Thursday, April 06, 2006

And the war drags on . . . (Indymedia Roundup)

When he orchestrated the end of conscription in 1973, Nixon likely intended to insulate middle and upper class children from death and injury in future wars. (2) If those called to fight are far removed from those wielding political power, then elected officials can passively support unpopular military interventions without fearing much constituent pressure. Further, the death or wounding of a "volunteer" can be rationalized merely the risk he or she assumed in exchange for receiving the benefits of the enlistment contract.
My sense is that there has been less public outcry about the deaths of 2,300 GIs and the wounding of 17,000 more (as of February 2006) than there would have been during the Vietnam War. This may be partly due to the media blackout Bush has imposed on returning coffins return home or when reporters want to report on the problems of injured veterans. But I think the identity of the victims also helps explain the difference. Statistically, most of the casualties so far have been ordinary kids from the small rural towns and downtrodden urban neighborhoods that are invisible to most public officials and the media.

The above is from Tod Ensign's "A Working Class War: Who's Opposing It?" from Citizen Soldier. Heather noted it and asked if we were aware of Citizen Soldier? I wasn't. (Members probably were.) Another good source, one I did know of, is Pacific News. Miranda notes Angelika Gomez's "Young, Female and Guarding Detainees in Iraq:"


When Alanna Jones, 19, was a high school student she attended almost every anti-war protest held in San Francisco. Then, two years ago, she joined the Air Force to get money for school, to see the world and because it was a steady job. She had no idea that within a year of joining she would be serving guard duty at Camp Bucca, an internment facility for enemy prisoners of war in southern Iraq.
"We're out there and we're doing a job," Alanna tells me in an interview during her most recent trip home. "Some people don't have choices. They need a way out of their home life and some people do it to support their country." Tall and lanky, Alanna bears a strong resemblance to the cartoon character Olive Oyl, the wife of Popeye the Sailor Man. I first met her about two years ago at her Aunt Katie's house, one of my good friends. Alanna is a little tomboyish and athletic -- she made All City tennis and played basketball at International Studies Academy in San Francisco. But she's just a normal girl who loves to hang out with her friends, work and party. After graduating from high school, she went to San Francisco State for a year before joining the Air Force. "I really didn't think I was going to be deployed, because the Air Force really isn't supposed to be sent over there," she says. "But the lack of soldiers and security forces in Iraq made it happen."

No offense intended, but I'd argue that the illegal invasion followed by the illegal occupation made it happen. Thursday, indymedia roundup. Focus on Iraq. "Tonic to the corporate media," is what Tori labes these entries and she adds "a big thank you and big shout out to all the members who work to hunt things down." Agreed.

Ruth noted that I'd probably be providing an excerpt from a story in the latest edition of Extra! and she was correct. I didn't have time on Sunday. This is from Seth Ackerman's "Now It's a Chemical Weapon, Now It's Not" by Seth Ackerman (pages eight through nine). The focus is on white phosophorus and for those who've forgotten, "It wasn't used! . . . Oh wait, it was! But it's not a chemical weapon, not when the American government uses it!" We're focusing on Ackerman's critique of the New York Times:

That's not to say that the big U.S. news outlets were unaware of the story. In an online "Ask the Washington Post" chat forum (11/09/05), an inquisitive reader asked the paper's assistant managing editor why the Post had ignored the white phosophorus allegations. The Post's David Hoffman replied that the paper had reported the use of white phosphorus at the time of the battle, and pointed the reader to a front-page dispatch on the Fallujah fight from November 2004. A diligent reader who located the year-old article (11/10/04) could indeed find -- 22 paragraphs into the story -- a sthree- sentence passage confirming the use of white phosphorus as an anti-personnel weapon, including this: "Insurgents reported being attacked with a substance that melted their skin, a reaction consistent with white phosphorus burns." The New York Times took a different tack. It did mention the allegation that white phosphorus had been used as a weapon -- but it cited this to illustrate the kind of flimsy anti-American charges that foreigners have a habit of putting in their newspapers. In a feature article about an American intelligence unit that monitors the foreign press (11/13/05), reporter Scott Shane signaled to readers how preposterous this particular charge was by giving his assurance that "the mainstream American news media" had "largely ignored this claim," since its "reporters had witnessed the fighting [in Fallujah] and apparently seen no evidence" of white phosphorus weaponry. For the Post then, white phosphorus wasn't a stroy because it had already been reported (albiet almost invisibly), while for the Times, it wasn't a story because American reporters hadn't mentioned it. [. . .] For Scott Shane, the New York Times reporter, the only apparent cause for concern in all of this was that the U.S. had bungled its damage-control response. A week after publishing the story that dismissed the possibility that the U.S. might have fired white phosphorus weapons. Shane wrote a new article blaming U.S. officials for not defending the practice with the requisite public-relations aplomb. He deemed the Italian documentary "riddled with errors and exaggerations" -- citing as his source unnamed "officials and independent military experts" -- and accused it of "inacurately labeling white phosphorus a chemical weapon (11/21/05). Yet because U.S. officials had "bungled their response," Shane wrote, there are now "dozens of stories in the foreign news media and on websites suggesting that the Americans used banned weapons and tried to cover it up." If readers were left with the distinct impression that Shane thinks it unimportant that U.S. soldiers fired white phosphorus rounds into a densely packed city, the reporter did nothing to disabuse them.

That's an excerpt. It may or may not be available online. Check it out print at bookstores or libraries and if either doesn't carry Extra! ask them to. (Ruth gave a magazine report on this edition of Extra! Saturday.) What's the true tonic to corporate media? Independent media, unembedded media. If you're someone who regularly discusses the news and all your remarks are "Well the Times says this, the Post says this and on 60 Minutes . . ." you're not supporting independent media.

Heather is. She gave a heads up to a publication I (at least) was unaware of. She got the word out. That's the most powerful thing we can do in terms of the media (my opinion), get the word out. Inject it into our conversations. Whatever your favorite indymedia is, bring it up in a conversation. "That's interesting, but I read/heard/saw, on ___, that . . ." Why is the New York Times the paper of record? Because it's referenced as though it was. (Which, by the way, is why I truly would love to drop it but members have rejected that notion so we'll continue to note it.) What's the news source of record in your circle? If it's independent media, take it beyond your circle. If it's not independent media, start making it that. I'll use Democracy Now! as an example because that's one thing the community can always agree on 100%.

If next week, you spoke of Democracy Now! everytime news coverage or news topics came up, there would be a lot of people curious about the program. If we all did it, there would be even more. (We in the community.) If everyone who listens, watches or reads it (everyone globally) did that, Democracy Now! would be on it's way to becoming the programming of record. Not just in the independent world but beyond it. The Times is only the "record" because it's so often noted. Members of this community are fully aware that the paper of record leaves out important topics, minimizes others and really just jots down official statements most days. The James Risen scoop? Have they followed up on it as one would expect a paper of record to? No.

As much as Bully Boy may hate it, we still have control over our own voices. We can use them wisely. (That's not a slam at Martha, by the way, for highlighting Washington Post articles. Members can highlight whatever they want. Martha also highlights independent media.)

A number of members love the James Blunt CD. They didn't know about it until Kat reviewed it. Outside this community, other people got the word out on it as well. What happened? A huge commercial success. Or "water cooler" shows. The "must watch" shows people watch because they don't want to be left out since everybody talks about them. That's the result of word of mouth. That's the power we have. We have other powers as well but that's one we should never be afraid to utilize. And we'll need to utilize it if the illegal occupation of Iraq is ever going to end.

They're just there to try and make the people free,
But the way that they're doing it, it don't seem like that to me.
Just more blood-letting and misery and tears
That this poor country's known for the last twenty years,
And the war drags on.

-- words and lyrics by Mick Softly (available on Donovan's Fairytale)

And the war drags on and on. Last Thursday, the fatality count for US military in Iraq stood at 2327. Tonight? 2345. B-b-but, the New York Times was singing things are looking up on Sunday! Exactly the reason to turn to indymedia. That's 18 deaths. Since Thursday. The war drags on and on. The numbers mount. We, not politicians in DC, are the only ones who can stop it.

Bill notes some people doing their part to be heard. From Anna Thompson's "Thousands Gather in Atlanta to Protest War" (Tennessee Indymedia):

Atlanta, GA: Thousands gathered in the streets of Atlanta on Saturday, April 1st to protest the war in Iraq and to demand justice at home. According to organizers, an estimated 3,700 people participated in the Southern Regional March for Peace from the Martin Luther King Civil Rights center to Piedmont Park. The event, which was marked by colorful puppets, drumming, dancing, signs, and costumes, was held on April 1st to commemorate both the third anniversary of the war in Iraq on March 18th, and the April 4th anniversary of the assasination of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. In honor of Dr. King, the march began in front of the Ebenezer Baptist Church in King's boyhood neighborhood. The march was attended predominantly by residents of Atlanta, but was also attended by peace groups from Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida. The march itself was endorsed by one hundred and forty four organizations. Tennesseans from the Nashville Peace Coalition, Peace Roots Alliance and Nashville Peace and Justice Center, Tennessee Progressive Independent League, Mid South Peace and Justice Center, and Progressive Student Alliance were represented.
The event was sponsored by the April First Coalition and the Georgia Peace and Justice Coalition/Atlanta. The march drew 130 religious congregations and anti-war groups from across the South, organizers said. By the time they arrived in the park their march had attracted 4000 participants where Veteran activist Rev. Joseph Lowery told the crowd: "Don't let anybody tell you that just because you're against the war that you don't support the troops. Hell, the best support that you can give the troops is bring them home out of harm's way, not in body bags but home and alive and well."
Kelly Jacobs represented Mississippi's Code Pink! Women for Peace, who had 2 balls and chains labeled 8+ Trillion National Debt and 2326 Troops Dead in Iraq, with a small flying pig to symbolize when this administration plans to repay the money they've borrowed. Jacobs stated that the reasons to stay in this war are the same they gave to stay in Vietnam, so America needs to leave, and let the Iraqi's win their war. Lady Liberty started marching in the parade as the last participant "because our Liberties are coming last with Bush's increase in Presidential Powers." According to Jacobs, the best speaker was Dr. Lowrey who said: "Our country should be paying to rebuild its infrastructure, educate its children, care for its aged," he said, "not send smart bombs on dumb missions to kill people in foreign lands."Dan and Rusty Sweeton, of Lebanon, Tennessee attended the rally as performers. Better known as the Sweeton Boys, Dan and Rusty perform a popular Americana style of folk music that has its roots in Dan Sweeton's boyhood home in Grundy County, Tennessee on top of Monteagle mountain, the original home of the Highlander Folk school. Sweeton writes populist folk music with deep Appalachian roots that express working class resistance to greed and exploitation. Sweeton performed his ballad about a catfish that used to live in the slimy waters of the Potomac River and decided to head for clearer waters in rural Tennessee to escape the liars, greed and slime of Washington politics.

Bill also notes that an indymedia journalist that we've noted here before (Chris Lugo) is running for the Senate. Bill says he's voting for him if he's on the ticket in November and suggests everyone check out Howard Switzer's "Local Green for Peace Seenator" (Tennessee Indymedia):

Chris Lugo, well known local journalist, activist and landscaper, has decided to run for the U.S. Senate. He is challenging the corporate party candidates despite not having the kind of money and organization it normally takes to win such a race. Facing such difficult odds one might wonder, "why bother?"Chris said he decided to run as the result of a conversation he had with the leading Democrat Candidate, Harold Ford. Chris had asked what Ford would do about the Iraq war if elected and he said he would send 500,000 troops over there to win the war. This offended Chris's moral sensibilities; with no peace candidate in the race, he felt he needed to run so those who might not vote out of disgust with the corporate candidates could at least register their protest. Chris has a website at chris4senate.com with an extensive platform that goes well beyond concerns for the War in Iraq. Chris has often shown us how the war economy affects people's lives in many ways not covered in mainstream journalism. Well versed on the issues important to so many, Chris will no doubt make good campaign speeches and educate many people.
Tennessee has a long history of radicals and activists involved in social justice and social change movements. Thousands of ordinary Tennesseans have played a role in shaping the history of the country, fighting for civil rights, for a clean environment, for a woman's right to vote, and literaly fighting to end slavery. Chris considers himself one of these ordinary people,advocating for an issue that most Tennesseans already agree on, that it is time to end the war in Iraq. According to his platform, Chris believes that, "it is time for the immediate cessation of all activities in Iraq which involve American troops. I support the immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, Kuwait, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Furthermore, I support restitution to the Iraqi people for the damage that we have done to their infrastructure."The environment is also an issue of key concern to Greens and to most Tennesseans. The water, the forests, and the air are the most precious resources that we have, and Chris believes it is important to preserve them. "The waters and forests of Tennessee are national treasures which have been abused by industrial pollution, mountain top strip mining, clear cutting, coal mining, industrial farming, urban expansion, air pollution and nuclear production. Our forests and waterways are the lungs and lifeblood of our earth. Without them we cannot live. At the federal level I will work to do everything I can to protect our forests and waters in Tennessee, end pollution of our waterways, stop mountaintop strip mining, stop clear cutting of our forests and support species recovery, forest recovery and de-industrialization of our natural areas."


Bill wondered in his e-mail if that was enough to write? Yes. You can just say, "I'm supporting ___" and we'll note it. However, you can write an endorsement and we can note it or, as is the case for tomorrow's round-robin, Gina and Krista can note it. (They have five endorsements written by members going out in the round-robin tomorrow.) If a candidate speaks to you, as Lugo does to Bill, you just have to say you're supporting them and we'll note it here. Any member can do that.

That's using your voice, that's being heard. Something we all need to do and to think up new ways to do so. It's not as though there's a shortage of things to speak out against. Speak out against torture. A lot of people are. Zach notes Erin Podlipnik's "Protesting Yoo" (San Francisco Bay Guardian):

They gather every Thursday afternoon outside UC Berkeley's Boalt School of Law, usually no more than a dozen committed souls, displaying enlarged photos of detainees who have been tortured by American soldiers and handing out flyers to mostly uninterested passersby.
It's a telling sign of our times, this small protest over ongoing atrocities that have been strongly condemned by most world leaders. After all, Berkeley students were once at the forefront of condemning human rights abuses and other excesses of imperialism. But today the school employs the architect of the US torture policy, and few of its students raise a peep.
The target of the protest is John Yoo, a law professor here since 1993 who went to work for the Bush administration after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Yoo authored the infamous "torture memo" in 2002 that served as the legal justification for policies allowing American troops to indefinitely detain and illegally torture those the president dubs "enemy combatants." And that was just one memo in a series of position papers Yoo has written arguing that the United States has an almost unlimited right to launch preemptive wars, during which Congress has little authority to oversee the decisions of the president.
The weekly protests have been held Thursdays from 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. since Feb. 9, when Daniel Ellsberg, a former military analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers that exposed Nixon's actions in Vietnam, kicked off the demonstrations. Event organizer Taigen Dan Leighton and other protesters say they hope to breed awareness of tortured detainees and their moral objection to Yoo's beliefs.
"I was kind of amazed that John Yoo was teaching there," Leighton, a professor at the nearby Graduate Theological Union, told the Guardian. "I could just see Mario Savio spinning in his grave because no one was doing anything about it."

It is amazing that Yoo is allowed to teach on campus considering that he didn't just utilize free speech to advocate a policy that goes against our notions of justice and democracy, he actually crafted a policy. We're coming up on more protests against the war. Members are getting active in those and that's wonderful. If you can, take at least one person with you on the next one. Someone who hasn't been before. The movement that the Times doesn't want to cover depends upon us to get the word out. It also depends upon us thinking of new ways to be heard and be more willing to use our voices.

We have a member who works at a religious company and did not feel that she could speak out. The company supports the war -- and the Bully Boy -- and they have to pray before every meeting. Actually, I shouldn't call it a "religious company." It's a distribution company for a chain of stores. It's owned by a "religious" family. So they can flaunt each and every rule of employment. That's why they can, and did, tell her that if she wanted to move from temp to permanent, she needed to go to ____ church. That's why they can insist that all participate in a prayer before a meeting. She's telling her story in tomorrow's round-robin and I'd suggest that all members make sure not to give monies to that company. She wants to stay at the company for two and a half more years to build up experience for her resume. Despite that and the fact that it's the only thing in her area that she can use her degree for, when the Bully Boy wet dreaming got too much, she spoke out. She did that on her own. We live in a Bully Boy economy and when she's written and I've replied, I've always told her that she can participate outside of work and do what she's comfortable with doing at work. It would be hypocritical of me to say, "Walk out!" or "Speak your mind!" because, although I've always done that, I've never had to face economic conditions that a lot of people have to face.

But with all of that, with student loans and no real economic opportunties in her area, a car that's on it's last legs (and no public transporation to speak of in her area) she reached the point where she had to speak out against the war at her job. I'm very proud of her and when you read her story tomorrow, I think you will be as well. We have members who work at large chains. We have Megan who works at large book store chain and a memo was posted in the break room during the 2004 election saying that they couldn't talk about politics. What it really meant, as Megan saw repeatedly, was that you couldn't say anything positive about John Kerry, Ralph Nader or any candidate other than the Bully Boy. You could praise Bully Boy to customers in front of the assistant manager and the manager and that was no problem. In practice, the memo only stopped political discussions if they were critical of Bully Boy or if they praised a candidate other than the Bully Boy. (Same assistant manager cancelled a "liberal" daily paper during the election -- didn't allow it to be stocked at the store anymore and went with Wall St. Journal even though customers repeatedly requested the cancelled paper. Of course, we know there's no "liberal" paper in the United States but such are the delusions/confusions of the fright-wing.) That's a reality for many people in this country. (That's changed, I hope, a great deal in the last year and a half.) And in a Bully Boy economy, unless you're willing to feed, clothe and house someone, you need to try to understand the sitatuion that quite a few people are in.

Those who can do more need to do more. We all need to do more but there are many of us (including me) who can do more. Maybe you're fortunate, maybe you're fearless, maybe you just don't give a damn about economic realities. But if you're one of the three, you need to work to do more. ("You" includes me.)

And that's at the heart of the next highlight. Joan notes Cindy Sheehan's "The Anti-War Movement?" (Gold Star Families For Peace):

Being a so-called anti-war movement leader (at least to the MSM), brings much responsibility and so much love for the people and the groups who are working hard to end this insane occupation, but is this enough?
Recently, a blog written by an aquaintance, Scott Ritter, [. . .] was called to my attention, where Scott, who is a self-proclaimed Republican, conservative who courageously opposed this war from the beginning, is predicting the eminent demise of the anti-war movement.
At first, I was highly offended and defensive at what I thought was Scottt's arrogant attack on the movement that I am so intimately and overwhelmingly involved in. But then after my knee-jerk reaction, I realized that for all of the wrong reasons, Scott was partially correct.
The anti-war movement is not on the "verge of collapse" because we are not organized, or because we don't take a "warriors" view of attacking the neocons and the war machine using the tactics of Napoleon, or Sun Tzu--but because the two-thirds of Americans who philosophically agree that the war is wrong, BushCo lied, and the troops should come home, will not get off of their collective, complacent, and comfortable behinds to demonstrate their dissent with our government. Some, like Casey and almost 2400 other Americans and their families give all, while some, like the people of Iraq, have everything stolen from them by unlawful war; some, like myself, give a lot; some give some, by writing letters, attending an occasional vigil or march; but the majority of Americans give nothing--except an occasional vote, which we all know counts practically for nothing with our electoral process being so corrupted and almost rendered meaningless by paperless voting machine, no instant run-offs, and exploitation of the religious right by such contrived issues as gay marriage and teaching evolution in our public schools.
I also agree with Scott that true progressives have many issues that we focus rightly on: a woman's right to have control over her own reproductive system and other human rights issues such as an end to the occupation of Palestine and the atrocities of Darfur and the Sudan. But unlike Scott, I think that these things are all interrelated and we have to expose the people in our government who exploit our young people and people of other countries, who are usually browner than the ruling class in America, for their own profit and imperial arrogance. Scott is definitely correct about this though: even while we are focusing our attentions on ending the occupation of Iraq, the fascist fanatics are planning on spreading their evils of Pax Americana to the next bogus threat of Iran, and who knows where else their fantasies of empire and fabulous ill-gotten booty will take them, and our children's precious lives to. Our anti-war movement must transform itself into a peace movement to resist this with all of our peaceful might!

Cindy Sheehan's reply to Scott Ritter's attempt to militarize the peace movement. The above is an excerpt and "[. . .]" notes that I've pulled the link to Ritter's writing. We've already discussed it here and we don't exist to popularize Republicans. (We're a resource/review for the left.) Anyone interested in reading Ritter's commentary can utilize the link to Sheehan's piece and find a link there for it.

James in Brighton notes that two women, two grandmothers, are making themselves heard. From Nigel Morris and Jonathan Brown's "Helen and Syvia, the new face of terrorism" (The Independent):

Two grandmothers from Yorkshire face up to a year in prison after becoming the first people to be arrested under the Government's latest anti-terror legislation.
Helen John, 68, and Sylvia Boyes, 62, both veterans of the Greenham Common protests 25 years ago, were arrested on Saturday after deliberately setting out to highlight a change in the law which civil liberties groups say will criminalise free speech and further undermine the right to peaceful demonstration.
Under the little-noticed legislation, which came into effect last week, protesters who breach any one of 10 military bases across Britain will be treated as potential terrorists and face up to a year in jail or £5,000 fine. The protests are curtailed under the Home Secretary's Serious Organised Crime and Police Act.
Campaigners expressed their outrage yesterday at Charles Clarke's new law, which they say is yet another draconian attempt to crack down on legitimate protest under the guise of the war on terror. In October last year a protester in Whitehall was convicted for merely reading out the names of British soldiers killed in Iraq. And at the Labour Party conference in September the Government suffered severe embarrassment when Walter Wolfgang, a veteran peace activist who survived the Nazis, was detained for heckling Jack Straw.

Reading that should make us all think about what we can do.

I can make peace on earth
With my own two hands
I can clean up the earth
With my own two hands
I can reach out to you
With my own two hands
-- "With My Own Two Hands" (written and recorded by Ben Harper; most recently appears on the Curious George soundtrack)

With our own two hands. Curious George. Curious? I'm curious as to why there's been so little attention in Canada to the verdict in the last few days in Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey's case. We noted it today and Vic and Vince were asked to look for coverage because they live in Canada. It's not surprising that the American corporate press isn't interested in the story -- they've never been. Lapdogs don't wag their tails if it might dispelease the master. A condition that apparently occurs in Canada as well.

From Richard Blackwell's "Court rules out refugee bid by U.S. Army deserters" (Globe and Mail):

Madam Justice Anne Mactavish yesterday refused to overrule Immigration and Refugee Board decisions that rejected the requests for political asylum from Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey.

From Lauren La Rose's "War dodgers to appeal court ruling" (Canada Press via Toronto Star):

Hinzman deserted the U.S. army in January 2004, just days before his regiment, the 82nd Airborne, was deployed to Iraq from Fort Bragg, N.C. Hinzman, who is currently living in Toronto with his wife and three-year-old son, faces a court martial and possible jail time if he is sent back to the United States.
Hughey, from San Anjelo, Tex., fled to St. Catharines, Ont., in March 2004 after learning he was to be shipped to Iraq. He also now lives in Toronto.
In upholding the Immigration and Refugee Board's decision, Mactavish also certified the question of whether a soldier can claim a war is illegal when making a refugee claim — a move that automatically opens the door to a review by the Federal Court of Appeal.
House said they expect to file the appeal in the next week or so. If the decision is upheld, House said he's concerned it could set a troubling precedent.
"It doesn't just affect American soldiers," he said. "In the future, it would affect any soldier who doesn't want to go along with an arbitrary invasion of some other country."

The war drags on. Heads up, I'm exhausted. Don't expect much from tomorrow morning's entries.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.


















sylvia boyes
helen john









Democracy Now: Fake News reported as real (no, not just Fox "News")

Iraqi Cameraman Acquitted, Yet Remains Imprisoned
In Iraq, an Iraqi cameraman working for CBS News was acquitted of charges Wednesday that have kept him in prison for one year. But despite the acquittal, the judge ordered him returned to his cell at Abu Ghraib. The cameraman, Abdul Ameer, was filming clashes in Mosul when US troops shot him and arrested him a year ago Wednesday. He was accused of incitement and of recruiting for the anti-U.S. insurgency. Ameer's lawyer, Scott Horton, commented after the hearing: "I would like to observe first that this is has been a great day for justice in Iraq I think no one who witness the proceedings this morning would think that justice was served there, but let us think about something else -- in a court room almost anywhere else in the world when an accused is acquitted, is to determined to be completely innocent of charges brought against him, he walks free from that court room. That didn't happen today. Abdul Ameer is still in detention by the American authorities. We should all focus on the fact even though he was completely acquitted he remains in prison and we should all direct our question to the Americans forces about his release."


British Women Face One-Year Prison Term For Military Base Protest
In Britain, two grandmothers above the age of 60 years old are facing up to a year in prison for protesting outside a military base. The women, Helen John and Sylvia Boyes, will be prosecuted under anti-terrorism legislation that outlaws all protests at military bases and nuclear research facilities.


Nepal Carries Out Mass Crackdown on Govt. Opponents
In Nepal, the royal government is carrying out a massive crackdown on pro-democracy activists. Earlier today, police arrested about 300 activists opposed to the rule of King Gyanendra, who seized power in coup last year. A curfew has been imposed in the capital of Kathamandu to thwart a massive strike. On Wednesday, government forces arrested close to 75 people -- including 23 journalists -- who defied a ban on demonstrations. Meanwhile, anti-government opposition turned violent in other areas of Nepal. 11 police officers were killed in rebel attacks on two police bases.


Government Scientists Allege Global Warming Censorship
Here in the United States, the Washington Post is reporting government scientists who specialize in climate research are complaining the Bush administration has imposed difficulties on allowing them to speak publicly on global warming. Researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said administration officials have berated them for speaking on policy questions; removed references to global warming from their works; investigated news leaks; and sometimes urged them to stop speaking to the media altogether. In one case of White House censorship, several key words were removed from a press release, including "global warming," "warming climate" and "climate change." Earlier this year, the top climate scientist at NASA accused the Bush administration of trying to stop him from speaking out about the links between greenhouse gases and global warming.


The above four items are from today's Democracy Now! Headlines and were selected by Abhilasha, In Dallas, Domingo and Jill. Democracy Now! ("always informing you," as Marcia says):


Headlines for April 6, 2006

- Nepal Carries Out Mass Crackdown on Govt. Opponents
- Gitmo Detainee Refuses To Take Part in Military Tribunal
- Hamas-Led PA Faces Financial Crisis
- Government Scientists Allege Global Warming Censorship
- Insurance Companies Post Record Profits
- Grand Jury to Hear McKinney Case
- Delay: McKinney "Is A Racist"
- Duke Lacross Team Season Cancelled; Coach Resigns
- E-Mail Spoke of Killing Strippers Hours After Alleged Incident
- Merck Ordered to Pay $4.5 Million in Vioxx Case



Fake TV News: Widespread and Undisclosed... How Corporate-Funded Propaganda Is Airing On Local Newscasts As "News"

A new study being released today by the Center for Media and Democracy found at least 77 TV stations around the country has aired corporate-sponsored video news releases over the past 10 months. The report accuses the TV stations actively disguise the content -- which has been paid for by companies like General Motors, Panasonic and Pfizer -- to make it appear to be their own reporting. In a broadcast exclusive we speak with the authors of the report and air examples of the video news releases.

"The Queen of the VNR" Robin Raskin Reveals Why She Appears In Corporate-Sponsored "News Segments" & Why She Feels Stations Need To Disclose Who Is Funding the VNRs

We air a video news release featuring Raskin funded by the Panasonic, Namco or Techno Source and talk to the "Internet Mom" Robin Raskin about the ethics behind video news releases, why she doesn't disclose her corporate ties on her broadcasts or websites and how even many news programmers question whether their newscasts should feature corporate-sponsored features.

FCC Commissioner Says Broadcasting VNRs Without Disclosure May Violate Federal Law

We speak with FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein about the widespread use of corporate-funded video news releases by news stations without disclosure. Adelstein says, "There's a federal law that requires that the public be informed about the source of who is behind what goes on broadcast media. Failure to disclose that to the public is a violation of federal law and in fact can be subject to criminal penalties of up to a year in jail."

News on Iraq would include that Sheikh Hareth al-Zari has stated that, "During the time Ibrahim Jaafari has been Prime Minister, 40,000 Iraqi Sunnis have been killed." al-Zari is the scretary general of the Association of Muslim Scholars and he made the remarks in an interview with Al Jazeera. AFP is reporting that, outside of Kirkuk, that at least a thousand bodies have been found in eight mass graves that have been discovered. These mass murders are thought to have occurred during the 1991 uprising. Xinhua reports that a roadside bomb in Baquba killed an Iraqi army officer and wounded at least five Iraqi soldiers. A car bomb went of in Najaf as well, "killing at least seven people" -- the Associated Press reports. The AP also reports (same link) that five truck drivers from Mahawil were killed by gunmen who then stole their trucks and that an Iraqi who was a translator for Polish military forces was killed. This as Poland's president (Lech Kaczynski) visits Iraq in a "surprise" visit. How do you get fired in Iraq? Well, never if you work for Halliburton. [Sentence removed on 1-23-2014.  The published story we linked to was false and has been removed by the newspaper.  The subject of the story advised us of the problem and we've removed it.] And Peter Yost's "Papers: Cheney Aide Says Busy OK'd Leak" notes the following:


Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide told prosecutors President Bush authorized the leak of sensitive intelligence information about Iraq, according to court papers filed by prosecutors in the CIA leak case.
Before his indictment, I. Lewis Libby testified to the grand jury investigating the CIA leak that Cheney told him to pass on information and that it was Bush who authorized the disclosure, the court papers say. According to the documents, the authorization led to the July 8, 2003, conversation between Libby and New York Times reporter Judith Miller.
There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Valerie Plame's CIA identity.
But the disclosure in documents filed Wednesday means that the president and the vice president put Libby in play as a secret provider of information to reporters about prewar intelligence on Iraq.

Cindy notes "U.S. war dodgers to appeal Federal Court ruling denying refugee bid: lawyer" (Canadian Press):

Two U.S. army deserters will appeal a Federal Court ruling that upheld an Immigration and Refugee Board decision denying their claim for refugee status in Canada, their lawyer said Tuesday.
Jeffry House said his clients are disappointed the court questions whether mere foot soldiers have the right to argue the war in Iraq is illegal, and took issue with the suggestion that it is acceptable to jail soldiers who do not want to participate in an illegal war.

"It would mean soldiers that don't want to participate in illegal wars will be either required to do so or jailed, and that makes the idea of illegal war trivial," House said. "To set a regime in which people can be jailed for refusing to participate in an illegal war doesn't make much sense to me."

Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey each deserted the U.S. army in 2004 before being deployed to Iraq.

On Friday, a Federal Court judge upheld a decision by the Immigration and Refugee Board that denied the pair asylum.

Justice Anne Mactavish said that while high-level policy makers could argue the war violates international law, it's not clear whether soldiers can make the same claim for refugee status.

House disagreed with Mactavish's assessment.

"Individual soldiers should have the same right to argue that a war is illegal that high policy makers have," House said. "The reason is it doesn't depend on whether or not they could be prosecuted for waging aggressive war, which the high policy makers could be. Rather, it depends on the whole idea that they shouldn't be forced to do something illegal, whether or not they're going to face a war crimes tribunal for it."

E-mails are focused on Iraq so we'll focus on that for this entry; however, we will still have "And the war drags on" tonight. Brandon notes Dahr Jamail's "How Massacres Become the Norm" (Truthout via Iraq Dispatches):

US soldiers killing innocenct civilians in Iraq is not news. Just as it was not news that US soldiers slaughtered countless innocent civilians in Vietnam. However, when some rare reportage of this non news from Iraq does seep through the cracks of the corporate media, albeit briefly, the American public seems shocked. Private and public statements of denial and dismissal immediately start to fill the air. We hear, "American soldiers would never do such a thing," or "Who would make such a ridiculous claim?"
It amazes me that so many people in the US today somehow seriously believe that American soldiers would never kill civilians. Despite the fact that they are in a no-win guerrilla war in Iraq which, like any other guerrilla war, always generates more civilian casualties than combatant casualties on either side.


A number of e-mails ask about Katie Couric's move to CBS as the anchor of the Evening News. We noted it here. We noted it here repeatedly. When the wags said it wasn't happening, when they said she was just one contender. A Friday entry months ago had the puzzle (which Brad solved in the round-robin).

"What does it mean?" is a question that Jess saw in repeated e-mails. It means history. She anchors, not co-anchors, the evening news on one of the big three.
A lot of the press is playing the, "Oh can she do this!" And you'll note that the same hysteria didn't apply when Bob Schieffer took over Dan Rather's duties. From a Sunday chat and chew to the news didn't cause hysterical musings. (But if the New York Times didn't have hysterical musings, they wouldn't have much to offer since so many at CBS prefer not to talk to their reporters who cover TV news.)

You might think that now, with Couric leaving NBC, it would be the perfect time to explore how NBC staged a whisper campaign against Couric but that's not to be the case apparently. (It's been covered here but Ava and I wrote about it for The Third Estate Sunday Review as well.)

The coverage I've seen is pedestrian. Today's big moment, under Couric, they're ignoring. (They ignored it in real time too.) The pacing during that period was very strong as well and very quick but Couric stayed on her feet ("Can she cover breaking news!" wonder some).

At CBS, there's a sense of excitement over the news. There's also gratitude for Bob Schieffer. I don't care for BS, I never have. But, at the request of friends at CBS, we did note that he did win over the people he was working with. Whether his news tenure was noteworthy for the news or not, he does deserve credit for restoring a sense of balance at a trying time. (That's not 'political balance.') He was aware of the hostility and could have taken the attitude of, "Screw all of you." Instead he restored and built confidence. He deserves credit for that and we'll note it here.

At NBC? They had a heads up and then some. So why are there whispers of regret?
Could it be because they've made a huge mistake?

Probably. Forgetting the person picked, there's the simple fact that game shows and news don't mix. Focusing on the person, Meredith Vieira, if they were going to go with bland, they already had Campbell Brown under contract. Today's going to be a trainwreck. Is Meredith going to treat Lauer the way she does Star Jones? Or worse yet, the way she and the two other gasbags did Lisa Ling?

Meredith has all the appeal of Kate Mulgrew in Mrs. Columbo. The announcement was a mistake and only now are people starting to grasp that.

For instance, will they bring Barbara Walters to the set of Today to apologize for Meredith (as Walters had to do on ABC)?

Doubtful. And it's doubtful Today's demographic (current) will embrace Meredith. At fifty-two she's a bit old for Today. Lauer's long in the tooth now as well (and balding). Maybe she'll go blond? She's a clown to most audiences as a result of the game show and the idiocy of The View. Industry insiders are wondering how the very real conflicts on The View were something NBC brass wasn't aware of. Forget Walters apologizing for Meredith, there was also poor Bill having to do so repeatedly. And banter? Lauer won't play along if Meredith wants to go off on a topic like how she's not wearing panties.

Meredith isn't a journalist. Those days passed long ago. She's Rush Limbaugh with a thin smile. (And that comparison is very apt.) Today's about to become "Today With Britt Hume and Mary Matalin!" only Matalin doesn't mistake herself for "sparkling" the way Meredith does.

The joke by some at NBC is that they could announce that they've changed their minds on . . . CBS' The Early Show. (Couric announced her departure on Today yesterday, Meredith announced her departure on ABC today.)

CBS? Years ago (in TV years, decades,) CBS was interested in Meredith for their entertainment show (The Early Show -- let's not kid that it even aspires to news). Well, CBS has never known how to have a hit at that hour so toying with the charisma-free Meredith was right up there alley. But for NBC to make this mistake is really surprising. (And quite a few now get that it was a mistake.)

Katie Couric should do fine. Today? How quickly Today will sink and how low NBC will let it drop before they realize that Meredith lacks mass appeal (with both genders -- but also with women, despite her duties on The View or maybe because of them -- her TV persona isn't well liked)? Side issues would be is she going to have to give up the game show and what about hawking products?

Who should Today have gone with? The woman they'll probably be announcing as Meredith's replacement in a year -- Ann Curry. Curry has the likeability with all viewers and, in terms of Today, she has a built in base. When Meredith's given the heave-ho, Curry should be the replacement but they passed her over once . . .

If a visitor stumbles past and wonders why we spent so much time on TV news, we've noted Couric's move to CBS for months. It is news because she'll be a first (a worthy first). Disclosure for visitors, I know Couric. None of the above is a defense of corporate media or should be read as, "Corporate media is saved!" It's not. I have little hope for it. I hope she does well (and think she will). ABC can take comfort in the fact that NBC's mistake is not their own. Selecting MV is a return to Phyllis George time (for older morning news and "news" viewers).

In other notable news (and a worthy woman becoming the first solo evening anchor is news), Denise notes "Gloria Steinem Receives Ron Ridenhour Courage Award" (Feminist Wire Daily):
Gloria Steinem was awarded the Ron Ridenhour Courage Award yesterday. Steinem, a major figure of the feminist movement and a founder and consulting editor of Ms. magazine, was recognized for her life-long commitment to social justice and defense of the public interest. She will be donating a portion of the award money to Equality Now.
Martha notes this from CODEPINK:



Declare peace on Mother's Day with CODEPINK! We will be gathering in Washington DC for a 24-hour vigil outside the White House on May 13-14, and will be joined by amazing celebrity actresses, singers, writers--and moms. Bring your mother, your children, your grandmother, your friends, and your loved ones. We're also writing letters to Laura Bush to appeal to her own mother-heart, turning them into a book, "Letters to Laura." For more information & a schedule of events to help you plan your trip, check out our Mothers' Day page.





Two more items. Vanity Fair's doing it's first Green Issue, on sale now. At Grist, Kathryn Schulz moderates a discussion between Eric Mann and Frances Beinecke.


The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
















[C.I. note: This post has been corrected. Chiefly with regards to the number of gasbags on The View. The friend I dictated this to put in "three." While I share no fondness for Barbara Walters, to put it mildly, I wouldn't rate her as a gasbag on The View. I do understand why ___ included her with regards to Lisa. In one of Meredith's more annoying flag waving moments -- pre-9/11, mind you -- she came of as the xenophobic jerk so many see her as. Lisa was sidelined in a conversation that she actually had something to contribute to. The next day, Barbara came on the show and had to offer the apologies. She also attempted to speak for Lisa. Lisa should have been given the time to speak for herself. That's why ___ included Walters in the gasbags. I'd said, "Let me think about that" intending to call back but there was too much to do and this was posted, rightly, when I didn't call back. I don't care for Walters but I don't think I'd rate her a gasbag. I'd question other things . . .
A visitor wondered why I didn't applaud Meredith as a "first." I applauded Couric as a worthy first. Meredith's not a worthy first in my opinion. I didn't applaud Condi Rice as a "first" either. Ava and I have addressed this topic and how sometimes a "first" can be a "worst." If anything, she'll set back the fight of older women to be visible on TV morning shows because she's not likeable by most viewers -- it's not just SNL and Mad TV that make fun of her. How is she a first? She'll be the first to actively and visibly attempt to shut down youth voices should they appear on Today. She was quite good at doing that on The View. I could go on and on with regards to this topic; however, saying that she's Rush Limbaugh with a thin smile says it all.]

Other Items

Many television news stations, including some from the nation's largest markets, are continuing to broadcast reports as news without disclosing that the segments were produced by corporations pitching new products, according to a report to be released today by a group that monitors the news media.
Television news directors have said that the segments, known as video news releases, are almost never broadcast, but the group assembled television videotape from 69 stations that it said had broadcast fake news segments in the past 10 months.
The new report was prepared by the Center for Media and Democracy, which is based in Wisconsin and which describes itself as dedicated to "exposing public relations spin and propaganda."


The above is from David Barstow's "Report Faults Video Reports Shown as News" in this morning's New York Times. The article may be most amazing not for what it reports but for what it misses. In the current edition of Extra! (page 17), Janine Jackson (co-host of CounterSpin) contributes "Prepackaged News: Straight from the Source, No Journalism Required." Among the examples Jackson notes is this item:

Though the advantages of prepackaged news are evident -- it costs little or nothing, and it pleases powerful newsmakers -- apparently those enticements are not enough to make some journalists sacrifice their professional integrity. That may be why one PR outfit has sweetened the pot -- offering newspaper and radio editors game show-like prizes, including refrigerators and gas grills, for using their material. NewsUSA Inc. produces audio clips, newspaper copy and radio scripts on behalf of paying clients including corporations and associations (Washington Post, 12/12/05). In exchange for using these items to fill their pages or airtime, news professional can enroll in the "Editor Rewards Program" and earn "points" towards products in the company's "prize catalogue." Journalism awards, presumably, are not among the goodies on offer.

That's one of the items Jackson notes, only one. Barstow's article is light on examples and light on context. Jackson's article is a sidebar to "Fear & Favor 2005" (written by Jackson, Julie Hollar and Hillary Goldstein, pages 15-20). In a sidebar, she provides more context than the Times does in a 'hard news' article this morning. Apparently all the work required for Barstow was to have a report passed on and then to make a call to an FCC commissioner and one to the president of Radio-Television News Directors. That's it. He was probably able to call it an early day. And the Times wants to pass it off as informed reporting. If you're interested in a more indepth look, you can check out Democracy Now! today. Scheduled topic:

* Fake TV News: Widespread and Undisclosed -- A new report by PR Watch exposes video news releases disguised as real news on local TV


Reminder, the monthly comedy program Christmas Coup Players airs this morning on WBAI. Or should, it's the first Thursday of the month. If you're having problems with the stream or unable to listen live, you can visit the WBAI archives. It airs at eleven eastern time. (Do the math if you're not in that time zone.) It's preceeded by one of Ruth's other favorite programs, First Voices Indigenous Radio so that's recommended as well. (First Voices airs at ten am eastern time.)

End Zone notes David Lindorff's "Bashing Hugo Chavez at the New York Times" (CounterPunch) and adds to note "Francisco, it has a critique of the littlest Judith Miller." From the article:

What do you call a nation that provides medical aid to desperately poor people in Mexico, heating assistance to low-income families in the U.S., crucial project financing to some of the poorest countries in Africa, and aid to impoverished Caribbean island nations?
If you're the New York Times, you call it "provocative," and you call the leader of that country "the next Fidel Castro."
Venezuela, under President Hugo Chavez, has been turning its increasingly valuable oil reserves into an engine for development, not just in Venezuela, where the revenues are being used to finance schools, housing and job creation for the nation's long-suffering and long-ignored poor, but also across Latin America, in the process creating a new model for Latin America-one which challenges the imperial domination of the United States.
In an April 4 page one article that reeks of Cold War rhetoric, Timesman Juan Forero warns that with Venezuela's oil revenues rising 32 percent last year, Venezuela's foreign aid spending "now surpasses the nearly $2 billion Washington allocates annually to pay for development programs and the drug war in western South America." (The drug war is foreign aid?)
Quoting only Chavez critics-both political opponents within Venezuela, and U.S. government and right-wing think tank members in the U.S.-Forero paints an ominous picture of a budding threat to U.S. influence in the Americas.



Martha notes Christopher Lee's "A Marine's Mother" (Washington Post) which details further disgusting news. The first paragraph brings you up to date if you're unfamiliar with the story:

Last August, Danielette James, 58, a federal custodian who cleans congressional offices five nights a week, unsuccessfully pleaded with her bosses for time off to welcome home her son, a Marine who was returning to Camp Lejeune, N.C., after seven months in Iraq.

That was then. Now? James' son, Eric McIntire, was killed near Baghdad and she learned that on Sunday. From the article you learn that her employers are still all heart (that's sarcasm):


James stayed home from work yesterday and Monday to grieve; she says she has been asked to bring in a copy of her son's obituary. Burial will be at Arlington National Cemetery on Tuesday.

Again, all heart. "Sure take off Monday, we understand . . . You will be bringing in a copy of an obituary, right? We trust you." It's not like they could verify that themselves, right? Oh, wait, they could. Just by going online. Well, I'm sure there is a rash of parents trying to cheat their workers by falsely claiming their children have passed away while serving in Iraq, right? No, not much chance of that either. They know her son is serving in Iraq and if they need verification, they can go to the government website themselves. Their cruel disregard continues. Tone's set at the top.

In other homefront news, Chris notes John Nichols' "Wisconsin Towns Vote for Withdrawal" (The Online Beat, The Nation):

There's not much question that the majority of the 2,000 residents of this rural northeastern Wisconsin village of well-maintained homes, neat storefronts and large churches think of themselves as old-fashioned Midwestern conservatives.
So, by the calculus of the Bush White House and its echo chamber in the national media, Luxemburg ought to be just about the last place in the United States to express doubts about the President's handling of the war in Iraq. And surely, no national pundit would have predicted that the village would vote in favor of a referendum declaring: "Be it hereby resolved, that the Village of Luxemburg urges the United States to begin an immediate withdrawal of its troops from Iraq, beginning with the National Guard and Reserves."
Yet on Tuesday, the citizens of Luxemburg did exactly that, endorsing the immediate withdrawal referendum with a clear majority of their votes.
Luxemburg was not the only Wisconsin community that voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 but voted against his war Tuesday. Up the road from Luxemburg, the villages of Casco and Ephraim voted for Bush in 2004 and immediate withdrawal in 2006. Across the state in northwest Wisconsin, the towns of Ojibwa, Draper and Edgewater, all of which backed Bush two years ago, voted against the war on Tuesday.


Same topic, Cindy notes Emily Fredrix's "24 Wisconsin Communities Vote for Iraq Pullout" (Associated Press via Common Dreams):

Thousands of voters turned out in Wisconsin to offer a purely symbolic but heartfelt message: Bring the troops home from Iraq.
By margins overwhelming in some places and narrow in others, voters in 24 of 32 communities approved referendums Tuesday calling for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
Joy Kenworthy, 78, of Madison, doesn't mind that the nonbinding referendums have no bearing on federal policy. She was one of more than 24,300 voters in the state capital who gave 68 percent support to a referendum calling for the pullout.
"I thought this war was ill-advised from the moment it started," she said.
In addition to Madison, those communities supporting the measures included the Milwaukee suburbs of Shorewood and Whitefish Bay, and the western city of La Crosse. Those voting down the measure included the northwestern city of Hayward and the south-central city of Watertown, where 75 percent of voters disapproved.
Most of the referendums asked if the voters supported withdrawing the troops immediately, and Evansville also had one urging support of President Bush, which voters rejected.


The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.