it would have been noted.) Somerby's not been blackballed. He's not banished from the table.
But there were people showing up at the door with something to share. Pointing to the guest who showed up empty handed . . .
Or one who was snarky about NARAL (that's who he's speaking of at the end of Friday's Howler) . . .
I guess they didn't speak to him in quite the way that William Kristol or Mary Matalin did?
I don't know and I don't care but we don't have time for that crap here. We're pro-choice and we're that firmly. And the conventional wisdom that Somerby attempts to buck won't be bucked by reliance on (select) conventional wisdom from offical sources.
The welcome mat is still there for Somerby. But the place at the table will be determined by whether he has something to offer of value. I took a lot of ___ over his attacks on Katrina vanden Heuvel. I clearly sided with KvH but was put in the position of defending him. KvH was right. And I don't know if Somerby doesn't read The New Yorker (maybe that's why he doesn't note Mayer's work?) but having weighed in on the abuse of the Koran and Newsweek, it's awful strange that Jon Lee Anderson's reporting on the Night Letter (near the top of a piece and only briefly) wasn't. (As Anderson noted, the Night Letter was backed up by Karzai's comments while in D.C. -- which were reported by the conventional wisdom, official sources Somerby goes to.) "Riots in Afghanistan caused by Newsweek's article on the Koran in the toilet!" screamed the pundits. Actually, offered Anderson, the Night Letter called for the violence and had nothing to do with Newsweek:
When he went snarky on Amy Goodman, I was hoping no member would write in about that because there was no defense for Somerby's remarks. The excuse for them, apparently, is that Goodman's not an "official source."
Which brings us back to John H. Johnson in many ways, but that will be a Third Estate Sunday Review piece (or pieces).
As Ruth noted (she and her granddaughter Tracey went over The Daily Howler) there's a special form of derision that women seem to be served up at The Howler. Whether it's Seeyle, Mayer, Janeane Garofalo, Rachel Maddow, Elisabeth Bumiller, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Amy Goodman or whomever. That really disturbs me. And air kisses to Mary Matalin (given a pass for whom she was married to or because she gave good host?) don't change that.
I'm a feminist. I don't accept that kind of nonsense. Kidding Tim Russert for his cars isn't the same as the trashing that women have gotten at The Daily Howler. I'm glad Ruth, Tracey and Gina caught it because I honestly didn't. Somerby's a great teacher, a great educator. But he might be a better one if he'd examine why it is that a woman gives tongue baths but Timmy Russert is just excited about a car? Why Janaene Garofalo is ripped apart in a way that a male never has been?
That might also require him addressing the issue that who speaks to him and speaks in the manner he finds appropriate is not necessarily someone that speaks to all. Or that his judgement of how to communicate may not be the way everyone wishes to be communicated to.
Somerby can argue 'facts are facts' all he wants. But he's interpreting (and quibbling) over word choices, not facts, of late.
When he defended Lawrence Summers (to cite another area we obviously disagreed upon), he never got to the basic point -- it was an academic conference. This wasn't Meet the Press. And had it been, Summers off-handed remarks based on "questionable" research would have still been fair game for criticism. Summers' position, his appearance at an academic conference, all demanded something more than 'I was having a conversation with a friend' (a banker?) and 'there's this book that I can't remember the title of but it makes this point that . . .' Forget the "points" that Summers was making (which Somerby appeared to defend) and just take the statements themselves, whom they were made by and what forum they were made in and that's Howler time. Instead it was 'oh those carping people' (feminists?) 'hapring on poor Larry!' The snarky attack on NARAL makes it all the more obvious that if you're not Naomi Wolf, there's really no place for you at The Daily Howler.
He wants intellectual honesty. He might try going for some inner intellectual honesty because it's bullsh*t the way women repeatedly are covered and not covered at The Daily Howler. That attitude might have cut it when he was in college, but times have (thankfully) changed. It's time for the wise one to seek a little self-knowledge before he launches into his next attack on a woman or his next attack on a group of women.
Is he personally sexist? I have no idea. But Gina's point was that as an African-American woman, she doesn't see anything at The Daily Howler that speaks to her because it's a white male site in terms of scope. Air kisses to Mary Matalin don't change that. They do call into question why the sideshow that is Mary & Jimmy hasn't resulted in a firm tongue lashing for their debasement of the national dialogue.
His scope is sexist. The "big issues" are defined by him and, by him, they don't include issues that speak to all. He wants to be a brave voice? Start being one. Stop the easy slams on women. Stop ridiculing them while men are "joshed." Somerby's got a lot more to teach but, if he's wanting his site to be welcoming to all, he's also got a lot to learn.
He's been attacked lately and, as Rebecca noted, my usual response to that is to defend and root for the underdog. I also think he's too important a voice to give up and hate now joining in the negative criticism. But I value inclusion and I'm not seeing it at The Daily Howler. Women are either attacked or token "good girls" are presented. He'll negatively critique a man but he really builds up when he's negatively critiquing a woman.
Bumiller personalizes her reporting (or "reporting" in the case of her floating op-ed White House Letter) which means the response can be personalized (giving in kind). But I'm failing to see why Katrina vanden Heuvel, Janeane Garofalo or others are so completely demolished (with what reads like glee) and, by comparison, men aren't. Russert or any other man can be noted for having turned it around in one instance while CeCe Connelly's making a valid point results in an exclamation point (in parenthesis).
My personal opinion is he's been shaped by his early experiences. Times have changed, The Daily Howler needs to get with the program if it's going to have value to all.
At the Times, Bumiller (or Miller) are far from the only clowns. Somerby's not interested in discussing international politics so Juan Forero is never going to pop up. That's understood when you read The Daily Howler. But David Sanger's turned in howlers at the Times. Why he's not been the object of derision, I don't know. (Maybe Somerby relates to Sanger's jock-sniffing approach?)
We'll note him again when he has something to say. (Which I expect to be quite often.) But I'm really saddened by the treatment of women at The Daily Howler. Not that they're criticized (although Gina thinks considering the treatment of women, it's better that Somerby didn't mention Cindy Sheehan this week). Not that they're made fun of or mocked or ridiculed. I'm bothered that they are derided with more "glee" (my term) than men are. As various Wash Post op-ed writers (male) receive valentines when they get around to making a solid point, the same thing doesn't happen with women. Men 'redeem' themselves quite often at The Howler in Somerby's critiques. That doesn't happen to women. And if that's not clear, let's note that the constant mocking of Jane Mayer for a 2000 remark rivals only the attacks on Joe Wilson for something that Somerby can never drop.
I'm all for mocking. Don't knock the mock. Humor (good natured or mean spirited) is an effective means of communication. But it needs to be applied equally. "Joshing" men and "trashing" women isn't equal treatment. It's why so many have e-mailed to ask about his position on Bob Woodward's writing which veers to all extremes depending on the day. Sometimes Woody's one of those official sources that Somerby cites to be treated with respect, sometimes (while citing the same work, such as Plan of Attack), Woody's a hack. The confusion may stem from the fact that men are graded one way and women another at The Daily Howler.
The reliance on official sources (limited ones at that) may be in keeping with Somerby's scope at The Daily Howler; however, Matt Taibbi was able to chart the hacks for The New York Press and he was able to judge each on the merits of their work and to mock freely regardless of gender. Somerby would benefit from trying to a similar approach. Until that happens, he can't blame others if they feel the sign on the door at The Daily Howler reads "No persons of color or women allowed."
It pains me to write this. But it needs to be noted. Someone can read it as an attack on Somerby if they choose to. I see it more as a plea for him to wake the hell up. He has a great deal to say, worth hearing, but when there's a subtext to his criticisms (intended or not), he's shutting himself off from a lot of people who could benefit from his sharp mind.
He once did a very good (although very brief when you think of how he's dug in on other topics) defense of Barbara Lee. That was 2001. If he thinks every visitor that stumbles upon the site will dig through the archives to find a person of color or a woman not a Clintonista (or married to one) who gets noted, he's kidding himself. It should also be noted that a Gwen Ifell lends herself to criticism and mocking which isn't Somerby's problem (though it is Ifell's). But he can expand on his "official sources" to find a way to demonstrate that he's more inclusive (if he is). Gina notes Margaret Kimberley (a community favorite) but also notes that since she's not a cheerleader for the Clintonista camp, Somerby probably wouldn't note her except to deride her.
When a history of the online world is written, my own personal feelings are that Bob Somerby's earned a prominent place. But if he's not more inclusive, he'll hurt his own history. There are things at play (majority/minority relations, cultural prominence) that go beyond Somerby. His scope is limited by his Bibles of the Washington Post, the New York Times and who gets air time on TV (as FAIR has long noted, year after year, that's a very select and very small group of voices). I understand that the way he's set up his scope, he is limited. But that doesn't excuse the way a Diane Rehm, for instance, is treated as opposed to a William Kristol.
I wish Ruth hadn't killed her piece (which was a humorous piece that she and Tracey had worked on jointly). But I understand why she did. She didn't want to take part in a dog pile on Bob Somerby. I don't either. But the above needed to be noted. He's cutting himself off, he's limiting himself, from a larger audience. His shout outs only confirmed that to Gina who noted that his "posse" was all male. (Gina noted that she didn't know if they were all white. I don't either.)
If some are asking questions, there's a reason why they are.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
[Note: I'm pulling a Beth and no links other than what I'd already put in last night. If I have time -- ha ha ha, like that will happen -- I may come back later and add links.]
George, The Daily Howler was where it always is. But I know you're asking where was it in the posts here.
The Daily Howler posts later and later each day. I'm not in the mood to hold posts lately. I'm rushing to get those done and move on. What did we miss?
Friday Bob Somerby continued to split hairs re: Joseph Wilson's trip to Niger. Is there a point to this? It's been noted. And noted. And noted. And . . . He's becoming like Paul Reiser in Diner. The press continues to report on it in a manner Somerby disagrees with. Got it.
And in a slow week, that would be fine. But this wasn't a slow week.
We did a roundtable here. I edited most of my remarks out of that roundtable to be more of a moderator (Ava and Mike discussed that here and Doug e-mailed asking why I edited out my remarks? It should be clear in the following, Doug.). I like Somerby's work. I've learned a great deal from Somerby. I owe a huge debt to Somerby and I'd argue most do.
But in that roundtable, issues were raised.
The site is called The Daily Howler. (Not, as some might suspect, Why Joe Wilson Is Wrong.)
The Daily Howler. The howlers of the day.
Get it?
On Monday, one of the big three evening's newscast led with the news of the death of one of their own. That wasn't a note and then we moved on to stories around the world. It was a tribute. And it opened the news.
"We are not the story." They made one of their own the story. Not for just one story.
If Peter Jennings was all the things they said about him (I have no reason to doubt that he was), I'm having a hard time figuring out how trashing basic journalism guidelines "honored" Peter Jennings. I'm also having a hard time figuring out who thought shots of Jennings in his boxers and cute stories about him qualified as a tribute to a journalist?
That was a Howler.
As the week progressed and we saw the death of a journalist, publisher and owner of his own publications shunted aside, there was an analysis that could have been made about that. It wasn't made by many in the mainstream media. (We've attempted to note stories on John H. Johnson here.)
The subtext was that Jenning's death was more important than Johnson's. There's much I could say about that but we're addressing it at The Third Estate Sunday Review.
A press critique could have been done on it at The Howler. In the roundtable we had here, Gina shared that The Daily Howler didn't really speak to her. She felt that it was a site for white men. That's a criticism I'd never considered. Gina's feelings are valid. Whether or not her reading is one everyone agrees with, I have no idea. (For my opinion, read on.)
However, this was an opportunity for us to see how one racial issue was dealt with at The Howler. The answer in this instance is that it wasn't dealt with at all. Gina watched The Howler this week. She feels that the only time a person of color popped up was when a sports star was noted.
Another issue brought up in the roundtable was the issue of the way women are noted at The Howler. Ruth has raised that issue in a Ruth's Morning Edition Report that she killed. (She asked that it not go up.) It's an issue worth considering. Gina felt that Mary Matalin got air kisses this week.
She also wondered (and I agree with her) why a professional spinner like Matalin is applauded at The Howler? Good question. Apparently she's a 'nice person' who's booked Somerby as a guest before. I don't know if that really excuses the Sonny & Cher sideshow that she and husband James Carville have inflicted upon the nation each time they team up as guests on Meet the Press. (Carville gets to be Cher, he has personality.) To state the obvious, that Carville ties one hand behind his back every time he's on opposite Matalin, is something The Howler should have long ago done. I have no idea why it hasn't.
But as Gina pointed out, the big story this week was Cindy Sheehan. And Sheehan was attacked by the right wing pundits. In the past, that's really all it takes to get a Daily Howler analysis.
Didn't happen.
Those hoping that finally on Friday, Somerby would deal with it were disappointed as he was back to the apparently must note issue of Joe Wilson and the 2002 trip, the 2003 op-ed . . .
Why wasn't Cindy Sheehan the subject of analysis at The Daily Howler? Only Somerby can answer that. Media Matters was covering it. So were bloggers. But it wasn't news at The Daily Howler. (Note: Dallas just e-mailed that Somerby's addressing Sheehan today. I haven't read it and won't, today's too busy.)
Maybe Somerby felt it was being covered enough elsewhere and he didn't have anything to add that couldn't be said by someone else? That's legitimate, that's a solid reason. But no one was addressing (that I'm aware of) that ABC's World News Tonight tossed out news to do a tribute to Peter Jennings or that John H. Johnson didn't receive the kind of play that Jennings did. So that's a topic that Somerby could have analyzed without fearing that it was "the rage of the
net. "
He doesn't like to second guess people's motives (no e-mails on that, that's his stated intent) so maybe he felt that he would have to ask questions about racism involved in the coverage? Considering that The Daily Howler is set up to ask questions, I find that a rather weak excuse.
I wasn't too keen on his sports talk which was isolated to one individual as though the "power players" weren't pushed a few years back by the league itself. A larger issue is reduced to an individual. But if you've got time for the steroids story, you should have time to at least do a paragraph on Johnson's coverage (or lack of it). (To give credit to the New York Times, they ran an obit and a feature article in the arts section as well as an op-ed on his importance.)
I wasn't too impressed with The Daily Howler this week, to be honest. Somerby's arguments (example, Wilson) had been gone over at length previously (not just in 2004, but also in recent months). But, to use an old analogy, the needle was struck in the groove apparently and we were hearing the same thing we'd heard before.
Early in the week we were still getting shout outs. (One of the many sections that led Lewis to e-mail asking if Somerby was aware of the own "chafe" in his columns.) Thankfully that stopped. It's a little sad to see a giant who takes on the mainstream press be caught doing shout outs. Repeatedly. Somerby went for analyizing and critiquing to shout outs the week of the roundtable. And many entries that I worked on that week and after originally included paragraphs that I would take out because I'd think, "I don't really want to say that."
I don't want to say any of the above. Not out of fear. One of the great things (and Somerby knows this) about not taking ads or depending on approval is that you can say whatever you want. (If fear was involved, it was because I have defended Somerby -- and still do -- to members who are bothered by some of his critiques and worried that my including negative criticism would lead some members to think, "Okay, open season on Somerby!")
I didn't want to say anything because everyone can have a bad patch even someone who can be as brilliant as Somerby (who's more often brilliant -- even when I disagree with his opinion -- then he is not -- still). But the bad patch got to be so bad that, to put into an analogy a sports lover like Somerby would grasp, it was as though a once great major league pitcher had been reduced to knuckle balls and other questionable (or once questionable -- his sport's left the glory it once had -- an opinion I doubt he'd quibble too much over -- as always I could be wrong) "tricks."
There were things going on in the world. Real things, important things. I didn't feel that The Daily Howler was really making contributions. Friday last, two members had e-mailed things to highlight (one was from Ron, the other from Delilah) and I couldn't even follow the entries. Not because they were badly written, but because Dallas had just sent The Daily Howler in full with the note that he couldn't find anything to pull from it. And reading it, I was as puzzled as Dallas. (And disappointed, let's be honest. I am a fan of Somerby's work.) But two people didn't get highlighted, not because I thought, "Oh well this is better covered by . . ." but because I couldn't even absorb what they were saying because I was left dumbfounded by The Daily Howler.
Never again is what I told myself. I'd hoped to highlight both Delilah and Ron on Saturday but problems with this site prevented that happening. (That's also why Beth's interview, which was done on Friday to go up on Saturday, didn't go up on Saturday.)
Sunday, of course, The Third Estate Sunday Review couldn't get their last two posts up due to a problem with Blogger. (They're up now.) So we carried that over to this site. Actually, to the mirror site originally because there were problems with the Blogger program here as well. I've tried to get Isaiah's The World Today up each morning this week and there were problems with that as well. (UK Computer Gurus think they have it fixed as of this afternoon. Since Sunday is almost upon us, we'll save it for this Sunday.)
Maybe the problem is me? I'm not feeling well this week (and that probably shows in the morning entries) and from work I go to work on volunteering. When I finally get home, I'm dead tired and about to fall over. I hope for inspiration from The Mike Malloy Show but it doesn't always come. (That's not a slap at Malloy, that's me being tired and feeling ill.)
So Somerby may be doing an excellent job and I might just be missing it due to my own problems and issues. But, again, there were real issues going on this week. And I didn't see anything worth noting at The Daily Howler on the few times that it could have been included in an entry.
We'll hopefully be able to note him next week. But there were other things to note. And there's always a line. I wasn't in the mood to hold the line to wait for The Daily Howler to go up. And I wasn't that impressed with anything that went up there this week.
The issues raised in the roundtable were serious ones. Ava and I had asked, prior to the roundtable (and prior to Ruth's piece that she killed) why it was that a White House Letter led to (deserved) ridicule but a White House Memo (both are floating op-eds in the New York Times) didn't?
Why is it, to carry that issue further, that Kit Seelye, to this day, is a subject of derision at The Howler? Others who were clowns in 2000 have been allowed to move on. Not Seelye. And Jane Mayer is noted over and over (and ridiculed) for stating that the criticism of Seelye (and the Washington Post's CeCe Connelly). I'm really not sure why a statement in 2000 is the sole focus point for Mayer at The Daily Howler. (I'm also not sure I disagree with Mayer.) Mayer's done strong reporting (and we've noted it here) but it doesn't exist at The Daily Howler where she's trotted out (repeatedly) to be trashed for a statement that he disagrees with.
It's his site and he needs to run it the way he sees fit. But if he's not adding anything that some member is inspired by, we've got a list of other suggestions. In the early days, someone e-mailed to highlight something, it went up. There are too many e-mails coming in these days and members know I have to make a call on suggestions. (Which is why you're better off if you're pull quoting yourself and even better if you're stating "This spoke to me because . . ." If I'm reading it, I may not catch what you do on my own.)
When Somerby goes into his critiques of Joseph Wilson, I've been willing to deal with the incoming e-mails that I knew would pour in. That's because, whether I agreed with it or not, I could see the point of his argument. Maybe it's me, but I'm not seeing it. He's like Ellen on thirty-something constantly rehashing a moment when Hope might have, or might not have, intentionally slighted her. (That's not an endorsement of the show thirty-something. The only episode I saw was when Carly Simon guest-starred.)
That's not "get over it!" His main point is that we're doomed to clowning unless we own up to past clowning. That is, however, saying that while his re-reading of Wilson's book might make him predisposed to weighing in on what he'd already spent time on, the fact remains that Wilson wasn't the big story of the week. And that's my opinion. And that's why The Daily Howler wasn't highlighted.
It posted late, it didn't have anything that made me say, "Okay, I'm going to make time to note this."
On the other end of the specturm (things that did matter), we noted Danny Schechter more this week than usual which I was very glad about when Martha copied and pasted Schechter's latest because I don't need more guilt.
My opinion of Friday's News Dissector? Schechter's coming down off traveling. He's been in other countries where active activism really exists. And he had to come back to the land of the Bully Boy. It's enough to depress anyone even someone as dedicated (and hopeful) as Schechter.
Schechter does important work (so does Somerby, just not the last two weeks in my opinion) and he should be noted more. But in a week where even Matthew Rothschild had something that didn't get noted (his piece on Greenspan), there wasn't time to waste when even Dallas (who may be more devoted to The Daily Howler than I am) couldn't find anything of value. The vanishing of the shout-outs was a relief. (By the way, I'm not sure that we didn't note The Daily Howler at all this week. I'm going by what the e-mails are saying.) I don't think many people watch the Grammys for the acceptance speeches. But what remained didn't speak to me.
I've always said that if a voice doesn't speak to you, move on to one that does. That's what we did this week. (Had one member e-mailed to find something to pull quote from The Howler, it would have been noted.) Somerby's not been blackballed. He's not banished from the table.
But there were people showing up at the door with something to share. Pointing to the guest who showed up empty handed . . .
Or one who was snarky about NARAL (that's who he's speaking of at the end of Friday's Howler) . . .
I guess they didn't speak to him in quite the way that William Kristol or Mary Matalin did?
I don't know and I don't care but we don't have time for that crap here. We're pro-choice and we're that firmly. And the conventional wisdom that Somerby attempts to buck won't be bucked by reliance on (select) conventional wisdom from offical sources.
The welcome mat is still there for Somerby. But the place at the table will be determined by whether he has something to offer of value. I took a lot of ___ over his attacks on Katrina vanden Heuvel. I clearly sided with KvH but was put in the position of defending him. KvH was right. And I don't know if Somerby doesn't read The New Yorker (maybe that's why he doesn't note Mayer's work?) but having weighed in on the abuse of the Koran and Newsweek, it's awful strange that Jon Lee Anderson's reporting on the Night Letter (near the top of a piece and only briefly) wasn't. (As Anderson noted, the Night Letter was backed up by Karzai's comments while in D.C. -- which were reported by the conventional wisdom, official sources Somerby goes to.) "Riots in Afghanistan caused by Newsweek's article on the Koran in the toilet!" screamed the pundits. Actually, offered Anderson, the Night Letter called for the violence and had nothing to do with Newsweek:
On May 11th, riots broke out in the city of Jalalabad, in eastern Afghanistan. The violence followed a Newsweek story -- which has since been retracted -- on new allegations that American interrogators at Guantanamo Bay had desecrated the Koran. In the next few days, the protests spread to the capital, Kabul, and throughout the country. In some provincial towns, police fired into crowds. But early on there were signs that the violence had less to do with Newsweek than with Afghanistan's President, Hamid Karzai.
On the first night of rioting, copies of an anonymous letter circulated in the streets of Kabul. This Night Letter, as it was called, was a vehement exhortation to Afghans to oppose Karzai, whom it accused of being un-Islamic, an ally of the Taliban, and a "U.S.A. servant." The letter said that Karzai had put the interests of his "evil master" ahead of those of Afghans, and it called for leaders who were proven patriots, mujahideen -- a synonym, in this case, for members of the Northern Alliance, many of whom are now warlords and regional strongmen -- to defy him. The timing was opportune: Karzai was on a trip to Europe, in search of financial backing. His next destination was Washington, where he planned to discuss a pact that would guarantee the United States a long-term military presence in Afghanistan.
When he went snarky on Amy Goodman, I was hoping no member would write in about that because there was no defense for Somerby's remarks. The excuse for them, apparently, is that Goodman's not an "official source."
Which brings us back to John H. Johnson in many ways, but that will be a Third Estate Sunday Review piece (or pieces).
As Ruth noted (she and her granddaughter Tracey went over The Daily Howler) there's a special form of derision that women seem to be served up at The Howler. Whether it's Seeyle, Mayer, Janeane Garofalo, Rachel Maddow, Elisabeth Bumiller, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Amy Goodman or whomever. That really disturbs me. And air kisses to Mary Matalin (given a pass for whom she was married to or because she gave good host?) don't change that.
I'm a feminist. I don't accept that kind of nonsense. Kidding Tim Russert for his cars isn't the same as the trashing that women have gotten at The Daily Howler. I'm glad Ruth, Tracey and Gina caught it because I honestly didn't. Somerby's a great teacher, a great educator. But he might be a better one if he'd examine why it is that a woman gives tongue baths but Timmy Russert is just excited about a car? Why Janaene Garofalo is ripped apart in a way that a male never has been?
That might also require him addressing the issue that who speaks to him and speaks in the manner he finds appropriate is not necessarily someone that speaks to all. Or that his judgement of how to communicate may not be the way everyone wishes to be communicated to.
Somerby can argue 'facts are facts' all he wants. But he's interpreting (and quibbling) over word choices, not facts, of late.
When he defended Lawrence Summers (to cite another area we obviously disagreed upon), he never got to the basic point -- it was an academic conference. This wasn't Meet the Press. And had it been, Summers off-handed remarks based on "questionable" research would have still been fair game for criticism. Summers' position, his appearance at an academic conference, all demanded something more than 'I was having a conversation with a friend' (a banker?) and 'there's this book that I can't remember the title of but it makes this point that . . .' Forget the "points" that Summers was making (which Somerby appeared to defend) and just take the statements themselves, whom they were made by and what forum they were made in and that's Howler time. Instead it was 'oh those carping people' (feminists?) 'hapring on poor Larry!' The snarky attack on NARAL makes it all the more obvious that if you're not Naomi Wolf, there's really no place for you at The Daily Howler.
He wants intellectual honesty. He might try going for some inner intellectual honesty because it's bullsh*t the way women repeatedly are covered and not covered at The Daily Howler. That attitude might have cut it when he was in college, but times have (thankfully) changed. It's time for the wise one to seek a little self-knowledge before he launches into his next attack on a woman or his next attack on a group of women.
Is he personally sexist? I have no idea. But Gina's point was that as an African-American woman, she doesn't see anything at The Daily Howler that speaks to her because it's a white male site in terms of scope. Air kisses to Mary Matalin don't change that. They do call into question why the sideshow that is Mary & Jimmy hasn't resulted in a firm tongue lashing for their debasement of the national dialogue.
His scope is sexist. The "big issues" are defined by him and, by him, they don't include issues that speak to all. He wants to be a brave voice? Start being one. Stop the easy slams on women. Stop ridiculing them while men are "joshed." Somerby's got a lot more to teach but, if he's wanting his site to be welcoming to all, he's also got a lot to learn.
He's been attacked lately and, as Rebecca noted, my usual response to that is to defend and root for the underdog. I also think he's too important a voice to give up and hate now joining in the negative criticism. But I value inclusion and I'm not seeing it at The Daily Howler. Women are either attacked or token "good girls" are presented. He'll negatively critique a man but he really builds up when he's negatively critiquing a woman.
Bumiller personalizes her reporting (or "reporting" in the case of her floating op-ed White House Letter) which means the response can be personalized (giving in kind). But I'm failing to see why Katrina vanden Heuvel, Janeane Garofalo or others are so completely demolished (with what reads like glee) and, by comparison, men aren't. Russert or any other man can be noted for having turned it around in one instance while CeCe Connelly's making a valid point results in an exclamation point (in parenthesis).
My personal opinion is he's been shaped by his early experiences. Times have changed, The Daily Howler needs to get with the program if it's going to have value to all.
At the Times, Bumiller (or Miller) are far from the only clowns. Somerby's not interested in discussing international politics so Juan Forero is never going to pop up. That's understood when you read The Daily Howler. But David Sanger's turned in howlers at the Times. Why he's not been the object of derision, I don't know. (Maybe Somerby relates to Sanger's jock-sniffing approach?)
We'll note him again when he has something to say. (Which I expect to be quite often.) But I'm really saddened by the treatment of women at The Daily Howler. Not that they're criticized (although Gina thinks considering the treatment of women, it's better that Somerby didn't mention Cindy Sheehan this week). Not that they're made fun of or mocked or ridiculed. I'm bothered that they are derided with more "glee" (my term) than men are. As various Wash Post op-ed writers (male) receive valentines when they get around to making a solid point, the same thing doesn't happen with women. Men 'redeem' themselves quite often at The Howler in Somerby's critiques. That doesn't happen to women. And if that's not clear, let's note that the constant mocking of Jane Mayer for a 2000 remark rivals only the attacks on Joe Wilson for something that Somerby can never drop.
I'm all for mocking. Don't knock the mock. Humor (good natured or mean spirited) is an effective means of communication. But it needs to be applied equally. "Joshing" men and "trashing" women isn't equal treatment. It's why so many have e-mailed to ask about his position on Bob Woodward's writing which veers to all extremes depending on the day. Sometimes Woody's one of those official sources that Somerby cites to be treated with respect, sometimes (while citing the same work, such as Plan of Attack), Woody's a hack. The confusion may stem from the fact that men are graded one way and women another at The Daily Howler.
The reliance on official sources (limited ones at that) may be in keeping with Somerby's scope at The Daily Howler; however, Matt Taibbi was able to chart the hacks for The New York Press and he was able to judge each on the merits of their work and to mock freely regardless of gender. Somerby would benefit from trying to a similar approach. Until that happens, he can't blame others if they feel the sign on the door at The Daily Howler reads "No persons of color or women allowed."
It pains me to write this. But it needs to be noted. Someone can read it as an attack on Somerby if they choose to. I see it more as a plea for him to wake the hell up. He has a great deal to say, worth hearing, but when there's a subtext to his criticisms (intended or not), he's shutting himself off from a lot of people who could benefit from his sharp mind.
He once did a very good (although very brief when you think of how he's dug in on other topics) defense of Barbara Lee. That was 2001. If he thinks every visitor that stumbles upon the site will dig through the archives to find a person of color or a woman not a Clintonista (or married to one) who gets noted, he's kidding himself. It should also be noted that a Gwen Ifell lends herself to criticism and mocking which isn't Somerby's problem (though it is Ifell's). But he can expand on his "official sources" to find a way to demonstrate that he's more inclusive (if he is). Gina notes Margaret Kimberley (a community favorite) but also notes that since she's not a cheerleader for the Clintonista camp, Somerby probably wouldn't note her except to deride her.
When a history of the online world is written, my own personal feelings are that Bob Somerby's earned a prominent place. But if he's not more inclusive, he'll hurt his own history. There are things at play (majority/minority relations, cultural prominence) that go beyond Somerby. His scope is limited by his Bibles of the Washington Post, the New York Times and who gets air time on TV (as FAIR has long noted, year after year, that's a very select and very small group of voices). I understand that the way he's set up his scope, he is limited. But that doesn't excuse the way a Diane Rehm, for instance, is treated as opposed to a William Kristol.
I wish Ruth hadn't killed her piece (which was a humorous piece that she and Tracey had worked on jointly). But I understand why she did. She didn't want to take part in a dog pile on Bob Somerby. I don't either. But the above needed to be noted. He's cutting himself off, he's limiting himself, from a larger audience. His shout outs only confirmed that to Gina who noted that his "posse" was all male. (Gina noted that she didn't know if they were all white. I don't either.)
If some are asking questions, there's a reason why they are.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
[Note: I'm pulling a Beth and no links other than what I'd already put in last night. If I have time -- ha ha ha, like that will happen -- I may come back later and add links.]
Air America weekend line up Chris Hedges, Jan Barry, Varda Burstyn, Pete Miser, Jaime Foxx, Whoopi Goldberg
Weekend schedule for Air America Radio (from their home page). (You can listen over broadcast radio (if there's an AAR in your area), via XM Satellite Radio or listen online.
Liberal Arts
Saturdays 1pm-2pm ET
This week Katherine sits down with Arthur Phillips (author of "The Egyptologist'' now out in paperback and the best-selling "Prague'' and Russian born singer-songwriter Regina Spektor (indie hit album "Soviet Kitsch").
Join our live audience: This Wednesday, August 17th at 8:00pm watch Katherine in action at The Housing Works Bookshop in NYC with live performances from best-selling author Melissa Bank and songsmith legend Jimmy Webb.
So What Else is News
Saturdays 3pm-5pm ET
More news and reviews from host Marty Kaplan.
Ring of Fire
Saturdays 5pm-7pm ET. Rebroadcast Sundays 3pm-5pm
Rachel Maddow joins Pap to take on the female pundits of the extreme right. Then, Mike talks with Chris Hedges--who lived and worked for years in the crossfire of wars in Central America, the Balkans, Africa and the Middle East, as foreign correspondent for the New York Times--about his book, "War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning." Bobby closes the show with Leonard Rubenstein, executive director of Physicians for Human Rights, which is protesting the interrogation techniques and conditions at Guantanamo.
The Laura Flanders Show
Saturdays and Sundays 7pm-10pm ET
Saturday: Who are today's Winter Soldiers? A frontline Iraq war protest report from Crawford, Texas with parents from the group, Gold Star Families for Peace Bill Mitchell and Nadia McCaffrey. Plus Jan Barry, co-founder of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, which held the war crimes hearings by vets in 1971 that became documentary, Winter Soldier, that's being re-released this week. Then 'melting-pop' group BRAZILIAN GIRLS and get a live report from the Willie Mae Rock n' Roll Camp for Girls.
Sunday: Gas prices are sky-high, but W. says the economy is fine. We will hold our own 'People's Economic Summit'. What is the real state of the economy? We’ll hear from workers across the country – and YOU. Plus – Think you're paying too much for gas - then think about water?! VARDA BURSTYN, author of 'Water Inc.' will tell us the real (and scary) truth behind governmental privatization schemes.
The Kyle Jason Show
Saturdays 10pm-Midnight ET
This Saturday night, Kyle hosts acclaimed hip-hop artist Pete Miser and record promoter Jackie O. Asare as they discuss the recent payola scandal involving Sony BMG, and examine the long-standing and sordid tradition of pay-for-play deals throughout the history of the music industry.
Ecotalk
Sundays 7-8 am ET
We'll drill down and see what's really in store for America's energy future now that the long delayed, much debated energy bill has been signed. Author and commentator, Mark Hertsgaard will weigh in and tell us why "peak oil" is going to become a familiar concept and Bob Borosage, of The Campaign for America's Future, will tell us what states are doing to be more "conserve-ative" since the federal government is MIA on energy efficiency leadership.
Mother Jones Radio
Sundays 1pm-2pm ET
More investigative reporting from your host Angie Coiro.
Politically Direct
Sundays 2pm-3pm ET
It's Re-Making Whoopi this Sunday on Politically Direct, as we reprise David's candid and colorful conversation with the Magnificent Ms. Goldberg.
The Laura Flanders Show
Saturdays and Sundays 7pm-10pm ET
Sunday: Gas prices are sky-high, but W. says the economy is fine. We will hold our own 'People's Economic Summit'. What is the real state of the economy? We’ll hear from workers across the country – and YOU. Plus – Think you're paying too much for gas - then think about water?! VARDA BURSTYN, author of 'Water Inc.' will tell us the real (and scary) truth behind governmental privatization schemes.
The Revolution Starts...Now
Sundays 10pm-11pm ET
Singer/songwriter Mike Doughty shares his favorites. Picks include: The Replacements, The Slickers, Regina Spektor, Amerie and ACDC.
On the Real
Sundays 11pm -1 am ET
Tune in for the best-of On The Real with interviews from Jaime Foxx, Martin Van Peoples, Don Letts, and Bakari Kitwana.
Liberal Arts
Saturdays 1pm-2pm ET
This week Katherine sits down with Arthur Phillips (author of "The Egyptologist'' now out in paperback and the best-selling "Prague'' and Russian born singer-songwriter Regina Spektor (indie hit album "Soviet Kitsch").
Join our live audience: This Wednesday, August 17th at 8:00pm watch Katherine in action at The Housing Works Bookshop in NYC with live performances from best-selling author Melissa Bank and songsmith legend Jimmy Webb.
So What Else is News
Saturdays 3pm-5pm ET
More news and reviews from host Marty Kaplan.
Ring of Fire
Saturdays 5pm-7pm ET. Rebroadcast Sundays 3pm-5pm
Rachel Maddow joins Pap to take on the female pundits of the extreme right. Then, Mike talks with Chris Hedges--who lived and worked for years in the crossfire of wars in Central America, the Balkans, Africa and the Middle East, as foreign correspondent for the New York Times--about his book, "War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning." Bobby closes the show with Leonard Rubenstein, executive director of Physicians for Human Rights, which is protesting the interrogation techniques and conditions at Guantanamo.
The Laura Flanders Show
Saturdays and Sundays 7pm-10pm ET
Saturday: Who are today's Winter Soldiers? A frontline Iraq war protest report from Crawford, Texas with parents from the group, Gold Star Families for Peace Bill Mitchell and Nadia McCaffrey. Plus Jan Barry, co-founder of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, which held the war crimes hearings by vets in 1971 that became documentary, Winter Soldier, that's being re-released this week. Then 'melting-pop' group BRAZILIAN GIRLS and get a live report from the Willie Mae Rock n' Roll Camp for Girls.
Sunday: Gas prices are sky-high, but W. says the economy is fine. We will hold our own 'People's Economic Summit'. What is the real state of the economy? We’ll hear from workers across the country – and YOU. Plus – Think you're paying too much for gas - then think about water?! VARDA BURSTYN, author of 'Water Inc.' will tell us the real (and scary) truth behind governmental privatization schemes.
The Kyle Jason Show
Saturdays 10pm-Midnight ET
This Saturday night, Kyle hosts acclaimed hip-hop artist Pete Miser and record promoter Jackie O. Asare as they discuss the recent payola scandal involving Sony BMG, and examine the long-standing and sordid tradition of pay-for-play deals throughout the history of the music industry.
Ecotalk
Sundays 7-8 am ET
We'll drill down and see what's really in store for America's energy future now that the long delayed, much debated energy bill has been signed. Author and commentator, Mark Hertsgaard will weigh in and tell us why "peak oil" is going to become a familiar concept and Bob Borosage, of The Campaign for America's Future, will tell us what states are doing to be more "conserve-ative" since the federal government is MIA on energy efficiency leadership.
Mother Jones Radio
Sundays 1pm-2pm ET
More investigative reporting from your host Angie Coiro.
Politically Direct
Sundays 2pm-3pm ET
It's Re-Making Whoopi this Sunday on Politically Direct, as we reprise David's candid and colorful conversation with the Magnificent Ms. Goldberg.
The Laura Flanders Show
Saturdays and Sundays 7pm-10pm ET
Sunday: Gas prices are sky-high, but W. says the economy is fine. We will hold our own 'People's Economic Summit'. What is the real state of the economy? We’ll hear from workers across the country – and YOU. Plus – Think you're paying too much for gas - then think about water?! VARDA BURSTYN, author of 'Water Inc.' will tell us the real (and scary) truth behind governmental privatization schemes.
The Revolution Starts...Now
Sundays 10pm-11pm ET
Singer/songwriter Mike Doughty shares his favorites. Picks include: The Replacements, The Slickers, Regina Spektor, Amerie and ACDC.
On the Real
Sundays 11pm -1 am ET
Tune in for the best-of On The Real with interviews from Jaime Foxx, Martin Van Peoples, Don Letts, and Bakari Kitwana.
NYT: "Mother's Grief-Fueled Vigil Becomes Nexus for Antiwar Protestors" (Anne E. Kornblut)
We'll focus on Anne E. Kornblut's "Mother's Grief-Fueled Vigil Becomes Nexus for Antiwar Protestors" in this morning's New York Times.
It's not on the front page. It's also not mentioned in "Today's Headlines: Vast Archive Yields New View of 9/11" which is the daily e-mail the Times sends out promoting what they feel are the important stories in each day's edition. (Thanks to Karla for forwarding that.) Maybe it was filed so late, the story, that there was no way that it could make the front page?
I'm not buying that. Near the end of the article, Kornblut writes of "rumors of a counterprotest were reampant . . . busload of pro-war activits from Dallas [who] . . . had not arrived." That busload did arrive and it was before eight p.m. EST. So the Times should have had Kornblut's article in plenty of time to have front paged it.
A decision was made not to. The same way a decision was made not to note the article in the e-mail they sent out early this morning. It's apparently, for instance, more important to trumpet David S. Cloud's article -- which, in print, appears on the same page as Kornbluts, A7 -- about Kevin P. Byrnes' affair. I'm not really sure why that article is even in the paper. Byrnes doesn't appear to be speaking to reporters at the Times. The Washington Post told their readers from the day the story broke what was going on. The Times initial coverage, on the same day, knew nothing of an affair. (Or didn't report it.) So here we are, days later, and the Times feels this is news. I don't think it is. There's nothing in the article that's news. There's gossip. I don't mean Cloud's speculating and I'm not slamming him for a frivilous approach (he writes the tawdry piece in a professional manner). But this isn't news. It isn't even good gossip or new gossip. And I'm reminded again of a Joni Mitchell song, "Wouldn't they like their peace/Don't we get bored" ("Three Great Stimulants" off Mitchell's Dog Eat Dog -- written by Mitchell).
There was a lot of "We don't like reporting on sex!" denials during the Clinton years. Someone likes it or they wouldn't keep running this crap. Byrnes isn't speaking, the woman alleged to be involved in the consensual affair isn't speaking. "Army officials disclosed . . ." For what reason? And for what reason does the Times feel this is a topic worth writing about and self-promoting?
"General Disobeyed Orders to End Affair, Officials Say." Why wags talking about this already covered topic is news (and it's on the Times' main page of their web site as well) is beyond me.
Back to Kornblut, two AP photos by LM Otero illustrates the article (thanks to Kyle for e-mailing on that, I generally miss the photos and focus solely on the text) as does a photo by Mandel Ngan (Getty Images). Does the Times have a photographer in Crawford?
Kornblut leads with the visit to Camp Casey by Viggo Mortensen which suggests that Sherry was correct in her e-mail yesterday that if "Viggo would drop his pants and show that fine ass, this story would be all over the news." Sherry's a fan of Mortensen and Kornblut's smart in opening with him. I don't think she's trivializing the issue but using Mortensen as a hook. (Others might disagree.) (And might be correct.) She sketches out the basics in this story. (Which is the first serious look the Times has done since Monday's piece by Richard W. Stevenson.)
I have a few quibbles with Kornblut's reporting but I see no "Howler" (again, others may disagree -- but then they'd first have to mention the issue and . . .)
The aspect of Cindy Sheehan and her husband seperating is noted. If Kornblut wanted to go historical (or up the drama) she could note that this isn't uncommon when parents lose a child and one parent (usually the mother) becomes an advocate. This isn't uncommon. And when the parents don't seperate, there's still usually tension.
At some point, the Times may file a story on that and though it's more of a think piece (at best) it needs to be said since some are using the seperation to advance their own line (not based in fact) that Sheehan's husband holds a different view of the war. It goes to the way in which people view a loss. That's not an insult to Sheehan's husband. But there is conditioning and socialization that comes into play and the Times (or someone) should write about that. It has nothing to do with one partner not feeling the same level of grief, it does go to how they address their grief and how they've been conditioned to deal with the grief. (And there is data to back it up if the Times cares to look into it.)
Some may take offense to "publicity-savy" but I don't see it an insult. Gold Star Families for Peace (as well as Military Families Speak Out and CODEPINK) are "publicity-savy" and if they weren't, the story would never have registered the way it has because most people wouldn't have heard of it.
I haven't heard Laura Flanders yet (filling in Friday night for Janeane Garofalo and Sam Seder on The Majority Report -- I'll listen to the archived show at Air America Place) but Edna e-mailed that Flanders made a strong point about how the fact that Cindy Sheehan went to the Bully Boy in an otherwise non-eventful press period. As I understand the point (listen to the archived broadcast, this is second-hand) Flanders is pointing out that this says something about the nature of the press today (and it's not something good): instead of going out and getting the story, the story has to come then.
Kornblut's written a strong article (my opinion) and the big question is why the Times feels it's one to bury inside the paper (or to not promote, either at the main page of the web site or in their daily e-mail)? There's no reason Kornblut couldn't have made her deadline (and I have no knowledge that she didn't) but a piece that should be front page isn't.
Edna also noted "Anthony Lappe, Executive Editor at the Guerilla News Network, GNN" who was interviewed last night by Flanders and discussed "The Good News Roundup" (a regular Friday feature at GNN) and asked that we note that. (Savanna Reid writes that feature for GNN.) Edna also noted that Lappe discussed the Winter Soldier Investigation. It's a strong film and one worth noting (and seeing). Edna wondered why it didn't get noted when David M. Halbfinger wrote of it in "Film Echoes the Present in Atrocities of the Past" earlier this week in the Times. It was an arts story in the arts section and no member e-mailed about it.
It was also a whitewash in my opinion. With a variety of reasons of why the film didn't get more attention originally. "Major news organizations sent reporters but published and broadcast next to nothing of what they filed . . ." Which major news organzations?
It wasn't Life Magazine. Jane Fonda agreed to sit down with them for a profile in exchange for their agreement to cover the three days of truth telling. Which major news organizations?
Then we're offered a nonsense bit about how since it was an ensemble piece it was hard for the film to get traction. Says who? Says Halbfinger who's already told you that mysteriously "major news organizations" hadn't wanted to cover the event. Maybe on a slow news day (say one of their skimpy Mondays), the Times could reach into the vault and publish anything they didn't publish on the Winter Soldier Investigation while it was taking place?
Which more or less brings us back to how we started this entry. Viggo Mortensen's arrival at Camp Casey is what Kornblut leads with. Life Magazine agrees to cover the Winter Soldier Investigation to get a cover story on Jane Fonda. We'll falsely call it symmetry and close out on that note.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
It's not on the front page. It's also not mentioned in "Today's Headlines: Vast Archive Yields New View of 9/11" which is the daily e-mail the Times sends out promoting what they feel are the important stories in each day's edition. (Thanks to Karla for forwarding that.) Maybe it was filed so late, the story, that there was no way that it could make the front page?
I'm not buying that. Near the end of the article, Kornblut writes of "rumors of a counterprotest were reampant . . . busload of pro-war activits from Dallas [who] . . . had not arrived." That busload did arrive and it was before eight p.m. EST. So the Times should have had Kornblut's article in plenty of time to have front paged it.
A decision was made not to. The same way a decision was made not to note the article in the e-mail they sent out early this morning. It's apparently, for instance, more important to trumpet David S. Cloud's article -- which, in print, appears on the same page as Kornbluts, A7 -- about Kevin P. Byrnes' affair. I'm not really sure why that article is even in the paper. Byrnes doesn't appear to be speaking to reporters at the Times. The Washington Post told their readers from the day the story broke what was going on. The Times initial coverage, on the same day, knew nothing of an affair. (Or didn't report it.) So here we are, days later, and the Times feels this is news. I don't think it is. There's nothing in the article that's news. There's gossip. I don't mean Cloud's speculating and I'm not slamming him for a frivilous approach (he writes the tawdry piece in a professional manner). But this isn't news. It isn't even good gossip or new gossip. And I'm reminded again of a Joni Mitchell song, "Wouldn't they like their peace/Don't we get bored" ("Three Great Stimulants" off Mitchell's Dog Eat Dog -- written by Mitchell).
There was a lot of "We don't like reporting on sex!" denials during the Clinton years. Someone likes it or they wouldn't keep running this crap. Byrnes isn't speaking, the woman alleged to be involved in the consensual affair isn't speaking. "Army officials disclosed . . ." For what reason? And for what reason does the Times feel this is a topic worth writing about and self-promoting?
"General Disobeyed Orders to End Affair, Officials Say." Why wags talking about this already covered topic is news (and it's on the Times' main page of their web site as well) is beyond me.
Back to Kornblut, two AP photos by LM Otero illustrates the article (thanks to Kyle for e-mailing on that, I generally miss the photos and focus solely on the text) as does a photo by Mandel Ngan (Getty Images). Does the Times have a photographer in Crawford?
Kornblut leads with the visit to Camp Casey by Viggo Mortensen which suggests that Sherry was correct in her e-mail yesterday that if "Viggo would drop his pants and show that fine ass, this story would be all over the news." Sherry's a fan of Mortensen and Kornblut's smart in opening with him. I don't think she's trivializing the issue but using Mortensen as a hook. (Others might disagree.) (And might be correct.) She sketches out the basics in this story. (Which is the first serious look the Times has done since Monday's piece by Richard W. Stevenson.)
I have a few quibbles with Kornblut's reporting but I see no "Howler" (again, others may disagree -- but then they'd first have to mention the issue and . . .)
The aspect of Cindy Sheehan and her husband seperating is noted. If Kornblut wanted to go historical (or up the drama) she could note that this isn't uncommon when parents lose a child and one parent (usually the mother) becomes an advocate. This isn't uncommon. And when the parents don't seperate, there's still usually tension.
At some point, the Times may file a story on that and though it's more of a think piece (at best) it needs to be said since some are using the seperation to advance their own line (not based in fact) that Sheehan's husband holds a different view of the war. It goes to the way in which people view a loss. That's not an insult to Sheehan's husband. But there is conditioning and socialization that comes into play and the Times (or someone) should write about that. It has nothing to do with one partner not feeling the same level of grief, it does go to how they address their grief and how they've been conditioned to deal with the grief. (And there is data to back it up if the Times cares to look into it.)
Some may take offense to "publicity-savy" but I don't see it an insult. Gold Star Families for Peace (as well as Military Families Speak Out and CODEPINK) are "publicity-savy" and if they weren't, the story would never have registered the way it has because most people wouldn't have heard of it.
I haven't heard Laura Flanders yet (filling in Friday night for Janeane Garofalo and Sam Seder on The Majority Report -- I'll listen to the archived show at Air America Place) but Edna e-mailed that Flanders made a strong point about how the fact that Cindy Sheehan went to the Bully Boy in an otherwise non-eventful press period. As I understand the point (listen to the archived broadcast, this is second-hand) Flanders is pointing out that this says something about the nature of the press today (and it's not something good): instead of going out and getting the story, the story has to come then.
Kornblut's written a strong article (my opinion) and the big question is why the Times feels it's one to bury inside the paper (or to not promote, either at the main page of the web site or in their daily e-mail)? There's no reason Kornblut couldn't have made her deadline (and I have no knowledge that she didn't) but a piece that should be front page isn't.
Edna also noted "Anthony Lappe, Executive Editor at the Guerilla News Network, GNN" who was interviewed last night by Flanders and discussed "The Good News Roundup" (a regular Friday feature at GNN) and asked that we note that. (Savanna Reid writes that feature for GNN.) Edna also noted that Lappe discussed the Winter Soldier Investigation. It's a strong film and one worth noting (and seeing). Edna wondered why it didn't get noted when David M. Halbfinger wrote of it in "Film Echoes the Present in Atrocities of the Past" earlier this week in the Times. It was an arts story in the arts section and no member e-mailed about it.
It was also a whitewash in my opinion. With a variety of reasons of why the film didn't get more attention originally. "Major news organizations sent reporters but published and broadcast next to nothing of what they filed . . ." Which major news organzations?
It wasn't Life Magazine. Jane Fonda agreed to sit down with them for a profile in exchange for their agreement to cover the three days of truth telling. Which major news organizations?
Then we're offered a nonsense bit about how since it was an ensemble piece it was hard for the film to get traction. Says who? Says Halbfinger who's already told you that mysteriously "major news organizations" hadn't wanted to cover the event. Maybe on a slow news day (say one of their skimpy Mondays), the Times could reach into the vault and publish anything they didn't publish on the Winter Soldier Investigation while it was taking place?
Which more or less brings us back to how we started this entry. Viggo Mortensen's arrival at Camp Casey is what Kornblut leads with. Life Magazine agrees to cover the Winter Soldier Investigation to get a cover story on Jane Fonda. We'll falsely call it symmetry and close out on that note.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
Friday, August 12, 2005
Sunday Chat & Chews
It's Friday and the Chat & Chews will soon be upon us. All shows air on Sunday (or should), check your local listings.
We'll start with ABC's This Week.
Guests:
Lance Armstrong, Seven-time winner, Tour de France
Zalmay Khalilzad, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq
Roundtable:
Joining the Brothers George will be "Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International, ABC News' Martha Raddatz." The topics will be:
. . . shifting American opinions about the war in Iraq, the administration's mixed signals about the duration of the U.S. troop deployment there, and this week's constitution deadline. The looming nuclear threat in Iran, and this week's Israeli pullout from Gaza will also be on the table.
As surely as you can expect George Will (he's the older twin) to show up in a bow tie, you can count on him to grimace and derail the topic. If the ratings continue to flounder (and they do), ABC might want to rethink the Brother Will?
Why do we always start with NBC's Meet the Press? That's a question Bonnie had. Because NBC's Meet the Press knows their line up the soonest. Bonnie wondered if I was endorsing Meet the Press by placing it first and the answer is no. Nor am I endorsing CBS' Face the Nation by putting it last. (Which actually would be more likely for me if I were doing an endorsement.)
So what's coming up on Meet the Press?
AMBASSADOR ZALMAY KHALILZAD
U.S. Ambassador to Iraq
SEN. JOE BIDEN (D - DE)
Ranking Member, Foreign Relations Committee
E.J. DIONNE
Washington Post Columnist
BYRON YORK
National Review
Roundtable topic?
. . . will have insights and analysis on the political ramifications of the war in Iraq, the sparring interest groups surrounding the John Roberts nomination, and the big news in New York politics: a new challenger for Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY).
Insights and analysis? They're so hopeful each Friday. I'm reminded of a Joni Mitchell song.
After the rush when you come back down
You're always disappointed
Nothing seems to keep you high
Drive your bargains
Push your papers
Win your medals
F**k your strangers
Don't it leave you on the empty side
("Woman of Heart and Mind" written by Joni Mitchell, on the album For The Roses.)
Now for CBS' Face The Nation:
Host:
CBS Evening News Anchor Bob Schieffer
Topics:
War in Iraq; Democratic Party; Politics
Guests:
Howard Dean
Chairman, Democratic National Committee
John Harris
The Washington Post
If I had to watch, the question that's so popular, which one would I watch? If a gun was to my head, I'd choose Face The Nation for the same reasons stated every week, it's only a half-hour, and it's a little more serious in it's approach (I'm sure the Russerts are very impressed that Timmy can josh and joke onscreen but as a viewer, it does nothing for me). Watch one, watch all. Or watch none and just check out Bill Scher's Liberal Oasis Monday to find out what happened (without grimacing and without commercials!).
Thanks to Jess for inserting a link I wrongly thought was in the post immediately prior. Thanks to Jess and Ava for all their help this week. I've got one of those "thought pieces" that members have been requesting but I'm holding it until tomorrow. I'm hoping that with some rest (and hopefully without the huge headache I currently have) there will be no need to post it.
But this is going to be it for tonight. (Shirley checked to see if Air America Radio had their weekend schedule up and they don't yet. Thank you Shirley.)
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
We'll start with ABC's This Week.
Guests:
Lance Armstrong, Seven-time winner, Tour de France
Zalmay Khalilzad, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq
Roundtable:
Joining the Brothers George will be "Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International, ABC News' Martha Raddatz." The topics will be:
. . . shifting American opinions about the war in Iraq, the administration's mixed signals about the duration of the U.S. troop deployment there, and this week's constitution deadline. The looming nuclear threat in Iran, and this week's Israeli pullout from Gaza will also be on the table.
As surely as you can expect George Will (he's the older twin) to show up in a bow tie, you can count on him to grimace and derail the topic. If the ratings continue to flounder (and they do), ABC might want to rethink the Brother Will?
Why do we always start with NBC's Meet the Press? That's a question Bonnie had. Because NBC's Meet the Press knows their line up the soonest. Bonnie wondered if I was endorsing Meet the Press by placing it first and the answer is no. Nor am I endorsing CBS' Face the Nation by putting it last. (Which actually would be more likely for me if I were doing an endorsement.)
So what's coming up on Meet the Press?
AMBASSADOR ZALMAY KHALILZAD
U.S. Ambassador to Iraq
SEN. JOE BIDEN (D - DE)
Ranking Member, Foreign Relations Committee
E.J. DIONNE
Washington Post Columnist
BYRON YORK
National Review
Roundtable topic?
. . . will have insights and analysis on the political ramifications of the war in Iraq, the sparring interest groups surrounding the John Roberts nomination, and the big news in New York politics: a new challenger for Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY).
Insights and analysis? They're so hopeful each Friday. I'm reminded of a Joni Mitchell song.
After the rush when you come back down
You're always disappointed
Nothing seems to keep you high
Drive your bargains
Push your papers
Win your medals
F**k your strangers
Don't it leave you on the empty side
("Woman of Heart and Mind" written by Joni Mitchell, on the album For The Roses.)
Now for CBS' Face The Nation:
Host:
CBS Evening News Anchor Bob Schieffer
Topics:
War in Iraq; Democratic Party; Politics
Guests:
Howard Dean
Chairman, Democratic National Committee
John Harris
The Washington Post
If I had to watch, the question that's so popular, which one would I watch? If a gun was to my head, I'd choose Face The Nation for the same reasons stated every week, it's only a half-hour, and it's a little more serious in it's approach (I'm sure the Russerts are very impressed that Timmy can josh and joke onscreen but as a viewer, it does nothing for me). Watch one, watch all. Or watch none and just check out Bill Scher's Liberal Oasis Monday to find out what happened (without grimacing and without commercials!).
Thanks to Jess for inserting a link I wrongly thought was in the post immediately prior. Thanks to Jess and Ava for all their help this week. I've got one of those "thought pieces" that members have been requesting but I'm holding it until tomorrow. I'm hoping that with some rest (and hopefully without the huge headache I currently have) there will be no need to post it.
But this is going to be it for tonight. (Shirley checked to see if Air America Radio had their weekend schedule up and they don't yet. Thank you Shirley.)
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
Democracy Now: Cindy Sheehan, Watts, Iraq, FRD's grandson; Laura Flanders hosting The Majority Report on Air America Radio tonight
Bush Won't Meet With Sheehan, But He'll Talk About Her
President Bush emerged from his ranch in Crawford, Texas yesterday and addressed for the first time the rapidly growing antiwar protest outside of his property. What began as a one woman vigil has now grown into the central antiwar action in the US. Before this week, there was very little coverage in the corporate media of antiwar families whose loved ones have been killed in Iraq, but now Cindy Sheehan--whose son Casey was killed in Iraq-- has grabbed international headlines by camping out in Crawford.
Headlines for August 12, 2005
- US Intel: New Iran Pres Not Hostage Taker
- Bush Denies Iraq Withdrawal "Rumors"
- Israeli Soldier Sentenced for Killing British Activist
- Tens of Thousands Rally in Tel Aviv
- Top DeLay Ally, Abramoff, Indicted
- Lori Berenson Final Appeal Denied
- Saddam may Be Executed After First Trial
- Audit Shows More Fraud in Iraq
- Texas is Majority People of Color
Women, Oil and the Role of the U.S. in Iraq's New Constitution
The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution called for the creation of an autonomous Shiite Region in Southern Iraq. We speak with activist and author Antonia Juhasz about the draft Constitution that is due to be released on Monday.
Protest on the Range: Cindy Sheehan Calls for Mass Demos at Bush's Crawford Ranch
Cindy Sheehan, whose son Casey was killed last year in Iraq, is finally getting major media coverage after months of protesting George Bush’s policies in Iraq. We go live to Crawford, Texas to speak with Cindy Sheehan
FDR's Grandson: At 70-Years-Old, Social Security Will Be "Successful Right Through The 21st Century"
This weekend marks the 70th anniversary of the signing of the Social Security Act by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The program remains the most successful social program of the century. We speak with FDR's grandson.
The Fire This Time: The Watts Rebellion at 40
This week marks the 40th anniversary of the Watts Uprising in Los Angeles. Today, many of the same economic inequalities persist for African American residents of South Central. We speak with Gerald Horne, author of "The Fire This Time: The Watts Uprising and the 1960s."
Zach e-mails to note Tom Hayden's "Cindy Sheehan Can't Stop Won't Stop" (The Huffington Post):
Casey Sheehan lives in his mother's being, and that's why Cindy Sheehan can't stop, won't stop. She shows us why and how to fight. She is wrecking the President's vacation and rupturing his control of the media. She is establishing the presence of an anti-war spirit among military families. What is interesting so far is that Bush, unlike Nixon, has not succeeded in generating a Gold Star Mothers for War.
Brita e-mails to note James T. Madore's "No backing down for jailed reporter" (Newsday) on the subject of Judith Miller. Brita pulls this section for quoting:
He also held out little hope that prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald will drop his subpoena. "Nothing has happened that fills me with any optimism," [Floyd] Abrams said.
Fitzgerald has spent the past year and a half investigating whether anyone in the Bush administration leaked the name of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame to journalists. The leak came after Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, challenged White House claims that Iraq dictator Saddam Hussein had sought atomic bomb-making material in Africa. Fitzgerald's spokesman didn't return a telephone call seeking comment.
Many journalists have been subpoenaed in the Plame probe, but only Miller, 57, has gone to jail so far, and she never wrote a story about the matter.
"It's tough, but she is fine. She's hanging in there," Lucy A. Dalglish of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press said of Miller, whom she visited last week.
The only thing I'll note on the above story is that whomever did the photo captions needs to do a correction to "Valerie Plame and her husband on a Vanity Fair cover." The photo didn't appear on the cover and it's a little suprising that Newsday wouldn't catch that mistake on their own. (Van Fair's infamous for their celeb covers.)
Martha e-mails to note Eugene Kane's "Publisher's influence is sadly overlooked" (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel):
In Johnson's magazines, the accomplishments of black people were detailed in depth, as opposed to the usual reports of dysfunction and mayhem other major magazines and newspapers of the time used to define black people.
Marcia e-mails to note Pseudo-Adrienne's "Cindy Sheehan and our leaders' poor performance" (Alas, a blog):
Cindy Sheehan. She reminds us what democracy is a lot about. Opposing ideas and open, passionate political discourse between those opposing ideas, especially between elected officials. Do you see any of this now on Capitol Hill? Do you see the Democrats or even moderate Republicans really opposing the neocon-Republicans or Dubya? No. What you see are a bunch of cowardly politicians willing to silently submit and surrender themselves, their ideals, and their voting-base to the Republicans and Dubya, without so much as a gripe. Like a bunch of whipped dogs. Where's the opposition from them? It doesn't exist. So it's up to the citizens to be the real opposition party--to do the job our leaders are supposed to, but forget about them. Citizens such as Cindy Sheehan who obviously knew better than to wait around for a politician on the Hill to listen. She took the dusty streets, in Crawford, Texas, to voice her outrage. To express her opposition. Could she be more of a perfect example of how we need to rely more on ourselves to get our message out there--and not wait on some ready-to-cop-out politician from the Hill to even consider listening to us? Or better yet, elect better leaders who would truly represent us at all times, and not just when it was convenient for them. Democracy does not flourish when one side is silent and submissive. Remember, how are leaders are supposed to act in a democracy? Where do we find better leaders? (via Tennessee Guerilla Women and originally Huffington Post)
Brandon e-mails to note Sharon Smith's "The New Anti-War Majority" (CounterPunch):
With opinion polls consistently showing a majority of Americans against the Iraq occupation, some prominent liberals are stepping forward to take credit for this welcome development. The "antiwar movement is winning by staying silent," was the theme of a recent column by American Prospect editor Harold Meyerson in the New Hampshire Union Leader.
We'll also note Tariq Ali's "Blair's New Authoritariansim" (also CounterPunch):
Back to the topic of Cindy Sheehan, we'll note Norman Solomon's "Repudiating Bush and Dean" (also CounterPunch, Veronica e-mailed to note this):
(On this topic, see Marshall Windmiller's "A problem with principles: Young Democrats, like their party as a whole, still struggle to show integrity on divisive issues" which Toby e-mailed about and we noted last night.)
Are you checking The Lone Star Iconoclast for updates on Cindy Sheehan's vigil? Here's some of what's posted for Friday:
Various gifts were given to the Peace House and supporters of Cindy, a few being six shuttle buses from radio personality Randi Rhodes, free wireless service for the Peace House, a barbecue grill being brought in by a man from Texarkana, and a few cases of beer (Jim Hightower would be proud).:-)
[NOTE: This post corrected by Jess to put in link for Atlas, a blog's entry per C.I.]
President Bush emerged from his ranch in Crawford, Texas yesterday and addressed for the first time the rapidly growing antiwar protest outside of his property. What began as a one woman vigil has now grown into the central antiwar action in the US. Before this week, there was very little coverage in the corporate media of antiwar families whose loved ones have been killed in Iraq, but now Cindy Sheehan--whose son Casey was killed in Iraq-- has grabbed international headlines by camping out in Crawford.
- President Bush, speaking to reporters on Thursday:
"This is America. She has a right to her position, and I thought long and hard about her position. I've heard her position from others, which is: Get out of Iraq now. And it would be a mistake for the security of this country and the ability to lay the foundations for peace in the long run if we were to do so."
President Bush has thus far refused to meet with Cindy Sheehan at his ranch, instead sending emissaries. Sheehan has vowed to remain in Crawford until Bush agrees to meet her. She has also indicated she may camp out at the White House once Bush returns from yet another vacation. He has taken more than 320 days of vacation since assuming the presidency 5 years ago.
Israeli Soldier Sentenced for Killing British Activist
An Israeli soldier was sentenced by a military tribunal Thursday to eight years in prison for manslaughter in the shooting death of British activist Tom Hurndall, as Hurndall was trying to protect Palestinian children. Taysir Hayb was convicted by a military court in June for the murder of Hurndall, who was shot in the head during an army operation in the Gaza Strip in April 2003. It was the first case in which an Israeli soldier has been found guilty of a crime in the killing a foreign citizen during the past four years. Hurndall's family immediately criticized the sentence as far too light given the crime.
- Jocelyn Hurndall, mother of Tom Hurndall:
"The Israeli Defence Force has a long way to go before they have any credibility in the eyes of the world. The world's eyes are on Israel at the moment, people are aware in the world of the ways the Israeli force treat civilians and kill civilians. They have a very long way indeed to go before we feel we can trust their word, before we believe they will carry out a thorough Investigation."
Witnesses said that 22 year-old Tom Hurndall was helping Palestinian children avoid Israeli tanks. He was in a coma for nine months before dying in a London hospital. During his trial, Hayb argued that a confession he gave was forced. Hayb also said he was prosecuted because he is an Arab and because his victim was a foreigner. Hurndall was a member of the International Solidarity Movement, as was Rachel Corrie, an activist from Olympia, Wash., who was crushed to death by an Israeli army bulldozer in March 2003. To this day, no one has been charged in her killing.
The two items above are from today's Democracy Now! Headlines and were selected by West and Kara. Democracy Now! ("always worth watching," as Marcia says):
Headlines for August 12, 2005
- US Intel: New Iran Pres Not Hostage Taker
- Bush Denies Iraq Withdrawal "Rumors"
- Israeli Soldier Sentenced for Killing British Activist
- Tens of Thousands Rally in Tel Aviv
- Top DeLay Ally, Abramoff, Indicted
- Lori Berenson Final Appeal Denied
- Saddam may Be Executed After First Trial
- Audit Shows More Fraud in Iraq
- Texas is Majority People of Color
Women, Oil and the Role of the U.S. in Iraq's New Constitution
The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution called for the creation of an autonomous Shiite Region in Southern Iraq. We speak with activist and author Antonia Juhasz about the draft Constitution that is due to be released on Monday.
Protest on the Range: Cindy Sheehan Calls for Mass Demos at Bush's Crawford Ranch
Cindy Sheehan, whose son Casey was killed last year in Iraq, is finally getting major media coverage after months of protesting George Bush’s policies in Iraq. We go live to Crawford, Texas to speak with Cindy Sheehan
FDR's Grandson: At 70-Years-Old, Social Security Will Be "Successful Right Through The 21st Century"
This weekend marks the 70th anniversary of the signing of the Social Security Act by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The program remains the most successful social program of the century. We speak with FDR's grandson.
The Fire This Time: The Watts Rebellion at 40
This week marks the 40th anniversary of the Watts Uprising in Los Angeles. Today, many of the same economic inequalities persist for African American residents of South Central. We speak with Gerald Horne, author of "The Fire This Time: The Watts Uprising and the 1960s."
Zach e-mails to note Tom Hayden's "Cindy Sheehan Can't Stop Won't Stop" (The Huffington Post):
Casey Sheehan lives in his mother's being, and that's why Cindy Sheehan can't stop, won't stop. She shows us why and how to fight. She is wrecking the President's vacation and rupturing his control of the media. She is establishing the presence of an anti-war spirit among military families. What is interesting so far is that Bush, unlike Nixon, has not succeeded in generating a Gold Star Mothers for War.
Brita e-mails to note James T. Madore's "No backing down for jailed reporter" (Newsday) on the subject of Judith Miller. Brita pulls this section for quoting:
He also held out little hope that prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald will drop his subpoena. "Nothing has happened that fills me with any optimism," [Floyd] Abrams said.
Fitzgerald has spent the past year and a half investigating whether anyone in the Bush administration leaked the name of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame to journalists. The leak came after Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, challenged White House claims that Iraq dictator Saddam Hussein had sought atomic bomb-making material in Africa. Fitzgerald's spokesman didn't return a telephone call seeking comment.
Many journalists have been subpoenaed in the Plame probe, but only Miller, 57, has gone to jail so far, and she never wrote a story about the matter.
"It's tough, but she is fine. She's hanging in there," Lucy A. Dalglish of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press said of Miller, whom she visited last week.
The only thing I'll note on the above story is that whomever did the photo captions needs to do a correction to "Valerie Plame and her husband on a Vanity Fair cover." The photo didn't appear on the cover and it's a little suprising that Newsday wouldn't catch that mistake on their own. (Van Fair's infamous for their celeb covers.)
Martha e-mails to note Eugene Kane's "Publisher's influence is sadly overlooked" (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel):
In Johnson's magazines, the accomplishments of black people were detailed in depth, as opposed to the usual reports of dysfunction and mayhem other major magazines and newspapers of the time used to define black people.
He was a major figure in American journalism.
So it was disappointing this week to see many major news organizations apparently felt Johnson's death paled in comparison to that of news anchor Peter Jennings, a respected professional but nowhere in the same league with Johnson in terms of historical significance. I believe if Ted Turner or Rupert Murdoch had died this week, their obituaries would have been on the front pages of most U.S. papers.
John H. Johnson deserved no less recognition.
One reason he didn't make front-page news most places is that the mainstream news media isn't filled with people who grew up with Ebony and Jet in their living rooms.
Just as missing white women dominate the news cycle while missing women of color get ignored, the death of a noteworthy black figure often shows how little most members of the conventional media know about non-white heroes.
Martha thinks this should be noted (I agree) and wants it noted who's talked about this. I can toss out Cedric's "Anybody talking about John H. Johnson? Why not?" and Mike's interview with Jim but I'm sure there are others making the point.
[On Wednesday we noted seven articles on Johnson and concluded with the following:
We've noted Johnson twice this week already. But since it appears that there is a feeding frenzy over a "pretty, blond gone missing" (who knew Jennings was blond?) means Johnson gets overlooked. Now maybe there's not footage of Johnson yucking it up while fully dressed above the waist and just wearing boxers below, but Johnson did accomplish a great deal. So we'll take the time to again note his passing.]
It is an issue. It's one that some aren't even grasping is an issue but it is an issue. There will be something at The Third Estate Sunday Review this Sunday. There are two ideas being tossed around currently and we're all in agreement that at least one will go up even if we're not pleased with the final draft. It is important, the way this has played out in the press and that's all I'll say at this point so I don't blow any input I could offer on The Third Estate Sunday Review pieces in this. (Also, this topic makes me angry and these mid-morning entries are written quickly with not a great deal of time to reflect on them before they go up.) I will say that Kane's point are strong and I agree with them. It's a shame that in the "era of the blogs" this is an issue that's been addressed mainly by print columnists. I'll also say that it seems to me that Kane's column is the strongest thing in print thus far on this topic. (To read it, click here.)
Lloyd e-mails to note Matthew Rothschild's latest McCarthyism Watch ("The Savaging of Cindy Sheehan"):
The shameless savaging of Cindy Sheehan continues.
Bill O'Reilly says she's a tool of "far left elements."
The New York Sun echoes the charge, evidently reading the same rightwing talking points.
In an editorial on August 11, it says Sheehan "has put herself in league with some extreme groups and individuals."
This is old-style McCarthyism, straight on down to the red-baiting.
The editorial quotes Sheehan about some of the groups she's involved with, including Code Pink, Veterans for Peace, and Military Families Speak Out.
It then notes that these groups are on the steering committee of United for Peace and Justice, along with the Communist Party USA. (A person representing that party is one of the forty-one members who was voted onto the steering committee.)
This classic guilt-by-association trope just shows the reflexive response of the right: When your critic has credibility, and you can't find anything else on her, destroy her with the old standby: You're a communist dupe!
We'll note Naomi Klein's "Terror's Greatest Recruitment Tool" (The Nation):
Hussain Osman, one of the men alleged to have participated in London's failed bombings on July 21, recently told Italian investigators that they prepared for the attacks by watching "films on the war in Iraq," La Repubblica reported. "Especially those where women and children were being killed and exterminated by British and American soldiers...of widows, mothers and daughters that cry."
It has become an article of faith that Britain was vulnerable to terror because of its politically correct antiracism. Yet Osman's comments suggest that what propelled at least some of the bombers was rage at what they saw as extreme racism. And what else can we call the belief--so prevalent we barely notice it--that American and European lives are worth more than the lives of Arabs and Muslims, so much more that their deaths in Iraq are not even counted?
It's not the first time that this kind of raw inequality has bred extremism. Sayyid Qutb, the Egyptian writer generally viewed as the intellectual architect of radical political Islam, had his ideological epiphany while studying in the United States. The puritanical scholar was shocked by Colorado's licentious women, it's true, but more significant was Qutb's encounter with what he later described as America's "evil and fanatic racial discrimination." By coincidence, Qutb arrived in the United States in 1948, the year of the creation of the State of Israel. He witnessed an America blind to the thousands of Palestinians being made permanent refugees by the Zionist project. For Qutb, it wasn't politics, it was an assault on his identity: Clearly Americans believed that Arab lives were worth far less than those of European Jews. According to Yvonne Haddad, a professor of history at Georgetown University, this experience "left Qutb with a bitterness he was never able to shake."
We'll also note Kate Michelman's "Roberts and Roe" (The Nation):
The debate over Judge John Roberts's nomination to the Supreme Court has alternated between speculation about whether he would vote to overrule Roe v. Wade and reassurances that he might not--or, at any rate, that his position on the case would not decide its fate. But for those concerned about women's lives rather than legal abstractions, the crucial issue is being overlooked: To place the lives and health of millions of women at risk, Roberts need not oppose Roe v. Wade itself; his interpretation of its protections need only be slightly more conservative than that of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's.
To be sure, there is ample evidence that Roberts would follow the model of Chief Justice Rehnquist, for whom he clerked, and vote to overrule Roe outright. Roberts, after all, urged the Court to do precisely that when he served in the George H.W. Bush Administration. But focusing the debate exclusively on the survival of Roe itself allows Roberts to hide in the shadows of speculative questions--even though his patently clear conservatism is considerable cause for concern.
Marcia e-mails to note Pseudo-Adrienne's "Cindy Sheehan and our leaders' poor performance" (Alas, a blog):
Cindy Sheehan. She reminds us what democracy is a lot about. Opposing ideas and open, passionate political discourse between those opposing ideas, especially between elected officials. Do you see any of this now on Capitol Hill? Do you see the Democrats or even moderate Republicans really opposing the neocon-Republicans or Dubya? No. What you see are a bunch of cowardly politicians willing to silently submit and surrender themselves, their ideals, and their voting-base to the Republicans and Dubya, without so much as a gripe. Like a bunch of whipped dogs. Where's the opposition from them? It doesn't exist. So it's up to the citizens to be the real opposition party--to do the job our leaders are supposed to, but forget about them. Citizens such as Cindy Sheehan who obviously knew better than to wait around for a politician on the Hill to listen. She took the dusty streets, in Crawford, Texas, to voice her outrage. To express her opposition. Could she be more of a perfect example of how we need to rely more on ourselves to get our message out there--and not wait on some ready-to-cop-out politician from the Hill to even consider listening to us? Or better yet, elect better leaders who would truly represent us at all times, and not just when it was convenient for them. Democracy does not flourish when one side is silent and submissive. Remember, how are leaders are supposed to act in a democracy? Where do we find better leaders? (via Tennessee Guerilla Women and originally Huffington Post)
Brandon e-mails to note Sharon Smith's "The New Anti-War Majority" (CounterPunch):
With opinion polls consistently showing a majority of Americans against the Iraq occupation, some prominent liberals are stepping forward to take credit for this welcome development. The "antiwar movement is winning by staying silent," was the theme of a recent column by American Prospect editor Harold Meyerson in the New Hampshire Union Leader.
Congratulations are apparently in order to those responsible for the antiwar movement's hiatus throughout John Kerry's election campaign last year. "[H]owever perverse this may sound," Meyerson wrote, "the absence of an antiwar movement is proving to be a huge political problem for the Bush administration."
Today's movement has cleverly avoided the mistakes made during Vietnam, according to Myerson, when a massive, militant movement helped Richard Nixon get re-elected by alienating the "silent majority." Today, he insists, the rising tide of antiwar opinion is a direct result of Democrats' failure to oppose the war.
We'll also note Tariq Ali's "Blair's New Authoritariansim" (also CounterPunch):
In the face of terror attacks Anglo-Saxon politicians mouth the same rhetoric. One sentence in particular--shrouded in layers of untruth--is constantly repeated: 'We shall not permit these attacks to change our way of life.' It is a multi-purpose mantra. The first aim is to convince the public that the terrorists are crazed Muslims who are bombing modernity/democracy/freedom/ 'our values', etc.
This is the first lie. The terror attacks, however misguided and criminal, are a result of the Western military presence in the Arab world. If all the foreign troops and bases were withdrawn, the attacks would cease. This is essentially a post-First Gulf war syndrome.
Israel/Palestine is another issue, but that has been simmering for fifty years and was not the main reason for the bombings in New York, Madrid and London. It has now been added to the repertoire, but the struggle to force Israel back to the 1967 frontiers is one waged by the Palestinians themselves. They have received little support from elsewhere.
The sentence itself is a falsehood, because the attacks have changed 'our way of life'. The Patriot Act in the United States and the measures being proposed by Tony Blair in Britain demonstrate this quite clearly. What is being proposed in Britain is the indefinite suspension of habeas corpus. Worried by the recent judicial activism with senior Judges in Britain expressing a real concern at the growing attack on civil liberties [...]
Back to the topic of Cindy Sheehan, we'll note Norman Solomon's "Repudiating Bush and Dean" (also CounterPunch, Veronica e-mailed to note this):
In 1972, after many years of U.S. involvement in Vietnam, the Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg wrote: "In that time, I have seen it first as a problem; then as a stalemate; then as a crime."
That aptly describes three key American perspectives now brought to bear on U.S. involvement in Iraq.
The moral clarity and political impacts of Cindy Sheehan's vigil in Crawford are greatly enhanced by a position that she is taking: U.S. troops should not be in Iraq.
Sheehan's position does not only clash directly with President Bush's policy, which he reiterated on Thursday: "Pulling the troops out would send a terrible signal to the enemy." Her call for complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq also amounts to a firm rejection of the ongoing stance from Howard Dean, the head of the national Democratic Party, who told a Minneapolis audience on April 20: "Now that we're there, we're there and we can't get out."
Loyal supporters of the Bush policy in Iraq may express misgivings, but they have an outlook that views the faraway war as a fixable "problem."
Dean, the Democratic National Committee chair, has opted to stick to a calibrated partisan line of attack that endorses the essence of the war in real time. "The president has created an enormous security problem for the U.S. where none existed before," Dean said in Minneapolis. "But I hope the president is incredibly successful with his policy now that he's there."
(On this topic, see Marshall Windmiller's "A problem with principles: Young Democrats, like their party as a whole, still struggle to show integrity on divisive issues" which Toby e-mailed about and we noted last night.)
Are you checking The Lone Star Iconoclast for updates on Cindy Sheehan's vigil? Here's some of what's posted for Friday:
Various gifts were given to the Peace House and supporters of Cindy, a few being six shuttle buses from radio personality Randi Rhodes, free wireless service for the Peace House, a barbecue grill being brought in by a man from Texarkana, and a few cases of beer (Jim Hightower would be proud).:-)
There have been thousands of other phone calls of support, as well as requests for rides from the airport to Crawford. One woman has paid the way for a Navajo activist to come to Crawford, said Kay Lucas, a member of Friends of Peace and Crawford Peace House supporter.
Johnny Wolf, the owner of the Peace House, returned from a meeting with Crawford's new mayor, David Poston, and Chief Donnie Tidmore about securing Tonkawa Falls Park for a rally there on Saturday. The outcome of the meeting was that the Crawford Community Center and the park area have been tentatively granted to the supporters of Cindy for a rally. The officials are checking the schedule for any conflicts, as of this evening.
(The above was written by Nathan Diebenow.)
And:
There's a lot of excitement at Camp Casey. Law enforcement officers have been swarming the place, getting ready for the Presidential motorcade to pass through the camp on the way to a fund-raiser about a mile up the road, at the Broken Spoke. The pass-through is expected in about an hour and 20 minutes. Campers will be allowed to stand on the infamous triangular piece of ground while the motorcade passes by. Five highway patrol, three Secret Service in bullet-proof vests, two county officers are seen at the moment. A lot of plain-clothes people not seen here earlier are milling around.
Protestors are being instructed on what types of signs they can carry. For instance, if some want to carry crosses left over from yesterday's planting, the metal portions that are inserted into the ground have to be removed; otherwise, they might be considered a weapon.
(The above was written by Deborah Mathews.)
Now I'm pressed for time. Maria's e-mailed to note Jude's "Plamegate Update" (Iddybud) and Martha says, "Please read Danny today." I agree. And if you have money to donate, please do. (Whether you donate or not is your business, not mine.) If you like what you read today, please drop him an e-mail. (As Martha notes "he seems very down.") (Disclosure, I know Schechter.) So read The News Dissector today if you have time and I'm doing an excerpt quickly:
My earlier media experiences convinced me that the only way to have any impact is to be there daily, and in some personable, easy-to-access format. My dissector persona --originally a DJ's invention, not my own -- became my “brand.” And I know, from lots of feedback over lots of years, that it has had some impact. Its not all I want it to be -- given the lack of marketing or a regular electronic outlet -- but it I believe it is something of value and, anyway, it makes me feel that at least I am contributing in some small way. And I do get some wonderful letters and encouraging pats on the back.
But I want and need more. I am not doing it for the money, that’s for sure. Mediachannel is still evolving and unique. We have upgraded our look and software to become more interactive. Our traffic is up. The invitations and media requests I get from around the world are up. I am just back from Frankfurt, Germany. Next month I'm off to Paris and Italy, and then soon to the Persian Gulf. Mediachannel is widely known, read and respected.
And yet, if we don't change and find a way of developing a bigger community of readers and contributors, we'll die. Our costs are low, but they are there. Our fundraising leaves a lot to be desired.
We have tried to remain faithful to a mission that is distinctive from our proliferating "competitors." We are journalists, not just advocates. We are global, not just American. We want to build bridges between our culture and others, between independent media and those in the mainstream who share our concerns and critique. We would like to see more debate than denunciations, more post-partisan exchanges than attempts to imitate the worst features of the put-down artists in the echo chamber on the other side. We know we can be open-minded, without being empty-headed. We can say what we mean and mean what we say but without rhetoric or in a predictable or knee-jerk manner.
I only thought that was the last thing.
Head's up: LAURA FLANDERS is hosting THE MAJORITY REPORT on AIR AMERICA RADIO tonight. (7p.m. to 10 p.m. eastern) You can listen over broadcast radio (if there's an AAR in your area), via XM Satellite Radio or listen online. From The Majority Report:
On Friday's Show:
With Janeane in LA shooting episodes of the West Wing, and Sam taking care of his brand new baby girl, this week's guest host is journalist, activist, and Air America host Laura Flanders.
Joining Laura tonight:
Anthony Lappe, Executive Editor at the Guerilla News Network, GNN.
More Guest Info For Tonight's Show
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
[NOTE: This post corrected by Jess to put in link for Atlas, a blog's entry per C.I.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)