Maria: Buenos dias. De parte de "Democracy Now!" diez cosas que vale hacer notar este fin de semana. Paz.
Ex funcionario de CIA en Medio Oriente acusa a gobierno de Bush de seleccionar información sobre Irak en forma ventajosa
Mientras tanto, el ex funcionario nacional de inteligencia de la CIA para el Medio Oriente acusó al gobierno de Bush de seleccionar información en forma ventajosa para justificar la invasión a Irak. En un nuevo artículo de Asuntos Exteriores, Paul Pillar escribió: "Quedó claro que la información oficial no fue tenida en cuenta para tomar las decisiones más importantes en materia de seguridad nacional. La información fue mal utilizada públicamente para justificar decisiones ya tomadas…y el propio trabajo de la comunidad de inteligencia estaba politizado".
Veterano herido de Guerra de Irak obligado a pagar por armadura
En materia militar, "Charlestown Gazette" informa que un soldado de Virginia Occidental herido en un ataque con bomba al costado de una carretera en Irak, fue obligado a pagar por el armadura que le quitaron mientras recibía tratamiento. La semana pasada, el Primer Teniente William "Eddie" Rebrook IV, fue obligado a pagar 700 dólares luego de que le dijeron que el ejército no tenía registro de que le hubieran retirado la armadura. Rebrook dijo: "Si las cosas de un soldado son dañadas por fuego enemigo, el soldado no debería pagarlas...Hay una total falta de empatía de los oficiales superiores que no saben lo que es ser un soldado de combate en el terreno". Su madre, Beckie Drumheler, agregó: "Es atroz, ridículo y desmedido. Quería pararme en una esquina y gritar por un altavoz lo que sucedió".
Informe: Rove amenaza a miembros republicanos del Comité Judicial del Senado por programa de espionaje
Mientras tanto, la publicación conservadora "Insight on the News" informa que el subjefe de personal de la Casa Blanca, Karl Rove, está amenazando a cualquier miembro republicano del comité judicial del Senado que se enfrente a la Casa Blanca sobre el programa de supervisión interna. Según Insight, "fuentes dicen que la lista negra implicaría que la Casa Blanca suspendería todo apoyo político o financiero a los senadores que busquen la reelección en noviembre". Un colaborador republicano veterano dijo a la publicación: "Es un juego duro hasta el final".
Jimmy Carter: Espionaje telefónico es "vergonzoso e ilegal"
Surgió un nuevo crítico al programa de espionaje interno, el ex presidente Jimmy Carter. quien describió la decisión del gobierno de Bush de realizar espionaje a través de escuchas telefónicas como "vergonzosa e ilegal". Carter dijo que "nadie sabe la privacidad de cuántos estadounidenses inocentes fue violada a causa de esta ley secreta". Carter hizo el comentario en Nevada, en una actividad en la que su hijo, Jack, anunció que se presentaría como candidato al senado de Estados Unidos.
Funcionario de la NASA designado por Bush renuncia tras revelación de que había mentido en su curriculum
En otras noticias, un funcionario designado por el presidente en el departamento de asuntos públicos de la NASA renunció tras la revelación de que había inventado parte de su curriculum. George Deutsch, quien fue designado el año pasado luego de trabajar en la campaña de reelección y en la asunción del presidente Bush, afirmó erróneamente que se había graduado como periodista en la Universidad A & M de Texas. Deutsch es uno de los funcionarios de la NASA acusado por los científicos de la agencia de intentar silenciar sus advertencias sobre las amenazas del calentamiento global.
Informe: Gobierno de Bush fue informado de rotura de dique antes de que fuera anunciada
Volvemos a Estados Unidos, el "New York Times" informa que la Casa Blanca fue informada acerca de que el huracán Katrina había derribado un dique en Nueva Orleáns casi doce horas antes de que el gobierno de Bush lo anunciara. La Casa Blanca argumentó que se le informó de las roturas del dique la mañana del martes 30 de agosto de 2005. Pero documentos demuestran que el gobierno de Bush fue informado la medianoche anterior.
Bush propone gran aumento del gasto de defensa y reducción de programas socials
El presidente Bush presenta su propuesta de presupuesto de aproximadamente unos 2,8 billones de dólares para el año próximo, lo que implica importantes aumentos en el gasto de defensa, pero profundos recortes del programa de salud Medicare y otros programas sociales a nivel nacional. Según esta propuesta de presupuesto, el gasto de defensa aumentará a 440 mil millones de dólares, casi un 7 por ciento. De ser aprobado, el presupuesto del Pentágono aumentará 45 por ciento con respecto al presupuesto asignado cuando Bush asumió por primera vez hace cinco años. El gasto militar es mucho más alto porque esta propuesta no incluye el gasto de las guerras de Irak y Afganistán. Un reciente cálculo estimó el costo de la guerra de Irak en 100 mil dólares por minuto. Al mismo tiempo, el presidente propone que las reducciones de impuestos sean permanentes. Esto costará alrededor de 1,5 billones en la próxima década. El Secretario de Defensa Donald Rumsfeld habló el lunes sobre el presupuesto: "La solicitud de presupuesto del presidente para el Departamento de Defensa representa un aumento con respecto al año anterior. Refleja lo que creemos que deberían ser las prioridades de la seguridad nacional de nuestro país. Fundamentalmente para ayudar a defender a Estados Unidos de América y al pueblo estadounidense y sus intereses, para otorgar flexibilidad a los comandantes, para prepararnos tanto para la guerra convencional como para la no convencional o irregular, y, algo que es muy importante, para trabajar junto a naciones socias para ayudarlas a desarrollar las capacidades necesarias para vencer a los terroristas dentro de sus fronteras y para que cooperen con nosotros y con otros países con respecto a esta amenaza mundial".
Muchos programas sociales sufrirán recortes en virtud del nuevo presupuesto
Mientras el presupuesto del Pentágono aumenta sensiblemente, el Centro sobre Presupuesto y Prioridades Políticas advierte que el presidente Bush propone realizar recortes a cientos de programas nacionales. Los recortes afectan a programas de educación, protección ambiental, numerosos programas de asistencia a las familias de bajos ingresos, niños, ancianos y personas discapacitadas, así como recortes a la investigación del cáncer, afecciones cardíacas y otras enfermedades. En uno de los casos, el centro estima que 420.000 adultos mayores de bajos ingresos perderán asistencia alimentaria del Programa de Alimentación Complementaria. Legisladores demócratas, e incluso algunos republicanos, criticaron a Bush por proponer recortar el gasto de los programas sociales. El senador republicano Arlen Specter calificó de "escandalosos" a los recortes en educación y la salud propuestos por Bush, mientras que la senadora republicana Olympia Snowe dijo estar "decepcionada y hasta sorprendida" por el alcance de los recortes propuestos por el gobierno a los programas Medicaid y Medicare.
Se cumplen 30 años del arresto de Leonard Peltier
Hoy se cumplen 30 años del encarcelamiento del activista estadounidense de origen indígena Leonard Peltier. Se están realizando manifestaciones en todo el país para solicitar su liberación. Fue procesado por matar a dos agentes del FBI durante un tiroteo en la Reserva India de Pine Ridge en 1975. Pero Peltier ha sostenido su inocencia desde ese momento. Escuchamos parte de una entrevista realizada por Amy Goodman a Peltier en prisión en el año 2000. Publicaremos un archivo mp3 con la entrevista completa en nuestro sitio web: Democracynow.org En una reciente declaración a quienes lo apoyan, Peltier dijo: "Estamos preparados para presentar más apelaciones en base a nueva información que mi equipo jurídico halló mientras investigaba documentos ocultos. Quiero que sepan que seguiremos luchando por mi libertad".
Más de 10.000 personas asistieron al funeral de Coretta Scott King
En Georgia, se calcula que unas 10.000 personas acudieron a la Iglesia Bautista Misionaria del Renacimiento en Letonia, un barrio residencial de Atlanta, para el funeral de la pionera de los derechos civiles, Coretta Scott King. Los ex presidentes Jimmy Carter, George Herbert Walker Bush, Bill Clinton, y el actual presidente George W. Bush asistieron al funeral junto con 14 senadores estadounidenses, y otros personajes públicos como Maya Angelou, Oprah Winfrey y Stevie Wonder. King falleció el 30 de enero a los 78 años, cuando se encontraba en México, donde buscaba tratamiento contra el cáncer de ovarios. Durante el funeral del martes, tanto el ex presidente Jimmy Carter, como el ex director de la Conferencia de Liderazgo Cristiano del Sur, reverendo Joseph Lowery, realizaron duras críticas al presidente Bush. Hablaron de la guerra en Irak, las violaciones de las libertades civiles y acusaron al presidente de ignorar la terrible situación de los pobres de Estados Unidos.
Maria: Now in English, here are ten headlines from Democracy Now! Peace.
Ex-CIA Mideast Officer Accuses Bush Admin. Of "Cherry-Picking" Iraq Intel
Meanwhile, the CIA's former national intelligence officer for the Middle East has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence to justify the Iraq invasion. In a new article in Foreign Affairs, Paul Pillar writes: "It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions. Intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made…and the intelligence community's own work was politicized."
Injured Iraq War Veteran Forced To Pay For Body Armor
In military news, the Charlestown Gazette is reporting a West Virginia soldier injured in a roadside bombing in Iraq has been forced to pay for the body armor that was removed from him while he was being treated. Last week, 1st Lt. William "Eddie" Rebrook IV was forced to pay $700 dollars after he was told the army had no record the armor was taken from him. Rebrook said: "If a soldier's stuff is hit by enemy fire, he shouldn't have to pay for it… There's a complete lack of empathy from senior officers who don’t know what it’s like to be a combat soldier on the ground." His mother, Beckie Drumheler, added: "It's outrageous, ridiculous and unconscionable. I wanted to stand on a street corner and yell through a megaphone about this."
Report: Rove Threatens GOP Senate Judiciary Members Over Spy Program
Meanwhile, the conservative publication Insight on the News is reporting White House deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove is threatening any Republican Senate Judiciary members who challenge the White House on the domestic surveillance program. According to Insight, "Sources said the blacklist would mean a halt in any White House political or financial support of senators running for re-election in November." A senior Republican aide told the publication: "It's hardball all the way.”
Jimmy Carter: Warantless Spying is "Disgraceful and Illegal"
A new critic of the domestic spying program has emerged -- former President Jimmy Carter. He described the Bush administration's decision to go ahead with the warrantless spying as "disgraceful and illegal." Carter said, "No one knows how many innocent Americans have had their privacy violated under this secret act." Carter made the statement in Nevada at an event where his son, Jack, announced he is running for U.S. Senate.
Bush NASA Appointee Resigns Over Resume Fabrication
In other news, a presidential appointee at NASA's public affairs department has resigned following the disclosure he fabricated parts of his resumé. George Deutsch, who was appointed last year after working on President Bush's re-election campaign and inauguration, wrongly claimed he had graduated with a journalism degree from Texas A & M University. Deutsh is one of several NASA officials accused by agency scientists of attempting to silence their warnings over the threats posed by global warming.
Bush Administration Told of Levee Breach Earlier Than Claimed
Back in the United States, the New York Times is reporting the White House was told Hurricane Katrina had overrun a levee in New Orleans almost twelve hours earlier than the Bush administration has claimed. The White House has maintained it was first informed of the levee breaches the morning of Tuesday, August 30th 2005. But documents show the Bush administration was first informed at midnight the night before.
Bush Proposes Big Increase in Defense Spending, Cuts in Social Programs
In his proposed nearly $2.8 trillion budget President Bush is calling for major increases in defense spending but deep cuts in Medicare and other domestic social programs. Under the proposed budget, defense spending will increase nearly 7 percent to $440 billion. If approved the Pentagon’s budget will become 45 percent larger than when Bush took office five years ago. The military spending is actually far higher because the proposed budget does not include the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. One recent estimate put the cost of the Iraq war at $100,000 every minute. At the same time, the president is proposing to make his tax cuts permanent. This would cost about $1.5 trillion over the next decade. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld discussed the budget on Monday: "The President's budget request for the Department of Defense represents an increase over last year. It reflects what we believe should be the country's national security priorities. Namely to help defend the United States of America and the American people and their interests, to give flexibility to commanders, to prepare for both conventional and unconventional or irregular warfare, and, importantly, to work closely with partner nations to help them develop the capabilities needed to defeat terrorists within their borders and to co-operate with us and other countries with respect to this global threat."
Wide Range of Social Programs To Face Cuts Under New Budget
While the Pentagon budget is soaring, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, warns that President Bush is proposing to make cuts in hundreds of domestic programs. This includes education programs, environmental protection programs, numerous programs to assist low-income families, children, and elderly and disabled people, and research related to cancer, heart disease, and other medical conditions. In one case, the Center estimates 420,000 low-income seniors will lose food assistance from the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. Democratic and even some Republican lawmakers have criticized Bush for proposing to slash spending on social programs. Republican Sen. Arlen Specter called Bush's proposed cuts in education and health "scandalous" while Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe said she was "disappointed and even surprised" at the extent of the administration's proposed cuts in Medicaid and Medicare.
Leonard Peltier Jailed 30 Years Ago Today
And today marks the 30th anniversary of the imprisonment of Native American activist Leonard Peltier. Rallies are being held across the country to call for his release. He was convicted of killing of killing two FBI agents during a shoot-out on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in 1975. But Peltier has long maintained his innocence. This is from an interview in 2000 I did with him from jail. We will post an MP3 of the full interview on our website democracynow.org. In a recent statement to supporters, Peltier said "We are all geared up to file more appeals on new information my legal team has found while reviewing withheld documents. I want you to know that we will continue to fight for my freedom."
Over 10,000 Attend Funeral Service for Coretta Scott King
In Georgia Tuesday, an estimated 10,000 people filled the pews of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in the Atlanta suburb of Lithonia, for the funeral of civil rights pioneer Coretta Scott King. Former presidents Jimmy Carter, George Herbert Walker Bush, Bill Clinton, and President George W. Bush attended the funeral along with 14 US senators and public figures including Maya Angelou, Oprah Winfrey and Stevie Wonder. King died January 30th at the age of 78 after seeking treatment in Mexico for ovarian cancer. She had just recently suffered a rehabilitating stroke and heart attack. At Tuesday’s service both former President Jimmy Carter and the former head of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Reverend Joseph Lowery, made subtle criticism of President Bush. They cited the war in Iraq, civil liberties transgressions and accused the president of ignoring the plight of the US poor.
democracy now
news
iraq
irak
noticias
the common ills
Saturday, February 11, 2006
RadioNation with Laura Flanders: Penny Venetis, Rodney Crowell (Sat); Bob Fertik, Lakshmi Chaudry & Bog Fertik and indy booksellers (Sun)
Kat here, on Saturday, what does that mean? All together now :"RadioNation with Laura Flanders!"
RadioNation with Laura Flanders
Saturdays & Sundays, 7-10pm ET on Air America Radio
We're fighting the G forces. Like every good Luge racer, we're hurtling through a bumpy world, with scandals coming fast and furious enough to sweep us off the earth. But it's important that we get our feet back on the ground. We'll bring you up to date about how states are changing voting with, among others, PENNY VENETIS who brought the first-in-the-nation suit to challenge the constitutionality of paperless voting machines.
And we'll talk to Grammy nominee RODNEY CROWELL about the mysterious art of music marketing and emotional intelligence.
As always, you can podcast a one-hour version of last weekend's shows here: http://www.thenation.com
It's all on RadioNation with Laura Flanders this weekend on Air America Radio.
That's today. Tomorrow? Laura brings on the independent bookstore owners for Valentine's Day suggestions. Laura may be the only national radio program that makes a point to note independent bookstores. (Nobody bug with me an e-mail that Terry Gross once did the same 80 years ago on NPR's Dead Air. If Terry Eww! Gross doesn't do it monthly, don't bug me, don't bore me.) I wasn't sure about noting the following but C.I. passed on a member's e-mail so other guests include:
Can blogs revolutionize progressive politics? Not if they remain a younger Old Boys Club. Reporter/bloggers LAKSHMI CHAUDRY and BOB FERTIK debate the blogosphere. And JEFF CHESTER says watchout - there's an internet threat we all need to worry about -- privatization.
C.I.'s stated repeatedly that Chaudry is responsible for Chaudry and not the actions of others (members know the two asses I mean). In Dallas recommends Chaudry "Whining about diversity?" and I contacted Gina, members will remember the gina & krista round-robin from Friday before last and drive by-ers can just wonder, who read it and recommends it as well.
Which, for members, means don't miss Sunday either. Another e-mail C.I. passed on was from Lewis who wondered if "anyone" listened to Laura last weekend? He notes that The Third Estate Sunday Review didn't note the show. Those of us in DC for the World Can't Wait protest didn't listen. It was Wally's first time in DC, it was spur of the moment for all of us, and the two groups (Wally, C.I. and myself being one group; Ava, Ty, Jess, Jim and Dona being the second group) hadn't both planned to be there. When Laura was on, we were partying and seeing the town. C.I. felt the last time we were all in DC together (September), some (like Mike) who were visiting DC for the first time may have gotten less of the experience due to our intense focus and wanted to be sure that Wally got a chance to really see the city. Did we listen Sunday? Those of us who stayed in DC caught at least some of it. Wally and I went out after the first hour, C.I. stayed behind working on the "And the War Goes On" entry for Sunday (so C.I. heard the entire show). (To pick up on a point C.I. made Thursday, since Sunday's entry, there have been 15 more American military fatalities in Iraq though the mainstream press hasn't seen the need to note that. And KPFA listeners heard a great discussion on Iraq, politics -- loved the lumping of Dick Morris and James Carville together, couldn't agree more -- this morning on the Saturday Morning Talkies. If you missed it, click here for the archived broadcast.)
Ideally, The Third Estate Sunday Review would like to note Laura each week. Due to the fact that so many of us (those in DC) missed the show Saturday, that wasn't possible. Hope that answers Lewis' question.
So make a point to listen to RadioNation with Laura Flanders either over the traditional airwaves, via XM satellite radio, podcasting or via the online stream. And make a point to check out Trina tonight at Trina's Kitchen. (I did try the recipe for fudge and loved it, Trina!) She says tonight's recipe will be for "non cooks." (And thanks to Rebecca for proposing that we do a joint entry Sunday. I was so irritated by Blogger/Blogspot that I wouldn't have posted anything if she hadn't proposed that.) (And I am working on a new CD review to answer a question in five e-mails this week.)
I'll be noting Laura at my site but I'm not just copying and pasting this entry there.
radio
radionation with laura flanders
laura flanders
penny venetis
rodney crowell
bob ferktik
lakshmi chaudry
jeff chester
the daily jot
mikey likes it
trinas kitchen
the third estate sunday review
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
kats korner
the common ills
RadioNation with Laura Flanders
Saturdays & Sundays, 7-10pm ET on Air America Radio
We're fighting the G forces. Like every good Luge racer, we're hurtling through a bumpy world, with scandals coming fast and furious enough to sweep us off the earth. But it's important that we get our feet back on the ground. We'll bring you up to date about how states are changing voting with, among others, PENNY VENETIS who brought the first-in-the-nation suit to challenge the constitutionality of paperless voting machines.
And we'll talk to Grammy nominee RODNEY CROWELL about the mysterious art of music marketing and emotional intelligence.
As always, you can podcast a one-hour version of last weekend's shows here: http://www.thenation.com
It's all on RadioNation with Laura Flanders this weekend on Air America Radio.
That's today. Tomorrow? Laura brings on the independent bookstore owners for Valentine's Day suggestions. Laura may be the only national radio program that makes a point to note independent bookstores. (Nobody bug with me an e-mail that Terry Gross once did the same 80 years ago on NPR's Dead Air. If Terry Eww! Gross doesn't do it monthly, don't bug me, don't bore me.) I wasn't sure about noting the following but C.I. passed on a member's e-mail so other guests include:
Can blogs revolutionize progressive politics? Not if they remain a younger Old Boys Club. Reporter/bloggers LAKSHMI CHAUDRY and BOB FERTIK debate the blogosphere. And JEFF CHESTER says watchout - there's an internet threat we all need to worry about -- privatization.
C.I.'s stated repeatedly that Chaudry is responsible for Chaudry and not the actions of others (members know the two asses I mean). In Dallas recommends Chaudry "Whining about diversity?" and I contacted Gina, members will remember the gina & krista round-robin from Friday before last and drive by-ers can just wonder, who read it and recommends it as well.
Which, for members, means don't miss Sunday either. Another e-mail C.I. passed on was from Lewis who wondered if "anyone" listened to Laura last weekend? He notes that The Third Estate Sunday Review didn't note the show. Those of us in DC for the World Can't Wait protest didn't listen. It was Wally's first time in DC, it was spur of the moment for all of us, and the two groups (Wally, C.I. and myself being one group; Ava, Ty, Jess, Jim and Dona being the second group) hadn't both planned to be there. When Laura was on, we were partying and seeing the town. C.I. felt the last time we were all in DC together (September), some (like Mike) who were visiting DC for the first time may have gotten less of the experience due to our intense focus and wanted to be sure that Wally got a chance to really see the city. Did we listen Sunday? Those of us who stayed in DC caught at least some of it. Wally and I went out after the first hour, C.I. stayed behind working on the "And the War Goes On" entry for Sunday (so C.I. heard the entire show). (To pick up on a point C.I. made Thursday, since Sunday's entry, there have been 15 more American military fatalities in Iraq though the mainstream press hasn't seen the need to note that. And KPFA listeners heard a great discussion on Iraq, politics -- loved the lumping of Dick Morris and James Carville together, couldn't agree more -- this morning on the Saturday Morning Talkies. If you missed it, click here for the archived broadcast.)
Ideally, The Third Estate Sunday Review would like to note Laura each week. Due to the fact that so many of us (those in DC) missed the show Saturday, that wasn't possible. Hope that answers Lewis' question.
So make a point to listen to RadioNation with Laura Flanders either over the traditional airwaves, via XM satellite radio, podcasting or via the online stream. And make a point to check out Trina tonight at Trina's Kitchen. (I did try the recipe for fudge and loved it, Trina!) She says tonight's recipe will be for "non cooks." (And thanks to Rebecca for proposing that we do a joint entry Sunday. I was so irritated by Blogger/Blogspot that I wouldn't have posted anything if she hadn't proposed that.) (And I am working on a new CD review to answer a question in five e-mails this week.)
I'll be noting Laura at my site but I'm not just copying and pasting this entry there.
radio
radionation with laura flanders
laura flanders
penny venetis
rodney crowell
bob ferktik
lakshmi chaudry
jeff chester
the daily jot
mikey likes it
trinas kitchen
the third estate sunday review
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
kats korner
the common ills
Ruth's Public Radio Report
Ruth: Marci e-mailed me wondering if I'd have a report this week since Law & Disorder did not air? No, I do not. So have a great weekend everyone, see you next Saturday.
Pacifica's in fundraising mode currently. That is not a reason not to listen. On WBAI, they broadcast a debate between Noam Chomsky and someone whose name I will not bother to mention. That was quite interesting, on the issue of Palestine and Israel, while Professor Chomsky was speaking. Then the other person, portrayed by Ron Silver in film, had to start being shrill and spouting nonsense such as "on Planet Chomsky." Possibly, it was all a put on from a man who seems determined to cast himself in the role of Bozo the Clown? Otherwise, his insisting that the media never ignores a story indicates not only has he never heard of the Downing Street Memos, he is also ignorant of the history of the press in this country.
Are you? Or do you suspect you might be? If that is the case, this report may offer something of value for you. I have no problem with fundraising by Pacifica, they need funds to continue to broadcasting because they are not taking monies from Wal-Mart or whatever larger corporation NPR repeatedly notes that "this program" was brought to you by. Funny thing, I always thought public radio was brought to you by the public. I thought the "generous grant" was, in fact, the large monies that Congress allocated each cycle on behalf of the public.
But in the last fundraising cycle, a few members e-mailed about problems that they had with the archives while they tried to locate something I had highlighted. Along with Professor Chomsky, you heard Alice Walker interviewed by Amy Goodman and you heard Ms. Walker read a wonderful poem. WBAI's First Voices Indigenous Radio broadcast the documentary on Leonard Peltier that Michael Apted directed and Robert Redford produced. [C.I. note: Incident at Oglala: The Leonard Peltier Story which is also narrated by Robert Redford.] KPFA's Guns and Butter offered David Ray Griffith speaking on the problems with the official 9/11 narrative. There was much to listen to and no reason to tune out when Pacifica goes into fundraising. (There is reason to donate and I hope members who listen and who have the money to spare do make a point to support community radio.)
However, remembering the e-mails from last time, I called C.I. mid-week and offered that I might highlight some of the segments on Democracy Now! this week. It is an idea I may go with next week but C.I. was planning an entry and offered it to me if I wanted it. One of my favorite programs is CounterSpin which is produced by the people at FAIR. They also produce the magazine Extra! and the February 2006 issue is devoted to "Celebrating 20 years of FAIR."
I had the issue and enjoyed reading it but had not considered making it the focus of a report until C.I. suggested it.
The following is Jim Naureckas' "Editor's Note: Democracy vs. Information Control" in full:
For a magazine put out by and for an advocay group, Extra! doesn't spend a lot of time talking about FAIR. We'd generally rather devote the space to doing our job, which is analyzing media bias.
That doesn't mean that we aren't proud of our group -- far from it. We think the work we do is vitally important, and that we've had tremendous success in getting our ideas out to activists, journalists and the broader public. (We've managed to do this with relativelly little exposure in the mainstream media, which is only to be expected; any media crtique that media are eager to amplify is probably wrong.)
In preparing this special issue on the 20th anniversary of FAIR, I've given a lot of thought to those ideas, and I believe they can be boiled down to this: A society's media tends to reflect the views of its most powerful institutions. Why? Control of information is so crucial to control of a society that a ruling elit that fails to dominate media will not be in power for long.
The corollary is that any effort in a society to distribute power more equitably needs to figure out how to distribute media power more fairly. In other words, media reform and democratization go hand in hand.
This is not a new idea, of course -- it's the concept behind the First Amendment, which insulated the press from government control so that it could serve as a check on government power. What FAIR has been saying for the past 20 years -- joined by an increasing number of organizations, activists and ordinary citizens -- is that concentrated economic control of the means of communication is just as grave a threat to democracy.
We haven't seen a major improvement in mainstream media over the past 20 years, but that's not how we measure our success. Instead, our victory is in the increasingly critical attitude the public takes toward the media powers that be. When they no longer have the ability to define reality for the ordinary citizen, their power will be gone. And that's when real democracy can begin to flourish.
The editor's note really summarizes not only the purpose behind FAIR, Extra! and CounterSpin but also the latest issue of the magazine -- as well and the issues facing the nation. In this issue of the magazine, they look foward and backward.
In terms of looking backward, Robin Andersen's "On the Shoulders of Giants" pays tribute to past media critics such as George Seldes, A.J. Liebling and I.F. Stone while also proving the point that the situation of the press today did not begin with the "war on Al Gore" in 2000. From that article, I will offer a quote:
I now realize that we were told nothing . . . that we were shown nothing of the realities of the war, that we were, in short, merely part of the great . . . propaganda machine whose purpose was to sustain morale at all costs and help drag unwillingly America into the slaughter.
Pretty apt description on the coverage of the Iraq war. Reading it, one might think the writer is describing the 'reporting' of Dexter Filkins; however, that's George Seldes writing on the press coverage of WWI. The problems we face today are historical ones and our success or failure in combatting them will depend upon the goals we set. Will we deal with the systematic issues or focus our energies upon setting a up a few to be included in the favored circle of pundits the mainstream media will offer under prolonged and intense pressure?
FAIR's looking at the long range struggle. In celebrating the twenty years of the organization, Steve Rendall, Peter Hart and Julie Hollar contribute "20 Stories That Made a Difference" -- "that had a major impact on our society -- for good or ill" since 1986. Redlining is a topic that Tracey's mother has been following of late and there have been many conversations at the table about it; however, Tracey confessed to me that she had no idea what redlining was until she read about it in this article, it is number three of the twenty. That should be reason enough to recommend the article but I also started thinking about how that is probably the case with the other stories as well. Iran-Contra is discussed and I thought of how Amy Goodman, on Friday's Democracy Now!, asked Mary Mapes to explain that after Ms. Mapes brought it up. Ms. Goodman, unlike myself and other adults seated at my dining table, is very good about grasping that just because you may know about something does not mean that everyone listening does. For those who have followed issues in the last twenty year, "20 Stories That Made a Difference" will be a trip down memory lane, jogging old memories and, hopefully, providing you with some insights that you may have missed in real time. However, it is also a wonderful primer for those who missed out on these important stories.
From page four, I will not two items from "Sound Bites." The first is from Susan Faludi who wrote the wonderful Backlash which, as Beth recently wrote in her ombudsperson column, will probably be the most mentioned book in 2006 at this site as it was in 2005. Let me do my part to make Beth's predicition come true. Here is Ms. Faludi:
It is so important that we have an organization like FAIR: to challenge the crippling social myths that the right promulgates so sucessfully, to question the 'values' of an infotainment media, to expose the shoddy treatment that women and minorities receive in the press, and to appeal for a diverse and intelligent media that we all deserve and desperately need.
While Ms. Faludi "gets" it, as we used to say, Jim Lehrer of the PBS NewsHour and a generation prior to my own, does not "get" it:
A left-wing group with the phony name of FAIR . . . . shoddy, unprofessional, unfair.
His quote is headed "Note the Use of Irony." Robert W. McChensey focuses on the future and the work needed in "A Cornerstone of the Media Reform Movement." Mr. McChesney writes:
FAIR never operated under the belief that the problem with our news media was that we had lazy or incompetent journalists, or that we had particularly malicious owners. The problem with our news media was that the system made it rational for even our best journalists to produce biased and propagandistic work, and for owners to encourage such work. FAIR always understood that, in the end, the solution to the problem facing journalism in the United States was structural. We needed to create a media system that made good journalism the rational expectation of its operation.
Jessica Wakeman details the "The Secret Origins of FAIR: How police spies and media moles helped launch a movement." FAIR first achieved intense media exposure as a result of the ABC miniseries Amerika which Jeff Cohen was passed a script of. Information from the Los Angeles Times in 1977 also helped FAIR. It provided some of the money that Mr. Cohen would use to create the watchdog. How? An article about a protester revealed that Connie Millazo was undercover LAPD. Ms. Millazo had been spying on the Campaign for Democratic Freedoms which Cohen and others belonged to. With the ACLU, Mr. Cohen, Linda Valentino and others brought suite against the LAPD in 1978 which the LAPD settled as the 1984 summer Olympics, to be held in Los Angeles, approached. Mr. Cohen traveled to Europe and there found a more lively media as well as England's Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom. Returning to the United States, Mr. Cohen began work on creating FAIR.
Those are only some of the articles in the February edition of Extra! and, I should note, the issue also contains some reproductions of past covers. I enjoyed the illustration of the February 1989 cover story "Are You On The Nighlightine Guest List?" featuring Ted Koppel and Henry Kissinger, among others.
If these topics interest you, Extra! is available at most bookstores and you can subscribe online, via telephone (800-847-3993), or by mailing a check for $21 (in the United States, other countries should add ten dollars to that amount) to:
FAIR/Extra!
Subscription Service
P.O. Box 170
Congers, NY 10920-9930
Before we close the discussion of the latest issue of the bimonthly, I would like to note Janine Jackson's "Media Reform For What?" which states the purpose of FAIR/CounterSpin/Extra! quite clearly:
Media reform is not an academic excercise. Bad media hurts real people. Better media would help real people. Media reform means gaining the power to speak and be heard, and that means taking some of that power from those who have it now. Media reform is dangerous, done right.
[. . .]
Media reform is not a merely theoretical issue; it is a crucial issue for our time. Asking ourselves, "Media reform for what?" will help us keep our eyes on the long-term goals we hope to achieve and will remind us to acknowledge and celebrate the real, concrete successes we will no doubt achieve on our way to those bigger goals.
Jess and Eddie both have stated they enjoy heads up to programming so let me note Sunday Salon with Larry Bensky airing on KPFA at six a.m. eastern time, seven a.m. central and nine a.m. pacific time:
9:00 am
Sunday Salon
SundaySalon.org
A special three hour program ...
In hour one...
On Monday, the Senate Judiciary Committee grilled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales about the Bush Administration's warrantless surveillance activities. KPFA devoted that day to special coverage. We'll recap, play highlights and have commentary by Elizabeth de la Vega, former assistant US attorney, and Clarence Lusane, professor of political science at American University in Washington.
In hour two
...Michael Parenti joins us to talk about his new book, The Culture Struggle.
In hour three...
A look at the current state of KPFA/Pacifica with historian Matthew Lasar, author of Uneasy Listening: Pacifica Radio's Civil War.
Remember that if you read this after the program airs, you can access the KPFA archives, as well as Sunday Salon's site, to listen. For instance, if you missed Radio Chronicles last Sunday when they aired the Pacifica documentary on the government spying of a previous era, you can listen to that via the archives.
fair
counterspin
extra
radio
law and disorder
first voices
first voices indigenous radio
guns and butter
wbai
kpfa
janine jackson
steve rendall
peter hart
julie hollar
robert mcchesney
jeff cohen
jim naureckas
jessica wakeman
robin andersen
amy goodman
democracy now
mary mapes
susan faludi
jim lehrer
robert redford
Incident at Oglala The Leonard Peltier Story
leonard peltier
sunday salon
sunday salon with larry bensky
elizabeth de la vega
nsa
fisa
government snooping
government spying
snoopgate
pacifica
radio chronicles
the third estate sunday review
ruths public radio report
the common ills
Pacifica's in fundraising mode currently. That is not a reason not to listen. On WBAI, they broadcast a debate between Noam Chomsky and someone whose name I will not bother to mention. That was quite interesting, on the issue of Palestine and Israel, while Professor Chomsky was speaking. Then the other person, portrayed by Ron Silver in film, had to start being shrill and spouting nonsense such as "on Planet Chomsky." Possibly, it was all a put on from a man who seems determined to cast himself in the role of Bozo the Clown? Otherwise, his insisting that the media never ignores a story indicates not only has he never heard of the Downing Street Memos, he is also ignorant of the history of the press in this country.
Are you? Or do you suspect you might be? If that is the case, this report may offer something of value for you. I have no problem with fundraising by Pacifica, they need funds to continue to broadcasting because they are not taking monies from Wal-Mart or whatever larger corporation NPR repeatedly notes that "this program" was brought to you by. Funny thing, I always thought public radio was brought to you by the public. I thought the "generous grant" was, in fact, the large monies that Congress allocated each cycle on behalf of the public.
But in the last fundraising cycle, a few members e-mailed about problems that they had with the archives while they tried to locate something I had highlighted. Along with Professor Chomsky, you heard Alice Walker interviewed by Amy Goodman and you heard Ms. Walker read a wonderful poem. WBAI's First Voices Indigenous Radio broadcast the documentary on Leonard Peltier that Michael Apted directed and Robert Redford produced. [C.I. note: Incident at Oglala: The Leonard Peltier Story which is also narrated by Robert Redford.] KPFA's Guns and Butter offered David Ray Griffith speaking on the problems with the official 9/11 narrative. There was much to listen to and no reason to tune out when Pacifica goes into fundraising. (There is reason to donate and I hope members who listen and who have the money to spare do make a point to support community radio.)
However, remembering the e-mails from last time, I called C.I. mid-week and offered that I might highlight some of the segments on Democracy Now! this week. It is an idea I may go with next week but C.I. was planning an entry and offered it to me if I wanted it. One of my favorite programs is CounterSpin which is produced by the people at FAIR. They also produce the magazine Extra! and the February 2006 issue is devoted to "Celebrating 20 years of FAIR."
I had the issue and enjoyed reading it but had not considered making it the focus of a report until C.I. suggested it.
The following is Jim Naureckas' "Editor's Note: Democracy vs. Information Control" in full:
For a magazine put out by and for an advocay group, Extra! doesn't spend a lot of time talking about FAIR. We'd generally rather devote the space to doing our job, which is analyzing media bias.
That doesn't mean that we aren't proud of our group -- far from it. We think the work we do is vitally important, and that we've had tremendous success in getting our ideas out to activists, journalists and the broader public. (We've managed to do this with relativelly little exposure in the mainstream media, which is only to be expected; any media crtique that media are eager to amplify is probably wrong.)
In preparing this special issue on the 20th anniversary of FAIR, I've given a lot of thought to those ideas, and I believe they can be boiled down to this: A society's media tends to reflect the views of its most powerful institutions. Why? Control of information is so crucial to control of a society that a ruling elit that fails to dominate media will not be in power for long.
The corollary is that any effort in a society to distribute power more equitably needs to figure out how to distribute media power more fairly. In other words, media reform and democratization go hand in hand.
This is not a new idea, of course -- it's the concept behind the First Amendment, which insulated the press from government control so that it could serve as a check on government power. What FAIR has been saying for the past 20 years -- joined by an increasing number of organizations, activists and ordinary citizens -- is that concentrated economic control of the means of communication is just as grave a threat to democracy.
We haven't seen a major improvement in mainstream media over the past 20 years, but that's not how we measure our success. Instead, our victory is in the increasingly critical attitude the public takes toward the media powers that be. When they no longer have the ability to define reality for the ordinary citizen, their power will be gone. And that's when real democracy can begin to flourish.
The editor's note really summarizes not only the purpose behind FAIR, Extra! and CounterSpin but also the latest issue of the magazine -- as well and the issues facing the nation. In this issue of the magazine, they look foward and backward.
In terms of looking backward, Robin Andersen's "On the Shoulders of Giants" pays tribute to past media critics such as George Seldes, A.J. Liebling and I.F. Stone while also proving the point that the situation of the press today did not begin with the "war on Al Gore" in 2000. From that article, I will offer a quote:
I now realize that we were told nothing . . . that we were shown nothing of the realities of the war, that we were, in short, merely part of the great . . . propaganda machine whose purpose was to sustain morale at all costs and help drag unwillingly America into the slaughter.
Pretty apt description on the coverage of the Iraq war. Reading it, one might think the writer is describing the 'reporting' of Dexter Filkins; however, that's George Seldes writing on the press coverage of WWI. The problems we face today are historical ones and our success or failure in combatting them will depend upon the goals we set. Will we deal with the systematic issues or focus our energies upon setting a up a few to be included in the favored circle of pundits the mainstream media will offer under prolonged and intense pressure?
FAIR's looking at the long range struggle. In celebrating the twenty years of the organization, Steve Rendall, Peter Hart and Julie Hollar contribute "20 Stories That Made a Difference" -- "that had a major impact on our society -- for good or ill" since 1986. Redlining is a topic that Tracey's mother has been following of late and there have been many conversations at the table about it; however, Tracey confessed to me that she had no idea what redlining was until she read about it in this article, it is number three of the twenty. That should be reason enough to recommend the article but I also started thinking about how that is probably the case with the other stories as well. Iran-Contra is discussed and I thought of how Amy Goodman, on Friday's Democracy Now!, asked Mary Mapes to explain that after Ms. Mapes brought it up. Ms. Goodman, unlike myself and other adults seated at my dining table, is very good about grasping that just because you may know about something does not mean that everyone listening does. For those who have followed issues in the last twenty year, "20 Stories That Made a Difference" will be a trip down memory lane, jogging old memories and, hopefully, providing you with some insights that you may have missed in real time. However, it is also a wonderful primer for those who missed out on these important stories.
From page four, I will not two items from "Sound Bites." The first is from Susan Faludi who wrote the wonderful Backlash which, as Beth recently wrote in her ombudsperson column, will probably be the most mentioned book in 2006 at this site as it was in 2005. Let me do my part to make Beth's predicition come true. Here is Ms. Faludi:
It is so important that we have an organization like FAIR: to challenge the crippling social myths that the right promulgates so sucessfully, to question the 'values' of an infotainment media, to expose the shoddy treatment that women and minorities receive in the press, and to appeal for a diverse and intelligent media that we all deserve and desperately need.
While Ms. Faludi "gets" it, as we used to say, Jim Lehrer of the PBS NewsHour and a generation prior to my own, does not "get" it:
A left-wing group with the phony name of FAIR . . . . shoddy, unprofessional, unfair.
His quote is headed "Note the Use of Irony." Robert W. McChensey focuses on the future and the work needed in "A Cornerstone of the Media Reform Movement." Mr. McChesney writes:
FAIR never operated under the belief that the problem with our news media was that we had lazy or incompetent journalists, or that we had particularly malicious owners. The problem with our news media was that the system made it rational for even our best journalists to produce biased and propagandistic work, and for owners to encourage such work. FAIR always understood that, in the end, the solution to the problem facing journalism in the United States was structural. We needed to create a media system that made good journalism the rational expectation of its operation.
Jessica Wakeman details the "The Secret Origins of FAIR: How police spies and media moles helped launch a movement." FAIR first achieved intense media exposure as a result of the ABC miniseries Amerika which Jeff Cohen was passed a script of. Information from the Los Angeles Times in 1977 also helped FAIR. It provided some of the money that Mr. Cohen would use to create the watchdog. How? An article about a protester revealed that Connie Millazo was undercover LAPD. Ms. Millazo had been spying on the Campaign for Democratic Freedoms which Cohen and others belonged to. With the ACLU, Mr. Cohen, Linda Valentino and others brought suite against the LAPD in 1978 which the LAPD settled as the 1984 summer Olympics, to be held in Los Angeles, approached. Mr. Cohen traveled to Europe and there found a more lively media as well as England's Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom. Returning to the United States, Mr. Cohen began work on creating FAIR.
Those are only some of the articles in the February edition of Extra! and, I should note, the issue also contains some reproductions of past covers. I enjoyed the illustration of the February 1989 cover story "Are You On The Nighlightine Guest List?" featuring Ted Koppel and Henry Kissinger, among others.
If these topics interest you, Extra! is available at most bookstores and you can subscribe online, via telephone (800-847-3993), or by mailing a check for $21 (in the United States, other countries should add ten dollars to that amount) to:
FAIR/Extra!
Subscription Service
P.O. Box 170
Congers, NY 10920-9930
Before we close the discussion of the latest issue of the bimonthly, I would like to note Janine Jackson's "Media Reform For What?" which states the purpose of FAIR/CounterSpin/Extra! quite clearly:
Media reform is not an academic excercise. Bad media hurts real people. Better media would help real people. Media reform means gaining the power to speak and be heard, and that means taking some of that power from those who have it now. Media reform is dangerous, done right.
[. . .]
Media reform is not a merely theoretical issue; it is a crucial issue for our time. Asking ourselves, "Media reform for what?" will help us keep our eyes on the long-term goals we hope to achieve and will remind us to acknowledge and celebrate the real, concrete successes we will no doubt achieve on our way to those bigger goals.
Jess and Eddie both have stated they enjoy heads up to programming so let me note Sunday Salon with Larry Bensky airing on KPFA at six a.m. eastern time, seven a.m. central and nine a.m. pacific time:
9:00 am
Sunday Salon
SundaySalon.org
A special three hour program ...
In hour one...
On Monday, the Senate Judiciary Committee grilled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales about the Bush Administration's warrantless surveillance activities. KPFA devoted that day to special coverage. We'll recap, play highlights and have commentary by Elizabeth de la Vega, former assistant US attorney, and Clarence Lusane, professor of political science at American University in Washington.
In hour two
...Michael Parenti joins us to talk about his new book, The Culture Struggle.
In hour three...
A look at the current state of KPFA/Pacifica with historian Matthew Lasar, author of Uneasy Listening: Pacifica Radio's Civil War.
Remember that if you read this after the program airs, you can access the KPFA archives, as well as Sunday Salon's site, to listen. For instance, if you missed Radio Chronicles last Sunday when they aired the Pacifica documentary on the government spying of a previous era, you can listen to that via the archives.
fair
counterspin
extra
radio
law and disorder
first voices
first voices indigenous radio
guns and butter
wbai
kpfa
janine jackson
steve rendall
peter hart
julie hollar
robert mcchesney
jeff cohen
jim naureckas
jessica wakeman
robin andersen
amy goodman
democracy now
mary mapes
susan faludi
jim lehrer
robert redford
Incident at Oglala The Leonard Peltier Story
leonard peltier
sunday salon
sunday salon with larry bensky
elizabeth de la vega
nsa
fisa
government snooping
government spying
snoopgate
pacifica
radio chronicles
the third estate sunday review
ruths public radio report
the common ills
CounterSpin ("The News Behind the Headlines"
FAIR is celebrating its 20th anniversary. The watchdog group produces the magazine Extra! and the radio program CounterSpin.
As most members know already, click on the image and it enlarges. In addition Dallas hunted down the link for this information at FAIR's website. Ruth's noting Extra! in her report that will go up as soon as this republishes (without an error message). (That's the magazine put out by FAIR, not the infotainment program.)
Why put it up? The list. Well it's not paid advertising (for anyone concerned). But FAIR's celebrating 20 years and that deserves noting. It also may increase, our purpose, awareness for CounterSpin and lead some who can't (or aren't interested in) listening to programs online to discover that there is a station in their area broadcasting CounterSpin. (With "over 130 stations," hopefully many members who are unable to listen online will be able to find a station.)
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
radio
extra
counterspin
fair
radio listings
Other Items
Mr. Brown said that he told a senior White House official early on of the New Orleans flooding, and that the administration was too focused on terrorism to respond properly to natural disasters.
Testifying before a Senate committee, Mr. Brown said he notified a senior White House official -- who he said was probably Joe Hagin, the deputy White House chief of staff, but might have been Andrew H. Card Jr., the chief of staff -- on the day the hurricane hit to report that it had turned into his "worst nightmare" and that New Orleans was flooding.
It was the first public identification of any White House official who was said to have directly received reports of extensive flooding on Monday, Aug. 29, the day Hurricane Katrina hit.
[. . .]
The Bush administration, as a whole, he said, did not seem to care enough about natural disasters and had relegated natural disasters to a "stepchild" of national security.
"It is my belief," Mr. Brown told the senators, that if "we've confirmed that a terrorist has blown up the 17th Street Canal levee, then everybody would have jumped all over that and been trying to do everything they could."
The above, noted by Brenda, is from Eric Lipton's "Ex-FEMA Leader Faults Response by White House" in this morning's New York Times.
Scott Shane offers a mess of reporting (or "reporting") in "Ex-C.I.A. Official Says Iraq Data Was Distorted:"
The views of Paul R. Pillar, who retired in October as national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia, echoed previous criticism from Democrats and from some administration officials, including Richard A. Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism adviser, and Paul H. O'Neill, the former treasury secretary.
But Mr. Pillar is the first high-level C.I.A. insider to speak out by name on the use of prewar intelligence. His article for the March-April issue of Foreign Affairs, which charges the administration with the selective use of intelligence about Iraq's unconventional weapons and the chances of postwar chaos in Iraq, was posted Friday on the journal's Web site after it was reported in The Washington Post.
Why a "mess"? It's a story that Shane should be able to mop up -- it is, after all, based upon an article from a magazine and has been already covered by the Post. But note who gets to speak and who doesn't. It's no surprise (we're talking about the Times here) that we've got the usual "balance" of some say this, and some say that. But notice who "some" includes. An AEI war cheerleader/freak is given the last word (two paragraphs at the end). And why is that? In the Times notion of "balance" is the AEI the equivalent of the CIA? Or does the paper of record, considering their own record on Iraq, need to trot out a screeching voice to hide behind?
It's not balance, not even in the paper's flawed concept of "balance." We were lied into war. Mike wondered if this issue would even make the paper? It did. With selective voices and a general "nothing to see here, move along" attitude.
By the way, for visitors wondering about the op-ed the paper ran by Porter Goss (or "Porter Goss"), I did see the embarrassing op-ed that ran yesterday in the Times.
I can't take it on because I try to avoid disputing opinions from the paper's columns and editorials. We can note silences (like the fact that no column or editorial was written on the life of Coretta Scott King by the New York Times). And I'm comfortable in noting that Goss was allowed to violate the paper's own rules. (He criticizes the reporting and report that broke the NSA warrantless spying story in the Times. The Times has refused to let others question Jeff Gerth's Whitewater "reporting" -- to offer one example -- on the grounds that they don't self-criticize in the paper. They creation of the public editor has resulted in a forum for criticism of the paper within the paper; however, the broadsides the outgoing Okrent -- he's not missed -- took at Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd and others did not result in a response in kind. Krugman had to insist on his column that did finally run -- arguing that the basis was clearing up charges and not part of a 'back and forth.' The Times loves their official sources and considered it such a coup to have the op-ed by Porter Goss (that no one appears to have noticed in the print world, I spent last night talking to several reporters none of whom were even aware Goss had penned an op-ed -- or "Goss" if it was ghost written which is highly likely) in Friday's paper that they were willing to look the other way as he went after the paper. (It helps that the article Goss is slamming was co-written by James Risen who truly is on his own now -- whether he realizes it or not.) But Goss ticked off a number of "facts" that should have led to criticism and hoepfully it did elsewhere, but that's not the focus of this site (the op-ed pages).
And that's it for the paper today. A general is making the charge that the administration is guilty of poor planning with regards to the training of Iraqi troops. He's got a piece due out shortly so the Times figures there's a story in that. So brave. When officials speak, the Times is always there. There's a new level of disgusting to how we'll treat immigrants in this country ("illegal immigrants" some visitor will snap in an e-mail later on, I'm sure) but then we've postured so on that issue that there's really nothing to be done until we can stop demonizing immigrants. That will require something other than the "I support ___" (immigration, abortion, pick your issue) "but I'm personally opposed to/aware of the risks of . . ." dance that passes for bravery these days. The Times offers violence on the border (Mexico and California; Mexico and Texas) and seems overly focused on rock throwing as opposed to the shootings that have occurred and resulted in deaths. (Who was more often pulling the trigger? Consider what the Times focuses on and you have the answer.) We don't discuss/address every report in the main section (formerly "hard news) of the paper.
What else is planned for today? Kat will give a heads up on Laura Flanders' show, Maria's running down headlines from the week's Democracy Now! (that will go up after Laura Flanders' program starts) and Ruth's got a report that will go up after I get something scanned. (I'm playing it with it now to make it readable. The page being scanned.) Trina's planning to post this evening. If there are problems with Blogger/Blogspot (as was the case last week), check the mirror site. Betty posted her latest chapter Thursday night (and thanks to Ava for going in and adding the link to it in a dictated post yesterday -- also thanks to her for the corrections and additions she and Jess have done all week). It's entitled "Thomas Friedman plays the woman scorned." Be sure to check that out. Isaiah has a new comic planned for tomorrow. He's convinced The New Yorker must have grabbed it already (he was convinced of that last Sunday and pulled it). They haven't done it. Someone may have, but that magazine hasn't as of the latest issue that's arrived in my mailbox (and I promised him I'd check today to make sure it wasn't in the issue currently on sale). So look for Isaiah's latest tomorrow morning. Let me do a shout out to Wally. Every e-mail here has been pleased with this week's direction at The Daily Jot. If you've missed it, Wally's doing "Bully Boy Press." For how long? As long as he wants to. Don't box him in. Wally got burnt out for a number of reasons (including the spineless behavior of Democratic senators on Alito) but his site was always intended to be humorous and a "jot." When Hurricane Wilma came along and the national press took a pass on it (apparently there's no "human interest" in Thanksgivings without electricity -- if nothing else, one might think that effect would've caught their attention), Wally, as a resident of Florida, stepped up to the plate and The Daily Jot began morphing into something other than what he had originally intended. "Bully Boy Press" gets him back to doing what he wanted to and he may stick with "Bully Boy Press" for some time or he may drop it when a new idea comes along. For more on that, check out Mike's interview with Wally. And despite Cedric's comments on the phone this morning when I called him, I'd recommend you check out his "Random Thoughts." (Cedric's doesn't think it's worth steering to. I disagree.)
So Ruth shortly. Ten minutes or an hour depending upon how long it takes me to get a workable scan of the black & white text. (Yes, "black & white text" -- I have no idea why it didn't scan easily the first time either. I'll probably clean the lens before trying again.)
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
the new york times
eric lipton
scott shane
third estate sunday review
trinas kitchen
mikey likes it
the daily jot
thomas friedman is a great man
kats korner
cedrics big mix
Testifying before a Senate committee, Mr. Brown said he notified a senior White House official -- who he said was probably Joe Hagin, the deputy White House chief of staff, but might have been Andrew H. Card Jr., the chief of staff -- on the day the hurricane hit to report that it had turned into his "worst nightmare" and that New Orleans was flooding.
It was the first public identification of any White House official who was said to have directly received reports of extensive flooding on Monday, Aug. 29, the day Hurricane Katrina hit.
[. . .]
The Bush administration, as a whole, he said, did not seem to care enough about natural disasters and had relegated natural disasters to a "stepchild" of national security.
"It is my belief," Mr. Brown told the senators, that if "we've confirmed that a terrorist has blown up the 17th Street Canal levee, then everybody would have jumped all over that and been trying to do everything they could."
The above, noted by Brenda, is from Eric Lipton's "Ex-FEMA Leader Faults Response by White House" in this morning's New York Times.
Scott Shane offers a mess of reporting (or "reporting") in "Ex-C.I.A. Official Says Iraq Data Was Distorted:"
The views of Paul R. Pillar, who retired in October as national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia, echoed previous criticism from Democrats and from some administration officials, including Richard A. Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism adviser, and Paul H. O'Neill, the former treasury secretary.
But Mr. Pillar is the first high-level C.I.A. insider to speak out by name on the use of prewar intelligence. His article for the March-April issue of Foreign Affairs, which charges the administration with the selective use of intelligence about Iraq's unconventional weapons and the chances of postwar chaos in Iraq, was posted Friday on the journal's Web site after it was reported in The Washington Post.
Why a "mess"? It's a story that Shane should be able to mop up -- it is, after all, based upon an article from a magazine and has been already covered by the Post. But note who gets to speak and who doesn't. It's no surprise (we're talking about the Times here) that we've got the usual "balance" of some say this, and some say that. But notice who "some" includes. An AEI war cheerleader/freak is given the last word (two paragraphs at the end). And why is that? In the Times notion of "balance" is the AEI the equivalent of the CIA? Or does the paper of record, considering their own record on Iraq, need to trot out a screeching voice to hide behind?
It's not balance, not even in the paper's flawed concept of "balance." We were lied into war. Mike wondered if this issue would even make the paper? It did. With selective voices and a general "nothing to see here, move along" attitude.
By the way, for visitors wondering about the op-ed the paper ran by Porter Goss (or "Porter Goss"), I did see the embarrassing op-ed that ran yesterday in the Times.
I can't take it on because I try to avoid disputing opinions from the paper's columns and editorials. We can note silences (like the fact that no column or editorial was written on the life of Coretta Scott King by the New York Times). And I'm comfortable in noting that Goss was allowed to violate the paper's own rules. (He criticizes the reporting and report that broke the NSA warrantless spying story in the Times. The Times has refused to let others question Jeff Gerth's Whitewater "reporting" -- to offer one example -- on the grounds that they don't self-criticize in the paper. They creation of the public editor has resulted in a forum for criticism of the paper within the paper; however, the broadsides the outgoing Okrent -- he's not missed -- took at Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd and others did not result in a response in kind. Krugman had to insist on his column that did finally run -- arguing that the basis was clearing up charges and not part of a 'back and forth.' The Times loves their official sources and considered it such a coup to have the op-ed by Porter Goss (that no one appears to have noticed in the print world, I spent last night talking to several reporters none of whom were even aware Goss had penned an op-ed -- or "Goss" if it was ghost written which is highly likely) in Friday's paper that they were willing to look the other way as he went after the paper. (It helps that the article Goss is slamming was co-written by James Risen who truly is on his own now -- whether he realizes it or not.) But Goss ticked off a number of "facts" that should have led to criticism and hoepfully it did elsewhere, but that's not the focus of this site (the op-ed pages).
And that's it for the paper today. A general is making the charge that the administration is guilty of poor planning with regards to the training of Iraqi troops. He's got a piece due out shortly so the Times figures there's a story in that. So brave. When officials speak, the Times is always there. There's a new level of disgusting to how we'll treat immigrants in this country ("illegal immigrants" some visitor will snap in an e-mail later on, I'm sure) but then we've postured so on that issue that there's really nothing to be done until we can stop demonizing immigrants. That will require something other than the "I support ___" (immigration, abortion, pick your issue) "but I'm personally opposed to/aware of the risks of . . ." dance that passes for bravery these days. The Times offers violence on the border (Mexico and California; Mexico and Texas) and seems overly focused on rock throwing as opposed to the shootings that have occurred and resulted in deaths. (Who was more often pulling the trigger? Consider what the Times focuses on and you have the answer.) We don't discuss/address every report in the main section (formerly "hard news) of the paper.
What else is planned for today? Kat will give a heads up on Laura Flanders' show, Maria's running down headlines from the week's Democracy Now! (that will go up after Laura Flanders' program starts) and Ruth's got a report that will go up after I get something scanned. (I'm playing it with it now to make it readable. The page being scanned.) Trina's planning to post this evening. If there are problems with Blogger/Blogspot (as was the case last week), check the mirror site. Betty posted her latest chapter Thursday night (and thanks to Ava for going in and adding the link to it in a dictated post yesterday -- also thanks to her for the corrections and additions she and Jess have done all week). It's entitled "Thomas Friedman plays the woman scorned." Be sure to check that out. Isaiah has a new comic planned for tomorrow. He's convinced The New Yorker must have grabbed it already (he was convinced of that last Sunday and pulled it). They haven't done it. Someone may have, but that magazine hasn't as of the latest issue that's arrived in my mailbox (and I promised him I'd check today to make sure it wasn't in the issue currently on sale). So look for Isaiah's latest tomorrow morning. Let me do a shout out to Wally. Every e-mail here has been pleased with this week's direction at The Daily Jot. If you've missed it, Wally's doing "Bully Boy Press." For how long? As long as he wants to. Don't box him in. Wally got burnt out for a number of reasons (including the spineless behavior of Democratic senators on Alito) but his site was always intended to be humorous and a "jot." When Hurricane Wilma came along and the national press took a pass on it (apparently there's no "human interest" in Thanksgivings without electricity -- if nothing else, one might think that effect would've caught their attention), Wally, as a resident of Florida, stepped up to the plate and The Daily Jot began morphing into something other than what he had originally intended. "Bully Boy Press" gets him back to doing what he wanted to and he may stick with "Bully Boy Press" for some time or he may drop it when a new idea comes along. For more on that, check out Mike's interview with Wally. And despite Cedric's comments on the phone this morning when I called him, I'd recommend you check out his "Random Thoughts." (Cedric's doesn't think it's worth steering to. I disagree.)
So Ruth shortly. Ten minutes or an hour depending upon how long it takes me to get a workable scan of the black & white text. (Yes, "black & white text" -- I have no idea why it didn't scan easily the first time either. I'll probably clean the lens before trying again.)
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
the new york times
eric lipton
scott shane
third estate sunday review
trinas kitchen
mikey likes it
the daily jot
thomas friedman is a great man
kats korner
cedrics big mix
Other Items
Mr. Brown said that he told a senior White House official early on of the New Orleans flooding, and that the administration was too focused on terrorism to respond properly to natural disasters.
Testifying before a Senate committee, Mr. Brown said he notified a senior White House official -- who he said was probably Joe Hagin, the deputy White House chief of staff, but might have been Andrew H. Card Jr., the chief of staff -- on the day the hurricane hit to report that it had turned into his "worst nightmare" and that New Orleans was flooding.
It was the first public identification of any White House official who was said to have directly received reports of extensive flooding on Monday, Aug. 29, the day Hurricane Katrina hit.
[. . .]
The Bush administration, as a whole, he said, did not seem to care enough about natural disasters and had relegated natural disasters to a "stepchild" of national security.
"It is my belief," Mr. Brown told the senators, that if "we've confirmed that a terrorist has blown up the 17th Street Canal levee, then everybody would have jumped all over that and been trying to do everything they could."
The above, noted by Brenda, is from Eric Lipton's "Ex-FEMA Leader Faults Response by White House" in this morning's New York Times.
Scott Shane offers a mess of reporting (or "reporting") in "Ex-C.I.A. Official Says Iraq Data Was Distorted:"
The views of Paul R. Pillar, who retired in October as national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia, echoed previous criticism from Democrats and from some administration officials, including Richard A. Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism adviser, and Paul H. O'Neill, the former treasury secretary.
But Mr. Pillar is the first high-level C.I.A. insider to speak out by name on the use of prewar intelligence. His article for the March-April issue of Foreign Affairs, which charges the administration with the selective use of intelligence about Iraq's unconventional weapons and the chances of postwar chaos in Iraq, was posted Friday on the journal's Web site after it was reported in The Washington Post.
Why a "mess"? It's a story that Shane should be able to mop up -- it is, after all, based upon an article from a magazine and has been already covered by the Post. But note who gets to speak and who doesn't. It's no surprise (we're talking about the Times here) that we've got the usual "balance" of some say this, and some say that. But notice who "some" includes. An AEI war cheerleader/freak is given the last word (two paragraphs at the end). And why is that? In the Times notion of "balance" is the AEI the equivalent of the CIA? Or does the paper of record, considering their own record on Iraq, need to trot out a screeching voice to hide behind?
It's not balance, not even in the paper's flawed concept of "balance." We were lied into war. Mike wondered if this issue would even make the paper? It did. With selective voices and a general "nothing to see here, move along" attitude.
By the way, for visitors wondering about the op-ed the paper ran by Porter Goss (or "Porter Goss"), I did see the embarrassing op-ed that ran yesterday in the Times.
I can't take it on because I try to avoid disputing opinions from the paper's columns and editorials. We can note silences (like the fact that no column or editorial was written on the life of Coretta Scott King by the New York Times). And I'm comfortable in noting that Goss was allowed to violate the paper's own rules. (He criticizes the reporting and report that broke the NSA warrantless spying story in the Times. The Times has refused to let others question Jeff Gerth's Whitewater "reporting" -- to offer one example -- on the grounds that they don't self-criticize in the paper. They creation of the public editor has resulted in a forum for criticism of the paper within the paper; however, the broadsides the outgoing Okrent -- he's not missed -- took at Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd and others did not result in a response in kind. Krugman had to insist on his column that did finally run -- arguing that the basis was clearing up charges and not part of a 'back and forth.' The Times loves their official sources and considered it such a coup to have the op-ed by Porter Goss (that no one appears to have noticed in the print world, I spent last night talking to several reporters none of whom were even aware Goss had penned an op-ed -- or "Goss" if it was ghost written which is highly likely) in Friday's paper that they were willing to look the other way as he went after the paper. (It helps that the article Goss is slamming was co-written by James Risen who truly is on his own now -- whether he realizes it or not.) But Goss ticked off a number of "facts" that should have led to criticism and hoepfully it did elsewhere, but that's not the focus of this site (the op-ed pages).
And that's it for the paper today. A general is making the charge that the administration is guilty of poor planning with regards to the training of Iraqi troops. He's got a piece due out shortly so the Times figures there's a story in that. So brave. When officials speak, the Times is always there. There's a new level of disgusting to how we'll treat immigrants in this country ("illegal immigrants" some visitor will snap in an e-mail later on, I'm sure) but then we've postured so on that issue that there's really nothing to be done until we can stop demonizing immigrants. That will require something other than the "I support ___" (immigration, abortion, pick your issue) "but I'm personally opposed to/aware of the risks of . . ." dance that passes for bravery these days. The Times offers violence on the border (Mexico and California; Mexico and Texas) and seems overly focused on rock throwing as opposed to the shootings that have occurred and resulted in deaths. (Who was more often pulling the trigger? Consider what the Times focuses on and you have the answer.) We don't discuss/address every report in the main section (formerly "hard news) of the paper.
What else is planned for today? Kat will give a heads up on Laura Flanders' show, Maria's running down headlines from the week's Democracy Now! (that will go up after Laura Flanders' program starts) and Ruth's got a report that will go up after I get something scanned. (I'm playing it with it now to make it readable. The page being scanned.) Trina's planning to post this evening. If there are problems with Blogger/Blogspot (as was the case last week), check the mirror site. Betty posted her latest chapter Thursday night (and thanks to Ava for going in and adding the link to it in a dictated post yesterday -- also thanks to her for the corrections and additions she and Jess have done all week). It's entitled "Thomas Friedman plays the woman scorned." Be sure to check that out. Isaiah has a new comic planned for tomorrow. He's convinced The New Yorker must have grabbed it already (he was convinced of that last Sunday and pulled it). They haven't done it. Someone may have, but that magazine hasn't as of the latest issue that's arrived in my mailbox (and I promised him I'd check today to make sure it wasn't in the issue currently on sale). So look for Isaiah's latest tomorrow morning. Let me do a shout out to Wally. Every e-mail here has been pleased with this week's direction at The Daily Jot. If you've missed it, Wally's doing "Bully Boy Press." For how long? As long as he wants to. Don't box him in. Wally got burnt out for a number of reasons (including the spineless behavior of Democratic senators on Alito) but his site was always intended to be humorous and a "jot." When Hurricane Wilma came along and the national press took a pass on it (apparently there's no "human interest" in Thanksgivings without electricity -- if nothing else, one might think that effect would've caught their attention), Wally, as a resident of Florida, stepped up to the plate and The Daily Jot began morphing into something other than what he had originally intended. "Bully Boy Press" gets him back to doing what he wanted to and he may stick with "Bully Boy Press" for some time or he may drop it when a new idea comes along. For more on that, check out Mike's interview with Wally. And despite Cedric's comments on the phone this morning when I called him, I'd recommend you check out his "Random Thoughts." (Cedric's doesn't think it's worth steering to. I disagree.)
So Ruth shortly. Ten minutes or an hour depending upon how long it takes me to get a workable scan of the black & white text. (Yes, "black & white text" -- I have no idea why it didn't scan easily the first time either. I'll probably clean the lens before trying again.)
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
the new york times
eric lipton
scott shane
third estate sunday review
trinas kitchen
mikey likes it
the daily jot
thomas friedman is a great man
kats korner
cedrics big mix
Testifying before a Senate committee, Mr. Brown said he notified a senior White House official -- who he said was probably Joe Hagin, the deputy White House chief of staff, but might have been Andrew H. Card Jr., the chief of staff -- on the day the hurricane hit to report that it had turned into his "worst nightmare" and that New Orleans was flooding.
It was the first public identification of any White House official who was said to have directly received reports of extensive flooding on Monday, Aug. 29, the day Hurricane Katrina hit.
[. . .]
The Bush administration, as a whole, he said, did not seem to care enough about natural disasters and had relegated natural disasters to a "stepchild" of national security.
"It is my belief," Mr. Brown told the senators, that if "we've confirmed that a terrorist has blown up the 17th Street Canal levee, then everybody would have jumped all over that and been trying to do everything they could."
The above, noted by Brenda, is from Eric Lipton's "Ex-FEMA Leader Faults Response by White House" in this morning's New York Times.
Scott Shane offers a mess of reporting (or "reporting") in "Ex-C.I.A. Official Says Iraq Data Was Distorted:"
The views of Paul R. Pillar, who retired in October as national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia, echoed previous criticism from Democrats and from some administration officials, including Richard A. Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism adviser, and Paul H. O'Neill, the former treasury secretary.
But Mr. Pillar is the first high-level C.I.A. insider to speak out by name on the use of prewar intelligence. His article for the March-April issue of Foreign Affairs, which charges the administration with the selective use of intelligence about Iraq's unconventional weapons and the chances of postwar chaos in Iraq, was posted Friday on the journal's Web site after it was reported in The Washington Post.
Why a "mess"? It's a story that Shane should be able to mop up -- it is, after all, based upon an article from a magazine and has been already covered by the Post. But note who gets to speak and who doesn't. It's no surprise (we're talking about the Times here) that we've got the usual "balance" of some say this, and some say that. But notice who "some" includes. An AEI war cheerleader/freak is given the last word (two paragraphs at the end). And why is that? In the Times notion of "balance" is the AEI the equivalent of the CIA? Or does the paper of record, considering their own record on Iraq, need to trot out a screeching voice to hide behind?
It's not balance, not even in the paper's flawed concept of "balance." We were lied into war. Mike wondered if this issue would even make the paper? It did. With selective voices and a general "nothing to see here, move along" attitude.
By the way, for visitors wondering about the op-ed the paper ran by Porter Goss (or "Porter Goss"), I did see the embarrassing op-ed that ran yesterday in the Times.
I can't take it on because I try to avoid disputing opinions from the paper's columns and editorials. We can note silences (like the fact that no column or editorial was written on the life of Coretta Scott King by the New York Times). And I'm comfortable in noting that Goss was allowed to violate the paper's own rules. (He criticizes the reporting and report that broke the NSA warrantless spying story in the Times. The Times has refused to let others question Jeff Gerth's Whitewater "reporting" -- to offer one example -- on the grounds that they don't self-criticize in the paper. They creation of the public editor has resulted in a forum for criticism of the paper within the paper; however, the broadsides the outgoing Okrent -- he's not missed -- took at Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd and others did not result in a response in kind. Krugman had to insist on his column that did finally run -- arguing that the basis was clearing up charges and not part of a 'back and forth.' The Times loves their official sources and considered it such a coup to have the op-ed by Porter Goss (that no one appears to have noticed in the print world, I spent last night talking to several reporters none of whom were even aware Goss had penned an op-ed -- or "Goss" if it was ghost written which is highly likely) in Friday's paper that they were willing to look the other way as he went after the paper. (It helps that the article Goss is slamming was co-written by James Risen who truly is on his own now -- whether he realizes it or not.) But Goss ticked off a number of "facts" that should have led to criticism and hoepfully it did elsewhere, but that's not the focus of this site (the op-ed pages).
And that's it for the paper today. A general is making the charge that the administration is guilty of poor planning with regards to the training of Iraqi troops. He's got a piece due out shortly so the Times figures there's a story in that. So brave. When officials speak, the Times is always there. There's a new level of disgusting to how we'll treat immigrants in this country ("illegal immigrants" some visitor will snap in an e-mail later on, I'm sure) but then we've postured so on that issue that there's really nothing to be done until we can stop demonizing immigrants. That will require something other than the "I support ___" (immigration, abortion, pick your issue) "but I'm personally opposed to/aware of the risks of . . ." dance that passes for bravery these days. The Times offers violence on the border (Mexico and California; Mexico and Texas) and seems overly focused on rock throwing as opposed to the shootings that have occurred and resulted in deaths. (Who was more often pulling the trigger? Consider what the Times focuses on and you have the answer.) We don't discuss/address every report in the main section (formerly "hard news) of the paper.
What else is planned for today? Kat will give a heads up on Laura Flanders' show, Maria's running down headlines from the week's Democracy Now! (that will go up after Laura Flanders' program starts) and Ruth's got a report that will go up after I get something scanned. (I'm playing it with it now to make it readable. The page being scanned.) Trina's planning to post this evening. If there are problems with Blogger/Blogspot (as was the case last week), check the mirror site. Betty posted her latest chapter Thursday night (and thanks to Ava for going in and adding the link to it in a dictated post yesterday -- also thanks to her for the corrections and additions she and Jess have done all week). It's entitled "Thomas Friedman plays the woman scorned." Be sure to check that out. Isaiah has a new comic planned for tomorrow. He's convinced The New Yorker must have grabbed it already (he was convinced of that last Sunday and pulled it). They haven't done it. Someone may have, but that magazine hasn't as of the latest issue that's arrived in my mailbox (and I promised him I'd check today to make sure it wasn't in the issue currently on sale). So look for Isaiah's latest tomorrow morning. Let me do a shout out to Wally. Every e-mail here has been pleased with this week's direction at The Daily Jot. If you've missed it, Wally's doing "Bully Boy Press." For how long? As long as he wants to. Don't box him in. Wally got burnt out for a number of reasons (including the spineless behavior of Democratic senators on Alito) but his site was always intended to be humorous and a "jot." When Hurricane Wilma came along and the national press took a pass on it (apparently there's no "human interest" in Thanksgivings without electricity -- if nothing else, one might think that effect would've caught their attention), Wally, as a resident of Florida, stepped up to the plate and The Daily Jot began morphing into something other than what he had originally intended. "Bully Boy Press" gets him back to doing what he wanted to and he may stick with "Bully Boy Press" for some time or he may drop it when a new idea comes along. For more on that, check out Mike's interview with Wally. And despite Cedric's comments on the phone this morning when I called him, I'd recommend you check out his "Random Thoughts." (Cedric's doesn't think it's worth steering to. I disagree.)
So Ruth shortly. Ten minutes or an hour depending upon how long it takes me to get a workable scan of the black & white text. (Yes, "black & white text" -- I have no idea why it didn't scan easily the first time either. I'll probably clean the lens before trying again.)
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
the new york times
eric lipton
scott shane
third estate sunday review
trinas kitchen
mikey likes it
the daily jot
thomas friedman is a great man
kats korner
cedrics big mix
NYT: "Republicans on Hill Add Voice To Dissent Over Eavesdropping" (Sheryl Gay Stolberg)
"That is the abyss from which there is no return," Frank Church once warned of the technological developments that, if unchecked and unsupervised, could "make tyranny total in America." It's a concept a few members of Congress may be waking up to.
Sheryl Gay Stolberg offers "Republicans on Hill Add Voice To Dissent Over Eavesdropping" in this morning's New York Times (front page). From the article:
In interviews over several days, Congressional Republicans have expressed growing doubts about the National Security Agency program to intercept international communications inside the United States without court warrants. A growing number of Republicans say the program appears to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law that created a court to oversee such surveillance, and are calling for revamping the FISA law.
The article paints a picture (intended by Stolberg or not) that's not pretty. I'm not referring to the Republicans here. Nor a need to "fact check" the article.
Rahm Emmanuel is noted for feeling that "Ms. [Heather] Wilson was most likely distancing herself from the White House to curry favor back home." (That's Stolberg's summary, not a direct quote from Emmanuel.)
Maybe you missed the one day of public hearings *last Monday*? (You can listen to them via Pacifica where they're archived on the main page.) If so, consider yourself lucky. Strategy trumped principles. Democrats (such as the disgusting Dianne Feinstein) worried so much about 'positioning the party' that they couldn't fight for the country.
With few exceptions the no-opposition-at-all party fell right in line with the Bully Boy spin. The 'strategy' (such as it was) found them thinking they could prove their own 'national security cred' by repeating over and over (and boy did they ever) that they were for spying on Al Qaeda.
Posturing and puffing out their chests, they were certainly focused on the next election cycle -- they just weren't focused on the country.
For all the people swearing by the latest campaign hula-hoop of "framing," the 'great minds' didn't grasp that their endless pontificating was giving Bully Boy just what he wanted, taking the issue of warrantless spying on Americans and turning it into a 'national security' battle. The 'national security' at stake was what the country is going to become and where it's headed.
But craven and cowardly, Democrats stepped forward (with few exceptions) to attest just how much they supported spying on Al Qaeda, over and over. As if that was the issue. It wasn't. But it's an election year and everyone's reading from the same page (of a campaign book as opposed to anything written about the Constitution).
It's the sort of posturing that led to McCarthyism. It's the sort of "me too!"ism that leads to every shameful event in our nation. Though Bully Boy wanted to make it into a 9-11 issue, Democrats didn't have to help him out. But they did.
"Framing" is one of those useless things that someone thinks up every decade. The actual thing being promoted has been around for years but the infantile minds jumping on the bandwagon are never aware of that fact. They think they've discovered the "cure" and they all jump on that decade's bandwagon. They rally 'round the "cause."
And the "cause" isn't about anything but winning the next election cycle. History books aren't focused on who used what fad to win an election cycle. History books focus on a struggle (and really bad ones on "officials"). Few Democrats made a case for history in the hearings. They also failed to make a case for the Constitution.
Posturing, which is all framing is, goes back in the United States before the nation-state was even formed, it's been known under many names and it didn't surface in this decade. But when children are excited over new toys, you try to let them have their fun . . . to a point. For instance, in the nineties when the adult-children were so convinced that Home Alone was some huge breakthrough in film comedy, it seemed a bit cruel to point out that there was nothing "new" or "breakthrough" about a film that recycled gags their grandparents and great-grandparents grew up on. Let them giggle and enjoy themselves, where's the harm?
The delight over "framing" has now entered the harm stage. Posturing, in the forties, led to the McCarthy era. Instead of calling it out for what it was (truly unAmerican), Truman and assorted others jumped on the bandwagon (steered by Nixon long before he ever got into the oval office). "Communists are bad!" was the talking point. And the framing of that time led not to the questioning of powers created and methods used but instead to the "Well I think it's bad too!" cries as people attempted to frame/posture in such a way that they couldn't be called "weak" or worse.
"Framing" was going to save us. It never has before but don't spoil the children's excitement. Let them have Christmas morning to be boisterous and excited. "Framing" (in its latest form) was going to provide the Democrats with the ability to win on "issues." It never has before, but let them have their excitement.
What we saw as senators framed/postured before Gonzales proved that "framing" will play out in this decade just like it has in every other. Going into that hearing, it was no secret that Bully Boy's "Why We Spy" spin (Amy Goodman coined the "Why We Spy" phrase). If our new toy was of any use at all, we'd see it in that hearing as it was used to take the issue off his favored terrain and placed, instead, into its proper context.
That didn't happen. For all the talk of it as a cure all (in its latest incarnation) it played out the way it always does: cover for people to hide behind. Instead of straight talk, Dems (with few exceptions) used "framing" for their own selfish means (the next election cycle) and the very serious issue was reduced to nothing more than a chance for politicians to do what they've always done best, grand stand with loud cries of "Me too!"
The "frame" going in and flaunted throughout the day was "I'm tough on Al Qaeda too!" Al Qaeda wasn't the issue. Al Qaeda was never the issue. Americans weren't enraged about Al Qaeda being spied upon. They were enraged about the calls and e-mails of Americans being under government watch. But that issue got lost as one after another, with few exceptions, the "opposition" had to rush in to say that they too were opposed to Communists, er terrorists.
Now petulant ones, who can't realize how they watered down the debate themsevles (their own party), rush forward to criticize others with cries of "___'s just worried because of her/his district!" I suppose that's a "frame" as well because it's about as useful and truthful as any other "frame." (What politician isn't worried about their own electorate? Including the pouty ones pointing fingers now?)
If we're done with the toys, and can face the fact that Christmas was sometime ago, maybe we can all be adult enough (or at least some of us?) to face the fact that "success" will be judged on something more than 2006 election turnouts? That what our country's facing requires more than framing/posturing to address?
Tools aren't answers and tools badly used (as they so frequently are) lead not to brave stands but to "me too!" moments that result in the shames of our nation. The Democrats could have staked their ground in opposition to warrantless spying. They didn't. With few exceptions, they all had their little prefaces, their opening remarks, that "strategy" told them was the way to reposition themselves and frequently they returned to those remarks. (Like Sandra Bulluck in Miss Congeniality tossing out "world peace" to get some easy applause in the question and answer segment.) But it's a way to "success" we're assured because "success" isn't measured by whether or not a principle or any ground was staked out, only on how it might play for the 2006 elections.
Suprisingly, some of the same people hailing the craven behavior as "successful" want to then criticize the media for its own craven behavior. (That's not a defense of the media, just pointing out that posturing by the politicians is being greeted in many circles as "success" while similar posturing by the media is being seen as "craven." Both are craven. And juvenile.)
Though the hearing was short on straight talk or truth telling, some of the same ones applauding the "reposition" by the Dems want to whine about the press coverage of the issue. Cowards follow. We don't have a brave press (with few exceptions) and we don't have brave politicians (ditto). The Democrats (as a group) rolled over in the hearing. The press did as well. Now that some Republicans are speaking out, for principle or due to electorate pressures (or a combination), little whiners want to come forward and saying, "They're only doing it because they're facing a tough election." (Jane Harman, to her credit, points out that Wilson had expressed concerns about the spying for some time.) Which is a bit like someone caught cheating on a test whining that someone else "only studied because she was worried about her grade!"
This time round, posturing came with psycho-babble and more recent pop-cultural refernces (Bill Cosby's Cliff Huxtable as the 'good, nuturing father' and other such nonsense). And those excited by the latest gadget and/or ignorant of their own nation's history, were gleeful.
Inside the paper (A11), Scott Shane offers "Attention in N.S.A. Debate Turns to Telecom Industry." From the article:
Some companies are said by current and former government officials to have provided the eavesdropping agency access to streams of telephone and Internet traffic entering and leaving the United States. The N.S.A. has used its powerful computers to search the masses of data for clues to terrorist plots and, without court warrants, zeroed in on some Americans for eavesdropping, those officials say.
Now the companies are in an awkward position, with members of Congress questioning them about their role in the eeavesdropping. On Thursday two Democratic senators, Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, wrote to the chief executives of AT&T, Sprint Nextel and Verizon, asking them to confirm or deny a report in USA Today on Monday that said telecommunications executives had identified AT&T, Sprint and MCI (now part of Verizon) as partners of the agency.
Look for the telecom industry to say (frame?) that they, too, don't like terrorists. As if that's the issue but Dems certainly acted in the hearing as though it was so expect others to line up behind them. And look for Al Gore to continue to get the Henry Wallace treatment (by the press and by the Democratic Party). The reasons for both go to "framing." Little Petey Beinart (small teeth, smaller ideas) will probably write one of his Milkquetoast babbles defending it all. He'll be "framing" too.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
the new york times
sheryl gay stolberg
nsa
fisa
government snooping
government spying
snoopgate
amy goodman
pacifica
[C.I. note: Post corrected thanks to Jim who called to say "That was this past Monday." It seems so much longer that we were in DC. But Jim's correct and I'm wrong. Thanks for catching that.]
Sheryl Gay Stolberg offers "Republicans on Hill Add Voice To Dissent Over Eavesdropping" in this morning's New York Times (front page). From the article:
In interviews over several days, Congressional Republicans have expressed growing doubts about the National Security Agency program to intercept international communications inside the United States without court warrants. A growing number of Republicans say the program appears to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law that created a court to oversee such surveillance, and are calling for revamping the FISA law.
The article paints a picture (intended by Stolberg or not) that's not pretty. I'm not referring to the Republicans here. Nor a need to "fact check" the article.
Rahm Emmanuel is noted for feeling that "Ms. [Heather] Wilson was most likely distancing herself from the White House to curry favor back home." (That's Stolberg's summary, not a direct quote from Emmanuel.)
Maybe you missed the one day of public hearings *last Monday*? (You can listen to them via Pacifica where they're archived on the main page.) If so, consider yourself lucky. Strategy trumped principles. Democrats (such as the disgusting Dianne Feinstein) worried so much about 'positioning the party' that they couldn't fight for the country.
With few exceptions the no-opposition-at-all party fell right in line with the Bully Boy spin. The 'strategy' (such as it was) found them thinking they could prove their own 'national security cred' by repeating over and over (and boy did they ever) that they were for spying on Al Qaeda.
Posturing and puffing out their chests, they were certainly focused on the next election cycle -- they just weren't focused on the country.
For all the people swearing by the latest campaign hula-hoop of "framing," the 'great minds' didn't grasp that their endless pontificating was giving Bully Boy just what he wanted, taking the issue of warrantless spying on Americans and turning it into a 'national security' battle. The 'national security' at stake was what the country is going to become and where it's headed.
But craven and cowardly, Democrats stepped forward (with few exceptions) to attest just how much they supported spying on Al Qaeda, over and over. As if that was the issue. It wasn't. But it's an election year and everyone's reading from the same page (of a campaign book as opposed to anything written about the Constitution).
It's the sort of posturing that led to McCarthyism. It's the sort of "me too!"ism that leads to every shameful event in our nation. Though Bully Boy wanted to make it into a 9-11 issue, Democrats didn't have to help him out. But they did.
"Framing" is one of those useless things that someone thinks up every decade. The actual thing being promoted has been around for years but the infantile minds jumping on the bandwagon are never aware of that fact. They think they've discovered the "cure" and they all jump on that decade's bandwagon. They rally 'round the "cause."
And the "cause" isn't about anything but winning the next election cycle. History books aren't focused on who used what fad to win an election cycle. History books focus on a struggle (and really bad ones on "officials"). Few Democrats made a case for history in the hearings. They also failed to make a case for the Constitution.
Posturing, which is all framing is, goes back in the United States before the nation-state was even formed, it's been known under many names and it didn't surface in this decade. But when children are excited over new toys, you try to let them have their fun . . . to a point. For instance, in the nineties when the adult-children were so convinced that Home Alone was some huge breakthrough in film comedy, it seemed a bit cruel to point out that there was nothing "new" or "breakthrough" about a film that recycled gags their grandparents and great-grandparents grew up on. Let them giggle and enjoy themselves, where's the harm?
The delight over "framing" has now entered the harm stage. Posturing, in the forties, led to the McCarthy era. Instead of calling it out for what it was (truly unAmerican), Truman and assorted others jumped on the bandwagon (steered by Nixon long before he ever got into the oval office). "Communists are bad!" was the talking point. And the framing of that time led not to the questioning of powers created and methods used but instead to the "Well I think it's bad too!" cries as people attempted to frame/posture in such a way that they couldn't be called "weak" or worse.
"Framing" was going to save us. It never has before but don't spoil the children's excitement. Let them have Christmas morning to be boisterous and excited. "Framing" (in its latest form) was going to provide the Democrats with the ability to win on "issues." It never has before, but let them have their excitement.
What we saw as senators framed/postured before Gonzales proved that "framing" will play out in this decade just like it has in every other. Going into that hearing, it was no secret that Bully Boy's "Why We Spy" spin (Amy Goodman coined the "Why We Spy" phrase). If our new toy was of any use at all, we'd see it in that hearing as it was used to take the issue off his favored terrain and placed, instead, into its proper context.
That didn't happen. For all the talk of it as a cure all (in its latest incarnation) it played out the way it always does: cover for people to hide behind. Instead of straight talk, Dems (with few exceptions) used "framing" for their own selfish means (the next election cycle) and the very serious issue was reduced to nothing more than a chance for politicians to do what they've always done best, grand stand with loud cries of "Me too!"
The "frame" going in and flaunted throughout the day was "I'm tough on Al Qaeda too!" Al Qaeda wasn't the issue. Al Qaeda was never the issue. Americans weren't enraged about Al Qaeda being spied upon. They were enraged about the calls and e-mails of Americans being under government watch. But that issue got lost as one after another, with few exceptions, the "opposition" had to rush in to say that they too were opposed to Communists, er terrorists.
Now petulant ones, who can't realize how they watered down the debate themsevles (their own party), rush forward to criticize others with cries of "___'s just worried because of her/his district!" I suppose that's a "frame" as well because it's about as useful and truthful as any other "frame." (What politician isn't worried about their own electorate? Including the pouty ones pointing fingers now?)
If we're done with the toys, and can face the fact that Christmas was sometime ago, maybe we can all be adult enough (or at least some of us?) to face the fact that "success" will be judged on something more than 2006 election turnouts? That what our country's facing requires more than framing/posturing to address?
Tools aren't answers and tools badly used (as they so frequently are) lead not to brave stands but to "me too!" moments that result in the shames of our nation. The Democrats could have staked their ground in opposition to warrantless spying. They didn't. With few exceptions, they all had their little prefaces, their opening remarks, that "strategy" told them was the way to reposition themselves and frequently they returned to those remarks. (Like Sandra Bulluck in Miss Congeniality tossing out "world peace" to get some easy applause in the question and answer segment.) But it's a way to "success" we're assured because "success" isn't measured by whether or not a principle or any ground was staked out, only on how it might play for the 2006 elections.
Suprisingly, some of the same people hailing the craven behavior as "successful" want to then criticize the media for its own craven behavior. (That's not a defense of the media, just pointing out that posturing by the politicians is being greeted in many circles as "success" while similar posturing by the media is being seen as "craven." Both are craven. And juvenile.)
Though the hearing was short on straight talk or truth telling, some of the same ones applauding the "reposition" by the Dems want to whine about the press coverage of the issue. Cowards follow. We don't have a brave press (with few exceptions) and we don't have brave politicians (ditto). The Democrats (as a group) rolled over in the hearing. The press did as well. Now that some Republicans are speaking out, for principle or due to electorate pressures (or a combination), little whiners want to come forward and saying, "They're only doing it because they're facing a tough election." (Jane Harman, to her credit, points out that Wilson had expressed concerns about the spying for some time.) Which is a bit like someone caught cheating on a test whining that someone else "only studied because she was worried about her grade!"
This time round, posturing came with psycho-babble and more recent pop-cultural refernces (Bill Cosby's Cliff Huxtable as the 'good, nuturing father' and other such nonsense). And those excited by the latest gadget and/or ignorant of their own nation's history, were gleeful.
Inside the paper (A11), Scott Shane offers "Attention in N.S.A. Debate Turns to Telecom Industry." From the article:
Some companies are said by current and former government officials to have provided the eavesdropping agency access to streams of telephone and Internet traffic entering and leaving the United States. The N.S.A. has used its powerful computers to search the masses of data for clues to terrorist plots and, without court warrants, zeroed in on some Americans for eavesdropping, those officials say.
Now the companies are in an awkward position, with members of Congress questioning them about their role in the eeavesdropping. On Thursday two Democratic senators, Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, wrote to the chief executives of AT&T, Sprint Nextel and Verizon, asking them to confirm or deny a report in USA Today on Monday that said telecommunications executives had identified AT&T, Sprint and MCI (now part of Verizon) as partners of the agency.
Look for the telecom industry to say (frame?) that they, too, don't like terrorists. As if that's the issue but Dems certainly acted in the hearing as though it was so expect others to line up behind them. And look for Al Gore to continue to get the Henry Wallace treatment (by the press and by the Democratic Party). The reasons for both go to "framing." Little Petey Beinart (small teeth, smaller ideas) will probably write one of his Milkquetoast babbles defending it all. He'll be "framing" too.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
the new york times
sheryl gay stolberg
nsa
fisa
government snooping
government spying
snoopgate
amy goodman
pacifica
[C.I. note: Post corrected thanks to Jim who called to say "That was this past Monday." It seems so much longer that we were in DC. But Jim's correct and I'm wrong. Thanks for catching that.]
Friday, February 10, 2006
Democracy Now: Mary Mapes, Murray Waas; Katrina vanden Heuvel, John Nichols, the Matalins ...
Bush Reveals New Details of Purported 2002 Attack Plot
In Washington, President Bush discussed a purported attack on the United States that the White House has claimed it helped prevent. President Bush said: "We now know that in October 2001, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the September the 11th attacks, had already set in motion a plan to have terrorist operatives hijack an airplane using shoe bombs to breach the cockpit door and fly the plane into the tallest building on the West Coast. We believe the intended target was Liberty Tower in Los Angeles, California. Rather than use Arab hijackers as he had on September 11, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed sought out young men from Southeast Asia whom he believed would not arouse as much suspicion."
In Washington, President Bush discussed a purported attack on the United States that the White House has claimed it helped prevent. President Bush said: "We now know that in October 2001, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the September the 11th attacks, had already set in motion a plan to have terrorist operatives hijack an airplane using shoe bombs to breach the cockpit door and fly the plane into the tallest building on the West Coast. We believe the intended target was Liberty Tower in Los Angeles, California. Rather than use Arab hijackers as he had on September 11, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed sought out young men from Southeast Asia whom he believed would not arouse as much suspicion."
White House aides later corrected the President, saying the intended target was not the Liberty Tower but the Library Tower. It has since been renamed the US Bank Tower.
Intelligence Officials Continue To Question Plot Claim
President Bush's comments add new details to the purported attack, which the White House first discussed last fall. The claim was met with skepticism from several members of the intelligence community. At the time, one official told the Washington Post: "It's safe to say that most of the [intelligence] community doesn't think it's worth very much." Today, the Post reports there remains "deep disagreement" over whether the plot was "ever much more than talk." A US counterterrorism official interviewed by Los Angeles Times dismissed the plot, telling the newspaper: "It didn't go. It didn't happen."
President Bush's comments add new details to the purported attack, which the White House first discussed last fall. The claim was met with skepticism from several members of the intelligence community. At the time, one official told the Washington Post: "It's safe to say that most of the [intelligence] community doesn't think it's worth very much." Today, the Post reports there remains "deep disagreement" over whether the plot was "ever much more than talk." A US counterterrorism official interviewed by Los Angeles Times dismissed the plot, telling the newspaper: "It didn't go. It didn't happen."
LA Mayor Criticizes "Nonexistent" White House Communication
Meanwhile, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa says President Bush's announcement has taken him by complete surprise, and that communication with the White House has been "nonexistent." Villaraigosa continued: "I'm amazed that the president would make this (announcement) on national TV and not inform us of these details through the appropriate channels. I don't expect a call from the president, but somebody."
Meanwhile, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa says President Bush's announcement has taken him by complete surprise, and that communication with the White House has been "nonexistent." Villaraigosa continued: "I'm amazed that the president would make this (announcement) on national TV and not inform us of these details through the appropriate channels. I don't expect a call from the president, but somebody."
Ex-CIA Mideast Officer Accuses Bush Admin. Of "Cherry-Picking" Iraq Intel
Meanwhile, the CIA's former national intelligence officer for the Middle East has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence to justify the Iraq invasion. In a new article in Foreign Affairs, Paul Pillar writes: "It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions. Intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made --and the intelligence community's own work was politicized."
Meanwhile, the CIA's former national intelligence officer for the Middle East has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence to justify the Iraq invasion. In a new article in Foreign Affairs, Paul Pillar writes: "It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions. Intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made --and the intelligence community's own work was politicized."
The above four items, selected by Joan, Charlie, Brenda and Marcus, are from today's Democracy Now! Headlines. Democracy Now! ("always informing you," as Marcia says):
Headlines for February 10, 2006
- Libby Testifies "Superiors" Ordered Leak of Classified Information
- Ex-CIA Mideast Officer Accuses Admin. Of "Cherry-Picking" Iraq Intel
- Early Returns Show Frontrunner Preval Leading Haitian Elections
- US, DR, Haiti Governments Named in Landmark Rights Petition
- Bush Reveals New Details of Purported 2002 Attack Plot
- Bush Administration Told of Levee Breach Earlier Than Claimed
- Two Medical Aid Workers Kidnapped in Colombia
- Kidnapped Journalist: "There Is Very Short Time"
Exclusive Interview: Murray Waas on How Cheney "Authorized" Libby to Leak Classified Information
We speak with investigative journalist Murray Waas who reports that Lewis "Scooter" Libby -- Cheney's indicted former chief of staff -- testified he had been "authorized" by Cheney and other White House "superiors" to disclose classified information to journalists to defend the Bush administration's use of prewar intelligence in making the case to invade Iraq.
Why We Fight: New Film Takes a Hard Look at the American War Machine From World War II to Iraq
A new film opening in theaters nationwide Friday takes a look at the American war machine over the past half century. "Why We Fight" looks at conflicts from World War II right up to the current war in Iraq to examine the political, economic and ideological reasons that drive American war policy. We play excerpts from the film and speak with award-wining director Eugene Jarecki.
The Press, The President and the Privilege of Power: Part II Of Our Conversation With "Memo-Gate" Producer Mary Mapes
We continue our conversation with Mary Mapes, the longtime television news producer and reporter who worked for CBS for fifteen years. Mapes tells the story of the memo that brought down CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather and prompted CBS to force out four of its top journalists - including Mapes. In the report, Rather charged that President Bush had received preferential treatment in the National Guard in the early 1970s.
Before we get to highlights, somebody saw it on Buzz, somebody saw it on Atrios, somebody saw it here, there and everywhere. "Is it a clampdown?" demand five
visitors, who naturally swear they've been reading since 'the starts," (one uses "gatekeeper" but it's the same sentiment).
What are we talking about? Mary Matalin's remarks (via Media Matters):
MATALIN: -- the achievement gap between the white and black students at a high, closing, narrowing. I mean, you know, I think these civil rights leaders are nothing more than racists. And they're keeping constituency, they're keeping their neighborhoods and their African-American brothers enslaved, if you will, by continuing to let them think that they're -- or forced to think that they're victims, that the whole system is against them. Articulate it better, Sean; it's so sad to me.
Matalin learned to steal from Eleanor Roosevelt's book (you're sad, never angry), she just never learned to make it believable. Squinty eyes and a pinched face are obstacles she can never overcome (short of surgery) but something could be done about the voice. (And should be.) For the record, while making (false) charages of racism, she also flaunts her sexism (which none of the e-mails mention). "African-American brothers"? Did she forget half a race? (Why, yes, she did. Which is why the joke was made, here, the day after Matalin uttered her latest lunatic ravings, ""right about now my funk soul brothers and sisters.") Queen Bee Mary's off her rocker yet again.
One e-mail on the "clampdown" includes this: "You must be afraid to criticize James Carville!" The bean counter? The man who's made a mockery of public discourse by playing Cher to Matalin's Sonny during guest spots on Meet the Press? We've covered that and then some. We've never propped up Matalin and we've never praised James Carville. Nor have we ever (or would we ever) praise Paul Begala. Here, we're fully aware that Jon Stewart wasn't just calling out Tucker Carlson, he was calling out the entire format and the gas bags on both sides. The "left" on Crossfire, for those who've forgotten, were more than happy to join in on the trashing of Cynthia McKinney. Paul Begala was more than happy to make a fool of himself (okay, maybe he can't help that) eating KFC on air to prop up the fast food industry.
I can't speak for what happens elsewhere, but here we've never confused "bean counters" (even slightly left of the center ones) for "brave voices." So you're either reaching or you're confused at to what sites you're visiting.We don't have a clampdown regarding the Matalins. We don't usually note TV gas-bags, not due to a clampdown, just due to the fact that they don't have all that much to say.
Now let's get on with highlights. Tracey notes Katrina vanden Heuvel's "Elementary, Pat, Elementary" (Editor's Cut, The Nation):
The other night, Pat Buchanan said on Scarborough Country's segment about "The Politics of Impeachment" that my views on the subject are irrelevant.
I suggest Pat check out a little known book, Everything I Needed to Know About the Constitution I Learned in Third Grade. He might rediscover some basic American tenets such as a system of checks and balances,loyalty to the Constitution and shared power and accountability between three branches of government.
It's the shredding of these ideals that has led to growing, mainstream support for discussing the impeachment of Mr. Bush: conservative business magazine, Barron's...John Dean...leading constitutional scholars...former intelligence officers…even some Republicans...and the 53 percent of Americans who said in November that Bush should be impeached if it is found that he lied about the basis for invading Iraq.
FYI, KvH is discussing the split, among some, that says we must place all our eggs in one basket: either impeach or end the war. It's the dualistic, either/or thinking that's so ingrained. We don't have to choose one. (That's my own opinion, but also a loose summary of KvH's position.) Don't let anyone limit you or your options.
Dropping back to Matalin's nonsense, John Nichols takes on her ilk in "A Healthy Dose of Reality for Mr. Bush" (The Online Beat, The Nation):
Just as they did following the memorial service for Senator Paul Wellstone in 2002, Republican operatives and their acolytes in the media are now claiming that there was something inappropriate about the manner in which those who knew Coretta Scott King best mourned her passing. So great is the determination of the spin doctors for a White House that seeks to protect George Bush from even the mildest expressions of dissent that commentators rushed Tuesday to television studios even before the service for Mrs. King was done to denounce former President Jimmy Carter, the Rev. Joseph Lowery and Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin for expressing sentiments not usually heard by this protected president.
But don't think that anything untoward actually took place in the Atlanta suburb where thousands gathered to celebrate the life, the work and the politics of Mrs. King. The service provided the president with a healthy -- if all too rare -- dose of reality. Bush's policies are not popular, particularly with the African-American community, and the president needed a gentle reminder of the fact. Indeed, the president was far more graceful in the receipt of the dissenting messages that were uttered at the service for Mrs. King than were those who rushed to condemn his critics.
What got the Republican spin machine humming Wednesday?
Kyle note the above. Eddie notes "CCR Applauds Confirmation of Guantanamo Detainees' Innocence in First Statistical Analysis of Military Documents" (Center for Constitutional Rights -- note, the link also contains a PDF file for those interested in more information):
On February 9, 2006, in New York, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) applauded the release of the Report on Guantanamo Detainees: A Profile of 517 Detainees Through Analysis of Department of Defense Data by Professor Mark Denbeaux of Seton Hall Law School and attorney Joshua Denbeaux.
Since February 2002, CCR has argued in the United States federal courts that the vast majority of prisoners at Guantánamo are innocent men who were kidnapped and turned over to the United States military for a bounty. The report found that "55 percent of the 517 detainees had no hostile act listed as the basis for detention" and a mere 5 percent were captured by U.S. forces, with the rest not picked up on the battlefield in Afghanistan but in Pakistan and handed to the U.S. by warlords and others for large bounties. According the report's careful analysis of the Defense Department records, 92% of the prisoners in Guantánamo were not characterized as Al Qaeda fighters. The men have been denied any fair hearing and detained in inhumane conditions for over four years, despite the Supreme Court ruling in CCR's case, Rasul v. Bush that they have the right to challenge the basis for their detention in U.S. court.
Said CCR attorney Gita Gutierrez, "Now, for the first time, the military's lies and misrepresentations about the prisoners in Guantánamo have been debunked through the military's own documents. Yet, these men remain in prison while at every turn the Executive seeks to avoid judicial scrutiny of its unlawful conduct."
Billie points out that should the New York Times ever tire of the Elite Fluff Patrol (not likely), they might want to bring Ron in to show them the basics. From Ron's "Bush Said, A.P. Said 'in October 2001'" (Why Are We Back In Iraq?):
If the plot were hatched in October of 2001, then this alleged meeting between Osama bin Laden and the Southeast Asian operatives would have had to have taken place after. But it seems unlikely that Southeast Asian operatives were able to journey into and out of Afghanistan or Pakistan and hook up in a cave somewhere to meet with Osama, completely undetected by the coalition troops involved in Operation Infinite Justice (I mean Operation Enduring Freedom).
If anything...this plot was hatched before October of 2001...and Osama inspected the recruits some time before that.
But lets not let common sense get in the way of President Bush or the Associated Press because what this is really about is damage control.
UPDATE
From today's press briefing by Scott McClellan:
Q But is it just a coincidence? You had February 6th circled on the calendar for the hearings, the NSA hearings. Is it just a pure coincidence that this comes out today?MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you're talking about the -- let me mention, the terrorist surveillance program is a vital program, and it's been a very valuable tool. I'm not going to get into discussing any of the tools that may have been used when it comes to disrupting this plot. We provided you some additional information about this plot. But the purpose of this speech is the way I stated it. And I would discourage you from suggesting otherwise.
Unfortunately for Scotty, that wasn't the last question asked at the press briefing which suggested "otherwise."
From today's press briefing on the West Coast Terrorist Plot by Frances Fragos Townsend, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism:
Khalid Shaykh Muhammad was the individual who led this effort. He initiated the planning for the West Coast plot after September 11th, in October of 2001. KSM, working with Hambali in Asia, recruited the members of the cell. There was a total of four members of the cell. When they -- KSM, himself, trained the leader of the cell in late 2001 or early 2002 in the shoe bomb technique. You all will recall that there was the arrest of the shoe bomber, Richard Reid, in December of 2001, and he was instructing the cell leader on the use of the same technique.After the cell -- the additional members of the cell, in addition to the leader, were recruited, they all went -- the cell leader and the three other operatives went to Afghanistan where they met with bin Laden and swore biat -- that is an oath of loyalty to him -- before returning to Asia, where they continued to work under Hambali.
Okay.
So I guess that's the story...let's see how long they stick to it.
But they can't even seem to get their facts straight about the plot:
Q Not too bad. Anyway, to start with, you said that the cell leader of the West Coast plot had been arrested. What about the other cell members? Can you give us any further details, number one? And, number two, you talked about the need and great successes of international cooperation. Can you comment in any way on recent events in Yemen, when perhaps the international cooperation fell down a little bit?MS. TOWNSEND: Sure. I should have said it, and Mark, thank you for reminding me. All of the cell leaders were ultimately arrested and taken into custody. So there are none of the remaining -- none of the four are at large.
Cell members, cell leaders...what's the difference I guess.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
democracy now
thomas friedman is a great man
elite fluff patrol
katrina vanden heuvel
media matters
john nichols
murray waas
center for constitutional rights
[Ava note: C.I. meant to note Betty's latest chapter, "Thomas Friedman plays the woman scorned" for those who e-mailed wondering why she was tagged but there was nothing about her or her site in the entry. I've fixed font and added more tags.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)