Maria: Buenos dias. De parte de "Democracy Now!" diez cosas que vale hacer notar este fin de semana. Paz.
Especialista de la Guardia Nacional condenada a prisión por su objeción a servir en Afganistán
Una miembro de la Guardia Nacional de Estados Unidos fue condenada a prisión militar por negarse a servir en Afganistán. La especialista, Katherine Jashinski, anunció su objeción “por motivos de conciencia” en noviembre pasado. Fue condenada a 120 días en prisión. Ya había estado en servicio durante 53 días.
Portaviones militar estadounidense afronta protestas en Japón
En Japón, un portaviones nuclear estadounidense fue recibido con manifestaciones cuando arribó en el puerto de la ciudad de Sobetha el jueves. Más de 150 personas se congregaron en la orilla y en pequeños barcos pesqueros para protestar contra el arribo del barco de 100.000 toneladas USS Abraham Lincoln. Los barcos pesqueros navegaron alrededor de la guardia costera japonesa, que trataba de impedir que se acercaran al portaviones. En Sobetha existe un gran sentimiento antinuclear. Esta ciudad linda con Nagasaki, que fue atacada por bombas atómicas estadounidenses en 1945.
Video podría vincular a Rumsfeld con maltratos en Abu Ghraib
Comenzó el proceso en un tribunal marcial de un sargento del ejército acusado de utilizar perros de las Fuerzas Armadas para amenazar detenidos en Abu Ghraib. El juicio del sargento Santos Cardona podría revelar quién, dentro de la cadena de mando del Pentágono, ordenó a los soldados que maltrataran y torturaran a detenidos en la prisión iraquí. Por primera vez se espera que el mayor general Geoffrey Miller declare acerca de lo que sucedió en la prisión. Hasta el momento, Miller se negó a hablar públicamente acerca de su participación en la supervisión de los interrogatorios en Abu Ghraib o Guantánamo. Mientras tanto, se reveló que el Secretario de Defensa, Donald Rumsfeld, se comunicó directamente con Miller y con otros oficiales de defensa de alto rango durante noviembre y diciembre de 2003, donde mediante video-teleconferencia hablaron sobre temas de interrogatorios. Los abogados del sargento Cardona intentan obtener copias de las videoconferencias para utilizarlas en la defensa.
Amnistía Internacional compara postura de Estados Unidos sobre la tortura con regímenes conocidos por violar los derechos humanos
La publicación el martes del informe anual sobre derechos humanos de Amnistía Internacional estuvo signada por la comparación que realiza entre las políticas sobre la tortura de Estados Unidos y las de los regímenes conocidos por las violaciones a los derechos humanos. Larry Cox, Director Ejecutivo de Amnistía Internacional en Estados Unidos, dijo: "Es una de las verdades más dolorosas que sus políticas sobre la tortura hagan posible agregar a Estados Unidos a la lista vergonzosa de gobiernos que incluyen a los que fueron gobernados en el pasado por Augusto Pinochet y Hafez al-Assad". En el informe, Amnistía criticó al gobierno de Bush por tener detenidos en la prisión de Bahía de Guantánamo, en Cuba, y por tener prisiones secretas alrededor del mundo. Amnistía se hizo eco de un llamado realizado la semana pasada por un panel de la ONU para cerrar el establecimiento carcelario de Guantánamo.
Ejecutivos de Enron hallados culpables de cargos de conspiración y fraude
Las dos figuras más destacadas en el escándalo corporativo de Enron fueron halladas culpables. El jueves, el fundador de Enron, Ken Lay, fue condenado en dos juicios distintos por diez cargos de conspiración, fraude de valores, fraude electrónico y fraude bancario por realizar declaraciones falsas a los bancos. El ex director ejecutivo de Enron, Jeffrey Skilling, también fue condenado. Un jurado lo declaró culpable de 19 de los 28 cargos en su contra. Los procesamientos por conspiración y fraude pueden acarrear una pena máxima de diez años en prisión. Hace cuatro años, Enron se declaró en bancarrota tras años de estafar a sus propios empleados e inversionistas. La bancarrota provocó que más de 4.000 personas se quedaran sin empleo. El valor de las acciones de la empresa calló de 90 dólares a aproximadamente 30 centavos de dólar. Miles de empleados de Enron perdieron los ahorros de toda su vida.
Novak prometió proteger a Rove en caso de filtración
Surgieron nuevos detalles acerca de la participación del columnista Robert Novak en el caso de filtración de la CIA. De acuerdo a un nuevo informe del periodista de investigación Murray Waas, Novak prometió al colaborador de la Casa Blanca, Karl Rove, que lo protegería de ser perjudicado por la investigación acerca de quién filtró el nombre de la funcionaria de la CIA Valerie Plame. Novak es el columnista que expuso la identidad de Plame por primera vez en la columna de un periódico. La revelación desató un escándalo que ha provocado la acusación del ex jefe de personal del Vicepresidente, Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
Cheney podría declarar en caso de Valerie Plame
El fiscal especial del caso de filtración de Valerie Plame sugirió que podría llamar a un nuevo testigo clave: el Vicepresidente Dick Cheney. El miércoles, el fiscal especial Patrick Fitzgerald señaló que Cheney podría ser interrogado por sus conversaciones con el jefe de personal acusado, Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
Uno de cada 136 residentes estadounidenses se encuentra preso
La población carcelaria del país llegó a casi 2,2 millones de reclusos, lo que señala que uno de cada 136 residentes estadounidenses está actualmente tras las rejas. El año pasado, la población carcelaria del país aumentó en más de mil reclusos por semana. Nueva información también indica que el doce por ciento de los hombres afrodescendientes de entre 25 y 29 años de edad se encuentran encarcelados, lo que supera en más de diez veces al número de hombres blancos en esta situación.
Número de mujeres en cárceles estadounidenses aumentó 750% desde 1977
Mientras tanto, un informe de "Women's Prison Association" descubrió que el número de reclusas mujeres en el país aumentó en más de 750% desde 1977.
Gigantes de telecomunicaciones afrontan protestas en todo el país
El miércoles, el espionaje de las telecomunicaciones y el control de los medios de comunicación fueron el centro de un día de protestas en todo el país. Activistas de varias ciudades estadounidenses llevaron a cabo protestas frente a las oficinas de las empresas de telecomunicaciones implicadas en el escándalo de espionaje de la Agencia de Seguridad Nacional, las cuales además han hecho lobby contra la neutralidad de la red. En Nueva York, "Democracy Now" se puso al corriente de una protesta frente a las oficinas de la gigante de telecomunicaciones Verizon. Betty Yu, de "Manhattan Neighborhood Network", dijo: "Si esta ley de COPE es aprobada por el Congreso, potencialmente desmantelaría la TV Pública, Educativa y Gubernamental conocida como Public Access Television (Televisión de Acceso Público). Por lo tanto desmantelaría los canales de televisión de acceso público de los cinco municipios de la Ciudad de Nueva York, y de los 3.000 centros de acceso del país. Esto perjudicaría nuestra libertad de expresión, la democracia de nuestros medios de comunicación, y a varias comunidades locales que dependen del acceso público, nuevamente, para hacerse escuchar. Estas empresas de telecomunicaciones no quieren pagar las tasas locales de franquicias que las empresas de televisión por cable pagan, quieren obtener todos los beneficios y no responsabilizarse del interés público o de las comunidades locales".
Activistas y celebridades realizan campamento por South Central Farm
Y en Los Ángeles, se intensificó un enfrentamiento por el destino de una granja comunitaria del centro. Los ocupantes de South Central Farm realizan un campamento de 24 horas y sentadas para resistir las órdenes de desalojo que los expulsarían de la tierra que han ocupado durante más de una década. South Central Farm, un predio de 5,6 hectáreas, alberga la mayor granja urbana en Estados Unidos, que es utilizada por 350 familias para plantar múltiples cultivos. La granja fue dada en arrendamiento a Los Angeles Regional Food Bank tras los disturbios por la golpiza a Rodney King en 1992. En 2003, la tierra fue vendida nuevamente a un agente inmobiliario que ahora quiere convertirla en propiedad comercial. El campamento atrajo a varias celebridades que apoyan la causa, entre ellas Joan Baez y Ben Harper, y las actrices Laura Dern y Daryl Hannah.
Departamento de Inmigraciones de Estados Unidos impide que la estrella musical M.I.A. ingrese al país
Funcionarios de inmigración de Estados Unidos le impidieron a la estrella musical de Sri Lanka conocida como M.I.A. el ingreso al país, ya sea como visitante o para trabajar. La artista escribió un mensaje en Internet a sus seguidores, en el que decía: "¡Estoy encerrada! No me dejan entrar. ¡Ahora voy a hacer mi disco estrictamente fuera de fronteras!". M.I.A. nació en Gran Bretaña pero se crió en Sri Lanka, donde su padre fue miembro fundador del grupo militante Tigre Tamil. A principios de este año, los editores de "Village Voice" describieron su disco debut como el segundo mejor de 2005.
Maria: Good morning. Now in English, here are eleven news stories from Democracy Now! Peace.
National Guard Specialist Sentenced To Prison Over Afghanistan Objection
A member of the US National Guard has been sentenced to military prison for refusing to serve in Afghanistan. Specialist Katherine Jashinski announced her conscientious objection last November. She was sentenced to 120 days in prison. She has already served 53 days.
US Military Aircraft Met With Protests in Japan
In Japan, a US nuclear-powered aircraft carrier was met with vocal protests as it arrived in the port city of Sobetha on Thursday. More than 150 people gathered on shore and on small fishing ships to protest the arrival of the 100,000 tonne USS Abraham Lincoln. The fishing ships navigated around Japanese coast guard attempting to prevent them for nearing the carrier. Anti-nuclear sentiment runs high in Sobetha. The city neighbors Nagasaki, which was attacked by US atomic bombs in 1945.
Video May Tie Rumsfeld to Abu Ghraib Abuses
Court martial proceedings have begun for an Army sergeant accused of using military dogs to threaten detainees at Abu Ghraib. The trial of Sgt. Santos Cardona may expose who within the Pentagon’s chain of command ordered soliders to abuse and torture detainees at the Iraqi prison. For the first time Major General Geoffrey Miller is expected to testify about what happened at the prison. Until now Miller has refused to publicly speak about his role overseeing interrogations at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo. Meanwhile it has now been revealed that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld directly communicated with Miller and other senior defense officials by video-teleconference about interrogation matters in November and December 2003. Lawyers for Sgt. Cardona are attempting to obtain copies of these videoconferences to use as their defense.
Amnesty Compares US Stance on Torture to Rights Violators
Amnesty International marked the release its annual report on human rights Tuesday by comparing US policies on torture to regimes well-known for human rights violations.
Larry Cox, Executive Director of Amnesty International USA: "It remains the most painful of truths that its policies on torture make it possible to add the United States to a shameful list of governments that includes those once led by Augusto Pinochet and Hafez al-Assad." In its report, Amnesty slammed the Bush administration for holding prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and at secret black sites across the globe. Amnesty echoed a call from a UN panel last week for the US to close its prison facility at Guantanamo.
Enron Execs Found Guilty On Conspiracy, Fraud Charges
The two top figures in the Enron corporate scandal have been found guilty. On Thursday, Enron founder Ken Lay was convicted in two separate trials on 10 counts of conspiracy, securities fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud and for making false statements to banks. Enron's former CEO Jeffrey Skilling was also convicted. A jury found him guilty on 19 of 28 counts. The conspiracy and fraud convictions each carry a sentence of up to 10 years in prison. Four years ago Enron filed for bankruptcy after years of defrauding its own employees and investors. The bankruptcy put over 4,000 people out of work. The value of the company's stock dropped from ninety dollars to about 30 cents. Thousands of Enron employees lost their lifesavings.
Novak Promised To Protect Rove in Leak Case
New details have emerged over columnist Robert Novak's role in the CIA leak case. According to a new report by investigative journalist Murray Waas, Novak promised White House aide Karl Rove he would protect him from being harmed by the investigation into who leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame. Novak is the columnist who first exposed Plame's identity in a newspaper column. The disclosure set off a scandal that has led to the indictment of former Vice Presidential chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
Cheney May Testify In Plame Case
The special prosecutor in the Valerie Plame leak case has suggested he may be calling a new key witness: Vice President Dick Cheney. On Wednesday, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald indicated Cheney could face questioning over his conversations with indicted chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
1 in 136 U.S. Residents Now in Prison
The country's prison population has reached almost 2.2 million. One in every 136 U.S. residents is now behind bars. The nation's prison population increased by more than 1,000 inmates a week last year. New data also shows that 12 percent of African-American men between the ages of 25 and 29 are now incarcerated. That is more than ten times the incarceration rate of white men.
Number of Women in U.S. Jails up 750% Since 1977
Meanwhile a new report from the Women's Prison Association has found the number of women imprisoned in the country has increased by over 750 percent since 1977.
Nation-Wide Protests Target Telecom Giants
Telecom spying and media control were the focus of a day of protest around the country Wednesday. Activists in several US cities held rallies outside the headquarters of telecom companies that have become implicated in the NSA spy scandal and that have lobbied against net neutrality. Here in New York, Democracy Now caught up with a protest outside the offices of telecom giant Verizon.
Betty Yu of Manhattan Neighborhood Network: "This COPE Act, if it were to be passed in Congress, would potentially dismantle Public, Educational, and Governmental TV, known as Public Access Television. So it would dismantle the public access television stations in all the five boroughs here in New York City, and in the 3,000 access centers across the country. This would be damaging for our free speech, our media democracy, and many local communities that depend on public access, again, to have their voices heard. These telecom companies do not want to pay the local franchise fees that the cable companies do now, they want to reap all the profits, and they don't want to be accountable to the public interest, or to local communities."
Activists, Celebs Stage Encampment For South Central Farm
And in Los Angeles, a standoff over the fate of a downtown community farm has intensified. Occupants of the South Central Farm are staging a 24-hour encampment and tree-sit to resist eviction orders that would clear them from land they’ve tended for over a decade. The 14-acre South Central Farm hosts the largest urban farm in the United States. 350 families use the farm to grow a multitude of crops. It was leased to the Los Angeles Regional Food Bank following the 1992 Rodney King riots. In 2003, the land was sold back to a real estate developer who now wants to turn it into commercial property. The encampment has attracted several celebrity supporters including the singers Joan Baez and Ben Harper and actresses Laura Dern and Daryl Hannah.
U.S. Immigration Blocks Musician M.I.A. Entry Into Country
And U.S. immigration officials have blocked the Sri Lankan music star known as M.I.A. from entering the country to visit or work. The artist wrote a message to her fans online saying "I'm locked out! They wont let me in. Now I'm strictly making my album outside the borders!" M.I.A. was born in Britain but raised in Sri Lanka where her father was a founding member of the militant Tamil Tigers. Earlier this year, the editors of the Village Voice named her debut record the second best recording of 2005.
democracy now
news
iraq
irak
noticias
the common ills
Sunday, May 28, 2006
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Bully & Tony Revue"
Isaiah's latest The World Today Just Nuts "The Bully & Tony Revue." Bully Boy riding high on the back of Tony Blair. Bully Boy's singing: "I did it the Bully Way." He's obviously aspired to be Sissy (Debra Winger's character in Urban Cowboy) judging by the riding.
the bully and tony revue
the world today just nuts
bully boy
tony blair
comic
the common ills
NYT: Kate Zernike's driving the cab again, it's low on gas and she's worked a double shift
Kate Zernike's back to playing world weary cab driver today in the New York Times. Her front page article is entitled "Kerry Pressing Swift Boat Case Long After Loss." She didn't write the headline but it reflects the article.
We'll note that John Kerry's war record was smeared. With lies of the worst sort. Zernike's not sure if it cost him votes. It did. With the campaign he was running, it did. (Running away from the activism against the war left him with only his record to stand on. As always with the Bully Boy, they don't attack your weaknesses, they spread lies about what's perceived as your strength so that you're neutralized.)
Did it cost him the election? That depends on whether you buy Ohio as a legitimate count. (Not to mention the spoiled votes from around the country.) Zernike appears to buy the election as legitimate.
When you try to run on the right flank of your opponent, when that's your strategy (and when all the new people showed up as the primaries were winding down, that became the only strategy -- that and attempts to muzzle Teresa*), you can't have your bonafides attacked. Those were the only bonafides the campaign wasn't interested in.
(The campaign was not Kerry alone. He got bad advice but he's responsible for following it. But the ones who were quick to stab him in the New York Times shortly after the election -- no vision, etc -- rushed in to lay blame for the very things they were hired by the campaign to create.)
So you saw the embarrassing convention. With even the non serving John Edwards trying to act Military Man. How embarrassing was that convention?
Travel back with me for a minute. Who wasn't going to be allowed to speak? Think hard.
Hillary Clinton. Why? Because they didn't want to appear "soft." Hillary as soft?
When Hillary's seen as soft, you start to grasp why the DNC is still so puzzled that Lieberman's struggling in his home state. That's how out of touch they are. When The Best Little War Hawk in Chappaqua can be seen as potentially coming off "too soft," that's when you grasp how serious this latest war on the non-White, non-male, non-straight membership of the Democratic Party is. Hillary who can out fundraise anyone and that's been true for years. It was true before she was in the Senate.
They needed her. She's a natural star. (That's not an endorsement of her for president.) People are interested in her, she can excite a crowd in a way that Elizabeth Dole can only dream of and envy. In a manner that most in Congress will never be able to approach, let alone match.
But she had on X chromosome too many.
So it took a battle to get her any kind of individual speaking role. When she got it (and she made the most of it -- that's not a slam, that's noting she knows how to reach an audience), it was as the wife of. Wife of Bill Clinton introducing him to the nation.
That's about all the party (and the fools running the convention) were going to risk.
When you think about Hillary's stepping away from reproductive rights, you might feel sympathy for her. You might think, "Well after she has to compete for a speaking slot that should rightfully be hers, she has every reason to bend and scrape."
Mabye she does. My way of looking at it, she doesn't. She saw, in that moment, what the people in power, controlling the party really thought of her. She was the circus ride they'd use to raise money, they'd kiss her ass like crazy. But when it was time to allow her a space (one she'd more than earned), they didn't want her.
I'm dead tired, hang with me on this. There are two movies from the same basic period (early 80s), Private Benjamin and An Officer and a Gentleman. Goldie Hawn plays Judy Benjamin (and, of course, she produced the film as well) in the former, Richard Gere plays Zach in the latter. Both films are about social conditioning. Early on, Judy rejects the social conditioning. It comes from being tricked into joining the army. But hang with me.
Zach doesn't reject it. He stays with it. He stays with it so much that he sees the sadistic treatment he receives as for his own good, something that makes him better. He goes through the movie playing a role and he ends it the same way.
Judy, on the other hand, is playing a role early on. The role she's supposed to play as a woman of a certain economic class and background. She ends up rejecting that (only when she's faced with an out from the military that's far worse than anything Captain Lewis can do to her). Once she rejects it, she's unstoppable. Unlike Zach, Judy doesn't go into a "Well, it was for me own good . . ." bit of nonsense. That's a lesson that serves her well when she gets to her next assignment. If she'd seen things happening to her for her own good, she would have probably been willing to write off the sexual assault. Instead, she's not playing that game.
In the third act, in Paris, Judy loses everything she learned. She reverts. At the last minute, surrounded by old friends, she's able to see what's happening and regain her strength.
For a lot of people, that third act process comes up a lot.
So here's the thing. Hillary didn't pull a Judy. She pulled a Zach.
They don't like me for who I am, I'll become what they want! That's what's at play as she ditches her former support for reproductive rights. Will she have an 'awekning' at the alter?
There are some who are writing that speech for her right now. It will ring hollow. Her most convincing moments are when she believes in what she's doing and saying.
That's why she's so convincing as a hawk now, it's what she's internalized and who she is. And here's the sad part, and she knows this now, that easy ride by being just like them, was never going to be an easy ride. The pimps for Mark Warner are out for her. You'll see them toss out a few names which is basically like strategy for voting in the Emmys -- you pick yourself and several sure to be losers so you get the nomination. So they pick Warner and toss out a few feeble names that they honestly know don't stand a chance and they use that position to attack Hillary. (If you've paid attention, you've seen it happening. And, yes, Hillary's noticed it as well.)
Now there's not a bit of difference between Mark Warner and Hillary Clinton other than their gender and the fact that Hillary is a party star. But what's she's having to face is that no matter how to the right she's gone, in the eyes of those that want to control the party, she's still a woman and that's just not good enough and, for them, it never will be.
What she's going to do with that, who knows? She's exploring several options (re: Iraq) and while Bill Clinton is the master at strategy, she hasn't been there doing her part all this time without learning something. She thought the balancing act would require moving away from (and writing off) the left. She's learning now that the so-called center of the party, leadership wise, isn't going to be her natural base, not when she's up against a man. It's a lesson she should have already known (and, in fact, did know at one time).
Better she learn that now then to be in the midst of a primary (all it will take is one bad primary outcome, overall for an election cycle, to destroy any future chance of being president) than learn it too late. John Kerry learned it too late.
He learned that he should have trusted his natural instict to fight the Not So Swift Floaties. Zernike wants to play dumb and marvel over the fact that even now, after the election, he's bothered by the fact that he was called a war criminal (that's what the charges of shooting someone in the back, the false charges, amounted to). She just can't get over the fact that he wants to make this issue.
He played the game the way they dictated. It was a mistake. But whether he runs for president again or not, he doesn't want this to stand. No one would (except maybe bean counters and those quite successful at losing elections).
He was told, becacse Democrats in power are always too scared and frequently too stupid, that to respond would give credence to the accusations. That's true in many ways for public relations. For instance, if a tabloid says ___ is gay, the actor or actress should look the other way. A law suit only invites attention from the mainstream media and leads to more discussion of a topic that would otherwise be dismissed as too tabloid to take seriously. But there's a difference between the Globe or the Star printing something and someone being given a seat on Nightling (with soft questions and uneffective questioning). When it reaches that stage, it requires a response. Not to do so is to let the charges go unanswered and at that point, by not answering, in the minds of many, you have answered.
To the voters Kerry was trying to peel off from Bully Boy, his nonresponse said way too much. It said not only that the charges might be true but that even if they were false, Kerry was so weak willed that he'd let anyone insult him and just look the other way.
The campaing made a huge mistake in running from the Iraq war. Having made the decision to take Iraq off the table, all they were left with was peeling off votes from Bully Boy and a lack of response to vile charges weren't going to be seen as "high roading" it or "mature." Kerry, instead, was going to look like the kid who gets shaken down for his money each day. And if he can't hold on to his own lunch money, how's he going to defend or represent you?
The strategists were too focused on the big moments. The end of act one, two and three. They'd have Kerry show up for those with a speech that might inspire. But they forgot that there's a turning point that propels into the second act and into the third act. Those moments were things like the attacks by the Not So Swift Floaties. They're human garbage and I won't try to sugar coat my opinion of them. But by being human grabage, they got attention. And there actions repeatedly sunk any well thought or planned move by the campaign that refused to deal with them.
The campaing had big moments and photo ops for Kerry to appear "manly" in the traditional sense (hunting, for instance). But before those moments could take hold in any news cycle, the Bully Boy campaign had already lept in with the most childish and the most petty comments. The campaign thought, "It doesn't matter! We have our soundbyte!" And they saw the soundbyte lose out in nearly every cycle.
Childish remarks or not, when made by Dick Cheney (for instance) go into the news cycle. Standing on the sidlines silently may be a sign of goodness but it doesn't translate into votes.
Take the nonsense over Kerry making the statement about Mary Cheney (who's suddenly out again! and marketing it!). Cheney attacked and it was petty and made no real sense. He knew his daughter was a lesbian. She was out, she was photographed with her partner. It wasn't a secret.
But Cheney ended up getting sympathy because Kerry didn't express his own outrage. To some it was, "Oh, he must not know about his daughter. Poor man, he's in denial." To others it was the "She can be whatever but don't talk to me about it." (Cheney knows exactly what his daughter is and has for many years. But the "don't talk to me about it" view played well with homophobes.) Kerry should have attacked. Kerry should have said, "The woman is an adult, she's an open lesbian and her father's pushing programs that will take her rights. Instead of slamming me, she should have the guts to fight for herself. But that's what I'll do as president, I will fight for every American. Not just the ones who vote for me, but the ones who need me, who need someone to say, 'No, you're not going to harm me."" That would have been on the news. Cheney would have had to respond and respond quickly and that's when his asshole qualities come out the most. (Not when he's savoring a well polished line that's been fed to him and rehearsed.)
They threw out their taunts because they knew Kerry wouldn't respond. (Democrats rarely have.) They knew their taunts would be polished before they saw them as talking points on the printed page. They'd look funny, off the cuff, ready to think on their feet. Kerry? He'd look like he needed a conference with several advisors and several days to think of a response to a simple playground taunt. If he'd have responded (if any Democrat would respond) immediately, the smug self-satisfied smirk would fall of the faces of Cheney and Bully Boy. They have no come backs, they only have what's prepared for them. When they resort to comebacks off the cuff, they demonstrate their true ugligness and they turn off the electorate. It happend with Poppy and not just when Bill Clinton struck back. He lost it with Tabitha Soren, for God's sake.
So that's how Kerry got the point where he's only able to defend himself after the campaign, after the advisors are all gone. (The high paid advisors -- and the Dukakis refugee that no one in the press paid attention to, never needs to be asked back on a campaign, why that refugee was allowed back in the tent and working on the convention is a question that should be asked?)
Now he's just got the people he should have been listening to all along.
While Zernike puzzles over why someone, why anyone, would want to prove that several lies about them were not true, she might want to puzzle over why her paper didn't follow up when Kerry authorized the release of his records -- why no paper followed up?
Regardless of the election, those Not So Swift Floaties are still active (as Kerry points out) they still eat up face time on the cable networks. They made statements during the campaign that the press should have followed up on the minute Kerry authorized the release of his records. They didn't do it because a) it would have cost their news organizations money, b) they don't want to be attacked and c) it's easier to catch attention following today's disposable story than it is correcting the record.
Another question she might want to ask herself is why she buried Jeb Bush's comment so far into the article? Zernike notes Jeb "sent a letter thanking the 'Swifites' for 'their willingness to stand up to John Kerry." I seriously doubt that a similar letter praising the Willie Horton campaign would have been greeted with such a blase reaction in print. But things have gotten even worse since then. Jeb Bush, who holds public office, can think attack goons for savaging the repuation of someone's service record -- while we are at war -- this from someone who didn't serve himself -- the brother of the Bully Boy -- who also didn't serve.
And in Zernike's article, it's just one more anecdote. It has no weight and it has no context.
Instead of wondering why Kerry wants to set the record straight, she might want to ask herself what she thought her article accomplished today and how it advanced anything other than getting her own name on the front page?
If you made it this far, congratulations! I am all written out and had to go through all of the above to get to the points at the bottom. "*" On Teresa Heinz Kerry because I wanted to note, she refused the advice laregly, she refused to be silenced or made over. Good for her. She was the strongest about the campaign and, when people met her, they usually went away convinced that they'd met a strong a real person. If the campaign had used her the way Bill Clinton's used Hillary in 1992, that would have been a big help. Self-identified "independent voters" (swing voters) who got to hear her speak live, went away impressed. But the campaing was so sure they couldn't afford a "Hillary moment" -- forgetting the lesson that in 1992, Bill Clinton won the election.
Polly has a highlight she wanted to note early because it's not about Iraq. It is about Guantamo. From Severin Carrell's "The children of Guantanamo Bay" (Independendt of London):
The notorious US detention camp in Guantanamo Bay has been hit by fresh allegations of human rights abuses, with claims that dozens of children were sent there - some as young as 14 years old.
Lawyers in London estimate that more than 60 detainees held at the terrorists' prison camp were boys under 18 when they were captured.
They include at least 10 detainees still held at the US base in Cuba who were 14 or 15 when they were seized - including child soldiers who were held in solitary confinement, repeatedly interrogated and allegedly tortured.
The disclosures threaten to plunge the Bush administration into a fresh row with Britain, its closest ally in the war on terror, only days after the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, repeated his demands for the closure of the detention facility. It was, he said, a "symbol of injustice".
New content at The Third Estate Sunday Review (pay attention to notes before clicking):
A Note to Our Readers
Editorial: The Reailities of Occupation
TV commentary: About the women (This is the piece Ava and I attempted to complete on Wednesday and post here -- I think it's work environment friendly)
Quick one: Why is Kagan not i.d.ed by the Washington Post
Crapapedia: Kids don't use it to research papers! (Warning, contains the f-word at least twice, once in a direct quote, if you're on a work computer and could get written up, don't click -- e-mail and I'll send you a copy and paste with the words edited)
Carly Simon's Christmas albums
April Oliver got a fiancial settlement, whether Wikiepedia tells you it happened or not, It Happened
Laura Flanders and Anthony Arnove discussed realities about Iraq Saturday on RadioNation with Laura Flanders
Radio highlights for Sunday (and one for Tuesday)
Remember Polly's Brew is in inboxes already.
Isaiah goes up as soon as this publishes (probably 15 minutes).
About to start as I type (9:00 am Pacific, 11:00 am Central and noon Eastern) KPFA's Sunday Salon:
This week on Sunday Salon...
Hour 1: Conscientious objectors -
Hour 2: Reduce your travel woes
You can listen online. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
the new york times
kate zernike
severin carrell
the third estate sunday review
the world today just nuts
conscientious objectors
kpfa
sunday salon
sunday salon with larry bensky
We'll note that John Kerry's war record was smeared. With lies of the worst sort. Zernike's not sure if it cost him votes. It did. With the campaign he was running, it did. (Running away from the activism against the war left him with only his record to stand on. As always with the Bully Boy, they don't attack your weaknesses, they spread lies about what's perceived as your strength so that you're neutralized.)
Did it cost him the election? That depends on whether you buy Ohio as a legitimate count. (Not to mention the spoiled votes from around the country.) Zernike appears to buy the election as legitimate.
When you try to run on the right flank of your opponent, when that's your strategy (and when all the new people showed up as the primaries were winding down, that became the only strategy -- that and attempts to muzzle Teresa*), you can't have your bonafides attacked. Those were the only bonafides the campaign wasn't interested in.
(The campaign was not Kerry alone. He got bad advice but he's responsible for following it. But the ones who were quick to stab him in the New York Times shortly after the election -- no vision, etc -- rushed in to lay blame for the very things they were hired by the campaign to create.)
So you saw the embarrassing convention. With even the non serving John Edwards trying to act Military Man. How embarrassing was that convention?
Travel back with me for a minute. Who wasn't going to be allowed to speak? Think hard.
Hillary Clinton. Why? Because they didn't want to appear "soft." Hillary as soft?
When Hillary's seen as soft, you start to grasp why the DNC is still so puzzled that Lieberman's struggling in his home state. That's how out of touch they are. When The Best Little War Hawk in Chappaqua can be seen as potentially coming off "too soft," that's when you grasp how serious this latest war on the non-White, non-male, non-straight membership of the Democratic Party is. Hillary who can out fundraise anyone and that's been true for years. It was true before she was in the Senate.
They needed her. She's a natural star. (That's not an endorsement of her for president.) People are interested in her, she can excite a crowd in a way that Elizabeth Dole can only dream of and envy. In a manner that most in Congress will never be able to approach, let alone match.
But she had on X chromosome too many.
So it took a battle to get her any kind of individual speaking role. When she got it (and she made the most of it -- that's not a slam, that's noting she knows how to reach an audience), it was as the wife of. Wife of Bill Clinton introducing him to the nation.
That's about all the party (and the fools running the convention) were going to risk.
When you think about Hillary's stepping away from reproductive rights, you might feel sympathy for her. You might think, "Well after she has to compete for a speaking slot that should rightfully be hers, she has every reason to bend and scrape."
Mabye she does. My way of looking at it, she doesn't. She saw, in that moment, what the people in power, controlling the party really thought of her. She was the circus ride they'd use to raise money, they'd kiss her ass like crazy. But when it was time to allow her a space (one she'd more than earned), they didn't want her.
I'm dead tired, hang with me on this. There are two movies from the same basic period (early 80s), Private Benjamin and An Officer and a Gentleman. Goldie Hawn plays Judy Benjamin (and, of course, she produced the film as well) in the former, Richard Gere plays Zach in the latter. Both films are about social conditioning. Early on, Judy rejects the social conditioning. It comes from being tricked into joining the army. But hang with me.
Zach doesn't reject it. He stays with it. He stays with it so much that he sees the sadistic treatment he receives as for his own good, something that makes him better. He goes through the movie playing a role and he ends it the same way.
Judy, on the other hand, is playing a role early on. The role she's supposed to play as a woman of a certain economic class and background. She ends up rejecting that (only when she's faced with an out from the military that's far worse than anything Captain Lewis can do to her). Once she rejects it, she's unstoppable. Unlike Zach, Judy doesn't go into a "Well, it was for me own good . . ." bit of nonsense. That's a lesson that serves her well when she gets to her next assignment. If she'd seen things happening to her for her own good, she would have probably been willing to write off the sexual assault. Instead, she's not playing that game.
In the third act, in Paris, Judy loses everything she learned. She reverts. At the last minute, surrounded by old friends, she's able to see what's happening and regain her strength.
For a lot of people, that third act process comes up a lot.
So here's the thing. Hillary didn't pull a Judy. She pulled a Zach.
They don't like me for who I am, I'll become what they want! That's what's at play as she ditches her former support for reproductive rights. Will she have an 'awekning' at the alter?
There are some who are writing that speech for her right now. It will ring hollow. Her most convincing moments are when she believes in what she's doing and saying.
That's why she's so convincing as a hawk now, it's what she's internalized and who she is. And here's the sad part, and she knows this now, that easy ride by being just like them, was never going to be an easy ride. The pimps for Mark Warner are out for her. You'll see them toss out a few names which is basically like strategy for voting in the Emmys -- you pick yourself and several sure to be losers so you get the nomination. So they pick Warner and toss out a few feeble names that they honestly know don't stand a chance and they use that position to attack Hillary. (If you've paid attention, you've seen it happening. And, yes, Hillary's noticed it as well.)
Now there's not a bit of difference between Mark Warner and Hillary Clinton other than their gender and the fact that Hillary is a party star. But what's she's having to face is that no matter how to the right she's gone, in the eyes of those that want to control the party, she's still a woman and that's just not good enough and, for them, it never will be.
What she's going to do with that, who knows? She's exploring several options (re: Iraq) and while Bill Clinton is the master at strategy, she hasn't been there doing her part all this time without learning something. She thought the balancing act would require moving away from (and writing off) the left. She's learning now that the so-called center of the party, leadership wise, isn't going to be her natural base, not when she's up against a man. It's a lesson she should have already known (and, in fact, did know at one time).
Better she learn that now then to be in the midst of a primary (all it will take is one bad primary outcome, overall for an election cycle, to destroy any future chance of being president) than learn it too late. John Kerry learned it too late.
He learned that he should have trusted his natural instict to fight the Not So Swift Floaties. Zernike wants to play dumb and marvel over the fact that even now, after the election, he's bothered by the fact that he was called a war criminal (that's what the charges of shooting someone in the back, the false charges, amounted to). She just can't get over the fact that he wants to make this issue.
He played the game the way they dictated. It was a mistake. But whether he runs for president again or not, he doesn't want this to stand. No one would (except maybe bean counters and those quite successful at losing elections).
He was told, becacse Democrats in power are always too scared and frequently too stupid, that to respond would give credence to the accusations. That's true in many ways for public relations. For instance, if a tabloid says ___ is gay, the actor or actress should look the other way. A law suit only invites attention from the mainstream media and leads to more discussion of a topic that would otherwise be dismissed as too tabloid to take seriously. But there's a difference between the Globe or the Star printing something and someone being given a seat on Nightling (with soft questions and uneffective questioning). When it reaches that stage, it requires a response. Not to do so is to let the charges go unanswered and at that point, by not answering, in the minds of many, you have answered.
To the voters Kerry was trying to peel off from Bully Boy, his nonresponse said way too much. It said not only that the charges might be true but that even if they were false, Kerry was so weak willed that he'd let anyone insult him and just look the other way.
The campaing made a huge mistake in running from the Iraq war. Having made the decision to take Iraq off the table, all they were left with was peeling off votes from Bully Boy and a lack of response to vile charges weren't going to be seen as "high roading" it or "mature." Kerry, instead, was going to look like the kid who gets shaken down for his money each day. And if he can't hold on to his own lunch money, how's he going to defend or represent you?
The strategists were too focused on the big moments. The end of act one, two and three. They'd have Kerry show up for those with a speech that might inspire. But they forgot that there's a turning point that propels into the second act and into the third act. Those moments were things like the attacks by the Not So Swift Floaties. They're human garbage and I won't try to sugar coat my opinion of them. But by being human grabage, they got attention. And there actions repeatedly sunk any well thought or planned move by the campaign that refused to deal with them.
The campaing had big moments and photo ops for Kerry to appear "manly" in the traditional sense (hunting, for instance). But before those moments could take hold in any news cycle, the Bully Boy campaign had already lept in with the most childish and the most petty comments. The campaign thought, "It doesn't matter! We have our soundbyte!" And they saw the soundbyte lose out in nearly every cycle.
Childish remarks or not, when made by Dick Cheney (for instance) go into the news cycle. Standing on the sidlines silently may be a sign of goodness but it doesn't translate into votes.
Take the nonsense over Kerry making the statement about Mary Cheney (who's suddenly out again! and marketing it!). Cheney attacked and it was petty and made no real sense. He knew his daughter was a lesbian. She was out, she was photographed with her partner. It wasn't a secret.
But Cheney ended up getting sympathy because Kerry didn't express his own outrage. To some it was, "Oh, he must not know about his daughter. Poor man, he's in denial." To others it was the "She can be whatever but don't talk to me about it." (Cheney knows exactly what his daughter is and has for many years. But the "don't talk to me about it" view played well with homophobes.) Kerry should have attacked. Kerry should have said, "The woman is an adult, she's an open lesbian and her father's pushing programs that will take her rights. Instead of slamming me, she should have the guts to fight for herself. But that's what I'll do as president, I will fight for every American. Not just the ones who vote for me, but the ones who need me, who need someone to say, 'No, you're not going to harm me."" That would have been on the news. Cheney would have had to respond and respond quickly and that's when his asshole qualities come out the most. (Not when he's savoring a well polished line that's been fed to him and rehearsed.)
They threw out their taunts because they knew Kerry wouldn't respond. (Democrats rarely have.) They knew their taunts would be polished before they saw them as talking points on the printed page. They'd look funny, off the cuff, ready to think on their feet. Kerry? He'd look like he needed a conference with several advisors and several days to think of a response to a simple playground taunt. If he'd have responded (if any Democrat would respond) immediately, the smug self-satisfied smirk would fall of the faces of Cheney and Bully Boy. They have no come backs, they only have what's prepared for them. When they resort to comebacks off the cuff, they demonstrate their true ugligness and they turn off the electorate. It happend with Poppy and not just when Bill Clinton struck back. He lost it with Tabitha Soren, for God's sake.
So that's how Kerry got the point where he's only able to defend himself after the campaign, after the advisors are all gone. (The high paid advisors -- and the Dukakis refugee that no one in the press paid attention to, never needs to be asked back on a campaign, why that refugee was allowed back in the tent and working on the convention is a question that should be asked?)
Now he's just got the people he should have been listening to all along.
While Zernike puzzles over why someone, why anyone, would want to prove that several lies about them were not true, she might want to puzzle over why her paper didn't follow up when Kerry authorized the release of his records -- why no paper followed up?
Regardless of the election, those Not So Swift Floaties are still active (as Kerry points out) they still eat up face time on the cable networks. They made statements during the campaign that the press should have followed up on the minute Kerry authorized the release of his records. They didn't do it because a) it would have cost their news organizations money, b) they don't want to be attacked and c) it's easier to catch attention following today's disposable story than it is correcting the record.
Another question she might want to ask herself is why she buried Jeb Bush's comment so far into the article? Zernike notes Jeb "sent a letter thanking the 'Swifites' for 'their willingness to stand up to John Kerry." I seriously doubt that a similar letter praising the Willie Horton campaign would have been greeted with such a blase reaction in print. But things have gotten even worse since then. Jeb Bush, who holds public office, can think attack goons for savaging the repuation of someone's service record -- while we are at war -- this from someone who didn't serve himself -- the brother of the Bully Boy -- who also didn't serve.
And in Zernike's article, it's just one more anecdote. It has no weight and it has no context.
Instead of wondering why Kerry wants to set the record straight, she might want to ask herself what she thought her article accomplished today and how it advanced anything other than getting her own name on the front page?
If you made it this far, congratulations! I am all written out and had to go through all of the above to get to the points at the bottom. "*" On Teresa Heinz Kerry because I wanted to note, she refused the advice laregly, she refused to be silenced or made over. Good for her. She was the strongest about the campaign and, when people met her, they usually went away convinced that they'd met a strong a real person. If the campaign had used her the way Bill Clinton's used Hillary in 1992, that would have been a big help. Self-identified "independent voters" (swing voters) who got to hear her speak live, went away impressed. But the campaing was so sure they couldn't afford a "Hillary moment" -- forgetting the lesson that in 1992, Bill Clinton won the election.
Polly has a highlight she wanted to note early because it's not about Iraq. It is about Guantamo. From Severin Carrell's "The children of Guantanamo Bay" (Independendt of London):
The notorious US detention camp in Guantanamo Bay has been hit by fresh allegations of human rights abuses, with claims that dozens of children were sent there - some as young as 14 years old.
Lawyers in London estimate that more than 60 detainees held at the terrorists' prison camp were boys under 18 when they were captured.
They include at least 10 detainees still held at the US base in Cuba who were 14 or 15 when they were seized - including child soldiers who were held in solitary confinement, repeatedly interrogated and allegedly tortured.
The disclosures threaten to plunge the Bush administration into a fresh row with Britain, its closest ally in the war on terror, only days after the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, repeated his demands for the closure of the detention facility. It was, he said, a "symbol of injustice".
New content at The Third Estate Sunday Review (pay attention to notes before clicking):
A Note to Our Readers
Editorial: The Reailities of Occupation
TV commentary: About the women (This is the piece Ava and I attempted to complete on Wednesday and post here -- I think it's work environment friendly)
Quick one: Why is Kagan not i.d.ed by the Washington Post
Crapapedia: Kids don't use it to research papers! (Warning, contains the f-word at least twice, once in a direct quote, if you're on a work computer and could get written up, don't click -- e-mail and I'll send you a copy and paste with the words edited)
Carly Simon's Christmas albums
April Oliver got a fiancial settlement, whether Wikiepedia tells you it happened or not, It Happened
Laura Flanders and Anthony Arnove discussed realities about Iraq Saturday on RadioNation with Laura Flanders
Radio highlights for Sunday (and one for Tuesday)
Remember Polly's Brew is in inboxes already.
Isaiah goes up as soon as this publishes (probably 15 minutes).
About to start as I type (9:00 am Pacific, 11:00 am Central and noon Eastern) KPFA's Sunday Salon:
This week on Sunday Salon...
Hour 1: Conscientious objectors -
Hour 2: Reduce your travel woes
You can listen online. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
the new york times
kate zernike
severin carrell
the third estate sunday review
the world today just nuts
conscientious objectors
kpfa
sunday salon
sunday salon with larry bensky
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)