Good evening. We have three stories from Democracy Now! and Elaine and I are going to do the same ones and see if one of us notices something or makes a point the other doesn't so check out Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude where Elaine's been filling in for Rebecca. And at the end, we'll have my interview with Ty of The Third Estate Sunday Review.
Bush: Sheehan Is Advocating a Policy to "Weaken" The Country
President Bush has dismissed the ongoing anti-war vigil in Crawford Texas initiated by Cindy Sheehan. He claimed she was advocating a policy that would weaken the country. "I think those who advocate immediate withdrawal from not only Iraq but the Middle East would be -- are advocating a policy that would weaken the United States," Bush said. "So I appreciate her right to protest. I understand her anguish. I met with a lot of families. She doesn't represent the view of a lot of the families I have met with. And I'll continue to meet with families." Bush's comments came during a last-minute trip to the Idaho resort town of Donnelly. The trip was scheduled after hundreds of military families, veterans and anti-war protesters began camping outside his 1,600 acre estate in Crawford Texas.
C.I. nailed that nonsense this morning at The Common Ills:
Really now, Bully Boy? And when will he find time to meet with Patrica Roberts? As noted on Democracy Now! ("Mother of First Soldier from Georgia Killed in Iraq Also Demands to Speak with Bush"), "Her son Jamaal Addison was killed in Iraq in 2003."
PATRICIA ROBERTS: My son was with the 507 Maintenance Company. He died with Jessica Lynch and the P.O.W.s. He was the unit that took the wrong turn. He was one of the 11 that got killed, the first Sunday, which they call that day the "Bloody Sunday."
[. . .]
YORUBA RICHEN: You haven't been able to meet with President Bush. Do you want to, and what would you say to him?
PATRICIA ROBERTS: Yes. I do want to meet with President Bush. I feel that President Bush owes me a personal condolence, being again that my son was the first soldier to die for Georgia, and when I watched him go to church and do other things with the soldiers that were alive and the other people that he was commending for what they had done, I felt that he owes myself and every other parent the personal respect of saying to them face-to-face, knowing who their soldier is, knowing the parents and saying, "My condolences for what your son did for me and our country." How he goes about choosing which parents he talked to, because I don't know why I haven't gotten the opportunity to talk to him. So I would like to know how he goes about it. Is it the ones that support the war? And that's the ones that he's talking to, those soldiers that survived? Are he talking to the families that once their child is gone, that they still support him? Are those the families he's talking to? I don't know who he is talking to. All I know is that he is not talking to me.
Exactly when will the Bully Boy make time for Patricia Roberts? It's over two years after her son, Jamaal Addison, was killed. What's the time table Bully Boy's working from? Are all those vacations leaving him little time to work? (Will he hit a full year of vacation before Dec. 31, 2005? Magic 8 Ball says, "It is possible.")
The only Americans Bully Boy will meet with are the ones who support him. He seems to forget that the nation is not his fan club and that he works for us. But he just wants people to puff up his ego because deep down inside he's got to know he is as disgusting, weak and pathetic as most people are saying.
200 Protest Bush in Tiny Idaho Town of 130
In Idaho Bush is staying at Tamarack Resort, known for its world-class ski mountain, its professional golf course and the beautiful Lake Cascade. Meanwhile anti-war protesters met Bush in Idaho. Even though the tiny town of Donnelly only has a population of 130, some 200 protesters took to the streets Monday night. Protests were also held in Boise. There were reports protesters planned to issue a citizen's arrest warrant for the president. Laura McCarthy, whose son is in Iraq, said at a rally "President Bush probably breathed a sigh of relief when he landed in Idaho last night. But no matter where he goes, he's going to find a Cindy Sheehan in every community across the United States. The name is going to be different, but the message is going to be the same."
These are the people Bully Boy won't meet with. These are the ones that don't count as citizens. Anyone could go see Bill Clinton but Bully Boy has to have his audiences selected because he can't take any reality creeping in. That's why he's had to take a vacation from his vacation.
He's a coward and I hope protesters follow him everywhere he goes. He needs to know that the country isn't pleased with the crappy job he's been doing.
And the mothers and fathers need to make him see that he has destroyed their families with his illegal war. He needs to see the pain he's caused and if he wants to make a joke about it, like he did with Karla Fay Tucker, then that shows you what a creep he is.
Bush's Approval Rating Plummets to New Low of 36%
Meanwhile opinion polls show President Bush's approval rating has dropped to a new low of just 36 percent -- according to the latest survey from the American Research Group. Bush's approval rating is now lower than Richard Nixon's was at the height of the Watergate scandal.
See? Nobody likes him. He can't even fool us anymore. He's just a big idiot screaming "Stay the course! Stay the course!" trying to make it seem like 9/11 and Iraq are related. His tricks are old and people aren't falling for them lately. Bully Boy has dropped to a new low in the polls but in events he always finds a new low to drop to. When our grandchildren are taught about this time, they'll wonder how America came so close to being a dictatorship.
I hope he gets impeached but if that doesn't happen, I hope we all wake up to the Bully Boy family and that the vote count rigged "dynasty" ends with Bully Boy. No George P., no Jeb, just jeer anytime one of them says they'll run. Two of them were enough to destroy the country, we don't need anymore of them in the White House. So if they run, anyone from that family, I hope that protesters show up early, like in the primaries and boo, hiss and heckle them.
I'm sure Elaine will have a better way of telling this tonight so make sure you check out her post.
No e-mails this evening because it's Wednesday and that means it's time an interview. This week's victim :D is Ty of The Third Estate Sunday Review.
What are you reading?
Ty: What are you reading? (Laughs) We're laughing because we're both reading Tariq Ali's Street Fighting Years. Want to talk about that?
Man. Last week when Betty said "My copy won't be in at the library until Friday," I was like "Thank God."
Ty: I know. Dona's like a speed reader. And C.I.'s usually already read the book.
Right, I think the only book that C.I. read for "5 Books, 5 Minutes" or any book feature was What's My Name, Fool? by Dave Zirin. So it's like "Cool" about whatever gets picked but I'm always like, "5 books?"
Ty: I know. I picked up Tariq Ali's and I was hoping there would be drawings or photos inside.
It's a great book but it's a long one when you're trying to do five books in one week.
What do you read for yourself?
Ty: Nothing when we're trying to do five books in a single week. But I like a lot of different stuff. I like theory and I like fiction, a lot of the same books Folding Star would praise at A Winding Road were books I'd read and enjoy. I'll read anything and that comes from my grandparents always telling me to stay informed. My grandfather hands you a book on flowers or botany and you say, "I don't want to look at this" he'd tell you that was exactly the reason you need to read it. So I'm open to basically anything. I'll give pretty much anything a chance. I may end up hating it but I'll put in some time to find out.
You like Stephen King books.
Ty: Yes. I grew up reading those books. I can remember being told it was bedtime and I'd just not be ready. So I'd grab this little flashlight, go on to bed, get under the covers, and with the flashlight, I'd read my Stephen King book under the cover.
Why Stephen King?
Ty: I guess because it's . . . His books, his best ones, are something more than just scary and there's the whole leading character who is misunderstood and what kid hasn't felt like the whole world misunderstands him or her?
What's been your favorite thing, I think I know the answer to this, about doing The Third Estate Sunday Review?
Ty: Well it is fun. I get tired and I fell asleep during the news review Saturday. Dona just let me sleep.
I know. We were all going, "Do we wake him?" Jim was saying your thing was too important and Dona goes, "So is sleep. People are tired of all nighters and they have their own lives. Let him sleep."
Ty: I woke up feeling great but I did wonder if I should feel guilty.
Nah. Everybody knew you had a long day and been rushing around.
Ty: I just knew my loud snore was going out over the phone lines.
Cause we're on the phone during that. A lot of people wrote in, I did this sort of look at the making of the news review, and they said why is Dona whispering to C.I. to stretch and all and the reason is because at least half of us, maybe more are on the phone. I'm on the phone. Elaine's on the phone, C.I.'s usually on the phone, Cedric's on the phone . . . But we heard a few snorts from you maybe three times, four tops, otherwise no snores.
Ty: But it's fun and we all learn something each time. There's the exchange in the roundtables that readers see but that same thing happens when we're writing something, we're saying, "I think . . ." or whatever and debating something as we are writing it. And, I'll go personal details here, as you know and everyone helping Saturday, Friday I had my first big intense romantic breakup and I was pretty much out of it from Friday until Sunday.
That was weird to me because we spoke on the phone Saturday morning, you and me, and I was thinking, "Wow, Ty can go through something like this?" because you seem to be so smooth.
Ty: What can I tell you, we're all human.
Well, when I brought up the question, I was actually thinking in terms of your favorite thing that's been done at The Third Estate Sunday Review?
Ty: Hmm. There's a large number of things. I liked the whole summer edition, where we had the creative writing pieces.
And you came up with the idea for "K-Boy Tries To Get Back Home (a horrific parable)."
Ty: Yeah. We were talking about Stephen King before and that's where you were headed, I get it. I wanted something spooky and I did think up the idea but I didn't know where it was going. It was a group effort but I do like that story and I am glad for my part in getting the basic idea. I also liked the sixties edition too. Those things take a lot of time and you can't do them every week but I think they contain some of our better stuff because we're doing something that's creative and works off the interplay between us. Also there's not a lot of creative writing going on at political sites. C.I. does it. Like "Rudith Miller" or "COUP: Today Show Seizes Control of the New York Times' Front Page" --
Or my favorite "Clubbing With the New York Times."
Ty: Yeah that's hysterical but it takes a lot of work to do something like that. So at The Third Estate Sunday Review we don't usually have the time for a special edition even though we all are really proud of them when we do them.
I've interviewed Dona, Jim, Ava and now you, so Jess is next and I'm wondering if you had any questions I should ask him about?
Ty: Well Jess, Jim and I all share an apartment. So I could probably give you some good questions for both of them.
I'm thinking of one bit of news that's not "known."
Ty: I know what you're thinking of. I bet he'll bring it up on his own.
Well Ty, thank you for agreeing to the interview. I hope we can do a follow up.
Ty: Sure thing. Just holler.
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Joan Baez, Lynn Woolsey, Lance Armstrong, Suzie's in love with her new step-brother and more
Good evening, we're starting off with Democracy Now!
2,000 Protest Bush in Salt Lake City
While President Bush was speaking, anti-war demonstrators gathered outside calling for the troops to be brought home from Iraq. Protest organizers in Salt Lake City had taken out a permit for a one-thousand person protest - but more than twice that many took to the streets. Celeste Zappala - who co-founded Gold Star Mothers for Peace with Cindy Sheehan - addressed the crowd. Her 30-year-old son Sherwood Baker died in Baghdad last year.
2000 people is just incredible. Can you imagine seeing that number in 2002? Probably not because they would have all been carted away or hidden away. There's a change going on. I see it on campus and at work and it's like things are getting worse for Bully Boy each and every day.
People are catching on to how empty he is and how much damage he's doing to our nation.
Remember "Scattered Thoughts?" The thing I copy and pasted yesterday that C.I. wrote over at The Common Ills? Think about what C.I. was saying in that and how far we've come. We've gone from a nation afraid to say that the Emperor has no clothes on to one that says, "He's naked and, oh gosh, is he ugly!"
Joan Baez & Others Rally At Camp Casey in Crawford, TX
Meanwhile in Crawford Texas, military families, veterans and anti-war activists are continuing their vigil at Camp Casey outside President Bush's 1,600-acre estate. Folk singer Joan Baez spoke to reporters on Monday. "I think the question that nobody wanted to deal with is the question that they're posing - why did my kid die in vain," Baez said. "Because the answer is too awful." Democratic Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee and actress Margot Kidder have also stopped by the Crawford protest site. Kidder - who is best known for playing Lois Lane in Superman - said she became a U.S. citizen last week in order to be able to protest the war in Iraq without facing the possibility of deportation.
I wouldn't know who Margot Kidder was if Ava and C.I. hadn't mentioned her in their review of Smallville that they called "TV: Super Stripper or Super Chicken, we weigh in on Smallville." So I won't claim I know a lot about her but I will say, "Outstanding" for her going to Crawford and outstanding to Sheila Jackson Lee too. She's a Congresswoman from Texas. Joan Baez?
Ava and Dona and Jess and Rebecca and C.I. are huge Joan Baez fans. My parents have some of her stuff too. So I know who Joan Baez is and I think it is so great that she went to Crawford. She was there Sunday and Monday. She's a classy lady and a great singer.
And if you don't know her, you should read Kat's "Diamonds & Really-Reals:"
Chill, cats, chill. I thought I'd have some fun and read some e-mails and there are forty-three of you asking where my review of Cass Elliot's latest collection is. It wasn't going to run on Monday. And I knew that so I'd asked C.I. to hold it to give me time to rework a section of it.I'm reworking it right now. If I finish, it'll be up tomorrow morning at The Common Ills. If I don't it will be Wednesday probably.
If you missed it this afternoon at The Common Ills, Joan Baez has a live album due out. It's called Bowery Songs and it comes out on September 6th. I don't know whether I'll review it or not (that depends on if it speaks to me) but I will be buying it. I hope you'll think about it too because Joan Baez never sits on the sidelines or waits to see which way the wind is blowing. She's been a brave independent voice for decades and we need to support artists who are like that. Notice that I said "artists." If Baez didn't have that goods, I wouldn't bring it up. But she's a strong singer and I actually prefer her voice as it's matured. I know a lot of people who say they miss that early sixties purity but I think she gets the songs across better now that her voice is lived in.
If Joan Baez is someone you've only heard of but never heard (she is mythic and legendary) then Bowery Songs is a chance for you to sample her.
And for all you kids out there that don't listen to Bob Dylan but pretend you do because he's "cool," you should pick up Joan's album because she lived the life Dylan sang about.
Dylan's not able to hold my interest for much of his eighties out output and after the eighties I'm really lukewarm on him. If anything, I listen to his more recent albums and wonder what Phil Ochs would be recording if he were still alive.
Dylan also has a tendency (after the motor cycle accident or "motor cycle accident" since no one knows for sure what happend) to get way too Old Testament for my tastes. It's the same way I feel about Leonard Cohen. It's just a little too "The end is nigh!" for my tastes.
A good example of that sort of song would be "Dark Eyes." Judy Collins recorded it on her Judy Sings Dylan: Just Like A Woman album of the nineties and she really managed to put it across.But with the Dylan whine and surrounded by more bleak, despair, get in the Arc 'coz the flood's a' coming! songs, it really didn't work on his Empire Burlesque. I think Judy and Joan both do a better job with Dylan's songs than Dylan does himself. That's got nothing to do with range. Judy Collins & Joan Baez have strong vocal ranges, true. But Dylan's never really had one. (Except when he tried to sing on the breath during his Nashville Skyline period and tried to pass it off as "My voice changed 'cause I stopped smoking" nonsense. Though nasal, Dylan always sung in his thoat, forcing the notes out. Critics who fell for the "I stopped smoking" crap didn't know the first thing about singing. Dylan had obviously been working on breath control and was singing on the breath. That's why his voice sounded that way.) Not having a range didn't hurt him in the early days.
But the difference was that he seemed to believe in what he was singing then and sang it with force. Too many songs since have not reflected that he believed in what he was singing. Or he's gotten so lost in his (Old Testament) imagery that he's forgotten how to connect with an audience.
Joan Baez is the Howard Zinn of the music set. I say that because she's political but also because she's something of a historian herself. She's pursued the traditional folk songs and kept them alive for new generations. She's also recorded some of her own songs (I love "Diamonds and Rust" and "Sweeter For Me" to name just two) beginning in the seventies. But something she's done almost from the beginning is to record songs by current writers. Besides exposing Bob Dylan's work to a large audience in the sixties, she's also recorded Phil Ochs, Richard Farina, Natalie Merchant, Ryan Adams and many more.
I'm not saying she doesn't have a clunker in her catalogue, but I am saying that her albums overall are a historical source for strong songs -- traditional ones, her own and some of the best of other writers today.
In an ever more plastic world where "singers" are embarrassed by their belt buckles singing and "enhanced" in the studio by digital tricks, Joan Baez is one of the really-reals. She's authentic and she's true. So consider checking out Bowery Songs September 6th.What am I listening to? Well I was listening to her live CD From Every Stage (one of my favorite live albums) when I started this but now the Beatles' Abby Road is playing.
Speaking of really-reals, I want to note something that C.I. wrote last week. Mike really wanted it to be a Blog Spotlight at The Third Estate Sunday Review in their latest edition. Everyone got behind that idea except C.I. who feels that other people need to be spotlighted more. So a thing by Jess (which is great) got spotlighted instead. Dona and Jim both kept going "We can have more than one Blog Spotlight." But C.I. said no, to give the focus to Jess. So I'm posting "Scattered Thoughts" in full here. From a really-real, a strong and true voice. We need more of them in all areas.
Kat goes on to post "Scattered Thoughts" like I did yesterday which I think is so great because we really need to make sure people know about that thing.
Now for the third thing I want to note from Democracy Now!
Rep. Lynn Woolsey to Hold Hearings on Iraq Exit Strategy
In Washington, Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey of California has announced she will hold hearings on Sept. 15 on how the U.S. can leave Iraq. She said the hearings will be modeled on the one organized by Congressman John Conyers about the Downing Street Memos. Woolsey said, "We'll hear from academics, military personnel and other experts about strategies to achieve military disengagement while still playing a constructive role in the rebuilding of Iraqi society." The hearings will come a week before the major Sept. 24 anti-war rally in Washington.
Thank you to Lynn Woolsey who's got guts, courage and everything else that this country needs.
I'm so happy that someone's got the guts to push this forward. We want it, us unelected people. It's only our officials that won't deal with it and make it happen. Lynn Woolsey is a hero in my book and we don't got a lot of those.
Take Lance Armstrong who's going to trash his own achievements by going down in the history books as Bully Boy's little buddy. If you don't believe me, check out Dave Zirin's "Pedaling Away from Principle:"
"The Tour de Crawford." The words blared from a red, white, and blue piece of spandex that George W. Bush presented to Lance Armstrong at his Crawford, Texas ranch. The gifting followed a 17-mile bike ride where they gazed at the landscape that Bush calls "my slice of heaven." Armstrong gushed about Bush's riding prowess afterward, saying to ABC News, "That old boy can go ... I didn't think he would punish himself that much, but he did." By the way, the war and occupation of Iraq "never came up."
This is bitterly disappointing. Armstrong took a strong stand against the war right after his amazing 7th consecutive Tour de France victory. With the sweat still pouring down his face he said, "The biggest downside to a war in Iraq is what you could do with that money. What does a war in Iraq cost a week? A billion? Maybe a billion a day? The budget for the National Cancer Institute is four billion. That has to change. Polls say people are much more afraid of cancer than of a plane flying into their house or a bomb or any other form of terrorism."
Armstrong's Texas Toady Two-Step is even more maddening given that Crawford is not exactly neutral vacation space for George W. Bush these days. In fact his five-week siesta has been gloriously disrupted by the real world. Cindy Sheehan lost her son Casey in the Iraqi carnage, and came to Crawford to make her anguish Bush's problem. She has requested an audience with the President, and legions of supporters have flocked to her side. Sheehan, with striking moral and political clarity, is demanding not only answers, but immediate and total troop withdrawal from Iraq. She has garnered international attention at a time when Bush's poll numbers have never been lower. Yet Bush scoffed at the idea of meeting with Cindy, saying, "I need to get on with my life."
This is the political hornet's nest Lance Armstrong biked into. This is where Lance had an opportunity to to not just talk the talk, but also walk the walk. But Armstrong neither talked nor walked. Maybe its unrealistic to think that Lance could have suggested a bike detour to Camp Casey. Perhaps it's a flight of fantasy to imagine that Lance would organize a Critical Mass Bike Ride to jam the gates of Crawford. But his utter silence, given both what he knows about Iraq, and the presence of Camp Casey, spoke volumes.
"That old boy can go?" You know where Lance should go? To get there, he'll have to pull his lips off Bully Boy's butt first. Disgusting.
Bradford e-mailed me about that and said that Lance Armstrong is beyond disgusting. Which brings us to the e-mail asking for advice. The one that's standing out to me is Suzie's (and that's not her real name).
Suzie is 16 and she's got a new stepfather as of June. She likes Step-Dad and thinks he's nice and makes her Mom happy. But what's bothering her is that because Step-Dad got married, his ex-wife has just sent his kids on over to live with them. That's three kids. 1 of them is a 17 year old son. Tom (not his real name) is really cool, Suzie says. He's funny and smart and makes her laugh. She also says he looks "really hot:" "like Ashton Kutcher without the bad parts."
Suzie's problem is she's really attracted to Tom. And he is now her step-brother so she's wondering how "gross am I?" 1 of the 2 other kids told her that Tom likes her too. Suzie wonders if she should say something or do something?
Here's my advice and anybody who wants to weigh in can do so and we'll put it up Thursday (tomorrow I do the interview with Ty of The Third Estate Sunday Review). Suzie, I don't think it's gross because you two didn't grow up together and all. You're 16 and he's 17 and you're just meeting.
But before you start locking lips you need to think about the fact that you are living under the same roof and that will probably bother your parents a lot. While they want you to get along, I doubt they're wanting a couple. So if something happens and you sneak around, it's going to get out. And once it does, they're going to be very suspicious about what's going on in the house.
My advice to Suzie is to mention to her mother that she thinks Tom is hot. Mom's reaction will determine what happens next. If she hits the roof, Suzie knows to chill. If she thinks it's "cute" that the families are getting along so well, Suzie will know that too. And if anything happens, Suzie can say, "I told you I thought he was hot!" So then it's not like Suzie was pretending or trying to fool anyone.
But I do think that if something does happen (sex or just kissing), Suzie needs to think about the fact that there's no escape from Tom. It's not like she and Tom can fight and then avoid each other for a week or something because they live in the same house. I really don't think the risks are worth pursuing a relationship but if Suzie does, that's her business. But she needs to make sure her Mom knows, this is the first thing, that she likes Tom.
Suzie should also be prepared that Tom might not like her that way and that the more she gets to know Tom (they met at the wedding and haven't seen each other since this week when Tom and his 2 siblings moved in) may mean she finds him less attractive and interesting.
2,000 Protest Bush in Salt Lake City
While President Bush was speaking, anti-war demonstrators gathered outside calling for the troops to be brought home from Iraq. Protest organizers in Salt Lake City had taken out a permit for a one-thousand person protest - but more than twice that many took to the streets. Celeste Zappala - who co-founded Gold Star Mothers for Peace with Cindy Sheehan - addressed the crowd. Her 30-year-old son Sherwood Baker died in Baghdad last year.
2000 people is just incredible. Can you imagine seeing that number in 2002? Probably not because they would have all been carted away or hidden away. There's a change going on. I see it on campus and at work and it's like things are getting worse for Bully Boy each and every day.
People are catching on to how empty he is and how much damage he's doing to our nation.
Remember "Scattered Thoughts?" The thing I copy and pasted yesterday that C.I. wrote over at The Common Ills? Think about what C.I. was saying in that and how far we've come. We've gone from a nation afraid to say that the Emperor has no clothes on to one that says, "He's naked and, oh gosh, is he ugly!"
Joan Baez & Others Rally At Camp Casey in Crawford, TX
Meanwhile in Crawford Texas, military families, veterans and anti-war activists are continuing their vigil at Camp Casey outside President Bush's 1,600-acre estate. Folk singer Joan Baez spoke to reporters on Monday. "I think the question that nobody wanted to deal with is the question that they're posing - why did my kid die in vain," Baez said. "Because the answer is too awful." Democratic Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee and actress Margot Kidder have also stopped by the Crawford protest site. Kidder - who is best known for playing Lois Lane in Superman - said she became a U.S. citizen last week in order to be able to protest the war in Iraq without facing the possibility of deportation.
I wouldn't know who Margot Kidder was if Ava and C.I. hadn't mentioned her in their review of Smallville that they called "TV: Super Stripper or Super Chicken, we weigh in on Smallville." So I won't claim I know a lot about her but I will say, "Outstanding" for her going to Crawford and outstanding to Sheila Jackson Lee too. She's a Congresswoman from Texas. Joan Baez?
Ava and Dona and Jess and Rebecca and C.I. are huge Joan Baez fans. My parents have some of her stuff too. So I know who Joan Baez is and I think it is so great that she went to Crawford. She was there Sunday and Monday. She's a classy lady and a great singer.
And if you don't know her, you should read Kat's "Diamonds & Really-Reals:"
Chill, cats, chill. I thought I'd have some fun and read some e-mails and there are forty-three of you asking where my review of Cass Elliot's latest collection is. It wasn't going to run on Monday. And I knew that so I'd asked C.I. to hold it to give me time to rework a section of it.I'm reworking it right now. If I finish, it'll be up tomorrow morning at The Common Ills. If I don't it will be Wednesday probably.
If you missed it this afternoon at The Common Ills, Joan Baez has a live album due out. It's called Bowery Songs and it comes out on September 6th. I don't know whether I'll review it or not (that depends on if it speaks to me) but I will be buying it. I hope you'll think about it too because Joan Baez never sits on the sidelines or waits to see which way the wind is blowing. She's been a brave independent voice for decades and we need to support artists who are like that. Notice that I said "artists." If Baez didn't have that goods, I wouldn't bring it up. But she's a strong singer and I actually prefer her voice as it's matured. I know a lot of people who say they miss that early sixties purity but I think she gets the songs across better now that her voice is lived in.
If Joan Baez is someone you've only heard of but never heard (she is mythic and legendary) then Bowery Songs is a chance for you to sample her.
And for all you kids out there that don't listen to Bob Dylan but pretend you do because he's "cool," you should pick up Joan's album because she lived the life Dylan sang about.
Dylan's not able to hold my interest for much of his eighties out output and after the eighties I'm really lukewarm on him. If anything, I listen to his more recent albums and wonder what Phil Ochs would be recording if he were still alive.
Dylan also has a tendency (after the motor cycle accident or "motor cycle accident" since no one knows for sure what happend) to get way too Old Testament for my tastes. It's the same way I feel about Leonard Cohen. It's just a little too "The end is nigh!" for my tastes.
A good example of that sort of song would be "Dark Eyes." Judy Collins recorded it on her Judy Sings Dylan: Just Like A Woman album of the nineties and she really managed to put it across.But with the Dylan whine and surrounded by more bleak, despair, get in the Arc 'coz the flood's a' coming! songs, it really didn't work on his Empire Burlesque. I think Judy and Joan both do a better job with Dylan's songs than Dylan does himself. That's got nothing to do with range. Judy Collins & Joan Baez have strong vocal ranges, true. But Dylan's never really had one. (Except when he tried to sing on the breath during his Nashville Skyline period and tried to pass it off as "My voice changed 'cause I stopped smoking" nonsense. Though nasal, Dylan always sung in his thoat, forcing the notes out. Critics who fell for the "I stopped smoking" crap didn't know the first thing about singing. Dylan had obviously been working on breath control and was singing on the breath. That's why his voice sounded that way.) Not having a range didn't hurt him in the early days.
But the difference was that he seemed to believe in what he was singing then and sang it with force. Too many songs since have not reflected that he believed in what he was singing. Or he's gotten so lost in his (Old Testament) imagery that he's forgotten how to connect with an audience.
Joan Baez is the Howard Zinn of the music set. I say that because she's political but also because she's something of a historian herself. She's pursued the traditional folk songs and kept them alive for new generations. She's also recorded some of her own songs (I love "Diamonds and Rust" and "Sweeter For Me" to name just two) beginning in the seventies. But something she's done almost from the beginning is to record songs by current writers. Besides exposing Bob Dylan's work to a large audience in the sixties, she's also recorded Phil Ochs, Richard Farina, Natalie Merchant, Ryan Adams and many more.
I'm not saying she doesn't have a clunker in her catalogue, but I am saying that her albums overall are a historical source for strong songs -- traditional ones, her own and some of the best of other writers today.
In an ever more plastic world where "singers" are embarrassed by their belt buckles singing and "enhanced" in the studio by digital tricks, Joan Baez is one of the really-reals. She's authentic and she's true. So consider checking out Bowery Songs September 6th.What am I listening to? Well I was listening to her live CD From Every Stage (one of my favorite live albums) when I started this but now the Beatles' Abby Road is playing.
Speaking of really-reals, I want to note something that C.I. wrote last week. Mike really wanted it to be a Blog Spotlight at The Third Estate Sunday Review in their latest edition. Everyone got behind that idea except C.I. who feels that other people need to be spotlighted more. So a thing by Jess (which is great) got spotlighted instead. Dona and Jim both kept going "We can have more than one Blog Spotlight." But C.I. said no, to give the focus to Jess. So I'm posting "Scattered Thoughts" in full here. From a really-real, a strong and true voice. We need more of them in all areas.
Kat goes on to post "Scattered Thoughts" like I did yesterday which I think is so great because we really need to make sure people know about that thing.
Now for the third thing I want to note from Democracy Now!
Rep. Lynn Woolsey to Hold Hearings on Iraq Exit Strategy
In Washington, Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey of California has announced she will hold hearings on Sept. 15 on how the U.S. can leave Iraq. She said the hearings will be modeled on the one organized by Congressman John Conyers about the Downing Street Memos. Woolsey said, "We'll hear from academics, military personnel and other experts about strategies to achieve military disengagement while still playing a constructive role in the rebuilding of Iraqi society." The hearings will come a week before the major Sept. 24 anti-war rally in Washington.
Thank you to Lynn Woolsey who's got guts, courage and everything else that this country needs.
I'm so happy that someone's got the guts to push this forward. We want it, us unelected people. It's only our officials that won't deal with it and make it happen. Lynn Woolsey is a hero in my book and we don't got a lot of those.
Take Lance Armstrong who's going to trash his own achievements by going down in the history books as Bully Boy's little buddy. If you don't believe me, check out Dave Zirin's "Pedaling Away from Principle:"
"The Tour de Crawford." The words blared from a red, white, and blue piece of spandex that George W. Bush presented to Lance Armstrong at his Crawford, Texas ranch. The gifting followed a 17-mile bike ride where they gazed at the landscape that Bush calls "my slice of heaven." Armstrong gushed about Bush's riding prowess afterward, saying to ABC News, "That old boy can go ... I didn't think he would punish himself that much, but he did." By the way, the war and occupation of Iraq "never came up."
This is bitterly disappointing. Armstrong took a strong stand against the war right after his amazing 7th consecutive Tour de France victory. With the sweat still pouring down his face he said, "The biggest downside to a war in Iraq is what you could do with that money. What does a war in Iraq cost a week? A billion? Maybe a billion a day? The budget for the National Cancer Institute is four billion. That has to change. Polls say people are much more afraid of cancer than of a plane flying into their house or a bomb or any other form of terrorism."
Armstrong's Texas Toady Two-Step is even more maddening given that Crawford is not exactly neutral vacation space for George W. Bush these days. In fact his five-week siesta has been gloriously disrupted by the real world. Cindy Sheehan lost her son Casey in the Iraqi carnage, and came to Crawford to make her anguish Bush's problem. She has requested an audience with the President, and legions of supporters have flocked to her side. Sheehan, with striking moral and political clarity, is demanding not only answers, but immediate and total troop withdrawal from Iraq. She has garnered international attention at a time when Bush's poll numbers have never been lower. Yet Bush scoffed at the idea of meeting with Cindy, saying, "I need to get on with my life."
This is the political hornet's nest Lance Armstrong biked into. This is where Lance had an opportunity to to not just talk the talk, but also walk the walk. But Armstrong neither talked nor walked. Maybe its unrealistic to think that Lance could have suggested a bike detour to Camp Casey. Perhaps it's a flight of fantasy to imagine that Lance would organize a Critical Mass Bike Ride to jam the gates of Crawford. But his utter silence, given both what he knows about Iraq, and the presence of Camp Casey, spoke volumes.
"That old boy can go?" You know where Lance should go? To get there, he'll have to pull his lips off Bully Boy's butt first. Disgusting.
Bradford e-mailed me about that and said that Lance Armstrong is beyond disgusting. Which brings us to the e-mail asking for advice. The one that's standing out to me is Suzie's (and that's not her real name).
Suzie is 16 and she's got a new stepfather as of June. She likes Step-Dad and thinks he's nice and makes her Mom happy. But what's bothering her is that because Step-Dad got married, his ex-wife has just sent his kids on over to live with them. That's three kids. 1 of them is a 17 year old son. Tom (not his real name) is really cool, Suzie says. He's funny and smart and makes her laugh. She also says he looks "really hot:" "like Ashton Kutcher without the bad parts."
Suzie's problem is she's really attracted to Tom. And he is now her step-brother so she's wondering how "gross am I?" 1 of the 2 other kids told her that Tom likes her too. Suzie wonders if she should say something or do something?
Here's my advice and anybody who wants to weigh in can do so and we'll put it up Thursday (tomorrow I do the interview with Ty of The Third Estate Sunday Review). Suzie, I don't think it's gross because you two didn't grow up together and all. You're 16 and he's 17 and you're just meeting.
But before you start locking lips you need to think about the fact that you are living under the same roof and that will probably bother your parents a lot. While they want you to get along, I doubt they're wanting a couple. So if something happens and you sneak around, it's going to get out. And once it does, they're going to be very suspicious about what's going on in the house.
My advice to Suzie is to mention to her mother that she thinks Tom is hot. Mom's reaction will determine what happens next. If she hits the roof, Suzie knows to chill. If she thinks it's "cute" that the families are getting along so well, Suzie will know that too. And if anything happens, Suzie can say, "I told you I thought he was hot!" So then it's not like Suzie was pretending or trying to fool anyone.
But I do think that if something does happen (sex or just kissing), Suzie needs to think about the fact that there's no escape from Tom. It's not like she and Tom can fight and then avoid each other for a week or something because they live in the same house. I really don't think the risks are worth pursuing a relationship but if Suzie does, that's her business. But she needs to make sure her Mom knows, this is the first thing, that she likes Tom.
Suzie should also be prepared that Tom might not like her that way and that the more she gets to know Tom (they met at the wedding and haven't seen each other since this week when Tom and his 2 siblings moved in) may mean she finds him less attractive and interesting.
Monday, August 22, 2005
News and explaining the process for The Third Estate Sunday Review News Review
Good evening. Let's start off with some news from Democracy Now!
U.S. Drafts Plans to Keep 100,000 Troops in Iraq Until 2009
The Pentagon is drafting plans to keep over 100,000 troops in Iraq for the next four years. Gen. Peter Schoomaker told the Associated Press, the Army is already making plans for troop deployments in Iraq through the year 2009. He admitted that keeping over 100,000 troops in Iraq that long is a possibility but he described it as a "worst case" scenario. This comes as a high-ranking Republican Senator has publicly compared the war in Iraq to Vietnam. "We are locked into a bogged down problem, not unsimilar, dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam," said Hagel. "The longer we stay, the more problems we're going to have."
That's one of the things we covered in "The Third Estate Sunday Review News Review." Bobbie e-mailed asking why I didn't deliver a report in that Sunday feature? Last week, Elaine lost out on her story and Cedric's got slashed to an announcement. So Betty, Jim and me decided to focus on helping with the behind the scenes stuff. Dona is like the producer. She's making sure that it doesn't run long and telling C.I. to extend or hurry based on the time and whether or not someone going next has their report ready. And based on the time, she and Jim are looking at what people have ready for their report and helping them cut it if time is short or helping them extend it if there's more time. But there's usually not more time. When you read it and C.I.'s talking about something and asking questions, Dona's telling C.I. to extend because the next report isn't ready. C.I. hates being the anchor but everyone thinks C.I. does a great job, except C.I. Like Dona said here last week, you need someone who can think on their feet and who knows stuff because if she's saying, "Stretch this out" then the anchor's got to be able to say something more than, "So how's your day?"
How does it start? We're usually finishing something and Dona will say, "News Review in 15 minutes." Which means we're all tossing out ideas for topic for like 5 minutes and if someone hears a topic they like, they grab it and leave before that 5 minutes so that they can get their thing started. People will toss out sources and stuff to use like, "We haven't used ___" or "We should use ___." And 5 minutes before it's time to start, Dona will ask who's got something ready and is ready to go? C.I.'s usually helping someone with their report at that point. Then it's right before it's time to go and Dona will tell C.I. who the first person up is and the topic of their report. Then we're transcribing it in real time.
Elaine went first and we were glad because she didn't get to go last time but there was time needed to stretch because Ava's thing on Pittsburgh needed a little more time and Dona had her planned for next. So C.I. tossed out a topic to Elaine that she had written about and it reads like it was planned but it wasn't. It's time for the next segment and Jess goes next to give Ava more time and Cedric's not ready cause he is trying to find more sources for his story. Jess was way cool and had more stuff than he planned to use which was good because Dona was going stretch and I was helping Cedric and Jim and Betty were helping Ava. We couldn't find an additional report so Cedric worked that into his report. And that's how it moved along. Then I went to help Dona because Kat had a huge report and was asking for help on cutting it. She was going to include the news about Barbra Streisand's new song but we had time to watch the first 40 seconds of the video while Cedric and C.I. were stretching. It's not a pro-war song but it's not an anti-war song. Kat cut out this long thing she had on that. And there was other stuff that got dropped too but we were all the most depressed about Streisand's song because the stuff Kat found made it sound like it was this really deep song about peace and that's not what it is. It's a nice song, don't get me wrong, but it's not this amazing peace statement like we were all thinking. And while all that's going on, Ava, Jim, and Betty have gone ahead and included London in her report which made it even stronger and a strong way to go out.
That actually answers Tony's questions as well and just leave Damica's question which was what is C.I. told about the reports ahead of time? Dona gives a brief sentence like "Kat's going to go over music, she's got a Garth joke in there." Or Dona will tell C.I. "You're going to Jess next and he'll be talking about Cindy Sheehan and he has material to extend with if it's needed." That's it.
When she's saying that C.I. is either listening to someone give a report or speaking to them and she really couldn't give much more detail without it being confusing probably.
Damica wondered if C.I. and Ava had worked out their exchange during Ava's report because it flowed so well and, no, they didn't. But Ava and C.I. work well together. They do the TV review together and all and they think a lot alike so that's probably what you're seeing when you read it. I also think C.I. doesn't worry about tossing what could be a curve ball to Ava because they know each pretty well and know what each other can handle.
That's going to count for digging into the e-mails this entry. Now back to Democracy Now!
Anti-War Protests Grow In Crawford Texas
In Crawford Texas, anti-war protesters have begun their third week of vigils outside President Bush's 1,600-acre estate. The protest began on Aug. 6 by Cindy Sheehan - whose 24-year-old son Casey died in Iraq last year. But the protest has rapidly expanded. Military families, veterans and anti-war protesters continue to travel across the country to Crawford to take part in the demonstrations. On Friday a second protest camp was opened next door to President Bush's property. Over the weekend musicians Joan Baez and Steve Earle performed before hundreds of people. The protesters are vowing to stay in Crawford for the rest of the month until President Bush ends his five-week summer vacation.
I want to quote something C.I. e-mailed which is Dave Zirin's "In Defense of Felipe Alou:"
So you say you wanna be a racist? Put down that burning cross! Rip up your white hood! Throw away your CD of "Trent Lott's Favorite Negro Spirituals!" The quickest way to be branded a racist is to stand up to racism. Just ask San Francisco Giants' manager Felipe Alou.
Last week, KNBR's Larry Krueger called the Giants a team of "brain dead Caribbeans." Alou straightened his spine and said, "Hell no." In the ensuing storm, Krueger was canned. Now Alou, in the eyes of a whole strain of the sports industrial complex, is the bad guy and Krueger has morphed into Mario Savio with gravy stains: a free speech martyr sacrificed on the altar of "political correctness."
When Krueger got the boot, Alou was sympathetic but remained firm. "I feel bad about people being fired. It wasn't my intention, but I didn't start it and I took a stand. I want people to understand that [racism] is a social issue. I want to make people aware of that so they will know that in the United States, it won't be tolerated."
Remember that we did a review of Dave Zirin's book What's My Name Fool? at The Third Estate Sunday Review.
From CounterRecruiter, I want to be sure everyone's got the news about Pittsburg that Democracy Now! noted today, "Pittsburgh Police Use Tasers at Counter-Recruiting Demo:"
Pittsburgh Indymedia has more coverage on the protests including video of the shooting. At least five protesters were arrested and two were hospitalized. One woman was bit by a police dog. A second woman suffered injuries after being shot with a 50,000-volt Taser stun gun.
Last thing for tonight is a full entry. At The Third Estate Sunday Review, we were all trying to pick the Blog Spotlight or Spotlights and we were really wanting to go with a thing by C.I. We went with something else because C.I. wanted it spotlighted and I'll spotlight it here tomorrow but this is something I thought was pretty important and Elaine and I discussed this and both agreed to note it at our sites today.
Here's C.I.'s "Scattered thoughts:"
Tonight, when things appear to be improving in the United States in terms of debates and discussions, I want to drop back to how things were not all that long ago.Following 9/11, debate was hushed by the mainstream media and certain gatekeepers. That's not something unique to our times but hopefully online sources will help it be remembered. Bartcop and other sites that were around then have real time discussions on the climate in this country at that time.Why is that important?
When we look at the internment of the Japanese-Americans in this country during WWII, for instance, we're shocked and it seems so against the fabric of our society that we have a hard time comprehending how it could happen.
In our country we saw Muslims rounded up, we saw secret deportations and numbers of other activites that wouldn't seem to fold easily into the fabric of the United States. But they happened with little outcry registering.
When the issue did resonate, outside the mainstream media, and the events were spoken of, sometimes there was a tendency was to put it in the perspective of Germany as Hitler rose to power. That offended a number of people. (That's not my slamming anyone who made that comparison -- people making such comparisions were usually doing so in a solid manner despite the whines and slams from the right.) But we really didn't have to go other shores ("we" being American community members, apologies to our members from other countries, I'll probably continue to use "we" as I rush through this).
We've had witch hunts many other times. McCarthyism is but one example.
What bothered a number of people (rightfully so) besides the actions following 9/11 was how little discussion there was of them. We take our cues, as a nation, from our media. (A point that shouldn't be controversial whether someone's a reader of Noam Chomsky or Marshall McLuhan or In Style.) And we found ourselves faced with a media that was owned by or in part . . .
(If your new to this topic, refer to this web page from NOW with Bill Moyers which has a drop down menu you can use.)
We link to many independent media sites (I'm not providing a ton of links in this entry so use our permalinks on the left) like The Progressive, The Nation, Democracy Now!, BuzzFlash, In These Times, Ms., The Black Commentator, CounterPunch, Indymedia, Pacifica, Clamor, LeftTurn, etc. They exist, they are out there. (Along with many others.) But we're more apt to have Fox "News," MSNBC, or CNN in our homes than a magazine on our coffee table. (We as a nation.)
In his book, A Matter of Opinion, Victor Navasky explains that he sees the importance of The Nation and other opinion journals as presenting ideas to a wider audience. (That's my bad summary of a major point in his book. My apologies.) It's the point of this community in terms of trying to hook members up with voices that speak to them. As FAIR has documented repeatedly since it's inception, the voices presented by the mainstream media grow narrower and narrower each year.
If tomorrow an apple is used as a weapon and fright wing senator goes on Meet the Press to call for banning all apples and hawkish Dem is the "opposition" arguing that we should instead implement a testing procedure for apples, to the public, that's the debate clearly drawn. That's the debate the mainstream media popularizes and gets behind. And if you're thinking there must be some other idea/plan or even thinking, "We're talking about one apple here!" you're left with the impression that you are so out of the norm that no one else in the country shares your opinion. It's not on the TV, it's not on the radio. So it must be you going out on limb all by yourself.
And the result may be that you dismiss your own opinion and attempt to get with the program. Even if you don't, you may feel you're the only one who would ever think that way, so what's the point?
Following 9/11, you 'got with the program' in some manner or you were demonized. (Susan Sontag, et al.) And we need to remember that because people will ask, "How did this happen here?" They'll ask that about the secret deportations, the roundups, the practice of torture and rendention and a host of other things.
People being frightened does play into it and for that you need national hysteria. The lack of serious debate and a limited number of opinions and voices reaching out through the mainstream only aid the creation of a national hysteria. If, in the future, we attempt to answer how we entered a period where secret hearings, et al. were suddenly "American," we won't have to look to Germany to explain what happened here. We'll merely need to note that few people in power used their power (most abdicated it) and the press didn't do their job (ditto). And maybe, if we can all remember that, it can serve as a lesson the next time a similar event pops up (and they always do). Laura Flanders says, "Don't leave politics to the politicians."
You can't. They're not going to advocate (with few exceptions) anything that they're not being pressured to do. Possibly, that's understandable. You are a representative of a certain area and if the citizens in your area aren't pushing for action, it may be "smart" not to take any.
The myth of the brave press isn't reality. At best, we've been able to count on a few strong voices in any era. To use McCarthyism, the press largely took a pass on the witch hunts in real time and, like politicians, waited for the mood of the nation to change. That might have been "smart" as well. They are selling papers, magazines or commercial time.
But what's smart business isn't smart democracy. And if there's a lesson from our recent history, hopefully it will be "Speak out soon and speak out often." The only way ideas will get traction is if they're heard. Too many times, I heard someone say, "I'd say something but I'm the only one who feels this way." (And when this site started, that feeling of "I thought I was the only one who thought that" has been a constant in e-mails.) If you see something you think is wrong, dig in your heels and stake out your position. Don't wait for an editorial in a paper or for backing from a politician. Don't wait for the "mood" of the nation to shift.
Even shut out of the mainstream media, your ideas can still take life in the people around you. And if media consolidation isn't dealt with, we're going to need to be very aware of what power we do have and we're going to need to be willing to use it.
When an anchor person (Dan Rather) goes on a talk show (Letterman) to say he takes his marching orders from a president, we need to realize that regardless of the anchor, regardless of the person in the oval office, there's a problem. When an anchor (future at that point, Brian Williams) goes on a talk show (Leno) to say that he's interested in his broadcasts being kid friendly, we have a problem. In the first example, a person with a huge say in what will make the evening news is implying that he'll present what's approved by the White House. In the second example, that mythical large number of children tuning into the evening news are used as an excuse for watering down content. The result of both statements is not an endorsement of journalism (or even an appreciation of it). Nor are they new attitudes. However, in the past, when they've been expressed in similar terms, they were usually expressed following an actual event. For instance, apparently looking over the crayola scrawled notes of seven-year-olds, Peter Jennings once expressed concern over his decision to show a Lebenese child on a stretcher. In the talk show remarks noted at the start of this paragraph, there was no specific incident that either anchor was responding to. These were pre-emptive statements volunteered by the two men.
The fact that the statements weren't greeted with loud criticism from the mainstream is troubling. If you watch the news with your child (if), you're agreeing to see the news. Not just the pretty things. We heard, during the impeachment, people moaning that now their kids were talking about blow jobs. Taking them at their word (for some reason Nielsen hasn't registered any significant number of children watching the evening news broadcasts, but whatever), you tell your child to leave the room or you turn off the TV. If the child is saying "blow job," you tell the child to stop. If the child's at an age where s/he repeats everything heard then they probably shouldn't have been watching a news program to begin with because they're probably not at a level where they can handle it.
But we were all infantilized by the mainstream media. Whether it was hidden coffins (the administration's policy could have been gotten around, as was demonstrated when the photos finally did break) or not showing pictures of the graphic violence. Note, that's pictures of the graphic violence. Photo journalists capture what they see. They don't create it (if they do, they aren't photo journalists).Yes, you had a few pieces here and there. We can note, for instance, R.C. Longworth's "War from 30,000 feet: Whipping Up a Crisis" which ran in the Chicago Tribune March 23, 2003. After noting FDR's "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself," Longworth wrote:
. . . Bush is using fear as a weapon, not to build courage among Americans but to stampede them into endorsing a case for a war that has been built literally on a grab bag of possibilities, contingencies, ifs and maybes, of things that haven't happened but could happen, of bad guys who might hit us if we don't hit them first.
This is a created crisis. Now that the crisis is upon us, we can only hope that it passes quickly, with minimum loss of life on either side, and that our native skepticism prevents it from happening again.
"National hysteria" is a term Longworth uses and you need that hysteria before you can bring out the nails and the wood or the bonfires necessary to conclude the witch hunts with.
National hysteria is what whips us up and silences us. An independent press is needed in any time period to combat that.
The mainstream press' consolidation is a concern today but it's a mistake, my opinion, to assume the mainstream media was ever that independent to begin with.
In terms of today, it will be interesting to watch the coverage play out in the next few years. There will, if history holds, be the usual "We were all wrong." Some will point to a Longworth at their paper as an example that they did "cover" the issues with little accountability for the fact that a Longworth was the exception and not reflective of the overall tone.
It'll also be interesting to see how some cheerleaders (water carriers) for the current administration (I'm not speaking of columnists, I'm speaking of reporters) minimize their own part in the hysteria, the witch hunts and pressing (not reporting) the administration's agenda.
Will Judith Miller (who, from her actions in Iraq, appears to have foolishly believed some of the claims she reported on) be the scape goat that allows everyone else to emerge with a pass?Martha e-mailed about an online transcript (at the Washington Post) with James VandeHei entitled "White House Insider" and wondered what world he lives in? Here's one section:
San Francisco, Calif.: Why doesn't the press refuse to take briefings from Scott McClellan, who either lied to them about the Plame incident, or was lied to by the administration? Isn't his credibility shot?
Jim VandeHei: Scott took a good beating when it was learned that the White House knew much more about the Plame leak than he and others let on last year. It's not entirely clear how much he knew about the involvement of other officials. But Scott has a lot of credibility with reporters. He is seen as someone who might not tell you a lot, but is not going to tell you a lie. more broadly, we go to the briefings if for no other reason to hear the White House spin on world events. they rarely figure into our daily reports because we will talk to Scott and others one on one and not in front of a crowd.
He's not going to lie, according to VandeHei, and yet "we will talk to Scott and others one on one and not in front of a crowd." The daily briefings "rarely figure into our daily reports." But he's not "not going to tell you a lie." Even overlooking the apparent contradiction in VandeHei's statements (if he's not going to lie, why are the daily briefings of no value to the Post?), what exactly is VandeHei doing making these remarks? Why is he vouching for "Scott" in such a personal manner?
I wonder how the remarks made in the transcript will play out (that's not the only section that should raise eyebrows)? It's as though there's not an even an effort made any longer to appear impartial as reporters name drop "Scott" and leave their role as reporter to peer inside "Scott" and vouch for him. It's doubtful VandeHei will get any flack for the remarks or be reassigned but the remarks do raise questions. Or would if anyone wanted to ask serious questions about the role of journalists today.
Here's VandeHei quoting "Scott" on the expulsion of the Denver Three in "Three Were Told to Leave Bush Town Meeting" (March 30, 2005):
Scott McClellan, Bush's press secretary, said it was a volunteer who asked them to leave "out of concern they might try to disrupt the event." He said the White House welcomes a variety of voices into events but discourages people from coming to heckle the president or disrupt town hall forums. "If someone is coming to try to disrupt it, then obviously that person would be asked to leave," he said. "There is plenty of opportunity outside of the event to express their views."
Does VandeHei really believe that "the White House welcomes a variety of voices into events"? Is that a sign of "Scott"'s credibility?
We'll hopefully continue this but I know I missed posting Tuesday night because of wanting to say more so this will go up as is.
U.S. Drafts Plans to Keep 100,000 Troops in Iraq Until 2009
The Pentagon is drafting plans to keep over 100,000 troops in Iraq for the next four years. Gen. Peter Schoomaker told the Associated Press, the Army is already making plans for troop deployments in Iraq through the year 2009. He admitted that keeping over 100,000 troops in Iraq that long is a possibility but he described it as a "worst case" scenario. This comes as a high-ranking Republican Senator has publicly compared the war in Iraq to Vietnam. "We are locked into a bogged down problem, not unsimilar, dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam," said Hagel. "The longer we stay, the more problems we're going to have."
That's one of the things we covered in "The Third Estate Sunday Review News Review." Bobbie e-mailed asking why I didn't deliver a report in that Sunday feature? Last week, Elaine lost out on her story and Cedric's got slashed to an announcement. So Betty, Jim and me decided to focus on helping with the behind the scenes stuff. Dona is like the producer. She's making sure that it doesn't run long and telling C.I. to extend or hurry based on the time and whether or not someone going next has their report ready. And based on the time, she and Jim are looking at what people have ready for their report and helping them cut it if time is short or helping them extend it if there's more time. But there's usually not more time. When you read it and C.I.'s talking about something and asking questions, Dona's telling C.I. to extend because the next report isn't ready. C.I. hates being the anchor but everyone thinks C.I. does a great job, except C.I. Like Dona said here last week, you need someone who can think on their feet and who knows stuff because if she's saying, "Stretch this out" then the anchor's got to be able to say something more than, "So how's your day?"
How does it start? We're usually finishing something and Dona will say, "News Review in 15 minutes." Which means we're all tossing out ideas for topic for like 5 minutes and if someone hears a topic they like, they grab it and leave before that 5 minutes so that they can get their thing started. People will toss out sources and stuff to use like, "We haven't used ___" or "We should use ___." And 5 minutes before it's time to start, Dona will ask who's got something ready and is ready to go? C.I.'s usually helping someone with their report at that point. Then it's right before it's time to go and Dona will tell C.I. who the first person up is and the topic of their report. Then we're transcribing it in real time.
Elaine went first and we were glad because she didn't get to go last time but there was time needed to stretch because Ava's thing on Pittsburgh needed a little more time and Dona had her planned for next. So C.I. tossed out a topic to Elaine that she had written about and it reads like it was planned but it wasn't. It's time for the next segment and Jess goes next to give Ava more time and Cedric's not ready cause he is trying to find more sources for his story. Jess was way cool and had more stuff than he planned to use which was good because Dona was going stretch and I was helping Cedric and Jim and Betty were helping Ava. We couldn't find an additional report so Cedric worked that into his report. And that's how it moved along. Then I went to help Dona because Kat had a huge report and was asking for help on cutting it. She was going to include the news about Barbra Streisand's new song but we had time to watch the first 40 seconds of the video while Cedric and C.I. were stretching. It's not a pro-war song but it's not an anti-war song. Kat cut out this long thing she had on that. And there was other stuff that got dropped too but we were all the most depressed about Streisand's song because the stuff Kat found made it sound like it was this really deep song about peace and that's not what it is. It's a nice song, don't get me wrong, but it's not this amazing peace statement like we were all thinking. And while all that's going on, Ava, Jim, and Betty have gone ahead and included London in her report which made it even stronger and a strong way to go out.
That actually answers Tony's questions as well and just leave Damica's question which was what is C.I. told about the reports ahead of time? Dona gives a brief sentence like "Kat's going to go over music, she's got a Garth joke in there." Or Dona will tell C.I. "You're going to Jess next and he'll be talking about Cindy Sheehan and he has material to extend with if it's needed." That's it.
When she's saying that C.I. is either listening to someone give a report or speaking to them and she really couldn't give much more detail without it being confusing probably.
Damica wondered if C.I. and Ava had worked out their exchange during Ava's report because it flowed so well and, no, they didn't. But Ava and C.I. work well together. They do the TV review together and all and they think a lot alike so that's probably what you're seeing when you read it. I also think C.I. doesn't worry about tossing what could be a curve ball to Ava because they know each pretty well and know what each other can handle.
That's going to count for digging into the e-mails this entry. Now back to Democracy Now!
Anti-War Protests Grow In Crawford Texas
In Crawford Texas, anti-war protesters have begun their third week of vigils outside President Bush's 1,600-acre estate. The protest began on Aug. 6 by Cindy Sheehan - whose 24-year-old son Casey died in Iraq last year. But the protest has rapidly expanded. Military families, veterans and anti-war protesters continue to travel across the country to Crawford to take part in the demonstrations. On Friday a second protest camp was opened next door to President Bush's property. Over the weekend musicians Joan Baez and Steve Earle performed before hundreds of people. The protesters are vowing to stay in Crawford for the rest of the month until President Bush ends his five-week summer vacation.
I want to quote something C.I. e-mailed which is Dave Zirin's "In Defense of Felipe Alou:"
So you say you wanna be a racist? Put down that burning cross! Rip up your white hood! Throw away your CD of "Trent Lott's Favorite Negro Spirituals!" The quickest way to be branded a racist is to stand up to racism. Just ask San Francisco Giants' manager Felipe Alou.
Last week, KNBR's Larry Krueger called the Giants a team of "brain dead Caribbeans." Alou straightened his spine and said, "Hell no." In the ensuing storm, Krueger was canned. Now Alou, in the eyes of a whole strain of the sports industrial complex, is the bad guy and Krueger has morphed into Mario Savio with gravy stains: a free speech martyr sacrificed on the altar of "political correctness."
When Krueger got the boot, Alou was sympathetic but remained firm. "I feel bad about people being fired. It wasn't my intention, but I didn't start it and I took a stand. I want people to understand that [racism] is a social issue. I want to make people aware of that so they will know that in the United States, it won't be tolerated."
Remember that we did a review of Dave Zirin's book What's My Name Fool? at The Third Estate Sunday Review.
From CounterRecruiter, I want to be sure everyone's got the news about Pittsburg that Democracy Now! noted today, "Pittsburgh Police Use Tasers at Counter-Recruiting Demo:"
Pittsburgh Indymedia has more coverage on the protests including video of the shooting. At least five protesters were arrested and two were hospitalized. One woman was bit by a police dog. A second woman suffered injuries after being shot with a 50,000-volt Taser stun gun.
Last thing for tonight is a full entry. At The Third Estate Sunday Review, we were all trying to pick the Blog Spotlight or Spotlights and we were really wanting to go with a thing by C.I. We went with something else because C.I. wanted it spotlighted and I'll spotlight it here tomorrow but this is something I thought was pretty important and Elaine and I discussed this and both agreed to note it at our sites today.
Here's C.I.'s "Scattered thoughts:"
Tonight, when things appear to be improving in the United States in terms of debates and discussions, I want to drop back to how things were not all that long ago.Following 9/11, debate was hushed by the mainstream media and certain gatekeepers. That's not something unique to our times but hopefully online sources will help it be remembered. Bartcop and other sites that were around then have real time discussions on the climate in this country at that time.Why is that important?
When we look at the internment of the Japanese-Americans in this country during WWII, for instance, we're shocked and it seems so against the fabric of our society that we have a hard time comprehending how it could happen.
In our country we saw Muslims rounded up, we saw secret deportations and numbers of other activites that wouldn't seem to fold easily into the fabric of the United States. But they happened with little outcry registering.
When the issue did resonate, outside the mainstream media, and the events were spoken of, sometimes there was a tendency was to put it in the perspective of Germany as Hitler rose to power. That offended a number of people. (That's not my slamming anyone who made that comparison -- people making such comparisions were usually doing so in a solid manner despite the whines and slams from the right.) But we really didn't have to go other shores ("we" being American community members, apologies to our members from other countries, I'll probably continue to use "we" as I rush through this).
We've had witch hunts many other times. McCarthyism is but one example.
What bothered a number of people (rightfully so) besides the actions following 9/11 was how little discussion there was of them. We take our cues, as a nation, from our media. (A point that shouldn't be controversial whether someone's a reader of Noam Chomsky or Marshall McLuhan or In Style.) And we found ourselves faced with a media that was owned by or in part . . .
(If your new to this topic, refer to this web page from NOW with Bill Moyers which has a drop down menu you can use.)
We link to many independent media sites (I'm not providing a ton of links in this entry so use our permalinks on the left) like The Progressive, The Nation, Democracy Now!, BuzzFlash, In These Times, Ms., The Black Commentator, CounterPunch, Indymedia, Pacifica, Clamor, LeftTurn, etc. They exist, they are out there. (Along with many others.) But we're more apt to have Fox "News," MSNBC, or CNN in our homes than a magazine on our coffee table. (We as a nation.)
In his book, A Matter of Opinion, Victor Navasky explains that he sees the importance of The Nation and other opinion journals as presenting ideas to a wider audience. (That's my bad summary of a major point in his book. My apologies.) It's the point of this community in terms of trying to hook members up with voices that speak to them. As FAIR has documented repeatedly since it's inception, the voices presented by the mainstream media grow narrower and narrower each year.
If tomorrow an apple is used as a weapon and fright wing senator goes on Meet the Press to call for banning all apples and hawkish Dem is the "opposition" arguing that we should instead implement a testing procedure for apples, to the public, that's the debate clearly drawn. That's the debate the mainstream media popularizes and gets behind. And if you're thinking there must be some other idea/plan or even thinking, "We're talking about one apple here!" you're left with the impression that you are so out of the norm that no one else in the country shares your opinion. It's not on the TV, it's not on the radio. So it must be you going out on limb all by yourself.
And the result may be that you dismiss your own opinion and attempt to get with the program. Even if you don't, you may feel you're the only one who would ever think that way, so what's the point?
Following 9/11, you 'got with the program' in some manner or you were demonized. (Susan Sontag, et al.) And we need to remember that because people will ask, "How did this happen here?" They'll ask that about the secret deportations, the roundups, the practice of torture and rendention and a host of other things.
People being frightened does play into it and for that you need national hysteria. The lack of serious debate and a limited number of opinions and voices reaching out through the mainstream only aid the creation of a national hysteria. If, in the future, we attempt to answer how we entered a period where secret hearings, et al. were suddenly "American," we won't have to look to Germany to explain what happened here. We'll merely need to note that few people in power used their power (most abdicated it) and the press didn't do their job (ditto). And maybe, if we can all remember that, it can serve as a lesson the next time a similar event pops up (and they always do). Laura Flanders says, "Don't leave politics to the politicians."
You can't. They're not going to advocate (with few exceptions) anything that they're not being pressured to do. Possibly, that's understandable. You are a representative of a certain area and if the citizens in your area aren't pushing for action, it may be "smart" not to take any.
The myth of the brave press isn't reality. At best, we've been able to count on a few strong voices in any era. To use McCarthyism, the press largely took a pass on the witch hunts in real time and, like politicians, waited for the mood of the nation to change. That might have been "smart" as well. They are selling papers, magazines or commercial time.
But what's smart business isn't smart democracy. And if there's a lesson from our recent history, hopefully it will be "Speak out soon and speak out often." The only way ideas will get traction is if they're heard. Too many times, I heard someone say, "I'd say something but I'm the only one who feels this way." (And when this site started, that feeling of "I thought I was the only one who thought that" has been a constant in e-mails.) If you see something you think is wrong, dig in your heels and stake out your position. Don't wait for an editorial in a paper or for backing from a politician. Don't wait for the "mood" of the nation to shift.
Even shut out of the mainstream media, your ideas can still take life in the people around you. And if media consolidation isn't dealt with, we're going to need to be very aware of what power we do have and we're going to need to be willing to use it.
When an anchor person (Dan Rather) goes on a talk show (Letterman) to say he takes his marching orders from a president, we need to realize that regardless of the anchor, regardless of the person in the oval office, there's a problem. When an anchor (future at that point, Brian Williams) goes on a talk show (Leno) to say that he's interested in his broadcasts being kid friendly, we have a problem. In the first example, a person with a huge say in what will make the evening news is implying that he'll present what's approved by the White House. In the second example, that mythical large number of children tuning into the evening news are used as an excuse for watering down content. The result of both statements is not an endorsement of journalism (or even an appreciation of it). Nor are they new attitudes. However, in the past, when they've been expressed in similar terms, they were usually expressed following an actual event. For instance, apparently looking over the crayola scrawled notes of seven-year-olds, Peter Jennings once expressed concern over his decision to show a Lebenese child on a stretcher. In the talk show remarks noted at the start of this paragraph, there was no specific incident that either anchor was responding to. These were pre-emptive statements volunteered by the two men.
The fact that the statements weren't greeted with loud criticism from the mainstream is troubling. If you watch the news with your child (if), you're agreeing to see the news. Not just the pretty things. We heard, during the impeachment, people moaning that now their kids were talking about blow jobs. Taking them at their word (for some reason Nielsen hasn't registered any significant number of children watching the evening news broadcasts, but whatever), you tell your child to leave the room or you turn off the TV. If the child is saying "blow job," you tell the child to stop. If the child's at an age where s/he repeats everything heard then they probably shouldn't have been watching a news program to begin with because they're probably not at a level where they can handle it.
But we were all infantilized by the mainstream media. Whether it was hidden coffins (the administration's policy could have been gotten around, as was demonstrated when the photos finally did break) or not showing pictures of the graphic violence. Note, that's pictures of the graphic violence. Photo journalists capture what they see. They don't create it (if they do, they aren't photo journalists).Yes, you had a few pieces here and there. We can note, for instance, R.C. Longworth's "War from 30,000 feet: Whipping Up a Crisis" which ran in the Chicago Tribune March 23, 2003. After noting FDR's "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself," Longworth wrote:
. . . Bush is using fear as a weapon, not to build courage among Americans but to stampede them into endorsing a case for a war that has been built literally on a grab bag of possibilities, contingencies, ifs and maybes, of things that haven't happened but could happen, of bad guys who might hit us if we don't hit them first.
This is a created crisis. Now that the crisis is upon us, we can only hope that it passes quickly, with minimum loss of life on either side, and that our native skepticism prevents it from happening again.
"National hysteria" is a term Longworth uses and you need that hysteria before you can bring out the nails and the wood or the bonfires necessary to conclude the witch hunts with.
National hysteria is what whips us up and silences us. An independent press is needed in any time period to combat that.
The mainstream press' consolidation is a concern today but it's a mistake, my opinion, to assume the mainstream media was ever that independent to begin with.
In terms of today, it will be interesting to watch the coverage play out in the next few years. There will, if history holds, be the usual "We were all wrong." Some will point to a Longworth at their paper as an example that they did "cover" the issues with little accountability for the fact that a Longworth was the exception and not reflective of the overall tone.
It'll also be interesting to see how some cheerleaders (water carriers) for the current administration (I'm not speaking of columnists, I'm speaking of reporters) minimize their own part in the hysteria, the witch hunts and pressing (not reporting) the administration's agenda.
Will Judith Miller (who, from her actions in Iraq, appears to have foolishly believed some of the claims she reported on) be the scape goat that allows everyone else to emerge with a pass?Martha e-mailed about an online transcript (at the Washington Post) with James VandeHei entitled "White House Insider" and wondered what world he lives in? Here's one section:
San Francisco, Calif.: Why doesn't the press refuse to take briefings from Scott McClellan, who either lied to them about the Plame incident, or was lied to by the administration? Isn't his credibility shot?
Jim VandeHei: Scott took a good beating when it was learned that the White House knew much more about the Plame leak than he and others let on last year. It's not entirely clear how much he knew about the involvement of other officials. But Scott has a lot of credibility with reporters. He is seen as someone who might not tell you a lot, but is not going to tell you a lie. more broadly, we go to the briefings if for no other reason to hear the White House spin on world events. they rarely figure into our daily reports because we will talk to Scott and others one on one and not in front of a crowd.
He's not going to lie, according to VandeHei, and yet "we will talk to Scott and others one on one and not in front of a crowd." The daily briefings "rarely figure into our daily reports." But he's not "not going to tell you a lie." Even overlooking the apparent contradiction in VandeHei's statements (if he's not going to lie, why are the daily briefings of no value to the Post?), what exactly is VandeHei doing making these remarks? Why is he vouching for "Scott" in such a personal manner?
I wonder how the remarks made in the transcript will play out (that's not the only section that should raise eyebrows)? It's as though there's not an even an effort made any longer to appear impartial as reporters name drop "Scott" and leave their role as reporter to peer inside "Scott" and vouch for him. It's doubtful VandeHei will get any flack for the remarks or be reassigned but the remarks do raise questions. Or would if anyone wanted to ask serious questions about the role of journalists today.
Here's VandeHei quoting "Scott" on the expulsion of the Denver Three in "Three Were Told to Leave Bush Town Meeting" (March 30, 2005):
Scott McClellan, Bush's press secretary, said it was a volunteer who asked them to leave "out of concern they might try to disrupt the event." He said the White House welcomes a variety of voices into events but discourages people from coming to heckle the president or disrupt town hall forums. "If someone is coming to try to disrupt it, then obviously that person would be asked to leave," he said. "There is plenty of opportunity outside of the event to express their views."
Does VandeHei really believe that "the White House welcomes a variety of voices into events"? Is that a sign of "Scott"'s credibility?
We'll hopefully continue this but I know I missed posting Tuesday night because of wanting to say more so this will go up as is.
Friday, August 19, 2005
The spark's lit a fire and Camilo Mejia on Kevin Benderman
Good evening, we're going to start out with three things from Democracy Now!
Cindy Sheehan Leaves Crawford
We turn now to Crawford, Texas. Antiwar protester Cindy Sheehan left the site where she has camped out since President Bush began his 5-week vacation 2 weeks ago. Sheehan said her mother had suffered a stroke and that she was heading to Los Angeles to be with her. Almost immediately after Sheehan made the announcement, other parents of soldiers killed in Iraq said they would continue the protest at the makeshift campsite, called "Camp Casey." We will go directly to Amy Goodman, who is in Crawford, in just a moment.
Sheehan's had to leave but others are there and she's started something and if you doubt that check out the next two stories.
Republicans Join Calls for Iraq Withdrawal
Even as the protest continues in Texas, there are new developments in the antiwar effort on Capitol Hill. North Carolina Republican Congressman Walter Jones says he has about 50 co-sponsors on a joint resolution that calls on President Bush to announce a plan for withdrawal from Iraq by the end of this year. This is the latest twist in the dramatic shift in position by Jones who was the politician behind the move to change the name of French fries to "Freedom Fries" in the Congressional cafeteria. The resolution was introduced in June by Jones, Republican Ron Paul of Texas, as well as Democrat Dennis Kucinich. It calls on the president to begin the withdrawal by Oct. 1, 2006, but it does not set an end date. Jones said the new supporters include five Republicans.
That's momentum and you're seeing it in Congress and around the nation. Cindy Sheehan helped spark that and so did all the people who took the time to show support. Still doubting?
Sen. Hagel: US 'More and More Bogged Down' in Iraq
Meanwhile, Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said Thursday that the United States is getting "more and more bogged down" in Iraq and stood by his comments that the White House is disconnected from reality and losing the war. Hagel mocked Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion in June that the resistance in Iraq was in its "last throes," saying, "Maybe the vice president can explain the increase in casualties we're taking. If that's winning, then he's got a different definition of winning than I do."
Hagel mocks Cheney. That comes from the fact that the people are asking questions and trying to start a dialogue. Some people wondered about L.B. earlier this week. "Who is L.B.?" a few wrote. C.I. wouldn't touch the issue if L.B. was called out by name. Elaine told me that but I already knew it. C.I. would feel that it was personalizing something when an issue was the focus. So I didn't name L.B. and I won't. But L.B. wanted to say Cindy Sheehan wasn't for bringing the troops home now. And then wanted to mock anti-war people by saying: "anti-war."
L.B. has a problem with the peace movement and needs to get over it. L.B. also needs to learn some facts before blogging. Now I started out as a Common Ills community member (still am) before I started blogging so I got a pretty good education on Cindy Sheehan. That's why I pointed out this week that if you read The Common Ills, you already knew who Cindy Sheehan was, long before she went to Crawford.
You knew who she was and what she stood for. C.I. was nice about it over at The Common Ills saying that people like L.B. might not know the facts due to mainstream coverage. I don't buy that. "Anti-war" was use that L.B. made a choice to use. L.B. knew better is my hunch but L.B. wanted to play hawk and so Cindy Sheehan's statements got distorted. If you read The Common Ills this afternoon you noted that C.I. once again included Cindy Sheehan's latest statements which, again, include the call to bring the troops home now.
If L.B. honestly didn't know that when L.B. blogged on how Cindy Sheehan wants the war fine tuned than L.B. needs to do some serious work before blogging. But the thing is, that stuff is still up there. L.B. hasn't corrected anything. People going to L.B.'s site will still see L.B. claiming that Cindy Sheehan is not calling for the troops to come home. So if my hunch was wrong, I don't care. L.B. should know by now the truth if you want to give L.B. the benefit of the doubt and L.B. has not corrected the error which means it is now a lie.
"Distorting is not supporting" C.I. wrote and that's true. And what Elaine wrote is true to:
But when someone writes "anti-war" you already know where they're coming from.
And when someone calls you on it and you write, like L.B. did, that it's not Sheehan's place or L.B.'s place to figure out strategy that's another problem because yes it is. It is all of our place. We need to stop being so passive while our lives are altered over night in back door deals. That pissed Ma off more than anything else L.B. wrote. Ma was like C.I. and thinking maybe L.B. just got bad information from the mainstream press and it was an honest mistake but the "anti-war" in quotes ticked Ma off and when she got to the part about how it's not the "place" of citizens to address the strategy of issues, Ma was pissed off big time. Ma goes, "Mike, for me, never to link to" L.B. Ma, didn't have to ask because L.B. writes nonsense like that all the time. L.B. speaks to some people but not to me. And I don't link to people who don't speak to me or to people who push war. L.B. did try to Thomas Friedman the situation. And I read Kat's "Burn Your Hatred Out On Someone Else" thing on this and thought, "Yeah, that's what it is."
I don't have a lot of respect for people who claim to be progressive but just think we should shut our mouths about bringing the troops home. Seems to me like those people aren't blogging, they're advertising for Democratic leadership in Congress.
I got some e-mails asking if I was going to endorse anyone for the 2006 elections and I don't know. C.I.'s said no presidential endorsements over at The Common Ills and may have said no endorsements for 2006. I'm not sure on the last part. But I think that's a pretty brave thing to do but me, I'm still thinking about it.
Now I want to swipe from C.I. and Elaine to note Ruminations on America which is a pretty cool site that Rita J. King runs. Camilo Mejia rocks. He's a hero in my eyes and he wrote the thing below.
"The Case of Sergeant Benderman" (Camilo E. Mejia)
The defense successfully showed how during that meeting Sgt. Benderman's chain of command, not knowing how to deal with his Conscientious Objector packet, released him to work on documents and to have dinner with his wife, just an hour prior to his unit's deployment, and how they made no effort to get him to the airfield, or to get him onboard a later flight.
The defense showed how Sgt. Benderman, far from being absent without authority or having missed movement, continued to perform a sergeant's duties while and after his unit deployed to Iraq. The defense also showed the ambiguity in Sgt. Benderman's chain of command. For instance, one of the government's arguments in seeking both a conviction and a harsh punishment was that Sgt. Benderman's logistic duties were crucial for the unit in Iraq, yet the defense proved that his chain of command had planned to fire him from his job and to assign him to latrine duty. Another argument was the hazardous component of the unit's mission in Iraq, yet the 1st Sgt. insisted that Sgt. Benderman would be perfectly safe and in a position were he would see no combat at all.
The defense successfully showed the humiliation Sgt. Benderman went through because of his Conscientious Objector beliefs, from the harassment of his wife by the Sgt. Major (who admitted to commenting on her physical figure) to his 1st Sgt. calling him a coward. Why then, one wonders, was Sgt. Benderman convicted of Missing Movement by Design, and sentenced to 15 months of confinement, reduction to the lowest rank, and a dishonorable discharge?
The defense strategy was sound and solid. The government's prejudice and Sgt. Benderman's chain of command's unmeasured persecution and incompetence were all made evident. Why the conviction and the harsh sentence then? Perhaps because a legal strategy is no match for a political strategy. The Army had in its hands a blond, blue-eyed, six foot two, all American soldier, born and raised in the south, someone white America can look up to and identify with, someone who went to Iraq and came back with his humanity enhanced, most definitely a threat to a government on a mission to militarize its society and spread its empire.
The government threw the book at Sgt. Benderman to ensure others like him don't follow behind. Therefore, his case should not have been boiled down to a forty-five minute meeting, because in doing so, the defense disconnected itself from the humanity of the action and from its message of resistance, and that is something America cannot afford at this time.
Cindy Sheehan Leaves Crawford
We turn now to Crawford, Texas. Antiwar protester Cindy Sheehan left the site where she has camped out since President Bush began his 5-week vacation 2 weeks ago. Sheehan said her mother had suffered a stroke and that she was heading to Los Angeles to be with her. Almost immediately after Sheehan made the announcement, other parents of soldiers killed in Iraq said they would continue the protest at the makeshift campsite, called "Camp Casey." We will go directly to Amy Goodman, who is in Crawford, in just a moment.
Sheehan's had to leave but others are there and she's started something and if you doubt that check out the next two stories.
Republicans Join Calls for Iraq Withdrawal
Even as the protest continues in Texas, there are new developments in the antiwar effort on Capitol Hill. North Carolina Republican Congressman Walter Jones says he has about 50 co-sponsors on a joint resolution that calls on President Bush to announce a plan for withdrawal from Iraq by the end of this year. This is the latest twist in the dramatic shift in position by Jones who was the politician behind the move to change the name of French fries to "Freedom Fries" in the Congressional cafeteria. The resolution was introduced in June by Jones, Republican Ron Paul of Texas, as well as Democrat Dennis Kucinich. It calls on the president to begin the withdrawal by Oct. 1, 2006, but it does not set an end date. Jones said the new supporters include five Republicans.
That's momentum and you're seeing it in Congress and around the nation. Cindy Sheehan helped spark that and so did all the people who took the time to show support. Still doubting?
Sen. Hagel: US 'More and More Bogged Down' in Iraq
Meanwhile, Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said Thursday that the United States is getting "more and more bogged down" in Iraq and stood by his comments that the White House is disconnected from reality and losing the war. Hagel mocked Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion in June that the resistance in Iraq was in its "last throes," saying, "Maybe the vice president can explain the increase in casualties we're taking. If that's winning, then he's got a different definition of winning than I do."
Hagel mocks Cheney. That comes from the fact that the people are asking questions and trying to start a dialogue. Some people wondered about L.B. earlier this week. "Who is L.B.?" a few wrote. C.I. wouldn't touch the issue if L.B. was called out by name. Elaine told me that but I already knew it. C.I. would feel that it was personalizing something when an issue was the focus. So I didn't name L.B. and I won't. But L.B. wanted to say Cindy Sheehan wasn't for bringing the troops home now. And then wanted to mock anti-war people by saying: "anti-war."
L.B. has a problem with the peace movement and needs to get over it. L.B. also needs to learn some facts before blogging. Now I started out as a Common Ills community member (still am) before I started blogging so I got a pretty good education on Cindy Sheehan. That's why I pointed out this week that if you read The Common Ills, you already knew who Cindy Sheehan was, long before she went to Crawford.
You knew who she was and what she stood for. C.I. was nice about it over at The Common Ills saying that people like L.B. might not know the facts due to mainstream coverage. I don't buy that. "Anti-war" was use that L.B. made a choice to use. L.B. knew better is my hunch but L.B. wanted to play hawk and so Cindy Sheehan's statements got distorted. If you read The Common Ills this afternoon you noted that C.I. once again included Cindy Sheehan's latest statements which, again, include the call to bring the troops home now.
If L.B. honestly didn't know that when L.B. blogged on how Cindy Sheehan wants the war fine tuned than L.B. needs to do some serious work before blogging. But the thing is, that stuff is still up there. L.B. hasn't corrected anything. People going to L.B.'s site will still see L.B. claiming that Cindy Sheehan is not calling for the troops to come home. So if my hunch was wrong, I don't care. L.B. should know by now the truth if you want to give L.B. the benefit of the doubt and L.B. has not corrected the error which means it is now a lie.
"Distorting is not supporting" C.I. wrote and that's true. And what Elaine wrote is true to:
But when someone writes "anti-war" you already know where they're coming from.
And when someone calls you on it and you write, like L.B. did, that it's not Sheehan's place or L.B.'s place to figure out strategy that's another problem because yes it is. It is all of our place. We need to stop being so passive while our lives are altered over night in back door deals. That pissed Ma off more than anything else L.B. wrote. Ma was like C.I. and thinking maybe L.B. just got bad information from the mainstream press and it was an honest mistake but the "anti-war" in quotes ticked Ma off and when she got to the part about how it's not the "place" of citizens to address the strategy of issues, Ma was pissed off big time. Ma goes, "Mike, for me, never to link to" L.B. Ma, didn't have to ask because L.B. writes nonsense like that all the time. L.B. speaks to some people but not to me. And I don't link to people who don't speak to me or to people who push war. L.B. did try to Thomas Friedman the situation. And I read Kat's "Burn Your Hatred Out On Someone Else" thing on this and thought, "Yeah, that's what it is."
I don't have a lot of respect for people who claim to be progressive but just think we should shut our mouths about bringing the troops home. Seems to me like those people aren't blogging, they're advertising for Democratic leadership in Congress.
I got some e-mails asking if I was going to endorse anyone for the 2006 elections and I don't know. C.I.'s said no presidential endorsements over at The Common Ills and may have said no endorsements for 2006. I'm not sure on the last part. But I think that's a pretty brave thing to do but me, I'm still thinking about it.
Now I want to swipe from C.I. and Elaine to note Ruminations on America which is a pretty cool site that Rita J. King runs. Camilo Mejia rocks. He's a hero in my eyes and he wrote the thing below.
"The Case of Sergeant Benderman" (Camilo E. Mejia)
The defense successfully showed how during that meeting Sgt. Benderman's chain of command, not knowing how to deal with his Conscientious Objector packet, released him to work on documents and to have dinner with his wife, just an hour prior to his unit's deployment, and how they made no effort to get him to the airfield, or to get him onboard a later flight.
The defense showed how Sgt. Benderman, far from being absent without authority or having missed movement, continued to perform a sergeant's duties while and after his unit deployed to Iraq. The defense also showed the ambiguity in Sgt. Benderman's chain of command. For instance, one of the government's arguments in seeking both a conviction and a harsh punishment was that Sgt. Benderman's logistic duties were crucial for the unit in Iraq, yet the defense proved that his chain of command had planned to fire him from his job and to assign him to latrine duty. Another argument was the hazardous component of the unit's mission in Iraq, yet the 1st Sgt. insisted that Sgt. Benderman would be perfectly safe and in a position were he would see no combat at all.
The defense successfully showed the humiliation Sgt. Benderman went through because of his Conscientious Objector beliefs, from the harassment of his wife by the Sgt. Major (who admitted to commenting on her physical figure) to his 1st Sgt. calling him a coward. Why then, one wonders, was Sgt. Benderman convicted of Missing Movement by Design, and sentenced to 15 months of confinement, reduction to the lowest rank, and a dishonorable discharge?
The defense strategy was sound and solid. The government's prejudice and Sgt. Benderman's chain of command's unmeasured persecution and incompetence were all made evident. Why the conviction and the harsh sentence then? Perhaps because a legal strategy is no match for a political strategy. The Army had in its hands a blond, blue-eyed, six foot two, all American soldier, born and raised in the south, someone white America can look up to and identify with, someone who went to Iraq and came back with his humanity enhanced, most definitely a threat to a government on a mission to militarize its society and spread its empire.
The government threw the book at Sgt. Benderman to ensure others like him don't follow behind. Therefore, his case should not have been boiled down to a forty-five minute meeting, because in doing so, the defense disconnected itself from the humanity of the action and from its message of resistance, and that is something America cannot afford at this time.
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Cindy Sheehan, Sarita's nervous about college and counterrecruting in Eugene, OR
Good evening. Let's go to two things from Democracy Now!
More Than 1,500 Antiwar Vigils Held Across the US
Last night, people across the United States participated in more than 1,500 candlelight vigils calling for an end to the occupation of Iraq. The vigils were called by Cindy Sheehan who is continuing her antiwar protest outside of President Bush's property near Crawford, Texas. Here is the mother of a soldier who was wounded in Iraq, speaking at a vigil in Washington DC.
Gilda, mother of soldier wounded in Iraq:"What is unforgivable is that you betrayed our idealistic American sons and daughters who trustingly placed their lives in your hands. we, their mothers, will not let you move on with your life."
One mother of a soldier who served in Iraq, speaking in Washington DC. Meanwhile, in Crawford Cindy Sheehan has been joined by a growing number of people at her protest and has now begun setting up camp on the property of one of President Bush's neighbors who offered his land to Sheehan. Among the people joining her are several parents of soldiers killed in Iraq, as well as Minnesota State Senator Becky Lourey, whose son died in Iraq, as well as FBI whistleblower Colleen Rowley--who is running for Congress in Minnesota. Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern is also in Crawford and many more people are expected to pour in for a rally planned for Thursday evening.
Cindy Sheehan:"Our spirits are always good here at Camp Casey 'cause we feel the support of everybody around the world."
So do you think it's having an effect? I do. I think people are paying attention and that's what I hear on campus. People call her brave and say that they're tired of no one talking about the war.
Here's the second thing from Democracy Now!
Court Hears Details of Killing of Afghan Prisoner by US Soldier
Now to the ongoing prisoner abuse scandal. An Afghan detainee who died in US military custody in 2002 was injured so severely that his leg muscles were split apart. This according to an Air Force medical examiner's testimony this week in the trial of a soldier accused in the beating. The examiner who performed the autopsy on the prisoner said his muscles were "crumbling and falling apart." She testified that the injuries could have been caused by repeated knee strikes or by a fist. Army Private Willie Brand is accused of abusing the two prisoners in Afghanistan in 2002. Both later died.
C.I. had a great thing last night and I was thinking about it when I heard the second headline on Democracy Now! The thing was called "Scattered Thoughts" and C.I. was talking about national hysteria and how the press helped whip it up.
Let me go to the e-mail. Sarita e-mailed wondering if it's normal to worry before your first semester in college. She's worried about making good enough grades and about making friends.
I think that those are pretty normal worries. It's a new situation and I think it's pretty common to worry. Sarita's going to one college and all her friends are going somewhere else. So that probably is a normal fear after you've spent four years of high school with the same people (unless you've moved or something). It probably will be nerve wracking the way anything is but it will probably be exciting too. I talked about Sarita's e-mail with my friend Tony and he said when he was starting high school he was nervous and to psyche himself up he pretended that he was an undercover spy and that got him through the first classes until lunch by which time he was okay with high school. So maybe a game like that would help?
Another thing that was suggested was treating yourself in a little way. Like if you like Ruffles or Gardettos, grab a little bag that first day. Tell yourself, "I'll eat some of this after my first class." Or maybe you like the park or movies. Tell yourself, "After I get through my first day, I'm going to go there." Just so you have something to look forward to when you start the day. But I think you'll end up enjoying it.
It's okay to be nervous when you're doing something new. So remind yourself of that and just go through the day knowing that there are other people nervous in class with you.
If anyone has any other tips, e-mail and we'll put them up here.
Now we'll close with something C.I. passed on to me because it's about recruiting. It's from Euguene Weekly and it's called "Break From Recruiting:"
How will the teens and young adults in our community deal effectively with ubiquitous military recruiters in schools and on the phone? Eugene peace activists are doing some recruiting of their own for a regional counter-recruitment camp to be held Aug. 29 to Sept. 1 near Goldendale, Wash.
PeaceWorks and CALC's Committee for Countering Military Recruitment are promoting the Northwest "Not Your Soldier" student activist training camp for youth age 13 to 22. The cost of the camp is $25-$250 sliding scale, with scholarships available.
Registration includes meals, housing, transportation, activities and workshops. "The focus of this event is to empower young people to return to high school and college campuses ready to oppose military recruitment and work to demilitarize their schools," says Phil Weaver of PeaceWorks.
Sessions will include training in nonviolent direct action, basic rights, issues of race in military recruitment, guerilla theater, public speaking, working with adult allies, alternatives to the military, student privacy, conscientious objection and the draft .
The camps are a joint project of the Ruckus Society, Code Pink, War Resisters League, Teen Peace and the Committee for Countering Military Recruitment. For more information or to register, visit www.notyoursoldier.orgor e-mail countermilitary@yahoo.com or call 343-8548 ext. 1.
More Than 1,500 Antiwar Vigils Held Across the US
Last night, people across the United States participated in more than 1,500 candlelight vigils calling for an end to the occupation of Iraq. The vigils were called by Cindy Sheehan who is continuing her antiwar protest outside of President Bush's property near Crawford, Texas. Here is the mother of a soldier who was wounded in Iraq, speaking at a vigil in Washington DC.
Gilda, mother of soldier wounded in Iraq:"What is unforgivable is that you betrayed our idealistic American sons and daughters who trustingly placed their lives in your hands. we, their mothers, will not let you move on with your life."
One mother of a soldier who served in Iraq, speaking in Washington DC. Meanwhile, in Crawford Cindy Sheehan has been joined by a growing number of people at her protest and has now begun setting up camp on the property of one of President Bush's neighbors who offered his land to Sheehan. Among the people joining her are several parents of soldiers killed in Iraq, as well as Minnesota State Senator Becky Lourey, whose son died in Iraq, as well as FBI whistleblower Colleen Rowley--who is running for Congress in Minnesota. Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern is also in Crawford and many more people are expected to pour in for a rally planned for Thursday evening.
Cindy Sheehan:"Our spirits are always good here at Camp Casey 'cause we feel the support of everybody around the world."
So do you think it's having an effect? I do. I think people are paying attention and that's what I hear on campus. People call her brave and say that they're tired of no one talking about the war.
Here's the second thing from Democracy Now!
Court Hears Details of Killing of Afghan Prisoner by US Soldier
Now to the ongoing prisoner abuse scandal. An Afghan detainee who died in US military custody in 2002 was injured so severely that his leg muscles were split apart. This according to an Air Force medical examiner's testimony this week in the trial of a soldier accused in the beating. The examiner who performed the autopsy on the prisoner said his muscles were "crumbling and falling apart." She testified that the injuries could have been caused by repeated knee strikes or by a fist. Army Private Willie Brand is accused of abusing the two prisoners in Afghanistan in 2002. Both later died.
C.I. had a great thing last night and I was thinking about it when I heard the second headline on Democracy Now! The thing was called "Scattered Thoughts" and C.I. was talking about national hysteria and how the press helped whip it up.
Let me go to the e-mail. Sarita e-mailed wondering if it's normal to worry before your first semester in college. She's worried about making good enough grades and about making friends.
I think that those are pretty normal worries. It's a new situation and I think it's pretty common to worry. Sarita's going to one college and all her friends are going somewhere else. So that probably is a normal fear after you've spent four years of high school with the same people (unless you've moved or something). It probably will be nerve wracking the way anything is but it will probably be exciting too. I talked about Sarita's e-mail with my friend Tony and he said when he was starting high school he was nervous and to psyche himself up he pretended that he was an undercover spy and that got him through the first classes until lunch by which time he was okay with high school. So maybe a game like that would help?
Another thing that was suggested was treating yourself in a little way. Like if you like Ruffles or Gardettos, grab a little bag that first day. Tell yourself, "I'll eat some of this after my first class." Or maybe you like the park or movies. Tell yourself, "After I get through my first day, I'm going to go there." Just so you have something to look forward to when you start the day. But I think you'll end up enjoying it.
It's okay to be nervous when you're doing something new. So remind yourself of that and just go through the day knowing that there are other people nervous in class with you.
If anyone has any other tips, e-mail and we'll put them up here.
Now we'll close with something C.I. passed on to me because it's about recruiting. It's from Euguene Weekly and it's called "Break From Recruiting:"
How will the teens and young adults in our community deal effectively with ubiquitous military recruiters in schools and on the phone? Eugene peace activists are doing some recruiting of their own for a regional counter-recruitment camp to be held Aug. 29 to Sept. 1 near Goldendale, Wash.
PeaceWorks and CALC's Committee for Countering Military Recruitment are promoting the Northwest "Not Your Soldier" student activist training camp for youth age 13 to 22. The cost of the camp is $25-$250 sliding scale, with scholarships available.
Registration includes meals, housing, transportation, activities and workshops. "The focus of this event is to empower young people to return to high school and college campuses ready to oppose military recruitment and work to demilitarize their schools," says Phil Weaver of PeaceWorks.
Sessions will include training in nonviolent direct action, basic rights, issues of race in military recruitment, guerilla theater, public speaking, working with adult allies, alternatives to the military, student privacy, conscientious objection and the draft .
The camps are a joint project of the Ruckus Society, Code Pink, War Resisters League, Teen Peace and the Committee for Countering Military Recruitment. For more information or to register, visit www.notyoursoldier.orgor e-mail countermilitary@yahoo.com or call 343-8548 ext. 1.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Camilo Mejia and an interview with Dona of The Third Estate Sunday Review
Good evening. Let's start out with two things from Democracy Now!
Anti-War Camp in Crawford Texas Vandalized
In Crawford Texas, Cindy Sheehan has announced her 11-day-old anti-war vigil will move locations - in order to get closer to president Bush's vacation ranch. A local Crawford resident has offered her to set up Camp Casey on his property. Sheehan has vowed to remain in Crawford until the president meets with her. Last year Sheehan's oldest son Casey died in Iraq. He was 24 years old. The right-wing attack on Sheehan is intensifying. Last week Fox News host Bill O'Reilly described Sheehan's actions as treasonous. On Monday night a Texas man drove his pickup truck through the vigil site running over hundreds of white wooden crosses and American flags that had been put up to honor soldiers killed in Iraq. The man -- Larry Northern - was arrested and charged with criminal mischief. Sheehan vowed there would be no retaliation. "We're all here for peace, and we're not going to lower ourselves down to the level of the violence," Sheehan said. "And we're going to let them get us off our mission either. This isn't only about my son. This is about all of the 1,800, over 1,800 people who have been killed in this mistake of a war. This is about the 130,000 who are still over there for no reason. This is about the millions of Iraqis in harm's way for no reason. We want this to end." Meanwhile support for the anti-war protest in Crawford is growing. Tonight MoveOn is helping to organize more than 1,000 candlelight vigils around the United States to support Sheehan.
Report: UK Police Lied About Shooting of Innocent Man
In Britain the tv network ITV has obtained leaked information that indicate the British government may have lied about key details involving the police shooting of an innocent Brazilian electrician aboard a subway car. According to the leaked witness statements, the Brazilian man, Jean Charles de Menezes, was being restrained by a member of Scotland Yard's surveillance team at the time that he was shot. In addition, the leaked information indicate Menezes was wearing a thin denim jacket -- not a bulky jacket as police said. It also now appears that Menezes never ran from the police. He only began to run when he saw his train pull into the station. Menezes was shot by police shortly after the July 21st attempted bombings in London.
Those are two disgusting bits of news. In the first one, Camp Casey is vandalized and in the second one, we knew the guy was innocent, the news here is that the police tried to cover up their actions.
Now I want to note something that C.I. sent me, it's from La Prensa San Diego and it's
Camilo E. Mejia's "A veteran of the Iraq War addresses potential recruits"
I'd like to tell young people what awaits them if they join the military and go to Iraq.
You will find yourself patrolling the alleyways and streets of Baghdad or Fallujah. Improvised explosive devices will be going off. You will see some of your fellow soldiers get blown up. And you yourself may get seriously injured or die. Your whole mission will be to get back home alive in one piece.
It is only when you -- if you are among the lucky ones -- make it home, when you yourself are away from the inferno you just left, that you start asking the questions: the "why" and "was it worth it" questions.
I know.
I've been in the military for more than 10 years, serving as an infantryman and later as a reservist with the Florida National Guard on active duty in Iraq.
It is only when we try to find answers to the questions that haunt us that we begin to question our participation in the war -- as a military, as soldiers, as individuals.
Sometimes it takes years. In other cases, like my own and those of some other veterans I've talked with, the realization hits us right away.
That realization is that we were used and abused, that we signed to protect America and
fight for freedom, but the government tricked us. Instead, we realize we are killing and being killed so that President Bush can strut and corporations can haul off the profits.
Normally I dip into the e-mails except on Wednesdays. On Wednesdays lately, I've been interviewing people from The Third Estate Sunday Review. This Wednesday, I'm lucky to have Dona.
I want to start out by talking about how you have been one of the strongest voices pushing for a "best of" edition of The Third Estate Sunday Review. I wanted to get you to talk about that.
Dona: Okay well, you know, the things generally start on Saturday afternoon or evening and they tend to go all night. Where there's a problem is when it's Sunday morning and it's 7 am or later and we're just getting done. That's asking a lot of people. And when it's something that happens week after week it gets old and wears on people.
But when people were saying that the "best of" would be last Sunday, you ended up voting no on that.
Dona: Well, two Sundays ago, we had the problem with getting things posted to the site. It wasn't fixed until Thursday evening. That's really not enough time to do an edition. But the issue of the press corp shrugging their shoulders, basically, over John H. Johnson's death was an important one. So we went from feeling that Sunday would be the "best of" edition to feeling like there was no way we could do that and be silent on something this because this is really the sort of reason we started The Third Estate Sunday Review.
What do you think of this Sunday's edition?
Dona: I told Jim you were going to ask that. Well I'm really not in favor of the push, push, rush, rush, inspiration will come school or view. I'm someone who believes that you really need to prepare ahead of time. I'm not saying my view is better and it's certainly not the only way. But I do think the editions are stronger when we've batted around ideas and actually started drafts before Saturday rolls around. I say all of that to say that despite that, I think the edition is one of our strongest ones. I believe the reason is that we were bothered by the treatment of John H. Johnson's death. That really motivated us. I think you can see it in the pieces dealing with Johnson like the essay and the parody of World News Tonight as well as in the pieces that don't address him like the editorial, the news review and the TV review Ava and C.I. did. I think, in terms of media criticism, it's the strongest edition we've done. But, having said that, I think that's the exception. I don't think strong work often results from this fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants way of putting an edition together.
I wanted to talk about the news review because you came up with that feature?
Dona: A great deal of our features go through many, many drafts. We're all adding something to each one.
Except the TV reviews.
Dona: Correct, those are the work of Ava and C.I. But the other features go through drafts and go through everyone tossing out things and looking at what's been pulled together. That's great and probably makes them stronger more often than not; however, it does take up time. One of the hopes with the roundtable feature was that we could get an easy feature. Just a transcript of what was said and we're done. As you know, a roundtable can go on for four hours. So with the news review, we stop at 59 minutes if possible and do not go over 60 for any reason. It's our roundup of news stories and we do it in a manner similar to Democracy Now! which we all love.
C.I.'s the anchor.
Dona: And hates being an anchor. But the anchor needs to be someone who can stretch because it's got to go in real time. Someone who can stretch shouldn't be asking, "So how are you today?" C.I. is someone who, when told to stretch, can bring up points that go to what's being addressed. Look at when Betty was reporting on Marilyn Monroe in the first news review. The e-mails on that were really impressed with the exchange between Betty & C.I. which wasn't planned by either and only came up because I told them to stretch since the next story up wasn't ready. I mean, I read some of the e-mails on that and people would write, "Marilyn did say she made up things up for her sessions!" Did you know that? I didn't. I couldn't have gone there. And this time we saw C.I. bring up things from, for instance, The New Yorker when it was time to stretch. They add, they round out the story.
I think C.I. doesn't like doing that.
Dona: Because of the spotlight issue and not wanting to be in it as well as because C.I. would rather focus on putting together a story. I know and I understand that. If we had anyone else that could do it and wanted to, I'd be the first to say, "Thank you for anchoring now go put together a story this time." But the reality is the reality. You know, from when we're all working together, that C.I. may bring up anything in passing. It might be a movie or something historical or whatever. You need someone well versed in case you end up needing to stretch. But the feature's done with me holding a stop watch and we stay on time for it so you're looking at one hour of time basically.
I really enjoy it and think it's exciting because, for me at least, I'm thinking, "Will I be able to pull this together?"
Dona: Which is part of the fun and does fit Jim's belief that the pressure can be a benefit. I wish Elaine's piece could have gotten into the news review. But Elaine said the fact that I wish something had made it in instead of wishing that we'd taken something out should always be the goal and I agree with that.
Cedric feels bad about that.
Dona: He doesn't need to. We had, I think, 52 seconds left and it was easier to cut the report he did to fit that then it was to cut Elaine's. But we tried. Jim, Cedric, Elaine and I were all trying to make it fit but her report was complex and cuts just made it confusing.
I'll close by congratulating you. Yesterday was The Third Estate Sunday Review's seventh month anniversary.
Dona: Really? Some days it seemed like we only started last week, other days -- usually the day after an all nighter -- it feels like we've done it for 60 years. 7 months? Wow. Hopefully we've learned something in that time and hopefully it shows a little. You've interviewed Ava and Jim already and I was told to ask who was next?
Ty.
Dona: Well I look forward to reading that and I'll let him know that it's relatively painless.
Anti-War Camp in Crawford Texas Vandalized
In Crawford Texas, Cindy Sheehan has announced her 11-day-old anti-war vigil will move locations - in order to get closer to president Bush's vacation ranch. A local Crawford resident has offered her to set up Camp Casey on his property. Sheehan has vowed to remain in Crawford until the president meets with her. Last year Sheehan's oldest son Casey died in Iraq. He was 24 years old. The right-wing attack on Sheehan is intensifying. Last week Fox News host Bill O'Reilly described Sheehan's actions as treasonous. On Monday night a Texas man drove his pickup truck through the vigil site running over hundreds of white wooden crosses and American flags that had been put up to honor soldiers killed in Iraq. The man -- Larry Northern - was arrested and charged with criminal mischief. Sheehan vowed there would be no retaliation. "We're all here for peace, and we're not going to lower ourselves down to the level of the violence," Sheehan said. "And we're going to let them get us off our mission either. This isn't only about my son. This is about all of the 1,800, over 1,800 people who have been killed in this mistake of a war. This is about the 130,000 who are still over there for no reason. This is about the millions of Iraqis in harm's way for no reason. We want this to end." Meanwhile support for the anti-war protest in Crawford is growing. Tonight MoveOn is helping to organize more than 1,000 candlelight vigils around the United States to support Sheehan.
Report: UK Police Lied About Shooting of Innocent Man
In Britain the tv network ITV has obtained leaked information that indicate the British government may have lied about key details involving the police shooting of an innocent Brazilian electrician aboard a subway car. According to the leaked witness statements, the Brazilian man, Jean Charles de Menezes, was being restrained by a member of Scotland Yard's surveillance team at the time that he was shot. In addition, the leaked information indicate Menezes was wearing a thin denim jacket -- not a bulky jacket as police said. It also now appears that Menezes never ran from the police. He only began to run when he saw his train pull into the station. Menezes was shot by police shortly after the July 21st attempted bombings in London.
Those are two disgusting bits of news. In the first one, Camp Casey is vandalized and in the second one, we knew the guy was innocent, the news here is that the police tried to cover up their actions.
Now I want to note something that C.I. sent me, it's from La Prensa San Diego and it's
Camilo E. Mejia's "A veteran of the Iraq War addresses potential recruits"
I'd like to tell young people what awaits them if they join the military and go to Iraq.
You will find yourself patrolling the alleyways and streets of Baghdad or Fallujah. Improvised explosive devices will be going off. You will see some of your fellow soldiers get blown up. And you yourself may get seriously injured or die. Your whole mission will be to get back home alive in one piece.
It is only when you -- if you are among the lucky ones -- make it home, when you yourself are away from the inferno you just left, that you start asking the questions: the "why" and "was it worth it" questions.
I know.
I've been in the military for more than 10 years, serving as an infantryman and later as a reservist with the Florida National Guard on active duty in Iraq.
It is only when we try to find answers to the questions that haunt us that we begin to question our participation in the war -- as a military, as soldiers, as individuals.
Sometimes it takes years. In other cases, like my own and those of some other veterans I've talked with, the realization hits us right away.
That realization is that we were used and abused, that we signed to protect America and
fight for freedom, but the government tricked us. Instead, we realize we are killing and being killed so that President Bush can strut and corporations can haul off the profits.
Normally I dip into the e-mails except on Wednesdays. On Wednesdays lately, I've been interviewing people from The Third Estate Sunday Review. This Wednesday, I'm lucky to have Dona.
I want to start out by talking about how you have been one of the strongest voices pushing for a "best of" edition of The Third Estate Sunday Review. I wanted to get you to talk about that.
Dona: Okay well, you know, the things generally start on Saturday afternoon or evening and they tend to go all night. Where there's a problem is when it's Sunday morning and it's 7 am or later and we're just getting done. That's asking a lot of people. And when it's something that happens week after week it gets old and wears on people.
But when people were saying that the "best of" would be last Sunday, you ended up voting no on that.
Dona: Well, two Sundays ago, we had the problem with getting things posted to the site. It wasn't fixed until Thursday evening. That's really not enough time to do an edition. But the issue of the press corp shrugging their shoulders, basically, over John H. Johnson's death was an important one. So we went from feeling that Sunday would be the "best of" edition to feeling like there was no way we could do that and be silent on something this because this is really the sort of reason we started The Third Estate Sunday Review.
What do you think of this Sunday's edition?
Dona: I told Jim you were going to ask that. Well I'm really not in favor of the push, push, rush, rush, inspiration will come school or view. I'm someone who believes that you really need to prepare ahead of time. I'm not saying my view is better and it's certainly not the only way. But I do think the editions are stronger when we've batted around ideas and actually started drafts before Saturday rolls around. I say all of that to say that despite that, I think the edition is one of our strongest ones. I believe the reason is that we were bothered by the treatment of John H. Johnson's death. That really motivated us. I think you can see it in the pieces dealing with Johnson like the essay and the parody of World News Tonight as well as in the pieces that don't address him like the editorial, the news review and the TV review Ava and C.I. did. I think, in terms of media criticism, it's the strongest edition we've done. But, having said that, I think that's the exception. I don't think strong work often results from this fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants way of putting an edition together.
I wanted to talk about the news review because you came up with that feature?
Dona: A great deal of our features go through many, many drafts. We're all adding something to each one.
Except the TV reviews.
Dona: Correct, those are the work of Ava and C.I. But the other features go through drafts and go through everyone tossing out things and looking at what's been pulled together. That's great and probably makes them stronger more often than not; however, it does take up time. One of the hopes with the roundtable feature was that we could get an easy feature. Just a transcript of what was said and we're done. As you know, a roundtable can go on for four hours. So with the news review, we stop at 59 minutes if possible and do not go over 60 for any reason. It's our roundup of news stories and we do it in a manner similar to Democracy Now! which we all love.
C.I.'s the anchor.
Dona: And hates being an anchor. But the anchor needs to be someone who can stretch because it's got to go in real time. Someone who can stretch shouldn't be asking, "So how are you today?" C.I. is someone who, when told to stretch, can bring up points that go to what's being addressed. Look at when Betty was reporting on Marilyn Monroe in the first news review. The e-mails on that were really impressed with the exchange between Betty & C.I. which wasn't planned by either and only came up because I told them to stretch since the next story up wasn't ready. I mean, I read some of the e-mails on that and people would write, "Marilyn did say she made up things up for her sessions!" Did you know that? I didn't. I couldn't have gone there. And this time we saw C.I. bring up things from, for instance, The New Yorker when it was time to stretch. They add, they round out the story.
I think C.I. doesn't like doing that.
Dona: Because of the spotlight issue and not wanting to be in it as well as because C.I. would rather focus on putting together a story. I know and I understand that. If we had anyone else that could do it and wanted to, I'd be the first to say, "Thank you for anchoring now go put together a story this time." But the reality is the reality. You know, from when we're all working together, that C.I. may bring up anything in passing. It might be a movie or something historical or whatever. You need someone well versed in case you end up needing to stretch. But the feature's done with me holding a stop watch and we stay on time for it so you're looking at one hour of time basically.
I really enjoy it and think it's exciting because, for me at least, I'm thinking, "Will I be able to pull this together?"
Dona: Which is part of the fun and does fit Jim's belief that the pressure can be a benefit. I wish Elaine's piece could have gotten into the news review. But Elaine said the fact that I wish something had made it in instead of wishing that we'd taken something out should always be the goal and I agree with that.
Cedric feels bad about that.
Dona: He doesn't need to. We had, I think, 52 seconds left and it was easier to cut the report he did to fit that then it was to cut Elaine's. But we tried. Jim, Cedric, Elaine and I were all trying to make it fit but her report was complex and cuts just made it confusing.
I'll close by congratulating you. Yesterday was The Third Estate Sunday Review's seventh month anniversary.
Dona: Really? Some days it seemed like we only started last week, other days -- usually the day after an all nighter -- it feels like we've done it for 60 years. 7 months? Wow. Hopefully we've learned something in that time and hopefully it shows a little. You've interviewed Ava and Jim already and I was told to ask who was next?
Ty.
Dona: Well I look forward to reading that and I'll let him know that it's relatively painless.
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
Advice for Amber and John H. Johnson
Good evening, we'll start off with Democracy Now! which I hope everybody watches or listens to.
August On Pace to Be One of Deadliest Months of War For U.S.
Meanwhile August is shaping up to be one of the deadliest months so far for U.S. troops in Iraq. 44 U.S. soldiers were killed in the first 10 days of the month alone. The week beginning Aug. 3 marked the fourth deadliest week of the war for U.S. forces.
'Marine of the Year' Faces Attempted Murder Charges
In Massachusetts, a decorated Marine who served in Iraq is facing attempted murder charges after he fired a shotgun from his apartment window at a group of revelers outside a nightclub. Just last month the Marine -- Daniel Cotnoir - was named 2005 Marine of the Year by the Marine Corps Times. After he won the award Cotnoir posed for a photo with Massachusetts Senator John Kerry. Cotnoir has reportedly been suffering from post-war stress since serving in Iraq where he worked as a mortician preparing bodies of U.S. soldiers for burial.
A lot of e-mails with advice for Amber. Yesterday, I told you about Amber. One of her best friend's is Foxized by her father and thinks that Amber's speaking out against the war is not supportive. Wally wrote that besides asking the friend to list what she thinks "supports the troops" but also to explain why she thinks Amber's beliefs don't. Bobbie thinks Amber needs to "keep being upfront about what she stands for because a lot of it is probably just that her friend hasn't heard that point of view because we've heard such a narrow range of views in the media." My bud Tony thinks Amber should back up her views with stuff on Iraq because he doesn't think that her friend probably knows much beyond the Operation Happy Talk and purple fingers crap. But what most of the e-mails wondered was if Amber was in school (she's in high school). If the person writing was in high school, like Kristi, Jock, Delia, Heather, Genie and Damon, they were talking about how when the occupation started, the whole school seemed like a war rally but that in the two years since, the mood changed big time. Too many deaths and too many lies is what Damon thinks changed it and Genie thinks it's because "we may be kids but we know right from wrong."
And that's what I saw on my school campus and see on my college campus now. And there's a Common Ills community member named Maria and she teaches and she's talked about that over at The Common Ills for months now, about how it's us kids who woke up and saw the obvious quick. She's talked about how it might have something to do with you got a group of people learning about their country and what it's supposed to stand for and at the same time that we're learning about democracy, self-rule, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and facing forming our own opinions and all, it's easier for us to look at the Bully Boy and say, "The emperor has no no clothes on" than it is for a lot of our parents.
It's also why people who might have seemed like brave voices in March of 2003 strike us as hopelessly out of touch if they've got the same message they had all that time ago. There's been a shift in us and a shift in the country and it's the tipping point thing that Ruth talked about at The Third Estate Sunday Review and in her Ruth's Morning Edition Report and that The Third Estate Sunday Review and The Common Ills has been talking about for some time. Things are changing and Elaine had a great thing about that last night.
And I want to note my buddy Cedric writing about Howard Kurtz yesterday and how Kurtz dismissed the lack of big coverage on the death of John H. Johnson with nonsense about how Johnson didn't anchor a TV show:
See, some people are noting it. Amy Goodman and the folks of Democracy Now! covered Johnson last week and are again this week and Susan of Random Thoughts gets it and Trey and Marcia and C.I.
As for Howard Kurtz, he's a bigger stooge than my cousin who just got patterns shaved into his scalp that make his head look like one of those stickers you put down in the tub to prevent someone from falling.
With Vernon, I said, "What the heck were you thinking?" With Kurtz, he obviously doesn't think. Peter Jennings got massive coverage and John H. Johnson very little coverage because, according to Howard Kurts, Peter Jennings was on TV. And because he was an anchor of an evening news program. So that means no one of my race gets that kind of coverage, right Zowie Howie? I mean, I don't hear that CBS is looking to replace Rather's white rabbit replacement with a brother. And Brian Williams looks like he applies man-tan. So we don't have a black anchor on the evening news of any of the big three broadcast networks. By Zowie's logic, we, therefore, don't get any coverage.
You're only matter, Zowie Howie says, if you're on TV. Of course he would say that since he is on TV. If you lose your TV outlet, do you no longer matter, Zowie?
Most Americans don't know who John H. Johnson was, according to Howie. I'm guessing he doesn't know many black people other than maybe his servants. What Howie's saying is that not many white people he knows know who John H. Johnson is. A lot of important people die that your average person of any color never heard about and I kinda thought that was what the press did, let you know someone important passed but I guess I was wrong. Howie tells us it's all about if you are on TV or not.
Howie needs to leave his, what did C.I. call it?, "restricted comfort zone." I love that. Restricted zone. That's Howie Kurtz. And black people get restricted right out of his area.
Democracy Now! did a thing on John H. Johnson's memorial today so I'll close with that:
ROLAND MARTIN: Well, I think first of all, we need to broaden the scope of John H. Johnson's influence. I do not consider him to be the greatest black publisher in the history of our industry. I consider him to be one of the greatest publishers. I think if there was a Mount Rushmore of the media magnates, I believe that John H. Johnson's bust would be alongside Henry Luce, David Sarnoff, Bill Paley, Ted Turner, and the other icons of our industry.
For me personally, I had a chance to sit with him and his daughter, Linda Johnson Rice, who is now the C.E.O. of Johnson Publishing Company, a couple of months ago. I had an opportunity to talk with him, talk about his vision and how he built the company. But the first time we met was in 1990, when I was an intern at the Houston Defender, and it was interesting, when John H. Johnson came through the office, I mean, it was as if royalty was there, because that's how so many people looked at him and held him with such high regard. Clearly one of the greatest giants we have ever seen in this industry, and his impact goes far beyond the pages of Ebony and Jet.
August On Pace to Be One of Deadliest Months of War For U.S.
Meanwhile August is shaping up to be one of the deadliest months so far for U.S. troops in Iraq. 44 U.S. soldiers were killed in the first 10 days of the month alone. The week beginning Aug. 3 marked the fourth deadliest week of the war for U.S. forces.
'Marine of the Year' Faces Attempted Murder Charges
In Massachusetts, a decorated Marine who served in Iraq is facing attempted murder charges after he fired a shotgun from his apartment window at a group of revelers outside a nightclub. Just last month the Marine -- Daniel Cotnoir - was named 2005 Marine of the Year by the Marine Corps Times. After he won the award Cotnoir posed for a photo with Massachusetts Senator John Kerry. Cotnoir has reportedly been suffering from post-war stress since serving in Iraq where he worked as a mortician preparing bodies of U.S. soldiers for burial.
A lot of e-mails with advice for Amber. Yesterday, I told you about Amber. One of her best friend's is Foxized by her father and thinks that Amber's speaking out against the war is not supportive. Wally wrote that besides asking the friend to list what she thinks "supports the troops" but also to explain why she thinks Amber's beliefs don't. Bobbie thinks Amber needs to "keep being upfront about what she stands for because a lot of it is probably just that her friend hasn't heard that point of view because we've heard such a narrow range of views in the media." My bud Tony thinks Amber should back up her views with stuff on Iraq because he doesn't think that her friend probably knows much beyond the Operation Happy Talk and purple fingers crap. But what most of the e-mails wondered was if Amber was in school (she's in high school). If the person writing was in high school, like Kristi, Jock, Delia, Heather, Genie and Damon, they were talking about how when the occupation started, the whole school seemed like a war rally but that in the two years since, the mood changed big time. Too many deaths and too many lies is what Damon thinks changed it and Genie thinks it's because "we may be kids but we know right from wrong."
And that's what I saw on my school campus and see on my college campus now. And there's a Common Ills community member named Maria and she teaches and she's talked about that over at The Common Ills for months now, about how it's us kids who woke up and saw the obvious quick. She's talked about how it might have something to do with you got a group of people learning about their country and what it's supposed to stand for and at the same time that we're learning about democracy, self-rule, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and facing forming our own opinions and all, it's easier for us to look at the Bully Boy and say, "The emperor has no no clothes on" than it is for a lot of our parents.
It's also why people who might have seemed like brave voices in March of 2003 strike us as hopelessly out of touch if they've got the same message they had all that time ago. There's been a shift in us and a shift in the country and it's the tipping point thing that Ruth talked about at The Third Estate Sunday Review and in her Ruth's Morning Edition Report and that The Third Estate Sunday Review and The Common Ills has been talking about for some time. Things are changing and Elaine had a great thing about that last night.
And I want to note my buddy Cedric writing about Howard Kurtz yesterday and how Kurtz dismissed the lack of big coverage on the death of John H. Johnson with nonsense about how Johnson didn't anchor a TV show:
See, some people are noting it. Amy Goodman and the folks of Democracy Now! covered Johnson last week and are again this week and Susan of Random Thoughts gets it and Trey and Marcia and C.I.
As for Howard Kurtz, he's a bigger stooge than my cousin who just got patterns shaved into his scalp that make his head look like one of those stickers you put down in the tub to prevent someone from falling.
With Vernon, I said, "What the heck were you thinking?" With Kurtz, he obviously doesn't think. Peter Jennings got massive coverage and John H. Johnson very little coverage because, according to Howard Kurts, Peter Jennings was on TV. And because he was an anchor of an evening news program. So that means no one of my race gets that kind of coverage, right Zowie Howie? I mean, I don't hear that CBS is looking to replace Rather's white rabbit replacement with a brother. And Brian Williams looks like he applies man-tan. So we don't have a black anchor on the evening news of any of the big three broadcast networks. By Zowie's logic, we, therefore, don't get any coverage.
You're only matter, Zowie Howie says, if you're on TV. Of course he would say that since he is on TV. If you lose your TV outlet, do you no longer matter, Zowie?
Most Americans don't know who John H. Johnson was, according to Howie. I'm guessing he doesn't know many black people other than maybe his servants. What Howie's saying is that not many white people he knows know who John H. Johnson is. A lot of important people die that your average person of any color never heard about and I kinda thought that was what the press did, let you know someone important passed but I guess I was wrong. Howie tells us it's all about if you are on TV or not.
Howie needs to leave his, what did C.I. call it?, "restricted comfort zone." I love that. Restricted zone. That's Howie Kurtz. And black people get restricted right out of his area.
Democracy Now! did a thing on John H. Johnson's memorial today so I'll close with that:
ROLAND MARTIN: Well, I think first of all, we need to broaden the scope of John H. Johnson's influence. I do not consider him to be the greatest black publisher in the history of our industry. I consider him to be one of the greatest publishers. I think if there was a Mount Rushmore of the media magnates, I believe that John H. Johnson's bust would be alongside Henry Luce, David Sarnoff, Bill Paley, Ted Turner, and the other icons of our industry.
For me personally, I had a chance to sit with him and his daughter, Linda Johnson Rice, who is now the C.E.O. of Johnson Publishing Company, a couple of months ago. I had an opportunity to talk with him, talk about his vision and how he built the company. But the first time we met was in 1990, when I was an intern at the Houston Defender, and it was interesting, when John H. Johnson came through the office, I mean, it was as if royalty was there, because that's how so many people looked at him and held him with such high regard. Clearly one of the greatest giants we have ever seen in this industry, and his impact goes far beyond the pages of Ebony and Jet.
Monday, August 15, 2005
Cindy Sheehan, CounterRecruiter, Amber's questions and people who don't know the facts about Cindy Sheehan
Good evening, we'll start off with Democracy Now!
Cindy Sheehan Begins Day Nine of Her Protest in Crawford, TX
In Crawford Texas, Cindy Sheehan has begun day nine of her vigil outside President Bush's vacation ranch. Sheehan has vowed to remain in Crawford until the president meets with her. Last year Sheehan's oldest son Casey died in Iraq. He was 24 years old. Hundreds of anti-war activists have now joined Sheehan in a protest that has received international attention. "You know, this is really hard. Not only am I, like, trying to stop the war, but I have to grieve my son every day," Cindy Sheehan said. "Every day I wake up, it's like April 4th all over again. I have to realize that I have to go for another day without my son, and it's really, really hard. And then I do this on top of that." On Saturday, Bush defended his decision not to meet with Sheehan. He said "I think it's important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say. But. I think it's also important for me to go on with my life." Bush's comments came before he went on a two-hour bike ride with journalists and aides. In addition, Bush spent Saturday attending a Little League baseball game, having lunch w/ Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, napping, fishing and reading. On Friday Bush attended a political fundraiser. Tensions are also rising in Crawford. One local farmer fired a gun on his property near the protest site. When asked if he was trying to send a message the farmer said, "Figure it out for yourself."
So now let's hop over to the e-mails. I've got one from Amber and she's got a problem. First, she's been talking about Cindy Sheehan every chance she gets. So good for Amber! Way to go! Second, she's got a friend who told her that she doesn't "support the troops" if she supports Cindy Sheehan and Amber's wondering what to tell that friend.
Amber says "I can't tell her to f--k off because she's one of my best friends and because I think if I work hard, I can reach her because she's just repeating stuff her dad told her."
Amber, I think it's great that you faced that and decided to work harder. So my advice is ask her what "support the troops" means? Make her define what it means.
I think she's probably not thought about it and just repeats it as a slogan.
So make her do some thinking and ask her to tell you what "support the troops" means or to make a list of things she thinks "supports the troops."
Then discuss the list with her calmly. And ask questions. Like ask if she thinks it supports the troops if you shut your mouth when you feel your country is making a huge mistake.
Amber says she keeps getting told by some right wingers that Cindy Sheehan wanted the war fought smarter. Amber, you got punked. Cindy Sheehan wants the troops home now. She's said that over and over. I read that and thought, "Call C.I." I did. C.I.'s going to try to address that nonsense tonight.
And see, here's the thing, The Common Ills knew who Cindy Sheehan was before Crawford. The Common Ills linked to Gold Star Families for Peace and Military Families Speak Out before Crawford. The Common Ills has quoted her from Stop The Next War Now, the CODEPINK book. Any right winger who says that crap is an idiot. I've read Stop The Next War Now and I've watched Cindy Sheehan on Democracy Now! so I think it's really sad that some people want to use her to push their own agenda of "fine tune the war!" ("Fine tune the war" is a phrase C.I. or Elaine came up with, I can't remember who right now.)
Cedric told me he saw a "liberal" blogger blogging on it too. L.B. needs to do some research before weighing in because L.B. doesn't know anything. I don't go to that site. I called Elaine because she pulled that site from Rebecca's list. Elaine said she's sick of permalinks from Rebecca to people who won't give Rebecca permalinks so she pulled that site 2 weeks ago. She also didn't care for L.B.'s playing Thomas Friedman while acting "liberal." That's why I don't go to L.B.'s site. C.I. mentioned L.B. when I was doing links and I said, "I don't want to link to that. Or to anyone that pushes Council for Foreign Relations. I may be only 19 but I'm not an idiot." And that's sad, real sad. Here I am 19, not knowing half of what to do and learning as I go and I know more than L.B.
From CounterRecruiter (a great site), I want to note Joshua Breitbart's "Selling the Parents" which about the new push-the-war front where they try to get parents up on the war:
The ads have been running since April on old-person cable channels, like Hallmark and the Game Show Network. One in Spanish is running on Spanish-language television and in Puerto Rico. The Army recently expanded their circulation and claims they will reach 58 percent of influencers of potential recruits by September. With Cindy Sheehan and the Gold Star Families for Peace in the news so much these days, the recruiters have a lot to compete with when it comes to reaching parents.
Read more: "Army ads encourage parents to let their children sign up"
Cindy Sheehan Begins Day Nine of Her Protest in Crawford, TX
In Crawford Texas, Cindy Sheehan has begun day nine of her vigil outside President Bush's vacation ranch. Sheehan has vowed to remain in Crawford until the president meets with her. Last year Sheehan's oldest son Casey died in Iraq. He was 24 years old. Hundreds of anti-war activists have now joined Sheehan in a protest that has received international attention. "You know, this is really hard. Not only am I, like, trying to stop the war, but I have to grieve my son every day," Cindy Sheehan said. "Every day I wake up, it's like April 4th all over again. I have to realize that I have to go for another day without my son, and it's really, really hard. And then I do this on top of that." On Saturday, Bush defended his decision not to meet with Sheehan. He said "I think it's important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say. But. I think it's also important for me to go on with my life." Bush's comments came before he went on a two-hour bike ride with journalists and aides. In addition, Bush spent Saturday attending a Little League baseball game, having lunch w/ Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, napping, fishing and reading. On Friday Bush attended a political fundraiser. Tensions are also rising in Crawford. One local farmer fired a gun on his property near the protest site. When asked if he was trying to send a message the farmer said, "Figure it out for yourself."
So now let's hop over to the e-mails. I've got one from Amber and she's got a problem. First, she's been talking about Cindy Sheehan every chance she gets. So good for Amber! Way to go! Second, she's got a friend who told her that she doesn't "support the troops" if she supports Cindy Sheehan and Amber's wondering what to tell that friend.
Amber says "I can't tell her to f--k off because she's one of my best friends and because I think if I work hard, I can reach her because she's just repeating stuff her dad told her."
Amber, I think it's great that you faced that and decided to work harder. So my advice is ask her what "support the troops" means? Make her define what it means.
I think she's probably not thought about it and just repeats it as a slogan.
So make her do some thinking and ask her to tell you what "support the troops" means or to make a list of things she thinks "supports the troops."
Then discuss the list with her calmly. And ask questions. Like ask if she thinks it supports the troops if you shut your mouth when you feel your country is making a huge mistake.
Amber says she keeps getting told by some right wingers that Cindy Sheehan wanted the war fought smarter. Amber, you got punked. Cindy Sheehan wants the troops home now. She's said that over and over. I read that and thought, "Call C.I." I did. C.I.'s going to try to address that nonsense tonight.
And see, here's the thing, The Common Ills knew who Cindy Sheehan was before Crawford. The Common Ills linked to Gold Star Families for Peace and Military Families Speak Out before Crawford. The Common Ills has quoted her from Stop The Next War Now, the CODEPINK book. Any right winger who says that crap is an idiot. I've read Stop The Next War Now and I've watched Cindy Sheehan on Democracy Now! so I think it's really sad that some people want to use her to push their own agenda of "fine tune the war!" ("Fine tune the war" is a phrase C.I. or Elaine came up with, I can't remember who right now.)
Cedric told me he saw a "liberal" blogger blogging on it too. L.B. needs to do some research before weighing in because L.B. doesn't know anything. I don't go to that site. I called Elaine because she pulled that site from Rebecca's list. Elaine said she's sick of permalinks from Rebecca to people who won't give Rebecca permalinks so she pulled that site 2 weeks ago. She also didn't care for L.B.'s playing Thomas Friedman while acting "liberal." That's why I don't go to L.B.'s site. C.I. mentioned L.B. when I was doing links and I said, "I don't want to link to that. Or to anyone that pushes Council for Foreign Relations. I may be only 19 but I'm not an idiot." And that's sad, real sad. Here I am 19, not knowing half of what to do and learning as I go and I know more than L.B.
From CounterRecruiter (a great site), I want to note Joshua Breitbart's "Selling the Parents" which about the new push-the-war front where they try to get parents up on the war:
The ads have been running since April on old-person cable channels, like Hallmark and the Game Show Network. One in Spanish is running on Spanish-language television and in Puerto Rico. The Army recently expanded their circulation and claims they will reach 58 percent of influencers of potential recruits by September. With Cindy Sheehan and the Gold Star Families for Peace in the news so much these days, the recruiters have a lot to compete with when it comes to reaching parents.
Read more: "Army ads encourage parents to let their children sign up"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)