BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIX MIX -- DC.
SCOOTER LIBBY IS ON TRIAL FOR LYING ABOUT HIS PART IN THE OUTING OF C.I.A. AGENT VALERIE PLAME.
OR WILL BE IF THE TRIAL EVER STARTS.
THE PROBLEM?
FINDING IDIOTS.
A JURY OF ONE'S PEERS TRANSLATES IN THE SCOOTER CASE AS A JURY OF IDIOTS.
POTENTIAL JURORS KEEP GETTING DISMISSED ON THE BASIS THAT THEY HAVE STRONG FEELINGS ABOUT BULLY BOY OR HIS ILLEGAL WAR.
THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE BULK OF THE PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES. A RECENT LOS ANGELES TIMES & BLOOMBERG NEWS POLL FOUND THAT HALF OF THE PEOPLE POLLED "SAID THEY BELIEVED" THE BULLY BOY HAD "DELIBERATELY MISLED THE U.S. IN MAKING HIS CASE FOR INVADING IRAQ."
THAT HALF OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WOULD BE DISQUALIFIED FROM SERVING BECAUSE . . . THEY'VE STAYED INFORMED. FOR SCOOTER'S TRIAL, PROSPECTIVE JURORS NEED TO BE BRAIN DEAD OR VIEWERS OF FOX 'NEWS' WHICH IS BASICALLY THE SAME THING.
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Starting with news of US war resister Ehren Watada who, in June 2006, became the first commissioned officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq. Watada faces a court-martial February 5th and the 'judge' has stripped him of the right to present a strong defense. Arguments that can't be made in a kangroo court can be made by in the real world at Citizens' Hearing on the Legality of U.S. Actions in Iraq which starts tomorrow and concludes Sunday at the Evergreen State College Tacoma Campus (10:00 am to 4:00 pm each day). As Michael Gilbert (The News Tribune) reports "a lineup of speakers will make the case that the war and the ongoing occupation are illegal under international and U.S. law, and that an officer such as Watada has a duty to disobey orders to take part in it." Zoltan Grossman tells Gilbert that "the event will take the shape of a congressional hearing" and notes that those participating include the following: Denis Halliday, Ann Wright, Francis Boyle, Daniel Ellsberg, Darrell Anderson, Harvey Tharp and Nadia McCaffrey.
While some stay silent (The Nation) Peter Michaelson (BuzzFlash) steps up, "The world is upside down, and one brave first lieutenant tries to set it right. The U.S. war in Iraq is illegal and immoral, says 1st Lt. Ehren Watada. In thus choosing reality over fallacy, and refusing to deploy to Iraq with his Stryker brigade, the 28-year-old Honolulu native faces six years in the brig when his court-martial begins next month at Ft. Lewis near Seattle." Peter Michaelson and BuzzFlash stood up. FYI, BuzzFlash is offering Peace buttons and Howard Zinn's A Power Governments Cannot Suppress.
Also standing up, of course, in support of Watada is Iraq Veterans Against the War have set up Camp Resistance and Portland IMC has audio of Dennis Kyne and Darrell Anderson speaking about Camp Resistance. Anderson spoke of how they were camping outside Fort Lewis, "That bus is parked right there and it's not leaving until the trial is over, not till February." Anderson noted the positive reaction from soldiers at Fort Lewis, "They see the bus, they know who we area. After six days, we had soldiers honking, soldiers rolling by in their civilian clothes and screaming out the window. And I remember like, wow, I was just coming up here for Watada and Suzanne Swift and I didn't think the soldiers were going to . . . I never heard of soldiers power fisting anti-war guys. And that's when it hit me, that they're done. They're not going back for a third time. 'Cause that's where I'd be if I didn't go AWOL, I'd be at my third tour right now. Three years in Iraq, three years. Could you imagine Vietnam vets, could you imagine going back to Vietnam three times? Three years and you don't come back from that. You go to Iraq, but you don't come back."
As Ehren Watada's February 5th court-martial approaches, this week the US military announced their decision to charge Agustin Aguayo with desertion and missing movement which carry a maximum sentence of seven years in prison. Watada, Aguayo, and Anderson are part of a movement of resistance within the military that also includes Kyle Snyder, Agustin Aguayo, Ivan Brobeck, Darrell Anderson, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Mark Wilkerson, Joshua Key, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman, Corey Glass, Patrick Hart, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
From CODEPINK:
Bring the Peace Mandate to D.C. on J27! On Election Day voters delivered an unmistakable mandate for peace. Now it's time for action. Join CODEPINK in a national march to D.C. on January 27-29, to send a strong, clear message to Congress and the Bush Administration: The people of this country want the war and occupation in Iraq to end and we want the troops home now! See our latest actions, and click here for details.
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"And the war drags on"
"NYT: If myths were true, Gordo would be blind by now or it would have fallen off"
"Other Items"
"NYT: Selling the war like it was their own mother"
"robert parry, sarah olson, etc"
"alberto's big day, etc."
"Alexander Cockburn"
"Help Wanted: The Nation's in need of direction"
"Stimson, Guantanamo"
"Diana's Dud"
"Blame Blogger/Blogspot"
"The literary set?"
"THIS JUST IN! THE PUZZLES OF S.M.U. AND ALBERTO"
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Thursday, January 18, 2007
The literary set?
BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIX MIX -- DC.
R. GERALD TURNER, PRESIDENT OF S.M.U., SAYS THAT WINNING THE BIDDING RIGHTS TO THE BULLY BOY'S "LIBRARY" (REPORTEDLY 2 CHILDRENS BOOKS, A TORN COPY OF SPORTS ILLUSTRATED AND A CRUMPLED AND INCOMPLETE 'WHERE'S WALDO?' PUZZLE) "WILL INCREASE THE SCHOOL'S VISIBILITY NATIONWIDE."
WHETHER BECOMING THE MOCKERY OF THE UNITED STATES WILL TRANSLATE INTO AN INCREASE IN ENROLLMENT, HOWEVER, IS DEBATABLE.
REACHED MOMENTS BEFORE TESTIFYING TO THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND INTERNATIONAL BILLIE JEAN KING LOOKALIKE ALBERTO GONZALES STATED, "HE'S GIVING S.M.U. THE WALDO PUZZLE? MAN, HE PROMISED THAT TO ME!"
THE NEWS OBVIOUSLY HIT A.G. GONZALES HARD WHICH EXPLAINS WHY HE WAS SO PETULANT WHEN TESTIFYING BEFORE THE SENATORS. ALTHOUGH IN FAIRNESS TO GONZALES, WE SHOULD NOTE HE ALWAYS HAS THAT HIGH WHINE VOCAL AS THOUGH HE'S PLAYING THE BEST FRIEND OF THE TEENAGE BOY IN A FAMILY SITCOM.
SOUNDING LIKE FAMILY TIES' SKIPPY, THE SIMPSONS' MILHOUSE, AND GROWING PAINS' BONER COMBINED, ALBERTO WHINED TO THE SENATORS, "WE ALL CONCLUDED, THERE'S NO WAY WE CAN DO WHAT WE BELIEVE WE HAVE TO DO TO PROTECT THE COUNTRY UNDER THE STRICT READING OF FISA."
AS HE LEFT THE HEARING, HE APPROACHED US AND DECLARED, "I USED 'US' AND 'WE' A LOT. WHEN THE SENATE CATCHES ON HOW ILLEGAL THIS PROGRAM WAS, I AIN'T THE ONLY ONE GOING DOWN!"
TO CHEER HIM UP, THESE REPORTERS GAVE HIM A COPY OF CRICKETS.
"KE-E-E-E-WL!" GONZALES EXCLAIMED. "I LOVE THEIR PUZZLES!"
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Starting with war resister Ehren Watada who, in June of last year, became the first US officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq. As noted in yesterday's snapshot, the 'judge' of the pre-trial has issued a ruling on what is and isn't acceptable in the February 5th court-martial. As Courage to Resist notes "ALL POLITICAL SPEECH CHARGES GO TO TRIAL."
Teresa Watanabe (LA Times) reports that Watada has called for everyon to "stop the war so the death and sacrifices of American soldiers will not be in vain" and "I firmly stand by my belief that this war is illegal and immoral."
"Judge" Head issued his rulings on Tuesday and since Watada will not be allowed to present a defense, why even waste time and money on a court-martial? "Judge" Head has refused Watada's right to present a defense and, in his ruling, "Judge" Head is quite clear about "a preponderance of evidence" and is disallowing any evidence that could counter it so the kangaroo court-martial will go foward but the ruling is already pre-determined and contained in "Judge" Head's ruling. That's the only 'value' in the ruling (well, that and the revelation that, by his signature, John Head apparently thinks he's a young starlet).
The AP reports that "Army officials said in a statement that they had full confidence in the military justice system". Of course they're gloating -- JUDGE TOOL handed them a win before the first argument is made in the court-martial. Now if they had any self-respect, they'd realize that this isn't justice and that obviously there's no faith in their abilities to fairly prosecute Watada.
Earlier this month, Watada spoke with Lance Holter and Ave Diaz (Haleakala Times) and shared his expectations of the trial: "I certainly expect the army to make an example out of my stand and what I'm speaking against." He was correct. Holter and Diaz also note US war resister Pablo Parades who was allowed, in his court-martial, to argue his case. From Parades' statement at his court-martial (via Democracy Now!): "I am convinced that the current war in Iraq is illegal. I am also convinced that the true causality for it lacked any high ground in the topography of morality. I believe as a member of the Armed Forces, beyond having duty to my Chain of Command and my President, I have a higher duty to my conscience and to the surpreme law of the land. Both of these higher duties dictate that I must not participate in any way, hands-on or indirect, in the current aggression that has been unleased on Iraq. In the past few months I have been continually asked if I regret my decision to refuse to board my ship and to do so publicly. I have spent hour upon hour reflecting on my decision, and I can tell you with every fiber of certitude that I possess that I feel in my heart I did the right thing."
Ehren Watada will not be allowed to present a similar defense. What is the military afraid and what sort of 'judge' acts in such a cowardly craven manner?
Mike Barber (Seattle Post-Intelligencer) reports that what Watada will not be able to present in 'court' of 'judge' Head, he will be able to present "this weekend, a 'Citizens' Hearing on the Legality of U.S. Actions in Iraq' will convene in Tacoma to address that issue in support of Watada." The hearing will take place at the Evergreen State College Tacoma Campus on January 20th and 21st from 10:00 am to 4:00 pm each day. Among the participants will be Antonia Juhasz, Ann Wright, Daniel Ellsberg, Enis Halliday (who was on yesterday's Flashpoints speaking with Dennis Bernstein about the deaths caused by sanctions against Iraq), Bejmain G. Davis, Richard Falk, Francis Boyle, Dennis Kyne, and US war resister Darrell Anderson. In addition, Karen Hucks (The News Tribune) reports that Daniel Ellsberg ("who started a national uproar in 1971 when he released the Penatagon Papers") will speak in Tacoma Friday "from 7:30 to 9:30 p.m. at the Washington State History Museeum, 1911 Pacific Ave. The University of Washington Tacoma is sponsoring the free event." In addition
Iraq Veterans Against the War have set up Camp Resistance on the edge of Fort Lewis to show their support for Watada.
Ehren Watada spoke in Seattle on Monday (MLK day) and Kay Suzat (PSL) reports: "A tremendous standing ovation greeted Watada and concluded his remarks. The crowd demonstrated its solidarity and support for his refusal to deploy to Iraq and be part of the imperilist occupation."
Watada is part of a movement of resistance within the military that also includes Kyle Snyder, Agustin Aguayo, Ivan Brobeck, Darrell Anderson, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Mark Wilkerson, Joshua Key, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman, Corey Glass, Patrick Hart, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
And, good news!, you can find information about a war resister at The Nation . . . provided he's a resister of the Vietnam war, a professional athlete and a household name. Dave Zirin
covers sports and he's always managed to cover the war (unlike The Nation). To read his column "Muhammad Ali: The Brand and the Man" use the link freely, it takes you to Yahoo and not to The Nation which still can't manage to show interest in war resisters.
Turning to the topic of 14-year-old Abeer Qasim Hamza who was gang raped and murdered on March 12, 2006 by what was spun as 'insurgents.' The reality is that it was by American soldiers who also murdered her five-year-old sisters and both of her parents. The soldiers watched the 14-year-old, making her uncomfortable with their inappropriate attention to the point that she complained to her parents who immediately began making arrangements to get their daughter the hell away from perverts supposedly stationed in their area to protect the Iraq people. Abeer was due to move but, before she could, Paul Cortez, James P. Barker, Jesse Spielman, Bryan Howard and Steven D. Green wanted to have a little 'fun' and, boozed up to the gills in a war zone, they decided the most 'fun' they could have would be in murdering a family after gang raping the 14-year-old daughter. So they changed into civies, approached the home via a hole in a fence they'd already created, and the 'fun' began -- adult males holding down a 14-year-old girl to take turns gang raping her while her parents and sister were shot dead and then, after the gang rape, murdering Abeer.
At the Article 32 hearing in August, Captain Alex Pickands declared: "They gathered over cards and booze to come up with a plan to rape and murder that little girl. She was young and attractive. They knew where she was because they had seen her on a previous patrol. She was close. She was vulnerable."
In November, James P. Barker confessed to his role in the planning of the war crimes and to his raping Abeer. He also named Steven D. Green as the one who shot and killed Abeer, her parents and her sister. He identified Green as taking part in the gang rape and also identified Paul Cortez as taking part in the gang rape. Green has denied any involvement and will be tried in a civilian court because the US military had discharged him before the crimes were uncovered. Last week, Ryan Lenz (AP) reported that Green had been diagnosed by the Army Combat Stress Team with "homicidal ideations" on December 21, 2005, three months prior to the rape and murders. Today, Ryan Lenz reports that William Cassara, attorney for Paul Cortez, has stated, "Sgt. Cortez is going to go in and accept the responsibilities for his part in what occurred" which would be WAR CRIMES and that "Our version of events is that he knew what was going to take place and participated as an observer." According to Barker's confession, Paul Cortez took part in the gang rape -- that's a bit more than 'observing.'
AFP is now reporting that Cortez "has pleaded guilty in the rape and murder" of Abeer
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Other Items"
"Watada"
"winter blahs"
"Joshua Frank, Medea Benjmain"
"Fire Charles Stimson"
"Diana Ross"
"Serving symbolism and trying to pass it off as the real thing"
"THIS JUST IN! IT'S A SYMBOLIC WORLD AFTER ALL!"
R. GERALD TURNER, PRESIDENT OF S.M.U., SAYS THAT WINNING THE BIDDING RIGHTS TO THE BULLY BOY'S "LIBRARY" (REPORTEDLY 2 CHILDRENS BOOKS, A TORN COPY OF SPORTS ILLUSTRATED AND A CRUMPLED AND INCOMPLETE 'WHERE'S WALDO?' PUZZLE) "WILL INCREASE THE SCHOOL'S VISIBILITY NATIONWIDE."
WHETHER BECOMING THE MOCKERY OF THE UNITED STATES WILL TRANSLATE INTO AN INCREASE IN ENROLLMENT, HOWEVER, IS DEBATABLE.
REACHED MOMENTS BEFORE TESTIFYING TO THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND INTERNATIONAL BILLIE JEAN KING LOOKALIKE ALBERTO GONZALES STATED, "HE'S GIVING S.M.U. THE WALDO PUZZLE? MAN, HE PROMISED THAT TO ME!"
THE NEWS OBVIOUSLY HIT A.G. GONZALES HARD WHICH EXPLAINS WHY HE WAS SO PETULANT WHEN TESTIFYING BEFORE THE SENATORS. ALTHOUGH IN FAIRNESS TO GONZALES, WE SHOULD NOTE HE ALWAYS HAS THAT HIGH WHINE VOCAL AS THOUGH HE'S PLAYING THE BEST FRIEND OF THE TEENAGE BOY IN A FAMILY SITCOM.
SOUNDING LIKE FAMILY TIES' SKIPPY, THE SIMPSONS' MILHOUSE, AND GROWING PAINS' BONER COMBINED, ALBERTO WHINED TO THE SENATORS, "WE ALL CONCLUDED, THERE'S NO WAY WE CAN DO WHAT WE BELIEVE WE HAVE TO DO TO PROTECT THE COUNTRY UNDER THE STRICT READING OF FISA."
AS HE LEFT THE HEARING, HE APPROACHED US AND DECLARED, "I USED 'US' AND 'WE' A LOT. WHEN THE SENATE CATCHES ON HOW ILLEGAL THIS PROGRAM WAS, I AIN'T THE ONLY ONE GOING DOWN!"
TO CHEER HIM UP, THESE REPORTERS GAVE HIM A COPY OF CRICKETS.
"KE-E-E-E-WL!" GONZALES EXCLAIMED. "I LOVE THEIR PUZZLES!"
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Starting with war resister Ehren Watada who, in June of last year, became the first US officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq. As noted in yesterday's snapshot, the 'judge' of the pre-trial has issued a ruling on what is and isn't acceptable in the February 5th court-martial. As Courage to Resist notes "ALL POLITICAL SPEECH CHARGES GO TO TRIAL."
Teresa Watanabe (LA Times) reports that Watada has called for everyon to "stop the war so the death and sacrifices of American soldiers will not be in vain" and "I firmly stand by my belief that this war is illegal and immoral."
"Judge" Head issued his rulings on Tuesday and since Watada will not be allowed to present a defense, why even waste time and money on a court-martial? "Judge" Head has refused Watada's right to present a defense and, in his ruling, "Judge" Head is quite clear about "a preponderance of evidence" and is disallowing any evidence that could counter it so the kangaroo court-martial will go foward but the ruling is already pre-determined and contained in "Judge" Head's ruling. That's the only 'value' in the ruling (well, that and the revelation that, by his signature, John Head apparently thinks he's a young starlet).
The AP reports that "Army officials said in a statement that they had full confidence in the military justice system". Of course they're gloating -- JUDGE TOOL handed them a win before the first argument is made in the court-martial. Now if they had any self-respect, they'd realize that this isn't justice and that obviously there's no faith in their abilities to fairly prosecute Watada.
Earlier this month, Watada spoke with Lance Holter and Ave Diaz (Haleakala Times) and shared his expectations of the trial: "I certainly expect the army to make an example out of my stand and what I'm speaking against." He was correct. Holter and Diaz also note US war resister Pablo Parades who was allowed, in his court-martial, to argue his case. From Parades' statement at his court-martial (via Democracy Now!): "I am convinced that the current war in Iraq is illegal. I am also convinced that the true causality for it lacked any high ground in the topography of morality. I believe as a member of the Armed Forces, beyond having duty to my Chain of Command and my President, I have a higher duty to my conscience and to the surpreme law of the land. Both of these higher duties dictate that I must not participate in any way, hands-on or indirect, in the current aggression that has been unleased on Iraq. In the past few months I have been continually asked if I regret my decision to refuse to board my ship and to do so publicly. I have spent hour upon hour reflecting on my decision, and I can tell you with every fiber of certitude that I possess that I feel in my heart I did the right thing."
Ehren Watada will not be allowed to present a similar defense. What is the military afraid and what sort of 'judge' acts in such a cowardly craven manner?
Mike Barber (Seattle Post-Intelligencer) reports that what Watada will not be able to present in 'court' of 'judge' Head, he will be able to present "this weekend, a 'Citizens' Hearing on the Legality of U.S. Actions in Iraq' will convene in Tacoma to address that issue in support of Watada." The hearing will take place at the Evergreen State College Tacoma Campus on January 20th and 21st from 10:00 am to 4:00 pm each day. Among the participants will be Antonia Juhasz, Ann Wright, Daniel Ellsberg, Enis Halliday (who was on yesterday's Flashpoints speaking with Dennis Bernstein about the deaths caused by sanctions against Iraq), Bejmain G. Davis, Richard Falk, Francis Boyle, Dennis Kyne, and US war resister Darrell Anderson. In addition, Karen Hucks (The News Tribune) reports that Daniel Ellsberg ("who started a national uproar in 1971 when he released the Penatagon Papers") will speak in Tacoma Friday "from 7:30 to 9:30 p.m. at the Washington State History Museeum, 1911 Pacific Ave. The University of Washington Tacoma is sponsoring the free event." In addition
Iraq Veterans Against the War have set up Camp Resistance on the edge of Fort Lewis to show their support for Watada.
Ehren Watada spoke in Seattle on Monday (MLK day) and Kay Suzat (PSL) reports: "A tremendous standing ovation greeted Watada and concluded his remarks. The crowd demonstrated its solidarity and support for his refusal to deploy to Iraq and be part of the imperilist occupation."
Watada is part of a movement of resistance within the military that also includes Kyle Snyder, Agustin Aguayo, Ivan Brobeck, Darrell Anderson, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Mark Wilkerson, Joshua Key, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman, Corey Glass, Patrick Hart, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
And, good news!, you can find information about a war resister at The Nation . . . provided he's a resister of the Vietnam war, a professional athlete and a household name. Dave Zirin
covers sports and he's always managed to cover the war (unlike The Nation). To read his column "Muhammad Ali: The Brand and the Man" use the link freely, it takes you to Yahoo and not to The Nation which still can't manage to show interest in war resisters.
Turning to the topic of 14-year-old Abeer Qasim Hamza who was gang raped and murdered on March 12, 2006 by what was spun as 'insurgents.' The reality is that it was by American soldiers who also murdered her five-year-old sisters and both of her parents. The soldiers watched the 14-year-old, making her uncomfortable with their inappropriate attention to the point that she complained to her parents who immediately began making arrangements to get their daughter the hell away from perverts supposedly stationed in their area to protect the Iraq people. Abeer was due to move but, before she could, Paul Cortez, James P. Barker, Jesse Spielman, Bryan Howard and Steven D. Green wanted to have a little 'fun' and, boozed up to the gills in a war zone, they decided the most 'fun' they could have would be in murdering a family after gang raping the 14-year-old daughter. So they changed into civies, approached the home via a hole in a fence they'd already created, and the 'fun' began -- adult males holding down a 14-year-old girl to take turns gang raping her while her parents and sister were shot dead and then, after the gang rape, murdering Abeer.
At the Article 32 hearing in August, Captain Alex Pickands declared: "They gathered over cards and booze to come up with a plan to rape and murder that little girl. She was young and attractive. They knew where she was because they had seen her on a previous patrol. She was close. She was vulnerable."
In November, James P. Barker confessed to his role in the planning of the war crimes and to his raping Abeer. He also named Steven D. Green as the one who shot and killed Abeer, her parents and her sister. He identified Green as taking part in the gang rape and also identified Paul Cortez as taking part in the gang rape. Green has denied any involvement and will be tried in a civilian court because the US military had discharged him before the crimes were uncovered. Last week, Ryan Lenz (AP) reported that Green had been diagnosed by the Army Combat Stress Team with "homicidal ideations" on December 21, 2005, three months prior to the rape and murders. Today, Ryan Lenz reports that William Cassara, attorney for Paul Cortez, has stated, "Sgt. Cortez is going to go in and accept the responsibilities for his part in what occurred" which would be WAR CRIMES and that "Our version of events is that he knew what was going to take place and participated as an observer." According to Barker's confession, Paul Cortez took part in the gang rape -- that's a bit more than 'observing.'
AFP is now reporting that Cortez "has pleaded guilty in the rape and murder" of Abeer
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Other Items"
"Watada"
"winter blahs"
"Joshua Frank, Medea Benjmain"
"Fire Charles Stimson"
"Diana Ross"
"Serving symbolism and trying to pass it off as the real thing"
"THIS JUST IN! IT'S A SYMBOLIC WORLD AFTER ALL!"
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Serving symbolism and trying to pass it off as the real thing
BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIX MIX -- DC.
SYMBOLISM, COME AND GET YOUR SYMBOLISM!
YOU CAN SHOW SUPPORT FOR WAR RESISTERS IF YOU'VE GOT A SPINE OR YOU CAN GUSH AND GIGGLE, COO AND SIGH OVER 1,000 SERVICE MEMBERS WHO THINK THE ILLEGAL WAR IS SO WRONG BY GUM AND GOLLY, THEY'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING! THEY'RE GOING TO PUT THEIR NAMES (PRIVATELY) TO A SYMBOLIC PETITION THAT CARRIES NO WEIGHT. THAT'LL STOP THE WAR! EHREN WATADA IS STANDING UP. NOTHING TO BE INFERRED THERE, HE'S STANDING, BRAVE AND TALL.
MAYBE YOU PREFER YOUR SYMBOLISM SERVED UP HISTORICALLY? BARACK OBAMA HAS NO PLATFORM TO RUN ON AND SINCE HE BRAGS THAT HE'S THE MOST SURPRISED OF ALL BY HIS DECISION TO RUN FOR U.S. PRESIDENT, HE'S OBVIOUSLY NOT BEEN GIVING IT MUCH THOUGHT. BUT HE'LL BE PUBLICLY ANNOUNCING ON FEBRUARY 10TH IN . . . SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS! WHO CARES WHAT HE SAYS, OLD ABE LINCOLN IS FROM THERE! SYMBOLISM -- IN PLACE OF PLANS, PASSION AND DRIVE!
AND IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE, DEMOCRATS AND SOME REPUBLICANS CAN'T STOP STROKING THEMSELVES OVER THE RESOLUTION THEY'RE HOPING TO SEE PASSED -- A RESOLUTION OPPOSING BULLY BOY'S ESCALATION (ADDING 21,500 TROOPS IN IRAQ) -- A NON-BINDING RESOLUTION! IF YOU LIKE YOUR POLITICS TOOTHLESS AND SYMBOLIC, JO-JO BIDEN'S SERVING IT UP BY THE HANDFULS!
NO WONDER THE UNITED STATES CURRENTLY HAS MORE OF A SYMBOLIC DEMOCRACY THAN AN ACTUAL ONE. CALL THAT "A SYMBOLIC VICTORY," JUST DON'T CONFUSE IT WITH REALITY.
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Starting with the latest news of Ehren Watada who, in June of last year, became the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq. A strong stand that took tremendous courage (even his parents, Bob Watada and Carolyn Ho, have spoken of how they attempted to talk him out of it because of the scorn, silence and hostility he'd be greeted with). He faces a court-martial on February 5th and Lt. Col. John Head -- the so-called judge -- has issued a decision based on arguments presented in the pre-trial hearing earlier this month. As Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) summarized it today: "The judge in the case has ruled Watada's defense won't be able to present evidence challenging the legality of the war nor explain Watada's motive to resist deploying to Iraq." Hal Bernton (Seattle Times) notes it is "a major blow to the court-martial defense," which is putting it mildly, and quotes Watada's attorney Eric Seitz who declares, "We have been stripped of every defense. This is a disciplinary system, not a justice system. Otherwise, we would have been entitled to defend ourselves."
Which they are not. Ehren Watada was just stripped of any defense. As noted on January 4th when the prosecution presented their pre-trial arguments: "What the military would like to do in today's pre-trial hearing is reduce everything to whether or not Watada deployed with his unit? The answer, of course, is that he did not. The military does not want the issue of the legality of the war addressed. By closing off this discussion, they not only would destroy Watada's right to defend himself, they would be able, as the Bully Boy long has been able to, set the terms of the discussion and control what is and is not discussed."
Political Affairs offers a survey of the travesty and notes that Head's ruling reads: "The defense motion for a hearin gon the 'Nuremberg defense' is DENIED. The government motion to prevent the defense from presenting evidence on the legality of the war is GRANTED." Of the political prosecution (let's be honest, Watada's being politically prosecuted), Political Affairs notes that, in the pre-trial hearing, "Kueker replied that there are two separate prosecutions going on. The first is for Lt. Watada missing movement to Iraq -- a prosecution where his MOTIVE is so irrelevant that it needs to be barred from the military jury. The second prosecution will be for Lt. Watada publicly explaining his MOTIVE! Apparently this Orwellian formulation passes for military justice."
Apparently and sadly it does. It's complete nonsense. It's doesn't remotely resemble justice. It's a political prosecution of Ehren Watada where he is silenced to the point of being gagged. (Shades of the Chicago Eight.) He can be charged with crimes that, if convicted, carry six years of prison time, the prosecution can do whatever they want in the court-martial, but Ehren Watada cannot make the best defense he is entitled to. Not only can his attorney not put forth the best defense, the reasons for the actions he is now being persecuted for, those reasons cannot be discussed by the defense.
The prosectution can discuss it. They'll be discussing what Ehren Watada said here or there and why it is supposedly so objectionable but Ehren Watada will not be allowed to explain why he acted as he did, why he said what he did.
That's not justice. It's railroading him. It's denying him the right to offer any response to a government case against him. But the Coward's Silence will continue to cause many in independent media to ignore Ehren Watada. Follow that closley and note who stays silent. Those that stay silent are useless. They'd stay silent if you needed them as well.
Ehren Watada has been prevented from arguing any kind of defense. His court-martial now consists of nothing more than "yes" and "no" answers from him. That's not a defense. He took a stand. He's shown bravery. There is no hemming or hawwing, there is only standing up on his part. And for doing that, for saying no to an illegal war, he faces six years in prison -- all the more likely when he's not allowed to make his case.
To repeat, during the Article 32 hearing, Watada's defense called three witnesses, Francis A. Boyle of the University of Illinois' College of Law, Champagne; Denis Halliday, the former Assistant Secretary General of the UN; and retired Colonel Ann Wright. These three witnesses addressed the issue of the war, it's legality, and the responsibilities of a service member to disobey any order that they believed was unlawful. The testimony was necessary because Watada's refusing to participate in the illegal war due to the fact that he feels it is (a) illegal and (b) immoral. That will not happen now, 'judge' Head has denied that, has denied Watada the right to argue any sort of defense.
While the military attempts to throw the book at him (and asks that he stand still and repeat, "Thank you, sir. May I have another?") and independent media plays dumb (with few exceptions) the people react differently. On Saturday, Ehren Watada spoke at the Coupeville Recreation Center in Washington. Paul Boring (Whidbey News-Times) reports that over a 100 people showed up to hear him and burst into applause at various intervals. Watada asked: "Do we wanta a military that without hesistation, will turn on people simply because they ordered to do so? . . . What I have embarked upon and what I sacrifice today is for those who have lost their lives and for those still struggling to stay alive. . . . I do have the power to make you aware of why soldiers are dying and why this war is unjust. I do have the power to compel you to care. It is the American people who have the power to end this war. . . . They can try me, convict me or acquit me. My life does not matter. The lives of thousands of soldiers do . . . it is one thing to end a war. It is another to ensure it never happens again. We have the power to change history."
We do have that power. But only if we use it. Mark Taylor-Canfield reported for Free Speech Radio News and The KPFA Evening News yesterday on a speech Ehren Watada
gave as part of Seattle's MLK celebration where, no surprise, he received a standing ovation. The people are hearing him (which no doubts scares the military to death). Taylor-Canfield also noted Camp Resistance had set up "just outside the gates of Fort Lewis where Watada's hearing is being held." So that's two independent media outlets that have noted Camp Resistance -- will anyone be next? In a show of support for Ehren Watada, Iraq Veterans Against the War started Camp Resistance and intend to maintain it through the court-martial. They need money, volunteers and press attention.
Yesterday, we noted that Agustin Aguayo has received not the expected charge of being AWOL but the charge of "desertion." With Aguayo the US military is attempting to send a message both due to Aguayo's standing up and saying "no" and due to the fact that (as Mike pointed out last night) Aguayo didn't just sue the US military, he's made it up all the way up to the DC Court of Appeals. With Ehren Watada the US military is also attempting to send a message, to initmidate and frighten others from following in Watada or Aguayo's footsteps. Guess what? It's too late. It's already happening. (About the only one scared at this point is a healthy chunk of independent media.) Watada and Aguayo are part of a movement of resistance within the military that also includes Kyle Snyder, Ivan Brobeck, Darrell Anderson, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Mark Wilkerson, Joshua Key, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman, Corey Glass, Patrick Hart, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
Today on KPFA's The Morning Show, US Congress member Barbara Lee discussed the Bring the Troops Home and Iraq Sovereignty Restoration Act. Which is? Legislation proposed by Lee and fellow Congress members Lynn Woolsey and Maxine Waters calling for the start of troop withdrawal and the start of "work with the regional countries in the Middle East to come up with a multilateral solution," Lee explained. Repeatedly, Representative Barbara Lee noted that the presence of US troops was fueling the violence. In addition, she noted that the violence "is only going to escalate as long as US troops are there," that "there is no 'win'" and that Bully Boy mentions mistakes but "whether than talk about to rectify it, he's talking about escalating the war." Andrea Lewis asked what everyone could do to support Lee, Waters and Woolsey's proposal and Lee responded that "the bill needs co-sponsors, the more co-sponsors you build, the more chance the bill will get a fair hearing" so start contacting your Congressional reps (especially the House because this is a House proposal) -- get on the phone, on the fax, on your feet, into your e-mail account . . . and tell them you want to see some support for Waters, Woolsey and Lee's bill -- Bring the Troops Home and Iraq Sovereignty Restoration Act.
Also appearing on The Morning Show was Matthew Rothschild (The Progressive) stated, "I hope she gets a whole lot more signers on that" and that "This is what we need. This is what we must from our leadership, we must have courageous leadership." He then discussed how when the talk of escalation was first being floated, US Senator Harry Reid (Majority Leader) was all ready to go along publicly but public outrage changed that. "The Democratic Leadership, if left to their own devices will go along with Bush on that". Rothschild stated he is for all avenues ("Bascially, I'm for everything") including phone calls and e-mails (which he believes are counted -- they are, a tally is kept by your rep) but it's time to get "past the passive protests." He shared how he was speaking with an activist about the events to note the 3,000 mark for number of US troops killed in Bully Boy's illegal war. The activist stated, "We got to do more than candle light vigils 'cause they're fine with candle light vigils" and that until the actions turn to massive civil disobedience ("until we start interrupting Wall St.," his friend told him) "this war's going to go on" -- instead "the volume needs to go up, needs to increase and just passive resistance to this war" will not change anything.
Recommended: "Iraq snapshot"
"Judge rules Ehren Watada cannot present a defense in court-martial"
"Other Items"
"gore vidal, robert parry"
"Agustin Aguayo, Ehren Watada, real heroes"
"Comics -- Celibacy in the City"
"Oil, colds, etc"
"Kicks and tricks should be gotten off camera (humor)"
"THIS JUST IN! WHEN THE WHIP COMES DOWN!"
"Bring Back Black Radio News -- The People's Network"
SYMBOLISM, COME AND GET YOUR SYMBOLISM!
YOU CAN SHOW SUPPORT FOR WAR RESISTERS IF YOU'VE GOT A SPINE OR YOU CAN GUSH AND GIGGLE, COO AND SIGH OVER 1,000 SERVICE MEMBERS WHO THINK THE ILLEGAL WAR IS SO WRONG BY GUM AND GOLLY, THEY'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING! THEY'RE GOING TO PUT THEIR NAMES (PRIVATELY) TO A SYMBOLIC PETITION THAT CARRIES NO WEIGHT. THAT'LL STOP THE WAR! EHREN WATADA IS STANDING UP. NOTHING TO BE INFERRED THERE, HE'S STANDING, BRAVE AND TALL.
MAYBE YOU PREFER YOUR SYMBOLISM SERVED UP HISTORICALLY? BARACK OBAMA HAS NO PLATFORM TO RUN ON AND SINCE HE BRAGS THAT HE'S THE MOST SURPRISED OF ALL BY HIS DECISION TO RUN FOR U.S. PRESIDENT, HE'S OBVIOUSLY NOT BEEN GIVING IT MUCH THOUGHT. BUT HE'LL BE PUBLICLY ANNOUNCING ON FEBRUARY 10TH IN . . . SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS! WHO CARES WHAT HE SAYS, OLD ABE LINCOLN IS FROM THERE! SYMBOLISM -- IN PLACE OF PLANS, PASSION AND DRIVE!
AND IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE, DEMOCRATS AND SOME REPUBLICANS CAN'T STOP STROKING THEMSELVES OVER THE RESOLUTION THEY'RE HOPING TO SEE PASSED -- A RESOLUTION OPPOSING BULLY BOY'S ESCALATION (ADDING 21,500 TROOPS IN IRAQ) -- A NON-BINDING RESOLUTION! IF YOU LIKE YOUR POLITICS TOOTHLESS AND SYMBOLIC, JO-JO BIDEN'S SERVING IT UP BY THE HANDFULS!
NO WONDER THE UNITED STATES CURRENTLY HAS MORE OF A SYMBOLIC DEMOCRACY THAN AN ACTUAL ONE. CALL THAT "A SYMBOLIC VICTORY," JUST DON'T CONFUSE IT WITH REALITY.
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Starting with the latest news of Ehren Watada who, in June of last year, became the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq. A strong stand that took tremendous courage (even his parents, Bob Watada and Carolyn Ho, have spoken of how they attempted to talk him out of it because of the scorn, silence and hostility he'd be greeted with). He faces a court-martial on February 5th and Lt. Col. John Head -- the so-called judge -- has issued a decision based on arguments presented in the pre-trial hearing earlier this month. As Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) summarized it today: "The judge in the case has ruled Watada's defense won't be able to present evidence challenging the legality of the war nor explain Watada's motive to resist deploying to Iraq." Hal Bernton (Seattle Times) notes it is "a major blow to the court-martial defense," which is putting it mildly, and quotes Watada's attorney Eric Seitz who declares, "We have been stripped of every defense. This is a disciplinary system, not a justice system. Otherwise, we would have been entitled to defend ourselves."
Which they are not. Ehren Watada was just stripped of any defense. As noted on January 4th when the prosecution presented their pre-trial arguments: "What the military would like to do in today's pre-trial hearing is reduce everything to whether or not Watada deployed with his unit? The answer, of course, is that he did not. The military does not want the issue of the legality of the war addressed. By closing off this discussion, they not only would destroy Watada's right to defend himself, they would be able, as the Bully Boy long has been able to, set the terms of the discussion and control what is and is not discussed."
Political Affairs offers a survey of the travesty and notes that Head's ruling reads: "The defense motion for a hearin gon the 'Nuremberg defense' is DENIED. The government motion to prevent the defense from presenting evidence on the legality of the war is GRANTED." Of the political prosecution (let's be honest, Watada's being politically prosecuted), Political Affairs notes that, in the pre-trial hearing, "Kueker replied that there are two separate prosecutions going on. The first is for Lt. Watada missing movement to Iraq -- a prosecution where his MOTIVE is so irrelevant that it needs to be barred from the military jury. The second prosecution will be for Lt. Watada publicly explaining his MOTIVE! Apparently this Orwellian formulation passes for military justice."
Apparently and sadly it does. It's complete nonsense. It's doesn't remotely resemble justice. It's a political prosecution of Ehren Watada where he is silenced to the point of being gagged. (Shades of the Chicago Eight.) He can be charged with crimes that, if convicted, carry six years of prison time, the prosecution can do whatever they want in the court-martial, but Ehren Watada cannot make the best defense he is entitled to. Not only can his attorney not put forth the best defense, the reasons for the actions he is now being persecuted for, those reasons cannot be discussed by the defense.
The prosectution can discuss it. They'll be discussing what Ehren Watada said here or there and why it is supposedly so objectionable but Ehren Watada will not be allowed to explain why he acted as he did, why he said what he did.
That's not justice. It's railroading him. It's denying him the right to offer any response to a government case against him. But the Coward's Silence will continue to cause many in independent media to ignore Ehren Watada. Follow that closley and note who stays silent. Those that stay silent are useless. They'd stay silent if you needed them as well.
Ehren Watada has been prevented from arguing any kind of defense. His court-martial now consists of nothing more than "yes" and "no" answers from him. That's not a defense. He took a stand. He's shown bravery. There is no hemming or hawwing, there is only standing up on his part. And for doing that, for saying no to an illegal war, he faces six years in prison -- all the more likely when he's not allowed to make his case.
To repeat, during the Article 32 hearing, Watada's defense called three witnesses, Francis A. Boyle of the University of Illinois' College of Law, Champagne; Denis Halliday, the former Assistant Secretary General of the UN; and retired Colonel Ann Wright. These three witnesses addressed the issue of the war, it's legality, and the responsibilities of a service member to disobey any order that they believed was unlawful. The testimony was necessary because Watada's refusing to participate in the illegal war due to the fact that he feels it is (a) illegal and (b) immoral. That will not happen now, 'judge' Head has denied that, has denied Watada the right to argue any sort of defense.
While the military attempts to throw the book at him (and asks that he stand still and repeat, "Thank you, sir. May I have another?") and independent media plays dumb (with few exceptions) the people react differently. On Saturday, Ehren Watada spoke at the Coupeville Recreation Center in Washington. Paul Boring (Whidbey News-Times) reports that over a 100 people showed up to hear him and burst into applause at various intervals. Watada asked: "Do we wanta a military that without hesistation, will turn on people simply because they ordered to do so? . . . What I have embarked upon and what I sacrifice today is for those who have lost their lives and for those still struggling to stay alive. . . . I do have the power to make you aware of why soldiers are dying and why this war is unjust. I do have the power to compel you to care. It is the American people who have the power to end this war. . . . They can try me, convict me or acquit me. My life does not matter. The lives of thousands of soldiers do . . . it is one thing to end a war. It is another to ensure it never happens again. We have the power to change history."
We do have that power. But only if we use it. Mark Taylor-Canfield reported for Free Speech Radio News and The KPFA Evening News yesterday on a speech Ehren Watada
gave as part of Seattle's MLK celebration where, no surprise, he received a standing ovation. The people are hearing him (which no doubts scares the military to death). Taylor-Canfield also noted Camp Resistance had set up "just outside the gates of Fort Lewis where Watada's hearing is being held." So that's two independent media outlets that have noted Camp Resistance -- will anyone be next? In a show of support for Ehren Watada, Iraq Veterans Against the War started Camp Resistance and intend to maintain it through the court-martial. They need money, volunteers and press attention.
Yesterday, we noted that Agustin Aguayo has received not the expected charge of being AWOL but the charge of "desertion." With Aguayo the US military is attempting to send a message both due to Aguayo's standing up and saying "no" and due to the fact that (as Mike pointed out last night) Aguayo didn't just sue the US military, he's made it up all the way up to the DC Court of Appeals. With Ehren Watada the US military is also attempting to send a message, to initmidate and frighten others from following in Watada or Aguayo's footsteps. Guess what? It's too late. It's already happening. (About the only one scared at this point is a healthy chunk of independent media.) Watada and Aguayo are part of a movement of resistance within the military that also includes Kyle Snyder, Ivan Brobeck, Darrell Anderson, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Mark Wilkerson, Joshua Key, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman, Corey Glass, Patrick Hart, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
Today on KPFA's The Morning Show, US Congress member Barbara Lee discussed the Bring the Troops Home and Iraq Sovereignty Restoration Act. Which is? Legislation proposed by Lee and fellow Congress members Lynn Woolsey and Maxine Waters calling for the start of troop withdrawal and the start of "work with the regional countries in the Middle East to come up with a multilateral solution," Lee explained. Repeatedly, Representative Barbara Lee noted that the presence of US troops was fueling the violence. In addition, she noted that the violence "is only going to escalate as long as US troops are there," that "there is no 'win'" and that Bully Boy mentions mistakes but "whether than talk about to rectify it, he's talking about escalating the war." Andrea Lewis asked what everyone could do to support Lee, Waters and Woolsey's proposal and Lee responded that "the bill needs co-sponsors, the more co-sponsors you build, the more chance the bill will get a fair hearing" so start contacting your Congressional reps (especially the House because this is a House proposal) -- get on the phone, on the fax, on your feet, into your e-mail account . . . and tell them you want to see some support for Waters, Woolsey and Lee's bill -- Bring the Troops Home and Iraq Sovereignty Restoration Act.
Also appearing on The Morning Show was Matthew Rothschild (The Progressive) stated, "I hope she gets a whole lot more signers on that" and that "This is what we need. This is what we must from our leadership, we must have courageous leadership." He then discussed how when the talk of escalation was first being floated, US Senator Harry Reid (Majority Leader) was all ready to go along publicly but public outrage changed that. "The Democratic Leadership, if left to their own devices will go along with Bush on that". Rothschild stated he is for all avenues ("Bascially, I'm for everything") including phone calls and e-mails (which he believes are counted -- they are, a tally is kept by your rep) but it's time to get "past the passive protests." He shared how he was speaking with an activist about the events to note the 3,000 mark for number of US troops killed in Bully Boy's illegal war. The activist stated, "We got to do more than candle light vigils 'cause they're fine with candle light vigils" and that until the actions turn to massive civil disobedience ("until we start interrupting Wall St.," his friend told him) "this war's going to go on" -- instead "the volume needs to go up, needs to increase and just passive resistance to this war" will not change anything.
Recommended: "Iraq snapshot"
"Judge rules Ehren Watada cannot present a defense in court-martial"
"Other Items"
"gore vidal, robert parry"
"Agustin Aguayo, Ehren Watada, real heroes"
"Comics -- Celibacy in the City"
"Oil, colds, etc"
"Kicks and tricks should be gotten off camera (humor)"
"THIS JUST IN! WHEN THE WHIP COMES DOWN!"
"Bring Back Black Radio News -- The People's Network"
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Kicks and tricks should be gotten off camera (humor)
BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIX MIX -- DC.
ON CBS' 60 MINUTES SUNDAY NIGHT, AN EXCHANGE WAS AIRED BETWEEN 'REPORTER' SCOTT PELLEY AND THE BULLY BOY OF THE UNITED STATES THAT WAS JAW DROPPINGLY BAD.
DECLARED THE BULLY BOY AT ONE POINT, "LET ME CORRECT SOMETHING ON THIS CONNECTION BETWEEN SADDAM HUSSEIN AND 9-11. THAT WAS NEVER THE CASE IN THIS ADMINISTRATION. YOU KNOW, I ALWAYS SAID WE NEVER HAD EVIDENCE THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN ORDERED THE ATTACKS ON 9/11. AND SO I DON'T KNOW WHO CONTINUES TO SAY THAT."
PELLEY OFFERED INITIALLY THE RESPONSE THAT DICK CHENEY HAD "SUGGESTED THERE WAS A CONNECTION" BETWEEN SADDAM HUSSEIN AND 9-11 -- A VERY WEAK RESPONSE BUT SOON BULLY BOY IS ALLOWED TO DIRECT THE INTERVIEW AND PELLEY IS REDUCED TO RESPONDING, "YES, SIR."
ON 60 MINUTES, LESLEY STAHL INTERVIEWED RICHARD CLARKE IN MARCH OF 2004 AND HE TOLD HER THAT WHEN BULLY BOY FINALLY MADE IT TO D.C. ON SEPTEMBER 11TH, THE ADMINISTRATION WAS TRYING TO CONNECT IRAQ AND 9-11 AND THAT THIS CONTINUED EVEN AFTER THE C.I.A. AND F.B.I. REPEATEDLY TOLD THE BULLY BOY THERE WAS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO.
WHERE WAS THE CONNECTION? IN THE ADMINISTRATION'S TALKING POINTS.
AS LINDA FELDMAN OBSERVED IN MARCH 2003, "IN HIS PRIME-TIME PRESS CONFERNCE LAST WEEK, WHICH FOCUSED SOLELY ON IRAQ, PRESIDENT BUSH MENTIONED SEPT. 11 EIGHT TIMES. HE REFERRED TO SADDAM HUSSEIN MANY MORE TIMES THAN THAT, OFTEN IN THE SAME BREATH WITH SEPT. 11. BUSH NEVER PINNED THE BLAME FOR THE ATTACKS DIRECTLY ON THE IRAQI PRESIDENT. STILL, THE OVER ALL EFFECT WAS TO REINFORCE AND IMPRESSION THAT PERSISTS AMONG MUCH OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC: THAT THE IRAQI DICTATOR DID PLAY A DIRECT ROLE IN THE ATTACKS."
ATTEMPTS BY THESE REPORTERS TO REACH SCOTT PELLEY ABOUT HIS TUCKING HIS TAIL BETWEEN HIS LEGS WITH A MEEK "YES, SIR" WERE UNSUCCESSFUL. THE HEAD OF CBS NEWS EXPLAINED TO US THAT, ON TUESDAYS, "PELLEY LIKES TO WORK A 1/2 DAY AND THEN BLOW OFF SOME STEAM BY HEADING OVER TO MISTRESS MARSHA'S HOUSE OF PUNISHMENT."
'>FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Starting with war resistance within the military, US war resister Agustin Aguayo, a medic with the US army, gave his reasons for refusing to redeploy to Iraq for a second tour in a statement to the US Court of Appeals in DC which was preparing to hear his appeal to be designated a conscientious objector:
With or without non-combatant status I will not deploy to Iraq. I have been to Iraq for Operation Iraqi Freedom II, and I know what to expect. I know what will be expected of me. And because of this first-hand knowledge, I simply cannot take part in this deployment. Some people might think that a fear of death is the reason for refusing to deploy. But that is incorrect. I have to be true to myself and do what is right. Even though I deployed as a non-combatant in 2004-05 I still carry guilt from my participation. While there as a non-combatant, I was still required to do guard-duty, although I chose to carry only an unloaded gun. While there as a non-combatant, I was still required to patch-up, treat, and help countless soldiers for "sick-call" in order to facilitate their prompt return to combatant duties. While there as a non-combatant, I was asked to drive soldiers around on patrols, patrols which could have been deadly to Americans and Iraqis alike. I regret involvement in those activities, because ultimately I was contributing to the war mission and enabling others to do what I oppose. By doing guard duty, appearing to be armed, even without bullets, I gave the false impression that I would kill if need be. I am not willing to live a lie to satisfy any deployment operation. By helping countless soldiers for "sick-call" as well as driving soldiers around on patrols I helped them get physically better and be able to go out and do the very thing I am against -- kill. This is something my conscience will not allow me to do. Although I myself did not pull the trigger, I now realize that what I did as a non-combatant nonetheless supported and enabled these missions. I cannot carry that burden on my conscience. When you know better you do better.
Aguayo self-checked out of the US military on September 2nd and turned himself at Fort Irwin on September 26. Aguayo has argued that his Last Friday, Kevin Dougherty (Stars & Stripes) reported that the US military has charged Aguayo with desertion and missing movement and that conviction on both charges "could receive a maximum prison term of seven years". The charge of desertion is interesting in that (a) Aguayo turned himself in, (b) he was gone less than 30 days, and (c) the US Court of Appeals was set to hear his case. Also of interest is that, though no date's been set for the trial/court-martial, the military's decided to announce charges when his claim for c.o. status still awaits a ruling from the US Court of Appeals.
Turning to other war resistance news, Iraq Veterans Against the War started Camp Resistance to show their support for Ehren Watada who faces a court-martial February 5, 2007. damon reports that they intend to stay "outside the gates of Fort Lewis and on the streets across the nation" in order "to make an impression large enough to influence the outcome of the trial". What do they need? They need:
financial support for getting IVAW members here at Fort Lewis, particularly on the day of the trial. Also, we envision Camp Resistance FOBs (Forward Operating Base) starting all over the country; in front of recruiter's offices, military bases, etcetera. When we got kicked out of our campsite, we came to the realization that Camp Resistance is not a physical place, but a place within our hearts and minds. If your heart is filled with resistance to this illegal war and Love for LT, you can start a daily vigil in your local area or join us here at Fort Lewis.
They also need attention -- make sure your friends know and start demanding that media, big and small (also known as Useless & Useless) cover Camp Resistance.
Agustin Aguayo and Ehren Watada are part of a movement of resistance within the military that also includes Kyle Snyder, Ivan Brobeck, Darrell Anderson, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Mark Wilkerson, Joshua Key, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman, Corey Glass, Patrick Hart, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
RECOMMENDED: "'>Iraq snapshot"
"Other Items"
"Violence in Iraq doesn't stop just because NYT fails to report it"
"Media Reform"
"Other Items"
"NYT: "U.S. And Iraqis Are Wrangling Over War Plans" (John F. Burns)"
"And the war drags on . . ."
"Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Celibacy in the City (Series Finale)""
"Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Celibacy in the City""
"NYT: Baghdad Bureau gets benched"
""Public Inaction dismays Watada" (Paul Nyhan)"
"Lemon & Rice Soup in the Kitchen"
"The Force Majora Friedman"
"media reform?"
"the friday chatty post"
"Media Reform?"
"Reforming the media"
"E-mails, peace, moments, Iraq"
"Reform the media? What media?"
"Declaration of Peace, Danny Schechter"
"Saturday"
"Media reform"
"A Note to Our Readers"
"Editorial: The unmentionable"
"TV: Ugly Betty, Beautiful TV"
"Escalation: The non-plan"
"Abeer and Ehren"
"The Little Boy Who Cried WMD"
'File it under "Thank God she was born in 1925!"'
"Bacon"
"MyTV's Fascist House"
"Highlights"
"Note"
"Media"
"Examing Bully Boy's base"
"Media Reform"
"THIS JUST IN! HE'LL ALWAYS HAVE THE CRAZIES!"
"2006: The Year of Living Dumbly (Year in Review)"
"Fonda Wraps up Media Conference: Advocate for women in newsrooms says journalism forgets divide not just right and left"
ON CBS' 60 MINUTES SUNDAY NIGHT, AN EXCHANGE WAS AIRED BETWEEN 'REPORTER' SCOTT PELLEY AND THE BULLY BOY OF THE UNITED STATES THAT WAS JAW DROPPINGLY BAD.
DECLARED THE BULLY BOY AT ONE POINT, "LET ME CORRECT SOMETHING ON THIS CONNECTION BETWEEN SADDAM HUSSEIN AND 9-11. THAT WAS NEVER THE CASE IN THIS ADMINISTRATION. YOU KNOW, I ALWAYS SAID WE NEVER HAD EVIDENCE THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN ORDERED THE ATTACKS ON 9/11. AND SO I DON'T KNOW WHO CONTINUES TO SAY THAT."
PELLEY OFFERED INITIALLY THE RESPONSE THAT DICK CHENEY HAD "SUGGESTED THERE WAS A CONNECTION" BETWEEN SADDAM HUSSEIN AND 9-11 -- A VERY WEAK RESPONSE BUT SOON BULLY BOY IS ALLOWED TO DIRECT THE INTERVIEW AND PELLEY IS REDUCED TO RESPONDING, "YES, SIR."
ON 60 MINUTES, LESLEY STAHL INTERVIEWED RICHARD CLARKE IN MARCH OF 2004 AND HE TOLD HER THAT WHEN BULLY BOY FINALLY MADE IT TO D.C. ON SEPTEMBER 11TH, THE ADMINISTRATION WAS TRYING TO CONNECT IRAQ AND 9-11 AND THAT THIS CONTINUED EVEN AFTER THE C.I.A. AND F.B.I. REPEATEDLY TOLD THE BULLY BOY THERE WAS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO.
WHERE WAS THE CONNECTION? IN THE ADMINISTRATION'S TALKING POINTS.
AS LINDA FELDMAN OBSERVED IN MARCH 2003, "IN HIS PRIME-TIME PRESS CONFERNCE LAST WEEK, WHICH FOCUSED SOLELY ON IRAQ, PRESIDENT BUSH MENTIONED SEPT. 11 EIGHT TIMES. HE REFERRED TO SADDAM HUSSEIN MANY MORE TIMES THAN THAT, OFTEN IN THE SAME BREATH WITH SEPT. 11. BUSH NEVER PINNED THE BLAME FOR THE ATTACKS DIRECTLY ON THE IRAQI PRESIDENT. STILL, THE OVER ALL EFFECT WAS TO REINFORCE AND IMPRESSION THAT PERSISTS AMONG MUCH OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC: THAT THE IRAQI DICTATOR DID PLAY A DIRECT ROLE IN THE ATTACKS."
ATTEMPTS BY THESE REPORTERS TO REACH SCOTT PELLEY ABOUT HIS TUCKING HIS TAIL BETWEEN HIS LEGS WITH A MEEK "YES, SIR" WERE UNSUCCESSFUL. THE HEAD OF CBS NEWS EXPLAINED TO US THAT, ON TUESDAYS, "PELLEY LIKES TO WORK A 1/2 DAY AND THEN BLOW OFF SOME STEAM BY HEADING OVER TO MISTRESS MARSHA'S HOUSE OF PUNISHMENT."
'>FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Starting with war resistance within the military, US war resister Agustin Aguayo, a medic with the US army, gave his reasons for refusing to redeploy to Iraq for a second tour in a statement to the US Court of Appeals in DC which was preparing to hear his appeal to be designated a conscientious objector:
With or without non-combatant status I will not deploy to Iraq. I have been to Iraq for Operation Iraqi Freedom II, and I know what to expect. I know what will be expected of me. And because of this first-hand knowledge, I simply cannot take part in this deployment. Some people might think that a fear of death is the reason for refusing to deploy. But that is incorrect. I have to be true to myself and do what is right. Even though I deployed as a non-combatant in 2004-05 I still carry guilt from my participation. While there as a non-combatant, I was still required to do guard-duty, although I chose to carry only an unloaded gun. While there as a non-combatant, I was still required to patch-up, treat, and help countless soldiers for "sick-call" in order to facilitate their prompt return to combatant duties. While there as a non-combatant, I was asked to drive soldiers around on patrols, patrols which could have been deadly to Americans and Iraqis alike. I regret involvement in those activities, because ultimately I was contributing to the war mission and enabling others to do what I oppose. By doing guard duty, appearing to be armed, even without bullets, I gave the false impression that I would kill if need be. I am not willing to live a lie to satisfy any deployment operation. By helping countless soldiers for "sick-call" as well as driving soldiers around on patrols I helped them get physically better and be able to go out and do the very thing I am against -- kill. This is something my conscience will not allow me to do. Although I myself did not pull the trigger, I now realize that what I did as a non-combatant nonetheless supported and enabled these missions. I cannot carry that burden on my conscience. When you know better you do better.
Aguayo self-checked out of the US military on September 2nd and turned himself at Fort Irwin on September 26. Aguayo has argued that his Last Friday, Kevin Dougherty (Stars & Stripes) reported that the US military has charged Aguayo with desertion and missing movement and that conviction on both charges "could receive a maximum prison term of seven years". The charge of desertion is interesting in that (a) Aguayo turned himself in, (b) he was gone less than 30 days, and (c) the US Court of Appeals was set to hear his case. Also of interest is that, though no date's been set for the trial/court-martial, the military's decided to announce charges when his claim for c.o. status still awaits a ruling from the US Court of Appeals.
Turning to other war resistance news, Iraq Veterans Against the War started Camp Resistance to show their support for Ehren Watada who faces a court-martial February 5, 2007. damon reports that they intend to stay "outside the gates of Fort Lewis and on the streets across the nation" in order "to make an impression large enough to influence the outcome of the trial". What do they need? They need:
financial support for getting IVAW members here at Fort Lewis, particularly on the day of the trial. Also, we envision Camp Resistance FOBs (Forward Operating Base) starting all over the country; in front of recruiter's offices, military bases, etcetera. When we got kicked out of our campsite, we came to the realization that Camp Resistance is not a physical place, but a place within our hearts and minds. If your heart is filled with resistance to this illegal war and Love for LT, you can start a daily vigil in your local area or join us here at Fort Lewis.
They also need attention -- make sure your friends know and start demanding that media, big and small (also known as Useless & Useless) cover Camp Resistance.
Agustin Aguayo and Ehren Watada are part of a movement of resistance within the military that also includes Kyle Snyder, Ivan Brobeck, Darrell Anderson, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Mark Wilkerson, Joshua Key, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman, Corey Glass, Patrick Hart, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
RECOMMENDED: "'>Iraq snapshot"
"Other Items"
"Violence in Iraq doesn't stop just because NYT fails to report it"
"Media Reform"
"Other Items"
"NYT: "U.S. And Iraqis Are Wrangling Over War Plans" (John F. Burns)"
"And the war drags on . . ."
"Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Celibacy in the City (Series Finale)""
"Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Celibacy in the City""
"NYT: Baghdad Bureau gets benched"
""Public Inaction dismays Watada" (Paul Nyhan)"
"Lemon & Rice Soup in the Kitchen"
"The Force Majora Friedman"
"media reform?"
"the friday chatty post"
"Media Reform?"
"Reforming the media"
"E-mails, peace, moments, Iraq"
"Reform the media? What media?"
"Declaration of Peace, Danny Schechter"
"Saturday"
"Media reform"
"A Note to Our Readers"
"Editorial: The unmentionable"
"TV: Ugly Betty, Beautiful TV"
"Escalation: The non-plan"
"Abeer and Ehren"
"The Little Boy Who Cried WMD"
'File it under "Thank God she was born in 1925!"'
"Bacon"
"MyTV's Fascist House"
"Highlights"
"Note"
"Media"
"Examing Bully Boy's base"
"Media Reform"
"THIS JUST IN! HE'LL ALWAYS HAVE THE CRAZIES!"
"2006: The Year of Living Dumbly (Year in Review)"
"Fonda Wraps up Media Conference: Advocate for women in newsrooms says journalism forgets divide not just right and left"
Monday, January 15, 2007
Media
Although Clear-Channel is the villain-of-choice at all media reform conferences, the biggest corporate footprint in African American radio, is Black. Radio One, with 69 stations in 22 of the top Black markets, geographically outweighs Clear-Channel, with 51 Black-oriented stations. But they have a critical element in common: neither provides local news. In political terms, they should be viewed as identical.
Yet most discussions of media reform simply decry the general distress among surviving (small) Black radio owners, while leaving blameless those Black corporate players that have benefited from consolidation – such as Radio One, whose star rose to mega-heights following passage of the corporate-written Telecommunications Act of 1996. "The company's voraciousness mirrored the consolidation throughout the radio industry after rules limiting the number of stations one company could own nationally were lifted in 1996," wrote the Washington Post, in February 5, 2003. This, despite the general decline in minority owners' fortunes. Or plausibly, because of it.
If there is to be effective action to bring back Black local radio news, it must take the form of an organizers movement, spearheaded by those groups that still labor in the trenches of social change in the various localities – grassroots organizations whose predecessors’ struggles, decades ago, were catapulted from the paper-flyer age into the mass broadcast arena, when news from a Black radio source was available to be acted upon by millions of people. The Internet will not suffice; neither will alternative broadcast forms, as valuable a contribution as these mediums represent. The people listen to commercial Black radio, and the struggle must be taken to the proprietors' doorsteps – regardless of race. Indeed, it is most crucial that activists rid themselves of the atavistic, counterproductive urge to embrace Black corporations that commit the same anti-Black crimes as whites. Such behavior is rooted in Jim Crow yesterdays, unfit to confront today’s crises.
"The Internet will not suffice; neither will alternative broadcast forms."
So long has it been since Black local radio news was a fixture of life, even activists who should know better fail to demand its reinstitution. New York City Councilman Charles Barron, a tireless fighter and former Black Panther, recently appeared on the venerable Gil Noble’s WABC-TV program "Like It Is" to protest the conversion of Black-owned WLIB-AM to an all-Gospel format. Barron and a fellow activist were insistent that the new WLIB provide "information" as well as music, but somehow could not "fix their lips" to utter the word "news." Instead, they limited themselves to lobbying for the reinstatement of their favorite talk show hosts. Apparently, activists as well as radio audiences have forgotten that it is a regular diet of relevant local news, not subject to the whimsies of personality talk radio, that far more effectively empowers those who are engaged in the serious work of sustained social transformation in an electronic age.
The segmentation of radio -- slicing it up into isolated demographics, sealed off from one another’s conversations -- that is the hallmark of corporate consolidation, becomes even more destructive to the social fabric in the absence of regular news broadcasts. When massive immigrants rights demonstrations were held in Los Angeles and other cities last year, Black-oriented Emmis Communications station KKBT-FM "completely ignored one million people in the streets," Davey D told this writer. It was "similar to the Million Man March right on their doorstep," yet to KKBT and its listeners, it "didn't exist."
Without local news operations to keep highly segmented listening audiences aware of what the other "demos" are doing, there is little prospect of truly mass political action across lines of age and ethnicity. Substituting for news, Black-oriented radio offers celebrity crap. Davey D, again:
"Cam'ron wanted to 'battle' JZ and would come after him… Cam-ron put out a song, held a press conference, and everybody showed up, not just the entertainment media.
"I can go from New York to California, and everyone has an opinion on JZ vs. Cam’ron. But people don’t know about the Latino march -- in a city that’s filled with racial conflict!"
People's power can only trump corporate power when the people are enabled to learn of each other’s struggles and make decisions on whether commonality exists, or not. That's a job for news operations that are in tune with the concerns of local communities. It is also the spirit of the founding Communications Act of 1934, which Black journalists and activists followed to its logical, empowering conclusion in the Seventies, until Black radio news was snuffed out by both Black and white corporate power.
That's from Glen Ford's "Bring Back Black Radio News -- The People's Network" (Black Agenda Report) and the struggle for equality did not end with MLK's death so, if you do something today, think about what Ford is writing about (and you can read his full essay by using the link).
I read that Sunday and thought it was worth noting (and thanks to C.I. for noting another section for me Sunday at The Common Ills).
Today, we ended up doing a group post and the topic of that is media reform as well. I think Ford's right that media reform has to include the African-American media (and he's right on that it dishes gossip in place of news too often). I think we need to expand the topic of media reform and I include independent media in that expansion.
As an African-American, I'm aware both that African-American media tends to sell us celebrity and that the mainstream media reduces us to criminals, sports stars and singers. I'm equally aware that our contributions are ignored or dismissed beyond the mainstream media, I'm speaking of the general independent media.
The death of Coretta Scott King will always be a standout point to me as I saw who in independent media thought it was worth seriously noting (a paragraph doesn't cut it -- though Bob Herbert and The Nation both thought it did). There weren't many. But they tell us we're included. We're not. When Coretta Scott King dies and they have nothing to offer, we're not included. If we can play cheerleader for some Democratic candidate, we can be included. If we're dead for several years, we can be included. If we have thoughts and ideas, we're generally shoved to the side because page after page, hour after hour that space and time is needed to find out what White Males think. Apparently, White Males, especially middle-aged ones, need so much independent media air time and space because their opinions are ignored by mainstream media -- ha, ha.
So I was glad to be asked to participate. I'll note that Blogger/Blogspot had serious problems today and we lost sections throughout. I am proud of what we do have to offer and glad that we addressed it. Hopefully, you will be as well.
The media's collapse, said actor and activist Jane Fonda in an earlier speech, shielded the government's own failures.
Telling the story of Abeer Qasim Hamza, a 15-year-old Iraqi who was raped and murdered by U.S. soldiers, Fonda criticized the news media's impotence in covering the war.
"The cold-blooded murder of Abeer and her family is a tragedy," Fonda said. "But it's almost as great a tragedy when her story and all the other stories that are difficult to hear and difficult to accept are buried in the back of news pages and quickly shuffled off the nightly news." She added: "A truly powerful media is one that can stop a war, not start one."
A founder of the Women's Media Center, which advocates for greater representation of women in media and in newsrooms, Fonda said American journalism takes pride in balance but "forgets that the world is not divided only by right and left."
"During the coverage of the 2004 elections," she added, "journalists were more than twice as likely to turn to a male source than a woman."
The above, noted by Cindy, is from Trevor Aaronson's "Fonda Wraps up Media Conference: Advocate for women in newsrooms says journalism forgets divide not just right and left" (Memphis Commerical Appeal via Common Dreams). That's a jumpoing off point for a joint entry. Participating are:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and, me, Jim;
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills);
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man;
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review;
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix;
Mike of Mikey Likes It!;
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz;
and Wally of The Daily Jot
Fonda's comments strike at the heart of the problems with media today. They address the issue of Abeer, Iraq, and the portrayal of the 'other' (anyone who's non-White, non-middle-aged, non-straight, and non-White). As Rebecca has argued, Abeer's story is the story of Iraq.And what did the media do with it?
Independent media ignored it. Early on (June), it looked like there might be some interest in but that was quickly dropped as independent media marched off elsewhere. It never really bothered to pick up the story after it was done completely ignoring Iraq. No article in The Nation ever ran on Abeer or has run as of today. A fourteen-year-old girl was gang raped, murdered, her five-year-old sister was murdered, her parents were murdered and the initial blame for the war crimes was 'insurgents.' The reality was that the war crimes were committed by non-Iraqis. In November, James P. Barker admitted to his involvement in the war crimes (he entered the home as part of a plan to rape Abeer and kill her and others in the house). His court confession also included the actions of others. Since they've yet to be tried, or to confess, you can toss "alleged" in front of their names if you like.
But Abeer was raped and killed and where was the media when the details emerged?
The Washington Post, the Associated Press, Off Our Backs and Robin Morgan were accounted for, they weighed in. Where was everyone else?
The New York Times specialized in a funny sort of reporting. Before the defense could present their legal argument in an Article 32 hearing that was held in August, the New York Times, supposedly presenting objective reporting, managed to run an opinion piece as reporting and somehow managed to argue the defense's case. In a piece published before the defense had presented their case. In a defense that a military legal expert said had no known basis in legal history. Wow. Those New York Times reporters (Carolyn Marshall and Robert F. Worth) are certainly amazing. They predicted it all -- and without any help from the defense! What seers are they.
The New York Times specialized in another kind of reporting on the war crimes -- never mentioning Abeer's name. To name the victim would be to give a face to her and since their own 'reporting' had already crossed the line into advocacy journalism (not anything wrong with advocacy journalism but the paper self-presents as 'objective') it was very clear that their interest wasn't in the truth, wasn't in reporting what happened, but in rendering Abeer and what happened to her invisible. How do you, as reporters at the paper repeatedly did, cover the trial of men accused of gang raping and murdering Abeer and never manage to mention her name?
You do it very carefully when you're interests are in managing and mitigating public opinion. Better to make her a faceless victim if you're interested in continuing to sell the illegal war which the paper is interested in doing.
Now the paper's actions should have been called out. So you might think you got that. You didn't. If in no other way, The Nation could have covered Abeer as a media topic. There media columnist could have addressed the way the paper of record rendered Abeer invisible. But he wasn't interested in that. AlterPunk was interested in useless articles such as his lengthy take on why the New York Times shouldn't run unsigned editorials -- a column that ran in a magazine (The Nation) which runs unsigned editorials.
He was interested in getting upset that he'd recently learned the New York Times' policy on quoting from comments on websites was questionable. In a piece where they rushed to lynch Janet Jackson -- a piece riddled with inaccuracies, only a few of which resulted in corrections by the paper -- it was apparently okay to 'doctor' a quote from a website. The paper is aware of the docotring -- at every level -- and they issued no correction on that. If AlterPunk wants to feign shock about the Times' 'quoting' from websites, he might do better to know the paper's history on it.) (Altering quotes, failure to research your articles, presenting half-baked theories that blow up with the most basic examination and not even grasping that just because you say something was or wasn't a number one doesn't make it true didn't result in the arts section's version of Judith Miller being banned from the paper for anyone interested. We could also touch on the topic of allowing people to create titles for themselves and the paper running with them. That started in the arts section and then, as the Times well knows up through the editorial offices -- carried over to the front page of the news section. The defense on that, expressed by the editor responsible for the front page piece, was that the executive in question didn't like his actual title so he preferred to use a title that doesn't exist. That may be the executive's wish but if the company wanted him to have that title, they'd give it to him. (They haven't and his being billed by a title he doesn't hold has caused anger at the company and caused those still expressing disbelief to note that when you're 'friends' with writers at the paper you can write your own ticket in what passes for 'objective' reporting.) Maybe the Cindy Brady of the faux left can next tackle that?
Probably not because it's safer for all involved (safer translates as coverage and book reviews) to offer up useless topics (unsigned editorials? A pressing issue in the bull pens of high school papers, no doubt) .
And independent media played 2006 safe and cowardly with few exceptions.
Today, John Nichols and Katrina vanden Heuvel write of Dr. Martin Luther King. It may be less than generous to note that the magazine's choosing to note him on the federal holiday in his honor. It's pointing the obvious to note that the passing last year of Coretta Scott King produced no article -- in print or 'online exclusive.' So it strikes us as a more than apalling that the same magazine who didn't appear to give a damn about Coretta Scott King now rushes pieces on MLK to their website.
Like Abeer, Coretta Scott King meets the defnition of an 'other.' African-American, a woman, she couldn't get any traction. The media critic for The Nation couldn't even note that the paper of little record didn't editorialize about her passing -- though, in the same week, they could note a playwright (and personal friend of Gail Collins) who died. Her passing didn't rate a column either. The closest to a column, and the only mention in the editorial section, was Bob Herbert's tacked on one paragraph noting she had died.
What does that say? What does the above say?
Quite a lot and if people want to address media reform, they better do seriously. The Nation is the left magazine with the largest circulation so we'll focus on it.
In 2006, when both Katha Pollitt and Naomi Klein were on leave while they worked on books, two prime spots were open to be temporarily filled. When two strong voices are absent and they happen to be female, you might think The Nation would fill those spots with women. But apparently having nearly wall to wall contributions from male writers wasn't quite enough for "Nobody Owns The Nation," they needed more male voices.
This operating belief goes a long way towards explaining why a freelancer placed her article on Abu Ghraib last year not with The Nation but with a fashion magazine (Marie Claire). The Nation should be leading and it isn't. That's in terms of what gets covered and who gets to cover it. (Already in 2007, their appalling low number of pieces written by women threaten to match the disgraceful numbers for 2006.)
Is the nation White, male, middle aged and straight in all regards? No, but if you got that impression from reading The Nation in 2006, your mistaken beliefs were certainly supported by the magazine.
Alternative media is supposed to provide an alternative, to present what media could be. (On a lower budget, granted.) Offering what the mainstream provides (often the worst it provides -- such as handicapping political races as though they were horse races) but with a left/Democratic spin (for many in independent media, the 'left' view is determined by what the DNC decides it is) isn't an alternative. It's a negative, a photographic negative, it's the bizarro world, it's just not an alternative.
An alternative requires providing an alternative. That requires covering topics that the mainstream isn't interested in. That requires creating the kind of media that demonstrates what is wrong with the current system.
If the extent of 'wrong' is that more Republican hacks are tossed on the airwaves than Democratic hacks, then The Nation is doing a wonderful job. If being a party organ for the Democratic Party is an alternative, congratulations to The Nation.
That would explain why coverage of students qualifies in the magazine as covering what an Iowan poli-sci student deemed "Eisnhower Democrats." Look, they're War Hawks, well funded one with the usual crowd of useless names speaking to them and funding them! Oh, look, here's another piece about 'activists' who are overjoyed by their 'success' (they farmed out volunteers to Congressional campaings) and who explain that sometimes you have to stop 'hugging a tree,' 'put on a suit,' and get down to business. Such business doesn't include serious concern over the environment as the dismissive 'tree hugging' reference telegraphs.
Meanwhile, in the real world, students organize to end the war, organize to rebuild in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, organize to halt the imprisonments at Guantanamo, organize (and lead!) on the immigrations rights issue.
The immigration rights issue? "Alternative" coverage apparently means you go down to the deep south and speak to White people opposed to immigrant rights. You also toss in a male (of course male) activist. You avoid the students who led the protests, who woke a sleeping nation.You avoid their bravery and maybe you even offer a slap to them that the Mexican flag shouldn't be carried at a protest. Now those words generally come from people who didn't participate in any of the protests so the words are as useless as the owners of the mouths uttering them.
Where is the place at the table for people of ethnicities and color, for women and LBGTs?
The Nation is looking for a publicity director. That's not going to change the opinions of students opposed to the magazine, students who see it as useless and judgmental of them, students who see their own work and the issues that matter to them ignored.
A new publicity director won't conceal the fact that 'equality' has a funny meaning at The Nation. Equality doesn't mean when two female columnists are on leave, you fill their posts with other male voices. Equality does seem to mean that you demonstrate how fair you are by criticizing Harry Belafonte. At last! African-Americans can be slammed equally at The Nation! (If undeservedly.) Now they can't get covered, Coretta Scott King's death demonstrates that, but they've 'achieved' enough at the magazine that they can be slammed.
Will a publicy director speak to the staff about how they conduct themselves in on air interviews?
We think she or he should. We think that's now a requirement after Laura Flanders was called everything but stupid on air. (Flanders an astute journalist, critic and broadcaster.) That hostile, patronizing, impatient and dismissive treatment didn't come from a guest billed as being on the right, it came from a Nation staffer (and Lyndon La Rouche refugee). We think that interview, the hostitility expressed towards Flanders, says a lot. How does anyone at the magazine come to believe it's okay to treat Flanders, or any woman, in such a manner? (It was bullying. Flanders stood her ground.)
Well it helps when the culture is predominately male, predominately straight, and predominately White. And we're speaking of the culture at the magazine. Media reform is suddenly an issue (for a week or so) and we're reminded of the 2006 issue on media reform which played like celebrity even if it didn't make for good reading. Having something to say wasn't apparently a requirement, just name value. (Which led to it playing out like the what-are-they-reading feature in Vanity Fair -- though in fairness to Van Fair, that's a tiny item in the magazine, not something they provide for pages and pages.)
Margaret Kimberley (Black Agenda Report) is very popular with this community, so let's get practical: when does she get invited to the table?
Or does she have to blindly cheer every Democrat to be included?
If impeachment was a topic worthy of a January 2006 cover, why is it a topic dropped when Nancy Pelosi announcing she is pulling it off the table? Last time we checked, she wasn't listed on the masthead of The Nation.
Independent media needs to show some independence. That's independence in thought and in coverage. Talk of media reform is meaningless if alternative outlets aren't willing to provide an alternative currently.
As 2006 drew to a close, CounterSpin finally found a woman they could interview for the full program (a practice common with male guests). We see that and her topic (the way the press covers war) as a big step in the right direction. But having lived through one of the worst years for independent media (2006), we're not about to act like media reform is something required of the mainstream and that the bulk of independent media has done a good (or even an okay) job in the last year. It hasn't.
It has not reaffirmed the core of democracy (that would require covering actions that included more than running for office or urging that readers vote). It has not practiced anything resmembling Brown v. Board in their own coverage. And we're all dying for the moment where a host (male or female) of a panel has the guts to stop a male, who repeatedly cuts off a female guest, by pointing out just how dismissive he's treating the woman and asking him why he thinks that treatment is acceptable? We're also dying to get something other than The Elector.
We're not interested in The Elector and we're not interested in linking to sop. A perfect example would be an article that David Enders has written. Does the writing qualify for sop? No. It's well written. But The Nation feels it's only worthy of 'online exclusive' status -- implying that they grade outside writers much more harshly than they do insiders. (Possibly they're under the mistaken belief that their print editions are awash with Iraq coverage?) While we're glad that both John Nichols and Katrina vanden Heuvel chose, on the MLK federal holiday, to note MLK, we're not interested in linking to the articles because of the magazine's own silence on Coretta Scott King. In fact, community wide we probably won't to link to anything from The Nation other than Naomi Klein or Katha Pollitt. Why?
Why bother? Why bother to link to a magazine that refuses to cover war resisters? They can't get ahold of Kyle Synder? (Puts them in the minority.) No, they just don't want to. They've demonstrated that throughout 2006 and the slam they printed on Ehren Watada is so offensive and does not pass the 'free speech' phrase that's used as a bully club.
Isn't it funny how free speech lets in Christopher Hitchens, La Rouche refugees and sexual predators but it doesn't let it people of color, it doesn't let it in women, it doesn't let in coverage of peace activists and demonstrations, and it doesn't let in war resisters.
Ehren Watada's beliefs about the illegality and the immorality of the war could be backed up with citations from (much earlier) coverage of Iraq that The Nation provided. So he takes a stand and they play dumb. That's not cutting it. At some point, when you know the war is wrong, you have to take a stand. Ehren Watada has done that. The Nation reads like its unsure. A war resister is a cover story, not a sidebar and especially not a sidebar after you've just printed a useless (unneeded and uninformed) quote from a man slamming Watada. That a magazine which says it is opposed to the illegal war continues to be unable to offer one editorial or column in support of Watada or any of the other war resisters to go public in the summer of 2006, while filling pages of the magazine week after week with useless trash like AlterPunk's nonstop shout outs to various men (someday he'll prove he's a real boy, just like Pinochio!) (and when that happens, he still won't correct his lie that Naomi Klein was a fashion consultant to the Gore campaign).
We're tired of it and we think media reform is a useless topic until independent media is willing to practice some of it themselves.
trevor aaronson
jane fonda
media reform
ehren watada
margaret kimberley
the common ills
like maria said paz
kats korner
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
trinas kitchen
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
thomas friedman is a great man
the third estate sunday review
Yet most discussions of media reform simply decry the general distress among surviving (small) Black radio owners, while leaving blameless those Black corporate players that have benefited from consolidation – such as Radio One, whose star rose to mega-heights following passage of the corporate-written Telecommunications Act of 1996. "The company's voraciousness mirrored the consolidation throughout the radio industry after rules limiting the number of stations one company could own nationally were lifted in 1996," wrote the Washington Post, in February 5, 2003. This, despite the general decline in minority owners' fortunes. Or plausibly, because of it.
If there is to be effective action to bring back Black local radio news, it must take the form of an organizers movement, spearheaded by those groups that still labor in the trenches of social change in the various localities – grassroots organizations whose predecessors’ struggles, decades ago, were catapulted from the paper-flyer age into the mass broadcast arena, when news from a Black radio source was available to be acted upon by millions of people. The Internet will not suffice; neither will alternative broadcast forms, as valuable a contribution as these mediums represent. The people listen to commercial Black radio, and the struggle must be taken to the proprietors' doorsteps – regardless of race. Indeed, it is most crucial that activists rid themselves of the atavistic, counterproductive urge to embrace Black corporations that commit the same anti-Black crimes as whites. Such behavior is rooted in Jim Crow yesterdays, unfit to confront today’s crises.
"The Internet will not suffice; neither will alternative broadcast forms."
So long has it been since Black local radio news was a fixture of life, even activists who should know better fail to demand its reinstitution. New York City Councilman Charles Barron, a tireless fighter and former Black Panther, recently appeared on the venerable Gil Noble’s WABC-TV program "Like It Is" to protest the conversion of Black-owned WLIB-AM to an all-Gospel format. Barron and a fellow activist were insistent that the new WLIB provide "information" as well as music, but somehow could not "fix their lips" to utter the word "news." Instead, they limited themselves to lobbying for the reinstatement of their favorite talk show hosts. Apparently, activists as well as radio audiences have forgotten that it is a regular diet of relevant local news, not subject to the whimsies of personality talk radio, that far more effectively empowers those who are engaged in the serious work of sustained social transformation in an electronic age.
The segmentation of radio -- slicing it up into isolated demographics, sealed off from one another’s conversations -- that is the hallmark of corporate consolidation, becomes even more destructive to the social fabric in the absence of regular news broadcasts. When massive immigrants rights demonstrations were held in Los Angeles and other cities last year, Black-oriented Emmis Communications station KKBT-FM "completely ignored one million people in the streets," Davey D told this writer. It was "similar to the Million Man March right on their doorstep," yet to KKBT and its listeners, it "didn't exist."
Without local news operations to keep highly segmented listening audiences aware of what the other "demos" are doing, there is little prospect of truly mass political action across lines of age and ethnicity. Substituting for news, Black-oriented radio offers celebrity crap. Davey D, again:
"Cam'ron wanted to 'battle' JZ and would come after him… Cam-ron put out a song, held a press conference, and everybody showed up, not just the entertainment media.
"I can go from New York to California, and everyone has an opinion on JZ vs. Cam’ron. But people don’t know about the Latino march -- in a city that’s filled with racial conflict!"
People's power can only trump corporate power when the people are enabled to learn of each other’s struggles and make decisions on whether commonality exists, or not. That's a job for news operations that are in tune with the concerns of local communities. It is also the spirit of the founding Communications Act of 1934, which Black journalists and activists followed to its logical, empowering conclusion in the Seventies, until Black radio news was snuffed out by both Black and white corporate power.
That's from Glen Ford's "Bring Back Black Radio News -- The People's Network" (Black Agenda Report) and the struggle for equality did not end with MLK's death so, if you do something today, think about what Ford is writing about (and you can read his full essay by using the link).
I read that Sunday and thought it was worth noting (and thanks to C.I. for noting another section for me Sunday at The Common Ills).
Today, we ended up doing a group post and the topic of that is media reform as well. I think Ford's right that media reform has to include the African-American media (and he's right on that it dishes gossip in place of news too often). I think we need to expand the topic of media reform and I include independent media in that expansion.
As an African-American, I'm aware both that African-American media tends to sell us celebrity and that the mainstream media reduces us to criminals, sports stars and singers. I'm equally aware that our contributions are ignored or dismissed beyond the mainstream media, I'm speaking of the general independent media.
The death of Coretta Scott King will always be a standout point to me as I saw who in independent media thought it was worth seriously noting (a paragraph doesn't cut it -- though Bob Herbert and The Nation both thought it did). There weren't many. But they tell us we're included. We're not. When Coretta Scott King dies and they have nothing to offer, we're not included. If we can play cheerleader for some Democratic candidate, we can be included. If we're dead for several years, we can be included. If we have thoughts and ideas, we're generally shoved to the side because page after page, hour after hour that space and time is needed to find out what White Males think. Apparently, White Males, especially middle-aged ones, need so much independent media air time and space because their opinions are ignored by mainstream media -- ha, ha.
So I was glad to be asked to participate. I'll note that Blogger/Blogspot had serious problems today and we lost sections throughout. I am proud of what we do have to offer and glad that we addressed it. Hopefully, you will be as well.
The media's collapse, said actor and activist Jane Fonda in an earlier speech, shielded the government's own failures.
Telling the story of Abeer Qasim Hamza, a 15-year-old Iraqi who was raped and murdered by U.S. soldiers, Fonda criticized the news media's impotence in covering the war.
"The cold-blooded murder of Abeer and her family is a tragedy," Fonda said. "But it's almost as great a tragedy when her story and all the other stories that are difficult to hear and difficult to accept are buried in the back of news pages and quickly shuffled off the nightly news." She added: "A truly powerful media is one that can stop a war, not start one."
A founder of the Women's Media Center, which advocates for greater representation of women in media and in newsrooms, Fonda said American journalism takes pride in balance but "forgets that the world is not divided only by right and left."
"During the coverage of the 2004 elections," she added, "journalists were more than twice as likely to turn to a male source than a woman."
The above, noted by Cindy, is from Trevor Aaronson's "Fonda Wraps up Media Conference: Advocate for women in newsrooms says journalism forgets divide not just right and left" (Memphis Commerical Appeal via Common Dreams). That's a jumpoing off point for a joint entry. Participating are:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and, me, Jim;
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills);
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man;
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review;
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix;
Mike of Mikey Likes It!;
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz;
and Wally of The Daily Jot
Fonda's comments strike at the heart of the problems with media today. They address the issue of Abeer, Iraq, and the portrayal of the 'other' (anyone who's non-White, non-middle-aged, non-straight, and non-White). As Rebecca has argued, Abeer's story is the story of Iraq.And what did the media do with it?
Independent media ignored it. Early on (June), it looked like there might be some interest in but that was quickly dropped as independent media marched off elsewhere. It never really bothered to pick up the story after it was done completely ignoring Iraq. No article in The Nation ever ran on Abeer or has run as of today. A fourteen-year-old girl was gang raped, murdered, her five-year-old sister was murdered, her parents were murdered and the initial blame for the war crimes was 'insurgents.' The reality was that the war crimes were committed by non-Iraqis. In November, James P. Barker admitted to his involvement in the war crimes (he entered the home as part of a plan to rape Abeer and kill her and others in the house). His court confession also included the actions of others. Since they've yet to be tried, or to confess, you can toss "alleged" in front of their names if you like.
But Abeer was raped and killed and where was the media when the details emerged?
The Washington Post, the Associated Press, Off Our Backs and Robin Morgan were accounted for, they weighed in. Where was everyone else?
The New York Times specialized in a funny sort of reporting. Before the defense could present their legal argument in an Article 32 hearing that was held in August, the New York Times, supposedly presenting objective reporting, managed to run an opinion piece as reporting and somehow managed to argue the defense's case. In a piece published before the defense had presented their case. In a defense that a military legal expert said had no known basis in legal history. Wow. Those New York Times reporters (Carolyn Marshall and Robert F. Worth) are certainly amazing. They predicted it all -- and without any help from the defense! What seers are they.
The New York Times specialized in another kind of reporting on the war crimes -- never mentioning Abeer's name. To name the victim would be to give a face to her and since their own 'reporting' had already crossed the line into advocacy journalism (not anything wrong with advocacy journalism but the paper self-presents as 'objective') it was very clear that their interest wasn't in the truth, wasn't in reporting what happened, but in rendering Abeer and what happened to her invisible. How do you, as reporters at the paper repeatedly did, cover the trial of men accused of gang raping and murdering Abeer and never manage to mention her name?
You do it very carefully when you're interests are in managing and mitigating public opinion. Better to make her a faceless victim if you're interested in continuing to sell the illegal war which the paper is interested in doing.
Now the paper's actions should have been called out. So you might think you got that. You didn't. If in no other way, The Nation could have covered Abeer as a media topic. There media columnist could have addressed the way the paper of record rendered Abeer invisible. But he wasn't interested in that. AlterPunk was interested in useless articles such as his lengthy take on why the New York Times shouldn't run unsigned editorials -- a column that ran in a magazine (The Nation) which runs unsigned editorials.
He was interested in getting upset that he'd recently learned the New York Times' policy on quoting from comments on websites was questionable. In a piece where they rushed to lynch Janet Jackson -- a piece riddled with inaccuracies, only a few of which resulted in corrections by the paper -- it was apparently okay to 'doctor' a quote from a website. The paper is aware of the docotring -- at every level -- and they issued no correction on that. If AlterPunk wants to feign shock about the Times' 'quoting' from websites, he might do better to know the paper's history on it.) (Altering quotes, failure to research your articles, presenting half-baked theories that blow up with the most basic examination and not even grasping that just because you say something was or wasn't a number one doesn't make it true didn't result in the arts section's version of Judith Miller being banned from the paper for anyone interested. We could also touch on the topic of allowing people to create titles for themselves and the paper running with them. That started in the arts section and then, as the Times well knows up through the editorial offices -- carried over to the front page of the news section. The defense on that, expressed by the editor responsible for the front page piece, was that the executive in question didn't like his actual title so he preferred to use a title that doesn't exist. That may be the executive's wish but if the company wanted him to have that title, they'd give it to him. (They haven't and his being billed by a title he doesn't hold has caused anger at the company and caused those still expressing disbelief to note that when you're 'friends' with writers at the paper you can write your own ticket in what passes for 'objective' reporting.) Maybe the Cindy Brady of the faux left can next tackle that?
Probably not because it's safer for all involved (safer translates as coverage and book reviews) to offer up useless topics (unsigned editorials? A pressing issue in the bull pens of high school papers, no doubt) .
And independent media played 2006 safe and cowardly with few exceptions.
Today, John Nichols and Katrina vanden Heuvel write of Dr. Martin Luther King. It may be less than generous to note that the magazine's choosing to note him on the federal holiday in his honor. It's pointing the obvious to note that the passing last year of Coretta Scott King produced no article -- in print or 'online exclusive.' So it strikes us as a more than apalling that the same magazine who didn't appear to give a damn about Coretta Scott King now rushes pieces on MLK to their website.
Like Abeer, Coretta Scott King meets the defnition of an 'other.' African-American, a woman, she couldn't get any traction. The media critic for The Nation couldn't even note that the paper of little record didn't editorialize about her passing -- though, in the same week, they could note a playwright (and personal friend of Gail Collins) who died. Her passing didn't rate a column either. The closest to a column, and the only mention in the editorial section, was Bob Herbert's tacked on one paragraph noting she had died.
What does that say? What does the above say?
Quite a lot and if people want to address media reform, they better do seriously. The Nation is the left magazine with the largest circulation so we'll focus on it.
In 2006, when both Katha Pollitt and Naomi Klein were on leave while they worked on books, two prime spots were open to be temporarily filled. When two strong voices are absent and they happen to be female, you might think The Nation would fill those spots with women. But apparently having nearly wall to wall contributions from male writers wasn't quite enough for "Nobody Owns The Nation," they needed more male voices.
This operating belief goes a long way towards explaining why a freelancer placed her article on Abu Ghraib last year not with The Nation but with a fashion magazine (Marie Claire). The Nation should be leading and it isn't. That's in terms of what gets covered and who gets to cover it. (Already in 2007, their appalling low number of pieces written by women threaten to match the disgraceful numbers for 2006.)
Is the nation White, male, middle aged and straight in all regards? No, but if you got that impression from reading The Nation in 2006, your mistaken beliefs were certainly supported by the magazine.
Alternative media is supposed to provide an alternative, to present what media could be. (On a lower budget, granted.) Offering what the mainstream provides (often the worst it provides -- such as handicapping political races as though they were horse races) but with a left/Democratic spin (for many in independent media, the 'left' view is determined by what the DNC decides it is) isn't an alternative. It's a negative, a photographic negative, it's the bizarro world, it's just not an alternative.
An alternative requires providing an alternative. That requires covering topics that the mainstream isn't interested in. That requires creating the kind of media that demonstrates what is wrong with the current system.
If the extent of 'wrong' is that more Republican hacks are tossed on the airwaves than Democratic hacks, then The Nation is doing a wonderful job. If being a party organ for the Democratic Party is an alternative, congratulations to The Nation.
That would explain why coverage of students qualifies in the magazine as covering what an Iowan poli-sci student deemed "Eisnhower Democrats." Look, they're War Hawks, well funded one with the usual crowd of useless names speaking to them and funding them! Oh, look, here's another piece about 'activists' who are overjoyed by their 'success' (they farmed out volunteers to Congressional campaings) and who explain that sometimes you have to stop 'hugging a tree,' 'put on a suit,' and get down to business. Such business doesn't include serious concern over the environment as the dismissive 'tree hugging' reference telegraphs.
Meanwhile, in the real world, students organize to end the war, organize to rebuild in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, organize to halt the imprisonments at Guantanamo, organize (and lead!) on the immigrations rights issue.
The immigration rights issue? "Alternative" coverage apparently means you go down to the deep south and speak to White people opposed to immigrant rights. You also toss in a male (of course male) activist. You avoid the students who led the protests, who woke a sleeping nation.You avoid their bravery and maybe you even offer a slap to them that the Mexican flag shouldn't be carried at a protest. Now those words generally come from people who didn't participate in any of the protests so the words are as useless as the owners of the mouths uttering them.
Where is the place at the table for people of ethnicities and color, for women and LBGTs?
The Nation is looking for a publicity director. That's not going to change the opinions of students opposed to the magazine, students who see it as useless and judgmental of them, students who see their own work and the issues that matter to them ignored.
A new publicity director won't conceal the fact that 'equality' has a funny meaning at The Nation. Equality doesn't mean when two female columnists are on leave, you fill their posts with other male voices. Equality does seem to mean that you demonstrate how fair you are by criticizing Harry Belafonte. At last! African-Americans can be slammed equally at The Nation! (If undeservedly.) Now they can't get covered, Coretta Scott King's death demonstrates that, but they've 'achieved' enough at the magazine that they can be slammed.
Will a publicy director speak to the staff about how they conduct themselves in on air interviews?
We think she or he should. We think that's now a requirement after Laura Flanders was called everything but stupid on air. (Flanders an astute journalist, critic and broadcaster.) That hostile, patronizing, impatient and dismissive treatment didn't come from a guest billed as being on the right, it came from a Nation staffer (and Lyndon La Rouche refugee). We think that interview, the hostitility expressed towards Flanders, says a lot. How does anyone at the magazine come to believe it's okay to treat Flanders, or any woman, in such a manner? (It was bullying. Flanders stood her ground.)
Well it helps when the culture is predominately male, predominately straight, and predominately White. And we're speaking of the culture at the magazine. Media reform is suddenly an issue (for a week or so) and we're reminded of the 2006 issue on media reform which played like celebrity even if it didn't make for good reading. Having something to say wasn't apparently a requirement, just name value. (Which led to it playing out like the what-are-they-reading feature in Vanity Fair -- though in fairness to Van Fair, that's a tiny item in the magazine, not something they provide for pages and pages.)
Margaret Kimberley (Black Agenda Report) is very popular with this community, so let's get practical: when does she get invited to the table?
Or does she have to blindly cheer every Democrat to be included?
If impeachment was a topic worthy of a January 2006 cover, why is it a topic dropped when Nancy Pelosi announcing she is pulling it off the table? Last time we checked, she wasn't listed on the masthead of The Nation.
Independent media needs to show some independence. That's independence in thought and in coverage. Talk of media reform is meaningless if alternative outlets aren't willing to provide an alternative currently.
As 2006 drew to a close, CounterSpin finally found a woman they could interview for the full program (a practice common with male guests). We see that and her topic (the way the press covers war) as a big step in the right direction. But having lived through one of the worst years for independent media (2006), we're not about to act like media reform is something required of the mainstream and that the bulk of independent media has done a good (or even an okay) job in the last year. It hasn't.
It has not reaffirmed the core of democracy (that would require covering actions that included more than running for office or urging that readers vote). It has not practiced anything resmembling Brown v. Board in their own coverage. And we're all dying for the moment where a host (male or female) of a panel has the guts to stop a male, who repeatedly cuts off a female guest, by pointing out just how dismissive he's treating the woman and asking him why he thinks that treatment is acceptable? We're also dying to get something other than The Elector.
We're not interested in The Elector and we're not interested in linking to sop. A perfect example would be an article that David Enders has written. Does the writing qualify for sop? No. It's well written. But The Nation feels it's only worthy of 'online exclusive' status -- implying that they grade outside writers much more harshly than they do insiders. (Possibly they're under the mistaken belief that their print editions are awash with Iraq coverage?) While we're glad that both John Nichols and Katrina vanden Heuvel chose, on the MLK federal holiday, to note MLK, we're not interested in linking to the articles because of the magazine's own silence on Coretta Scott King. In fact, community wide we probably won't to link to anything from The Nation other than Naomi Klein or Katha Pollitt. Why?
Why bother? Why bother to link to a magazine that refuses to cover war resisters? They can't get ahold of Kyle Synder? (Puts them in the minority.) No, they just don't want to. They've demonstrated that throughout 2006 and the slam they printed on Ehren Watada is so offensive and does not pass the 'free speech' phrase that's used as a bully club.
Isn't it funny how free speech lets in Christopher Hitchens, La Rouche refugees and sexual predators but it doesn't let it people of color, it doesn't let it in women, it doesn't let in coverage of peace activists and demonstrations, and it doesn't let in war resisters.
Ehren Watada's beliefs about the illegality and the immorality of the war could be backed up with citations from (much earlier) coverage of Iraq that The Nation provided. So he takes a stand and they play dumb. That's not cutting it. At some point, when you know the war is wrong, you have to take a stand. Ehren Watada has done that. The Nation reads like its unsure. A war resister is a cover story, not a sidebar and especially not a sidebar after you've just printed a useless (unneeded and uninformed) quote from a man slamming Watada. That a magazine which says it is opposed to the illegal war continues to be unable to offer one editorial or column in support of Watada or any of the other war resisters to go public in the summer of 2006, while filling pages of the magazine week after week with useless trash like AlterPunk's nonstop shout outs to various men (someday he'll prove he's a real boy, just like Pinochio!) (and when that happens, he still won't correct his lie that Naomi Klein was a fashion consultant to the Gore campaign).
We're tired of it and we think media reform is a useless topic until independent media is willing to practice some of it themselves.
trevor aaronson
jane fonda
media reform
ehren watada
margaret kimberley
the common ills
like maria said paz
kats korner
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
trinas kitchen
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
thomas friedman is a great man
the third estate sunday review
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)