Monday, Monday, can't trust that day. And today it brought us Democracy Now which was pathetic and an embarrassment.
It's amazing how week after week, Amy Goodman can offer one Barack Obama supporter after another who can say anything they want and never get called out on Barack's support for the war.
Is Amy angling for another $500,000 grant from Koo Koo Katrina vanden Heuvel? Is that why we get Democracy Sometimes these days?
It was a really pathetic show and I'm trying to decide whether or not to strip links to it out of the snapshot.
In addition to refusing to ever question ANY guest on Bambi's support for the illegal war, Goodman also booked Gloria Steinem and an alleged 'writer' and 'academic' who was on the show to LIE and LIE and LIE some more. She was "offended" but she claimed to be offended by things that weren't in the column that Gloria Steinem wrote.
In other words, she was another woman egged on by little boys to attack Gloria Steinem. The pathetic 'professor' should be ashamed of herself.
By the way, she thinks Bambi's "Black" because her definition of "Black" is "slavery" and she feels if Bambi had grown up during slavery, he would have been a slave. So does the 'professor' consider Native Americans "Black" as well? She is aware they were put into slavery as well, right?
Probably not, she didn't appear to aware of anything and looked as if she had a list of talking points to read off of.
It should also be noted that not all "Black" people (not called that then, I know) in Colonial America were slaves. So does she not consider them "Black"? Her "defintions" like her knowledge come up short.
What an idiot.
But she did what she was supposed to, tear into Gloria Steinem.
Amy Goodman did her part there too, didn't she?
She had clips and quotes from Hillary Clinton on the war. Gloria Steinem is against the war and has spoken out against it since before it began. But Gloria had to respond to what Hillary had said or done and Hillary's record.
If that's considered "fair" then where were Amy Goodman's quotes on Bambi's records? Where was her reading from Monica Davey's 2004 New York Times article and acting the 'professor' to explain?
It didn't happen.
It wasn't fair, it wasn't balanced and it wasn't journalism.
I think Gloria Steinem is probably going to be pissed about what happened today. I'm basing that on my knowledge of C.I. and Ava who are a lot like Steinem in that they'll defend others but really aren't too concerned about defending themselves. And it really takes people pointing out repeatedly how they were trashed for them to get angry about it. They're other-focused. But when they get that something really offensive took place (to them), they get angry. I think that will happen with Gloria Steinem as well.
She's made her entire life about working for others. And her thanks from Amy Goodman was to create a situation (see Elaine's "Aura Bogado and hustling the left") that she never would have agreed to. One that she's turned down repeatedly. My guess is she trusted Amy Goodman and Amy Goodman stabbed in her in the back to get her shot at Trash TV fame. When that sinks in, I think it will sting.
Ava and C.I., when they get stabbed in the back, tend to sit there and wonder why the person did that? Was the person in pain? Was the person misunderstanding? Had they done something they didn't realize they had done? I'm not making fun of them. It's great that they are willing to explore all those things. But me -- and I think most people -- get hit across the face and we say, "Screw you!" and respond.
With Ava and C.I., it takes them going through all of that other stuff before they get to thinking about it in terms of what it means personally. When they get there, they are usually pissed. I think Gloria Steinem will get there in a few days and grasp that Amy Goodman thought Trash TV trumped the history of second wave feminism and Steinem's own belief that you don't engage in that sort of attacks publicly in front of non-feminists.
Amy Goodman posed as the best of independent media today and served up her own version of Geraldo.
It was really lame.
Let me talk about Third. In a second. When you get to the snapshot, you'll grasp there was a huge delay today. That resulted from the uproar in the community over Amy Goodman Presents Geraldo. C.I. had to not only speak on campuses today, C.I. had to deal with the uproar. I'm really offended by that and by Amy Goodman dropping journalistic standards because C.I. no longer has a fever but C.I. is still really sick. Dona cancelled Ava and C.I.'s first thing on Monday because they wouldn't get there in time because C.I. was too sick (throwing up) to make the flight they had scheduled. C.I. never cancels. This is only the second time C.I.'s cancelled since Feb. 2003. So you better believe C.I. was sick as a dog. (And it was more than throwing up because I've noted here before that I've seen C.I. puking and rinse the face and then say, "Okay, let's go.") That morning event that was cancelled was rescheduled to tonight so that was the 'break' C.I. got. Still having to speak repeatedly today and being sick in the morning meant not getting done until late, late tonight.
Amy Goodman repeatedly addressed race last week. She did not address gender. This should have been a segment on gender. It should have featured two feminists discussing what happened to Hillary last week. Instead it was pit a feminist against a Bambi supporter. I felt really sorry for Gloria Steinem and I'll get to that as I discuss TV (specifically when I discuss Ava and C.I.'s TV commentary).
Okay, here's Third.
Truest statement of the week -- Juan Gonzalez. My apologies to Juan. The plan of us all us posting today was to note Juan's bravery. Due to Amy Goodman's Trash TV stunt today that got pushed back. I think we're all hoping to note him tomorrow. But Juan spoke some hard truths and deserve credit for doing so.
Truest statement of the week II -- This is Gloria Steinem, from her amazing column. The one she's being trashed for. It was amazing.
A Note to Our Readers -- Jim breaks down the edition. Dona called me this morning and hadn't caught DN! I go, "That was hideous!" She asks what I'm talking about? She's got classes and work (she's three hours behind me on the West coast) so I go, "I'll tell you but you don't have time to get upset so wait until this evening, but watch the disgusting spectacle on display today."
She was calling to ask me to please note a few things. 1) When she was sick in DC -- after being pepper sprayed at the September demonstration -- C.I. stayed up with Jim all night taking care of her. 2) C.I. has taken care of Jess with Ava, has taken care of Ty alone, has taken care of Jim alone (Jim's a big baby when he's sick -- he'll admit that -- and doesn't want Dona around). 3) No one took care of C.I. 4) Someone had to stay because C.I. was insisting they go on with their plans (Green Party debate) and that had to be Jim (Jim's voting Democratic no matter what, Jess is a Green, Ty's considering who to vote for and so is Dona -- Ava is as well but she and Jess are like me and Elaine as a couple -- we really just have weekend time so they do joint things just like Elaine and me do). 5) C.I. did not delay the edition by being sick. C.I. was sick. The edition could have gone on. Don't hang the fact that it didn't on C.I. There are six people making up Third (Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.), it is not fair to say "We were late because C.I. was sick." I was getting to work and that's all I wrote down so I think those are all the points. I'll also note that when the fever got the worst Dona said C.I. had tremors and this wasn't just "Oh, someone has a bit of a cold." If I forgot something, I'll hear from Dona and I'll include it next time. I'll note on my own Jim wrote a good and funny note. But -- and he was rushing and trying to simplify -- we all knew there would be a break. They were all supposed to go to the Green debate. (Kat went too I think.) And we knew that ahead of time. So we knew that it would stop at a set time. I believe we actually worked a half-hour past that time. Because C.I. was sick Dona said that we'd gone longer than planned and we needed to stop. It was at least 30 minutes after the agreed upon time. The plan was that two hours after the debate ended (the plan before a word was written, the plan before Saturday or Sunday rolled around) and Jim's got something about regrouping before the debate. That may have been the plan of the six but it wasn't the plan the rest of us had been informed of. (In e-mails during last week or during the writing edition itself.) I think Jim's mixed up there or just talking about something for the core six. When we did regroup (at the agreed upon time), C.I. was out of it. We were working on the editorial (and that was the only thing we were going to do) and something got said and C.I. latched onto it and kind of willed-awake or forced awake or whatever. I mean, it was an obvious struggle. But then C.I. was all there and cooking and we ended up working on other things as well. It was a rough edition. I think that's in Jim's note. I also think Jim's using humor because by then it was known that people were freaking out in the community thinking something was seriously wrong because nothing was going up anywhere.
Editorial: And then there were three -- This was the wake up piece. Wally, Cedric, Jim and I are probably strongest on John Edwards. Somewhere in there is the joke C.I. inserts (that's when C.I. woke up) but we were leading on this originally and mainly doing that because someone had to. It really is hard, hours and hours after, to regroup. I mean you've got people who've had something happen in between and want to share that and stuff like that. So Jim told Wally and me right at the start, "I need you guys to focus. We're the three that get off on sports and other junk the easiest. We need to focus and get this done." Everyone but C.I. was participating at the start, I don't mean they weren't. But we wee the leaders. C.I. wakes up near the end of the Edwards thing. Oh! "Where's the ball, John, where's the ball?" :D That's C.I. That's when C.I. woke up. (C.I. was awake before then. The fever had broken but Dona was saying, and C.I. was slowly agreeing, "C.I. is out of it.")
TV: The Surreal Life stages comeback! -- I love this. I love the way they blend all of this together to capture just how awful the MSM is. They didn't watch CBS last week before anyone asks why CBS isn't included. (They have more friends at CBS than anywhere. That's why they don't watch CBS. They've already heard anything good that happened any given day via a phone call.) This captures the media's lack of standards and everything -- you've got Charlie Gibson on Tuesday night predicting Obama the winner of New Hampshire and later insisting the polls are good (even when Hillary took her lead), you've got George S. trashing the public, Charlie at the end doesn't even seem to know what time it is (see what program he's saying is coming up) and over at NBC you've got a reporter who covers Obama for NBC saying it's "hard" to be objective and then Brian Williams, after the complaints come in, wants to defend the guy. Then you've got PBS and you've got gas bags calling the elections "a movie" and then you've got NOW broadcasting what they say is a report on Latino and Latina voters but there's not woman they interview, talk to or quote (the reporter was a woman, the reporter for the piece, that doesn't count) and finally you get Bill Moyers with his nonsense of Dr. Kathy and his refusing to address a multi-cultural society. Ava and C.I. are hilarious throughout (they were tired, pissed and C.I. was sick) but note how they -- and they may be alone in this -- defend the rights of the bi-racial and multi-racial. They point out that for 1 candidate, all these people are rendered invisible and set back. And my point about Gloria Steinem is that for that same 1 candidate, her life's work is being ripped apart and destroyed. But remember, boys & girls, Bambi's a "uniter!" He's destroyed the whole damn world. War Hawk piece of trash.
Roundtable -- This was the first thing we did. It went on and on and on and on and on and on . . . you get the idea, right? It wasn't boring but it did last forever. And that's why it's a pain in the ass to be Dona. She's the one who gets stuck calling time. She didn't here. But I mean there are so many things that each of us wants to address each week -- and I'm glad Ty interupted and said we weren't done because his issue wasn't addressed. And that's why it's hard to do those things. And it's murder for the core six and Kat to type them up. I think this is just amazing and more real and authentic than anything you'll ever see on Democracy Now! By the way, did you catch that Amy Goodman never corrected the lies from the 'professor' today? The lies against Hillary, the lies for Bambi?
Revolutionary broadcast -- Amy Goodman said this was part one. Where's part two? If there's not a part two this week, I will be screaming my head off. I've heard that "we'll continue to follow this" nonsense before and never seen anything else on a number of topics. Where's part two?
Independent media: Then & Now -- C.I. started giving examples during this (that's how you know C.I. was fully awake, quoting long ago articles and giving page numbers -- all from memory) and this was part of the editorial and we ended up making it an article by itself. I love this.
Graceful exit -- Bill Richardson need to be noted. Ty phoned and asked me to put in something here because there may be no "Mailbag" next week and hasn't been in about 3 or 4 weeks. A guy (and I didn't write down his name) accused Third of covering Bill Richardson's exit just because Ava and C.I. know Richardson. Ava doesn't know Bill Richardson -- maybe the guy assumes that because Ava's a Latina? C.I. does. That's not why it was covered. C.I.'s known Joe Biden and likes him (and I got to say hello to him on a 2006 DC trip and in like 30 or so seconds I'll say he seemed like a good guy -- I'm not talking politics, I'm just talking a good guy). C.I.'s known Biden forever, much longer than than C.I. has known Richardson. C.I. never suggested that we note Biden's departure from the race. Richardson was noted because he was a first. He was the first Latino to run to be president of the US for one of the two major parties. That's why we noted it.
Highlights -- This is, I think, Dona's point about "Don't blame C.I." Ava and C.I. went off to do their TV commentary. The rest of us were supposed to be working. They were gone about 30 minutes, maybe 45, and we had nothing. We didn't have highlights (which are done by Kat, Rebecca, Cedric, Wally, Betty, Elaine and me), we didn't have anything. Kat, Betty, Cedirc, Rebecca, Wally, Elaine and me did this Sunday evening, after the break.
I want to wind down with a really serious point. Glen Ford, Margaret Kimberley and Bruce Dixon are pointing out very serious issues and being shut out of the debate on Bambi. You've got a whole crowd, on the other hand, largely but not all White, who get all the time in the world to spin positive about Bambi. But who's sticking up for the bi- and multi-racial people? It's Ava and C.I. Anyone else pointing out the raw deal they're getting and how shameful that is? I thought Amy Goodman's whole thing was about going where the silence is. But she hasn't on this issue, has she? A minority group has been tossed in the trashcan by the media and you need to remember who has gone along with that and who hasn't.
Here's who worked on the latest Third besides Dallas (we didn't bring him back for the evening -- that's why there are so few links -- because that wouldn't have been fair):
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
and Wally of The Daily Jot
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Monday, January 14, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, a pregnant US marine is believed found murdered and a search is on for the killer something Democracy Now! shows no interest in but they consider journalism to be attempting to pit woman against woman in the hopes of a 'cat fight' -- Gloria Steinem refused to participate in that that Amy Goodman aired such nonsense and that the other woman involved was eager to take part in just that has outraged this community, delayed the snapshot by HOURS and ticked me off because I didn't have time for this nonsense today. Remember that when Democracy Now! asks for funds. Remember it as surely as the fact that in 2007 -- despite all the war resisters coming forward -- the program could not be bothered with interviewing one DAMN war resister. Rember that Adam Kokesh was brought on not when it could have mattered (before he went to trial) but after and even then he had to correct Goodman on the details of his case. Remember it when they ask for your money.
Starting with war resistance. Camilo Mejia is the first Iraq War veteran to go public about refusing to return. On Friday around the world (despite attempts by US embassies in other countries to create a panic by sending out e-mails to them proclaiming that the protests were dangerous) demonstrations against the unconstitutional, ongoing imprisonment of prisoners who have never received trials at the US' own gulag on Guantanamo Bay and among those participating, Carol Rosenberg (Miami Herald) reports, was war resister Camilo Mejia in Doral, Florida. "Due process" was the reason Mejia gave Rosenberg for his participation stating, "It's not about the people who are there. It's about us. Everybody's entitled to their day in court." Rosenberg explains, "Mejia served nearly nine months in a Fort Sill, Okla., lockup for refusing a Florida National Guard call-up to a second tour in Iraq in 2004. He was also busted from staff sergeant to private, and is presently appealing his conviction." Mejia was also among the many who applied for CO status and had his application rejected -- not only was Mejia's application rejected, the military attempted to strong arm him into writing another after he was in military custody because Mejia had documented the abuses of Iraqi civilians he had seen while serving in Iraq and the US military wanted that stripped out of the record. Fortunately for the US military, the 'judge' of the military court-martial wasn't interested in facts or truths refusing to allow them to be introduced. Equally true that Mejia was not a US citizen and his service contract expired while he was in Iraq. The US military had two choices, get him to sign an extension or let him go. Mejia refused to sign an extension and the US military -- despite being advised of their legal obligations by their own attornies -- refused to let him go. Camilo Mejia tells his story in Road from Ar Ramadi: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejia. As he notes in it:
The court-martial lasted three days and had three main phases. My lawyers began the first phase of the trial by contending that the military had no jurisdiction to try me because I was a noncitizen soldier who had completed his eight initial years of service and had never applied for U.S. citizenship. This, they argued, made me nonextendable under army regulations. In addition, Gale had come across an international treaty between the United States and Costa Rica (of which I am a citizen), which states that Costa Ricans residing in the United States are exempt from all compulsory military service whatsover. Based on the treaty and army regulation, together with a legal precedent in which the National Guard Bureau rejected a guard unit's request to extend another citizen soldier in almost exactly the same circumstances, the defense presented a motion to dismiss the trial.
The 'judge' agreed with the prosecution to ignore laws and international treaties, then agreed with the prosecution not to allow the lies that led to the illegal war to be brought up in the court-martial and the 'judge' agreed to allow the text of the CO application to be barred as well as any mention of it. That was allegedly a free and fair trial and military 'justice.' Mejia was railroaded and, to do that, testimony had to be suppressed, realities had to be silenced and laws and international treaties had to be treated as non-existant. Along with seeking real justice today with regards to that kangaroo court-martial, Mejia is also chair of Iraq Veterans Against the War.
War resisters have resisted in a number of ways throughout the Iraq War. That includes the ones who went to Canada seeking asylum. November 15th, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the appeals of war resisters Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. Parliament is the solution.Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (email@example.com -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. Both War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist are calling for actions from January 24-26. The War Resisters Support Campaign has more on the action in Canada:
The War Resisters Support Campaign has called a pan-Canadian mobilization on Saturday, January 26th, 2008 to ensure : 1) that deportation proceedings against U.S. war resisters currently in Canada cease immediately; and 2) that a provision be enacted by Parliament ensuring that U.S. war resisters refusing to fight in Iraq have a means to gain status in Canada. For listings of local actions, see our Events page. If you are able to organize a rally in your community, contact the Campaign -- we will list events as details come in.
Courage to Resist notes:
Join and support January 25 vigils and delegations in support of U.S. war resisters currently seeking sanctuary Canada. Actions are being planned in Washington D.C., New York, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles. Supporters will meet with officials at Canadian Consulates across the United States in order underscore that many Americans hope that the Canadian Parliament votes (possible as early as February) in favor of a provision to allow war resisters to remain. Download and distribute Jan. 25-26 action leaflet (PDF).Supporting the war resisters in Canada is a concrete way to demonstrate your support of the troops who refuse to fight. Help end the war by supporting the growing GI resistance movement today!
Details January 25-26 actions/events in support of U.S. war resisters.
Sign the letter "Dear Canada: Let U.S. War Resisters Stay!" and encourage others to sign.
Organize a delegation to a Canadian Consulate near you .
Host an event or house-party in support of war resisters.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Carla Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC event:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation.
Turning to the United States where a search is on for the killer of US marine Maria Lauterbach. As noted in Thursday's snapshot and Friday's snapshot, the Onslow County sheriff's office was doing what the US military refused to do: taking seriously the disapperence of 8-months pregnant Lauterbach. Maria Lauterbach went missing in mid-December and, for some strange reason, the US military didn't find that an issue or concern despite the fact that she was due to give testimony about the assault she had reported -- by a fellow marine -- in April. The US military refused to address the assault for months and months and when Maria disappeared, they didn't really think that was important either. On Saturday, Leo Standora (New York Daily News) reported that a body had been found in a grave of the back yard of Marine Cpl. Cesar Laurean and that police suspected him to be the murderer. This would be the same man that Lauterbach had filed assault charges against and the assault was rape. In April she filed those charges and the US military did nothing. In December she went missing and the US military did nothing. The sheriff's department was beginning the search for Laurean on Friday because he went missing on Friday. The US military despite knowing the details of the charges, knowing that the trial was finally approaching when Maria disappeared, despite knowing that Maria had disappeared did nothing to secure Laurean and he is believed to have slipped away from base in the early morning hours of Friday. The police suspected Laurean because his wife had earlier turned over a note he wrote her in which Lauren claimed that Maria killed herself and he just buried Maria's body. That's not what the evidence at the crime scene suggested with splattered blood and the fact that there was an effort to burn Maria's corpse.
Today, CNN reports that Onslow County sheriff's office believes Maria Lauterbach was murdered Dec. 15, 2007 apparently based on forsenic evidence (presumably gathered from the blood inside the house of Ceasar Armando Laurean and from the grave behind it). The autopsy results of the corpse aren't completed yet and they haven't announced that it is Maria Lauterbach (only that they think it is); however, she was eight months pregnant when she disappeared and the corpse buried behind Ceasar Armando Lauren's home was rpregnant as well. Maria Lauterbach's uncle Peter Steiner maintains, apparently speaking for Maria's family, that Laurean would have been the father of the child and that conception took the form of rape by Laurean. The US military, with a lot more than egg on their face, offer the excuse that the vanished Laurean (who vanished last week) was never "taken into custody after Lauterbach reported the alleged rape because there was information the two carried on 'some sort of friendly relationship'" -- which if the military thinks it's an excuse isn't. If they want to claim that they did nothing -- and they did nothing -- because they thought Lauterbach was bringing false assault charges then they had every duty and obligation to resolve the issue quickly. If they found her statements to be false, they were doing a disservice to Laurean by allowing the charges to stand month after month. She disappeared in the middle of December. She made her criminal charges to the military in April. If the military thinks 'we didn't believe her' is an excuse that'll give them a pass, they're mistaken. For nearly nine months, that would mean, they let what they assumed were false charges stand. Jerry Allegood (McClatchy Newspapers) reports, "Lauterbach's family has said authorities did not aggressively investigate her rape allegation against Laurean." That would be military authorities and that is an understatment. A full investigation into the command of Camp Lejune is needed and the death of Maria is one more example of what can happen when the US military command refuses to take seriously charges of assault, command rape, rape and other crimes taking place within the military.
On Sunday, Deborah Sontag and Lizzette Alvarez (New York Times) reported on the crimes being committed in this country by veterans of the Afghanistan and Iraq War which presumably result at least in part due to the lack of medical care being provided to returning veterans. The reporters note,
The New York Times found 121 cases in which veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan committed a killing in this country, or were charged with one, after their return from war. In many of those cases, combat trauma and the stress deployment -- along with alcohol abuse, family discord and other attendant problems -- appear to have set the stage for a tragedy that was part destruction, part self-destruction.Along with the issue of PTSD it may also be, in part, result of non-PTSD reactions to what was seen in combat as well as a result of lowering the standards and granting a record number of 'moral waivers' in order to meet recruitment goals. Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) explained today, " The Times said the numbers indicated a nearly 90 percent increase in homicides involving active-duty military personnel and new veterans since the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. The Times said about one-third of the victims were spouses, girlfriends, children or other relatives. The Times reports that while many of the veterans showed signs of combat trauma, they were often not evaluated for or diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder until after the homicides."
Also on Sunday came news of a 'benchmark' supposedly being reached. Not at all. Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Steven Myers (New York Times) wrote about the Iraqi parliament passing legislation (that still must be signed into law) which "would allow some former officials from Saddam Hussein's party to fill government positions but would impose a strict ban on others." The reporters note:However, it was unclear on Saturday how far the legislation would go toward soothing Sunni Arabs, because serious disagreements merged in the hours after the vote about how much the law would actually do.In other words -- we know this much, we don't know all. The legislation (we're pulling things, I'm told the snapshot is too long) means? Nothing. It's not signed into law. It's not clear what it would or would not do. There's no talk of a tracking measure for it. It's sop tossed out to the US to comfort them that 'progress' is being made.
In some of today's reported violence . . .
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Diyala house bombing that went on during a raid and claimed the lives of 3 Iraqi 'security forces' and left seven more wounded, a Baghdad mortar attack wounded a child, and a Mosul car bombing claimed 1 life and wounded six.
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Judge Amir Jawdat Al-na'ib ("member of the federal appeal court") was shot dead in Baghdad along with his driver today.
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 5 corpses were discovered in Baghdad while 2 corpses were discovered in Basra.
Turning to US political news, today on Democracy Now! a debate was hosted on gender and race. It's appalling that this passes for an issue, it's appalling that DN! took part in that nonsense. A discussion on the intersection of race and gender would have been more than fine. The refusal of DN! and every other public affairs program to address gender will never apparently deemed a topic worthy in an of itself. So today we got a White feminist and an African-American non-feminist woman pitted against one another. It was not a proud moment for public affairs broadcasting.
I found it personally offensive and I am very angry that we have to use the snapshot to address it. However, we reached a record number of e-mails on this with members outraged. Including everyone's comments would be impossible. A committee was created quickly composed of Gina, Krista, Liang, Keesha, Martha, Ava, Kat, Maria and myself. As we went through the e-mails and then grouped together on the phone to discuss them the key points were:
* It is offensive that Democracy Now! pitted two women against one another in a sort of CrossFire match up. What was needed was a discussion on gender. Gender is a discussion that may get a segment once a year on Democracy Now! if that. We are not referring to the overt attacks on women worldwide, we are talking about very real gender issues in this country. By contrast, racism is noted repeatedly each year on Democracy Now!
* While we're fully aware that it takes an idiot to front a racism charge against Gloria Steinem, there's no need to present an idiot in debate. There are many feminists of many races who could have been brought on. Some of whom may in fact disagree with Gloria. That's fine. There's no question that their sincere in their support for women. It would be equally true of those women that they knew history. Putting on a woman uneducated in women's history -- which is what happened -- is an embarrassment in and of itself.
* Amy Goodman (unlike Juan Gonzalez) continues to allow the hype of Barack Obama to be flashed on the program without question. On Iraq, Gloria was questioned about Hillary's record and quotes from Hillary were provided. No such thing happened with Obama. In 2004, he told the New York Times he didn't know how he would have voted if he'd been in the Senate in 2002, he told the same thing in 2006 to The New Yorker, he told a Chicago townhall (which no one has picked up on outside this community), after he was in the Senate, why he wouldn't advocate for withdrawal. Amy Goodman has one set of standards for the candidate Hillary Clinton and has no standards at all for Obama based upon the fact that Bambi supporters are NEVER asked about the illegal war. That was true last week as well with the debate there. Goodman repeatedly avoided asking the pro-Bambi guest on the issue of the war.
* The whole thing was an embarrassment for women because it pitted two women against one another and seemed to whip up a desire for a 'cat fight.' It was offensive. It was offensive that a woman who knew nothing was allowed to attack Gloria Steinem. It was offensive that feminism is only a topic we can get coverage of from DN! if there's a hope of a 'cat fight.' It was offensive that after having published in the skin magazine by the pervert (L.F.) regularly featured on Demcracy Now!, this is seen by some as Goodman's contribution to womanhood.
* As the e-mails were too large even for all of us to read any member wanting their comments noted should contact Gina and Krista for the gina & krista round-robin by Wednesday. After Wednesday, you should contact Polly or Maria, Francisco or Miguel and it will run in Polly's Brew or El Espirito on Sunday. Hilda will comment on the nonsense tomorrow in Hilda's Mix.
To address it today, and we have to address it because that b.s. passing off as a public affairs has enraged this community, it was decided Betty and Keesha were the go-to voices because they have regularly addressed race and gender and are feminists. These are the comments they made
Betty wants noted, "Professor Melissa Harris-Lacewell, you're an 'author' the way a porn maker is a film maker. Your book titles are nothing but rip-offs of popular culture, you're unable to make an argument in book form that's of interest without ripping off others. You're a Barack lover. You are complicit in oppressing other Black women and I will hold you accountable. You insulted, you distorted, you flat out lied. You shame not just yourself, you shame my race and you went on with a set of talking points -- all distortions -- but you're the water carrier for the Bambi campaign. If you are indeed a Black woman, as opposed to bi- or multi-racial, it's really sad to know that one of my own would lie so loudly and so cravenly in public to advance the needs of a bi-racial man at the expense of all women. Get a life, write a real book, one that has a real title and not your pop-culture rip offs. Educate yourself and learn history, you stupid, stupid woman. On Sunday, I quoted the same thing Gloria Steinem today, from Sojourner Truth. You're nothing but a ditzy, pop-culture faux academic and you're being sent out to trash a woman. You are disgusting. Save your soul, it's too late for your self-respect."
Keesha wants noted, "The woman is an idiot, an ahisotrical idiot, who is having an argument with Gloria Steinem -- when she finally gets to anything resembling an actual issue -- that is an argument with Betty Friedan. Dumb Ass Professor, learn your history, you dumb disgrace. Steinem was the one pushing sisterhood of all, races and sexuality, Betty Friedan was the one running from both and she did nothing but push middle-class, White women. Steinem regularly toured as a part of a team and did so in order that the Black feminist experience would be and could be heard not as a sidenote but front and center in the feminism debate. Steinem is not the one you have an argument with and there is no excuse for your shameful ignorance on feminism except that you are not one. You also say Steinem wrote an 'op-ed' when she wrote a column -- one more indication of how lacking your pathetic education has been. As for your laughable column you reference, it should have resulted in dumb threats. I am the one who led the argument at this site for the closing of the comments and the comments were closed off when I was insulted by 'Blue Dog Democrats' who haunted the site. I was insulted and degraded both for my gender and my race. It wasn't one or the other, it was both. You seem highly ignorant of that. If you want sympathy for death threats, you've come to the wrong community. Ava and C.I. have received threats of being gutted with knives for TV reviews -- for TV reviews -- and Betty had to step away from her e-mails due to the fact that her humor site was resulting in so many e-mails. You don't know anything and you're nothing but a woman making herself pathetic to prop up a man who is not Black, he is bi-racial. He has played the race card and you lie about that. He is a War Hawk and you lie about that. You are either the most uneducated woman put on a television as a professor or you are a liar. Regardless you are a disgrace and you need to learn a little history before you speak in public again. Whites should also be offended by your remarks and, were I a White who sent my child to Princeton, I would be on the phone complaining to the president of your university about your characterization of students where you teach. You are pathetic, and you've been working on your latest bad book -- I read your first, cut & paste journalism at its best passed off as an exploration -- throughout 2007. Focus on finishing that bad book and spare us all the embarrassment of flaunting your ignorance in public over the airwaves. My comment to Amy Goodman: I want a discussion on gender. I want women in the studio. I want to see as many races as possible and I want women there to discuss women, not to act as help-mates and cheerleaders for men."
Note the name Keesha mentioned is not mentioned here at any other time. She is referred to as The Ego Of Us All here. Because of her racism and homophobia we do not note her by name even when she passed away. (The Ego Of Us All is a jab at her giant ego and noting that, no, she is not the mother of us all.) Because Keesha included the woman's name in her comments, her name appears today. It will not ever appear here again.
On Sunday, the Green Party of the US held their first presidential debate for the 2008 election. Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted today, "The Green Party held a presidential debate on Sunday before 800 people in San Francisco featuring former Democratic Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney and four other candidates. Ralph Nader, who ran on the Green ticket in 2000, spoke at the event but did not take part in the debate. Nader has not yet announced whether he will run for president again."
Ralph Nader: You want healthcare for all? Who says no? It's the health insurance industry, the drug companies and the HMOs. You want living wage? Who says no and makes it stick? It's McDonald's. It's Burger King. It's Wal-Mart. You want peace in the world, and you want a country to wage peace and become a humanitarian superpower? Who's opposed to that? The Lockheed Martins. What Eisenhower condemned is a military-industrial complex. Just ask: Who keeps saying no? And you know what the focus of a Green Party and an alternative party political movement has to be.
Amy Goodman: Cynthia McKinney cited Ralph Nader as part of why she was running on the Green ticket.
Cynthia McKinney: Mr. Nader, in a recent piece, asked us to take the next step if we don't like what's happening in our country. I've heeded his advice: I've joined your party. I'm helping Green candidates, and I'm here with you today. I ask you to take the next step with me.
Amy Goodman: Also participating in the Green Party debate were Jared Ball, Jesse Johnson, Kent Mesplay and Kat Swift.
Below you'll see tags. I put in the tags and usually the links. Then I call and dictate the snapshot. Look at what's noted below and grasp all we missed because we had to address the embarrassment that was Democracy Now! today. That's not a complaint that we have addressed it, that is noting very clearly that it was an embarrassment, it was appalling and, let's note again, it was one more time the show avoided covering Iraq. And, let's note again, this happened on a day when there is a search for a killer of a woman -- another woman assaulted while serving in the US military and her charges not addressed. Find a mention of that on today's Democracy Now! -- you won't.
the common ills
like maria said paz
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
thomas friedman is a great man
the third estate sunday review
iraq veterans against the war
richard a. oppel jr.the new york timessteven lee myers
deborah sontaglizette alvarez
solomon moorestephen farrell
mcclatchy newspaperswarren p. strobel
jerry allegoodthe new york daily newsjuan gonzalezleo standoradan frosch
andrew cockburncesar chelalajonathan sher
thomas friedman is a great man
amy goodmandemocracy now