2005's honor (Marian Anderson) v. 2006's shame

The stamps above are of Marian Anderson who lived from 1897 to 1993. Ms. Anderson was a singer who fought racism and was internationally known. I'll assume we all know her and say thank you to Rebecca for posting the stamps and move on to my point.

Each year, the United States Postal Service puts out many stamps. Due to Black History, they usually do a "Black Heritage" stamp. In 2005, it was Marian Anderson. This year it's Hattie McDaniels. I wasn't aware of that. It's one of the many things I learned over the week. (I think Mike's going to write about that Friday night so I'll just say I think everybody had a great time and know I did.)

Hattie McDaniel was the first African-American to win an Oscar (or attend the ceremony as something other than a servant apparently). So I guess the thinking was, "Them Blacks will just love this stamp!"

Here's the thing. We don't all love the stamp. McDaniel's is a part of history and her story is of interest but that doesn't mean she qualifies for the honor of a stamp. McDaniels played mammys and maids and did so gladly. They were stereotypes. Before someone says, "Oh that's in looking back! In looking back, everything can seem outdated!" No, in real time, McDaniels was criticized for her choices by the NAACP.

McDaniels is a complicated figure and certainly worthy of discussion. She is not, however, worthy of the one stamp we can count on each year -- the one where we can see one of our own applauded for accomplishments.

I'd like to know who decided Hattie McDaniels was the person to pay tribute to this year? My guess? Some White person.

Probably a Gone With The Wind freak who thinks "those people must love that movie because McDaniels won an Oscar for it!" Yeah, that's what we like to do, sit around watching movies about the Civil War where all the characters of color are just happy to be serving Miss Scarlett and bound in slavery. That's our idea of a feel-good movie.

No, "those people" don't all swoon over the love affair between master Scarlett and her Confederate lover Rhett. We don't get all excited in the rooting that things will work out for them (slavery will prevail?) and then feel sad that the plantation system has crumbled.

I'm thinking only under the Bully Boy could the post office make such a ridiculous choice, such an insulting choice.

McDaniel's life is a complicated one and it is certainly worthy of discussion and debate. It is not, however, worth being noted in the Black Heritage series over the very real accomplishments of African-Americans, past and present, who have worked to dispell stereotypes and to advance the cause of civil rights. In the end, the best that may be said of her is that she achieved when others couldn't. Saying that requires examining how she managed that feat and there's not a great deal of pride in that story.

Will 2007 find us honoring Amos & Andy?

I'm posting because I should be the first one who landed. Mike thinks he's going to post tonight but he's getting home late (Wally's getting home the latest, I think). Rebecca's got three entries today so check her out and note that when the rest of us were unable to post she carried her weight and then some. Thank you to Rebecca.

I'll note one thing from Democracy Now! today and call it a night:

Rev. William Sloane Coffin, 81, Dies
And the Rev. William Sloane Coffin Jr. has died at the age of 81. For the past half century he has been a leading anti-war and civil rights advocated. During the 1960s as chaplain of Yale University he was a leading critic of the Vietnam War and strongly advocated the use of civil disobedience to protest the war. In one of the most celebrated trials of the 1960s he faced charges along with Dr. Benjamin Spock and others of conspiracy to encourage draft evasion. He was also an early supporter of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and took part in some of the first Freedom Rides. Courage, he preached over the years, was the first virtue, because ''it makes all other virtues possible.'' In the 1970s he went on to become a senior minister at the Riverside Church in New York. And in the 1980s he played an instrumental role in the anti-nuclear movement.

If you missed the program today, read C.I.'s "Democracy Now!: The Death of The Village Voice?" and you'll know why you need to catch it. Now.

Law and Disorder addressed covert racism

I wasn't sure if I had anything to write about. In fact, I thought I didn't because I'm doing a thing for the gina & krista round-robin about the demonstrations. But Mike came over just now and told me he was writing a little about Law and Disorder. We listened to that a little while ago while we were eating dinner and Mike reminded me that I had a bit to say about the first story.

This was only my second time listening. Ruth's Public Radio Report got me interested in the show and it was one of those "I'll listen" that gets put off. By the way, that's why I'm all for noting Pacifica programs. How many months has Ruth been noting Law and Disorder? I've now listened twice in a row and stuff like that doesn't happen overnight. You hear someone say, "Listen to this!" and, if they're excited, you think about it. If I never listened to it, I think it made a difference just knowing it was out there, just being aware of it. So if you're thinking, "Well, I don't have a blog . . ." remember that you have a mouth. You can use it. And even if someone doesn't listen to the thing you recommend, they know it's out there.

I'm going to focus on the first segment which was Dalia Hashad (of Amnesty and one of the four co-hosts of the show) speaking with the others (Heidi Boghosian of the National Lawyers Guild, Michael Ratner of the National Lawyers Guild). She was in Houston and she's not Anglo/White. She was at a Joe's Crabshack type place (it wasn't Joe's Crabshack) and she was treated in the most rude mannder.

She still left a tip (smaller than she would have elsewhere but still a nice size tip) and when she said that, there were a few groans. I don't mean on the show, I mean as we were listening. But C.I. and my opinion was that if she hadn't left anything, it would have justified the service to the server and other wait staff. The staff would have said, "See, that's how those people are."

I've been in that situation before, a lot of times, and I used to not leave a tip. If someone else doesn't want to, they shouldn't. You shouldn't reward bad service. But one Sunday after church, on my grandmother's birthday, we all went out to eat. The food was pretty good . . . when it arrived. We had to remind the waiter repeatedly (it was over a half-hour after we had ordered before we got our food). My aunt ended up doing our refills because we couldn't get more iced tea no matter how much we asked. So she just got up, went over and grabbed a pitcher of tea, filled up everyone's glasses, then went and grabbed another one. Our waiter would snap "I'm busy!" whenever anyone tried to wave him over. We noticed that the other four tables he was going to were tables he visited all the time. The people at those tables were white. We were African-American.

Like Dalia Hashad said, you're never sure if it is a case of racism. Maybe we somehow offended the waiter? Maybe he just didn't like where our table was located? Maybe he thought he was going to all the tables but would get called to the kitchen before he got us and he didn't realize that?

Or maybe someone at the table looked like an ex-girlfriend or ex-boyfriend so he didn't want to come over? Or an old teacher? You never can be sure because racism still is a big issue but it's covert now. Decades ago, they would have denied you service and said, "You're black, get out."
(Or worse.) Now days, it's more covert.

So after the meal, we were all decided not to leave a tip. The waiter hadn't earned it and our party was so large that an automatic tip was tacked on. But my grandmother was really bothered by that. She felt the guy was racist. And she felt like if we didn't leave a tip, he'd feel good about himself. We leave and leave no tip, he's going to tell himself he did the right thing.
So we left a nice tip.

In that situation, you need to do what you feel like. If you don't want to leave a tip, don't. It's not been earned and, I'd argue, that they should actually being paying you after treating you so rudely. But my grandmother's point is one that I act on now. I want them to come to the table after we leave and see a tip and not have the excuse of "Oh, they didn't tip, no surprise" -- I want them to see the tip and think, "I wasn't even nice to them." Maybe a few of them will feel bad. Maybe, the next African-American customer that comes in will get a little better treatment than we got.

Dalia Hashad also talked about how then she is traveling to New York City for the taping of Law and Disorder and at one point, I think in the train station, she's waiting and it's packed. There's one seat that no one's sitting in but a woman has her cup of coffee in the seat. Dalia Hashad walks over and asks nicely if it's the woman cup of coffee? It is. And she finishes eating her muffin before she finally picks up her cup of coffee. Those things are hurtful.

And because racism's covert you're left wondering exactly what the problem was. Maybe the woman didn't want anyone sitting on that side of her? Maybe she's just a mean person? Maybe it was because of race? But, like Dalia Hashad pointed out, these things happen over and over in a week. (Probably in a day for some people.) It's really hard just to forget it. It's like a missing tooth and you know it's gone but your tongue keeps going back to the empty socket. It does a real number on you. And let's say that Dalia Hashad was white, super wealthy and whatever. If that had happened to her still, she would've wondered what was wrong with her. But race probably wouldn't have been one of the questions she wondered about. When race could be a factor (and often is) it is really hurtful because we're told racism is over or at least not that bad but then we come up against something like that and realize how some people really see us which then makes you wonder, "Well what about other people I know? Do they see me that way too but they're just more polite?" It just does a real number on you and not just when you're walking away but for the rest of the day and there have been times for me where it's been for the rest of the week.

So I was really glad they addressed the issue and that they did it by letting Dalia Hashad talk about her experiences. It happens to everyone and it doesn't matter how you speak or how you dress but she speaks very well so you know you can eliminate that factor and the way she was dressed. I know that it made me feel better. There was one time I went to a large box store to get new tires and was left waiting for an hour while people who came in after me (White) were rushed in and out. I probably spent a day blaming myself because I drove up in wind pants and t-shirt. I kept telling myself, "I should've dressed up." It was probably the middle of the next week before I thought, "Forget that." It was a Saturday morning. I was going in to get my tires, not going to Sunday school. I didn't need to wear a suit and tie to expect even adequate service.
But that's what you do afterwards, you start thinking "Well should I have dressed differently" or "Did I sound stupid?" So hearing her speak about it, I think if you could relate to that situation, you really were glad that it was someone so well spoken that was addressing it.

It shouldn't happen to anyone. But I know that I go to that or clothes immediately because you do start blaming yourself when it happens.

If you missed it and this sounds like a topic you want to hear about it, you can listen to it at
Law and Disorder.

I also want to note "'What I Didn't Find In Iraq' by Bully Boy" because I really like that feature. It's a parody of an op-ed by the Bully Boy and how that happened? Friday, Jim was talking about Joseph Wilson's "What I Didn't Find In Africa" repeatedly (Wilson wrote that, discrediting a claim by the Bully Boy for war, and as a result, the administration attacked him and outed his wife Valerie Plame who had been a CIA agent). After hearing that over and over, C.I. suggested that we think what Bully Boy might say if he had to write an op-ed with the same title? We all liked the idea and C.I. urged us to work on while we were behind the idea and to also knock out something on Friday so it would be one less thing to worry about. I think it was like eleven o'clock (maybe later) but we went ahead and thought up ideas. Everyone thought up at least one idea and we worked on them solo and then came back to fit it together and rewrite. Ty had the shortest one and it falls in the middle which is the only thing that anyone else had input on. Here's Ty's (and if you haven't read the feature it's surrounded by longer items):

I did not find Waldo. But I looked real hard.

That still makes me laugh. Ty didn't believe that we liked it, he kept saying it was "sleight" but I think it's funny and so did everyone else.

Robert Parry on KPFA's Living Room this afternoon

Wasn't planning on blogging and normally wouldn't at this time of day. But normally, I'd be at work.

I wanted to note that Rebecca's favorite Robert Parry will be interviewed on KPFA today at noon PT, two CT and three ET on a program called Living Room. She'd note it if one of my favorites was interviewed and Parry's someone whose writing I like to. We discussed at least two of his books at The Third Estate Sunday Review. He was also nice enough, when Ava e-mailed him about ABC changing Colin Powell's words up in their press release on Barbara Walter's interview with Powell, to note Ava and C.I.'s coverage on that. He did that even though Ava wrote him that she wasn't asking for a link but she wanted to get off her chest how angry she was that ABC had changed up Powell's words. So when not asked for a link, when someone says not to link, he still provided one. That's a pretty nice guy. You should already know that he's a real journalist who could be working for the mainstream and making big bucks. He did before, he won awards and praise. But he got sick of the way something's couldn't be covered and something's got buried. So he started his own news organization, Consortium News. That should make you want to listen. So go listen.

I'm on Jess's laptop by the way. So thank you, Jess. And I'm in California, so thank you C.I. That's why I didn't blog last night. I'd called to compliment everyone on their work on the immigration issue and got invited out. I talked to my boss and he pointed out that I had time off and "You never turn down a free trip!" So here I am and thank you, again, to C.I.

Want to thank independent media? Pay attention to it. So check out Robert Parry on Living Room today.

Jean Dominique and Law and Disorder

Haitian Government Urged to Reopen Probe Into Killing of Jean Dominique
And in Haiti, the group Reporters Without Borders is urging the Haitian government to reopen an investigation into the killing of the pioneering radio journalist Jean Dominique. He was gunned down in the courtyard of Radio Haiti Inter on April 3rd 2000. Dominique was profiled in Jonathan Demme' documentary The Agronomist two years ago.

That's from Democracy Now! and I didn't know the name Jean Dominique.

This is from Haitia Progres, April 2000, "The Assassination of Jean Dominique: Is it part of Washington's offensive?"

At 6:15 a.m. on Apr. 3, a gunman entered the courtyard of Radio Haiti Inter and shot to death pioneering radio journalist Jean Dominique, 69, as well as the station's caretaker, Jean-Claude Louissaint. Dominique, who was just arriving by car to prepare for his hugely popular 7:00 a.m. daily news roundup, was struck by one bullet in the head and two in the neck. He was loaded with Louissaint into an ambulance, but both men were pronounced dead on arrival at the nearby Haitian Community Hospital in Pétionville.
In recent weeks, Dominique had been sharply critical of the U.S. government's heavy-handed meddling in Haitian elections and bullying of Haitian President René Préval, to whom Dominique was a close friend and advisor.
Are agents of Washington behind Jean Dominique's brutal murder? Is this just the opening salvo of a more violent stage in the wide-ranging campaign to intimidate the Haitian government and people into following Washington's directives?
That is the suspicion voiced by Haitians on radio call-in shows and street corners since the killing. For them, this is just the latest act of aggression in an escalating war which Washington is waging to see that its neoliberal agenda eventually goes through in Haiti. Vilifying articles in the mainstream press, warnings from diplomats, hold-backs of international assistance, and killings by the "forces of darkness" have all been part of a growing offensive to block the return to power of former president Jean-Bertrand Aristide and his party in what has become known as the "electoral coup d'état."

I also googled "Democracy Now" and "Jean Dominique" and found this:
"Haian Journalist Michele Montas Discusses Haiti and the Unsolved Murder Of Her Husband:""

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go for a minute to a tape one of the last interviews that Jean Dominique did. Dan Coughlin, now head of the Pacifica network, was in Haiti a few weeks before Jean Dominique was killed. This was Jean Dominique's last interview broadcast in the United States.

JEAN DOMINIQUE: Throughout Haiti now, more and more poor citizens are asking questions. What questions? There has been with President Preval many attempts to put in practice what the constitution calls “decentralization”. What does that mean? That means that the small communities are actually able to take their own offers in their hands. That's power to the local government. That's decentralization. Contrary to the Haitian tradition of centralization, everything in the national palace. Now, every community has a chance to put in their hands their business, the business of the community, which is a fantastic step for democracy, actually. And because of this decentralization process, actually in process, the poor citizens are saying that we are the masters of our destiny. We can now start taking care of ourselves. And they are saying if we have to vote for the local government we have to participate, because those people will be our people. We are going to hire them the same way we can in four years fire them. So, the sense of citizenship is actually emerging and spreading. That's a wonderful step in the process of democracy in Haiti. Maybe our masters don't like this process. Maybe in the paradise of our big brothers, they don't like that those poor, desperate, illiterate, dirty people can take their destiny in their hands. But I think that they're wrong. They are wrong with their own principle, because a town meeting in the United States is not a revolutionary, is it? When a citizen goes to a town meeting to discuss things about his town, his city, he's a normal citizen. We want our democracy based on town meetings. We want our democracy based on the Jefferson principles. Is Jefferson contrary to Washington D.C. now?

AMY GOODMAN: Jean Dominique, one of his last interviews before he was assassinated April 3, 2000. Interesting last comment, is Jefferson contrary to Washington now? When I interviewed him as well, he was talking very much what Washington’s interests were in Haiti. Who assassinated your husband?
MICHELE MONTAS: I don't know, but from investigation that has lasted three years, three long years, I can say that so far, all of the available evidence leads to the party in power, to the La Velas party.
AMY GOODMAN: At the time the murder stunned the country, Haiti's president declared three days of mourning and ordered the national palace draped in black.
MICHELE MONTAS: Yes, indeed. There was a great deal of pain and suffering on the part of the Haitians when it happened. Jean was a symbol of Haitian democracy because of his long fight since the Duvalier years against dictatorship and for the participation of the majority of Haitians to the affairs of the country. As he said it earlier in his interview. And the question is to be asked, why was Jean Dominique killed? More and more, you're asking yourself whether it was not because of this democratic agenda that he was killed. A very good extent Jean supported, you know, whole movement for democracy in the 1986, 1987, and way before that also, and supported the La Velas movement as a whole in 1990, very strongly so. And in 1994. However, there were a number of trends which Jean found disturbing when the La Velas movement became the La Velas party. The former La Velas. When Jean identified the fact that a number of people within the group were not particularly democratic people. The way that the candidates of the party were chosen for the 2000 elections did not represent a real democratic aspirations.



You might have already known about him. I didn't and I'm not embarrassed to admit that.

Betty's not posting tonight. She's got her chapter ready and just wanted to do a read over it and "fine tune" it some. But Blogger was a problem tonight and she said she needs to get to bed because she's got to take two of her children to the doctor's early tomorrow morning. I told her not to worry about it and that I'd note it here and I'd pass it on to C.I. later so C.I. could give a heads up at The Common Ills tomorrow.

Betty did ask me if I could note this from C.I. Betty wanted to work that in but when Blogger went down, she couldn't get in to work some more on her chapter. She's been working on this chapter every day since Friday. She puts in a lot of work on everyone. I just look around the news and see what's something I want to talk about or what's something I don't know about.

I think of her and Wally as the community humorists. But Wally would be the first to tell you that the longest he ever has to ponder a post is an hour. Betty spends hours thinking before she writes one word.

So maybe you learned about someone new, like I did, or maybe you just got a review but I'm going to wrap up here.

I will note that I listened to Law and Disorder this week because between "Ruth's Public Radio Report" Mike's "Rummy, Conid, Dave Zirin and Law and Disorder", I knew I better get off my lazy rear and check out the show they both can't stop talking about.
WBAI archives and the Law and Disorder website are two places you can listen to it.

Besides the beeper bumper Mike wrote about, the first story really grabbed me. (I enjoyed it all.) This was about Scalia and how he should have recused himself from the Guantanamo prisoners' case. If you missed that story, you should listen to the program.

And if you need another reason to listen, Michael Ratner, one of the hosts, wrote this
("ABOVE THE LAW: Bush claims the right to spy on everything, including attorney-client conversations"):

And now it turns out that Bush's eavesdropping program is not only in criminal violation of FISA, but an end-run around one of the most basic pillars of our system of law: the constitutional right to counsel and the confidentiality of attorney-client conversations necessary to protect that right.
As an attorney for CCR, which has brought many of the most important legal challenges to the Bush administration since Sept. 11, I thought, when the NSA program was revealed, that we could be among the targets of the spying. We represent hundreds of Guantánamo detainees and high-profile victims of torture and kidnapping; we were winning cases against the government and successfully challenging their illegal actions in court. I had ample reason to believe that our conversations with our clients, witnesses and colleagues would be overheard, and even our families' phone lines would be tapped. Now, with the admission by the government that it has not "excluded" listening in to attorneys' conversations, I feel sure that this once absolute boundary has been crossed.
The attorney-client privilege is more than a legal nicety. It is central to the American idea of justice that all clients be able to speak in confidence with those who represent them. It is fundamental to an honest defense that attorneys have access to their clients without surveillance. In the past, when wiretaps picked up attorneys talking with clients, the statutes required turning off the tap as long as the attorney was on the line. But these basic rules have apparently been cast aside by the president.

Harry Belafonte's Calypso

So I go the door this morning and there's a stranger there. He asks, "Are you Cedric?" Yes. He hands me a package and says good-bye.

It contains a few books and the CD Harry Belafonte Calypso. He's someone C.I. knows who was coming to my area so C.I. asked him to drop off the items with me. I'd mentioned Harry Belafonte in my post on Thursday (which C.I. was kind enough to note three times at The Common Ills) and I'd called C.I. before posting. While we were on the phone, I'd mentioned two CDs I had of Harry Belafonte's. C.I. had mentioned Calypso and was surprised that I not only didn't have it but I'd also never heard the entire album (one of my albums is a collection and some songs from Calypso appear on it). C.I. recommended it strongly.

I'd forgotten about that until the stranger showed up at my door. I'll note that the last time C.I. passed on a series of books, it never arrived in the mail and that may be why C.I. asked a friend who was traveling to my area to drop off this package.

I haven't even looked at the books. I've just listened to Calypso most of the day. Over and over. It really is a great album. It came out in 1956 and was a million seller back when million sellers were a rare thing. There are eleven tracks and besides "Day-O (Banana Boat Song)," the song most people will probably know, one of my favorites, is "Jamaica Farewell."

While I was listening, I thought about how I wished I had an illustration and, if I did, I'd write a little about the album. Then I remembered that Rebecca enjoyed the album and had been scanning some covers for future posts at Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude. So I called her cell but didn't get an answer. I tried Mike's home phone number (she, Fly Boy and Elaine are at Mike's this weekend) and he put her on the phone. She wasn't sure if she had it on her laptop because she has most of her jpegs on her home computer. She said she'd check and call back. She ended up networking with her home computer (don't ask me), I think, and when she called back, she said it was up at her site. So thank you to Rebecca for that.

I really enjoy Calypso. Too much so, in fact. I was washing dishes and went into the living room when "Hosanna" came on. I ended up sitting down on the couch and listening. Then, after the last track, I started the CD back up. At some point, I thought we had a light rain and probably ten minutes after that, I realized that I had left the water in the sink on. I had water all over the kitchen floor.

After I cleaned up my mess, I went back to listening to the CD. My cousin stopped by for a few minutes but ended up staying to hear the CD too. This is one of those albums that works as a whole. And you're not grabbing the remote to skip songs.

Another thing I enjoy is the fact that linear notes are reproduced. I wish new CDs would carry those. Sometimes you get a paragraph or two about the album, on a new CD, and maybe a list of thank yous but that's really about all. I have little interest in most of the "bonus" DVDs that CDs are being packaged with these days. I wonder why they don't take the time to provide linear notes but, then again, most of the CDs don't provide much worth writing about.

William Attaway wrote the linear notes, by the way. I didn't know the name but it said he is the "Author of several novels and screenplays. Mr. Attaway is currently writing scripts for television." If you click here you can learn about Attaway who died in 1986 of cancer and co-wrote six of the songs on Calypso. He lived a very interesting life, civil rights advocate, advocate before the civil rights period, even, and a writer of many forms. It notes that:

Attaway was the first black writer to write scripts for TV and films. He wrote Hundred Years of Laughter, an hour long special on black humor that aired in 1964. The hour-long special featured comedians Redd Foxx, Moms Mabley, and Flip Wilson in their first appearance on television.

So that was interesting to learn. I think my favorite song on Calypso is "Brown Skin Girl." If you're like me before this morning and have never heard the CD, you're missing out more than you know (more than I knew).

Afghanistan the forgotten "liberation"

Afghan Christian Convert Granted Political Asylum in Italy
In other news, Abdul Rahman, the Afghan citizen who faced a possible death sentence for converting to Christianity has arrived in Italy, where he's been granted political asylum. Rahman was arrested two weeks ago. Under Afghanistan’s laws no one has the right to contravene Islam.

That's from Democracy Now! today. Now Afghanistan's supposed to be a "win," remember? We're supposed to have "liberated" there. Forget the fact that we've let warlords control the country and that women are no better off than they were before Bully Boy's war (despite Laura Bush delivering a radio address on the need to liberate the women -- can you imagine how Rush and the right wing gang would have tarred and feathered Hillary Clinton for delivering a readio address like that). Just focus on the fact that there's no freedom of religion unless you consider freedom of religion to mean that you are free to practice a Muslim religion as much as you want.

He was put on trial and "safety" for him means escaping to Italy. Now do we still want to pretend that we "liberated" anything or anyone in Afghanistan?

There was an NPR reporter, a woman, who left NPR and decided to try to help in Afghanistan. She was interviewed by David Brancaccio when the program was still NOW with Bill Moyers. (And when it was still an hour long.) Things weren't going great then. (Moyers left the show by January 2005). And you think they've gotten better?

Her name is Sarah Chayes. Here's some of what she said on the October 24, 2003 broadcast:

CHAYES: It does technically, but there's a lot of autonomy in these provinces. Largely because frankly the leaders or the rulers of these provinces were chosen to be the proxy to drive the Taliban out of Kandahar. Sorry… to drive the Taliban out of Afghanistan.
Because it's not just Kandahar that's under this sort of war-lord rule. It's also Herat in the west, and it's, you know, it's basically each region has its local strong man. And these people obtained a lot of weapons and a lot of money, largely from the United States.
Which was fair enough. In other words, we were not going to go in massively on the ground in Afghanistan the way we did in Iraq. And so we needed people to do it for us. And these were people who had been opposed to the Taliban, so why not go with them?
The problem was that this massive influx of arms and money to these guys gave them a kind of… it rooted them. It anchored them. And what's happened now is that they report nominally to Kabul. But very little in fact.
That's one side of the security situation. The other side of the security situation is a visible resurgence of Taliban activity. And this has been happening very… again, I don't feel in danger in Kandahar. I don't… it's not on the surface of it now very grave as far as I'm concerned.
But it's the pattern that I'm starting to feel to be a bit worrisome. Which is that there was sort of nothing for the first six months after the Taliban defeat. Then you started to see in, for example, across the border in Pakistan you started seeing Taliban showing themselves very openly in the streets with their classic clothing and all that kind of thing.
It was clearly a trial balloon to see what the reaction would be. And there was actually no reaction. And then the next phase was sermons against… in mosques against the U.S. Presidents, against the central government in Afghanistan. Against girls going to school, things like that. There were letters left in mosques and schools in Afghanistan.

That was in 2003. Things haven't gotten better. But this is supposed to be a "success."

Here's what Christian Parenti wrote recently in Christian Parenti's "Afghanistan: The Other War:"

Only ninety-eight US troops died in Afghanistan last year; but the ratio of US casualties to overall troop levels makes Afghanistan as dangerous as Iraq. While Iraq's violent disintegration dominates the headlines, Bush touts Afghanistan as a success. During his recent visit, the President told Afghans that their country was "inspiring others...to demand their freedom."
But many features of the political landscape here are not so inspiring--for example, the deteriorating security situation. Taliban attacks are up; their tactics have become more aggressive and nihilistic. They have detonated at least twenty-three suicide bombs in the past six months, killing foreign and Afghan troops, a Canadian diplomat, local police and in some cases crowds of civilians. Kidnapping is on the rise. American contractors are being targeted. Some 200 schools have been burned or closed down. And Lieut. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, the senior American military officer here, expects the violence to get worse over the spring and summer.


And this week saw the death of a Canadian soldier and an American. C.I. noted it yesterday:

The scene of Bully Boy's other "liberation" still hasn't seen "democracy" but it does continue to see violence: in Kandahar a Canadian soldier, an American solider and eight Afghan soldiers were killed. (The name of the Canadian is Robert Costall -- only name released -- who was twenty-two.) Three Canadian soldiers were also wounded. And veterans of the Vietnam war have joined with others to insist that the United States "take responsibility for victims of the Agent Orange defoliant used by the U.S. military."

I included the Agent Orange sentence because I think that's important but as soon as I read over the copy and paste, I started thinking it was also fitting. We don't follow up on anything. We've denied Agent Orange and we deny what's going on Afghanistan. I'm not sure if I should write "we." Obviously, I'm largely speaking of the administration (which isn't "we" -- I never gave my approval for faith-based funding or for illegal wars or for anything the administration has done) but it's true that "we" also includes the people. And if we demanded that the government be accountable for its actions, they'd have to.

It's all "the other war" unless it's Tom Brokaw getting misty-eyed for "The Great Generation."
We don't think about it, we don't care. You can throw in WWI as well. Tom Brokaw didn't think they were the greatest generation. And with Bully Boy saying "global war on terror" all the time, I've started to realize he really means WWIII.

Katrina vanden Heuvel doesn't want people making comparisons to Hitler and others of his ilk. I like her but I don't work for The Nation and I'll write whatever want, thanks for the suggestion.
Now Hitler's considered to have started WWII. There's dispute about Pearl Harbor (which leads to the US entering) but I think a lot of people would say it was Hitler's actions that set WWII into motion. (If not, e-mail me and gripe.) Who's put the "global war on terror" into motion? Bully Boy.

He didn't want to prosecute terrorism, he wanted a war. He's said it plenty of times, "I'm a war time president." So if he wants a "global war" -- what is that but another world war? "Globe" equals "war."

I remember a city council meeting that a number (a large number) of us attended. And a pastor (not my preacher) spoke in front of it. This was in 2003, a few months after the invasion. He said Bully Boy was acting like Hitler by lying us into war and this White man, at least in his fifties, starts crying. In public. And he's a city council member. And he starts going, "Don't you say that! Don't you say that! Don't you compare our president to Hitler! Don't you say he lied us into war."

Okay, with the Downing Street Memo and this week's memo, I think a lot of us can say, "He lied us into war" and if that causes someone to burst into tears, too bad for them.

But I really don't like Katrina vanden Heuvel telling people what comparisons are "good" or "bad." Maybe it works that way in the White world but she's not speaking for all cultures and she's sure not speaking for the African-American culture around me.

It's like when that creep Bernie wanted to lecture Kayne West about what to say and how to say. African-Americans don't need Whites telling them how to speak. If it irritates you, don't listen. But outside of the conservatives ones, I doubt there was any confusion about what Kayne West meant in the African-American community.

We're still fighting for our rights and we don't need a White person, trying to be helpful or not, telling us how to talk. Maybe it's not that we don't know how to speak, maybe it's that your not the intended audience?

There are cultural differences and a lot of "helpful advice" often seems like a White person is trying to tell us how to speak. It's like when the Katrina victims were testifying to Congress and that White man butted in on the African-American woman and started saying, "Don't you use concentration camps!" She's a grown woman. She can use any damn term she wants to. That was so disrespectful.

It offends White ears? Too bad. If James Brown had polled "I'm Black and I'm Proud" to White audiences, he never would have used it in a song.

You don't want to use a phrase, don't use it. You don't want to make a comparison, don't make it. But quit thinking that Kanye West is talking to you just because you saw him on the TV. A lot of people grasped what he was saying, people of all color, that some New Republic pushing, "War Got Your Tonuge?" silenced White guy didn't get it is his own problem.

And I don't think Harry Belafonte made a mistake comparing Bully Boy to Hitler. I'm proud he said it. Katrina vanden Heuvel listed that as a one of her no-no examples. I'm sorry it was a no-no for her. But in the real world, in African-American circles, we got it. We understood what he was saying. And a lot of us, including me, got it.

It's like when Aretha Franklin sang it "Sock it to me" in "Respect" and when Richard Nixon said "Sock it to me" on Laugh-In. It didn't mean the same thing. There was a racial context. And I really didn't appreciate Katrina vanden Heuvel including Harry Belafonte on her list.

I'm glad she's against the war. But African-Americans were against it in large numbers before it started and that's remained consisentent. We didn't need the mainstream media to report a little of the truth (finally) to form our opinions. We didn't need "tastemakers" with their carefully chosen words telling us how to speak or advising us of what was going on.

Next time Katrina vanden Heuvel wants to make a list of suggestions, she should focus on people of her class, her race, her education background. (I won't say her gender because she doesn't spend a lot of time writing about gender.) Leave the African-Americans and Native Americans off the list of examples and understand that although I respect you, I don't need a White person telling me how to speak or what comparisons to make.

She really offended me by putting Harry Belafonte on her list. As far as I know, The Nation has only one African-American who regularly writes for the magazine, Patricia J. Williamson. So maybe she thinks African-Americans don't read The Nation? If that's the case, we do. If that's not the case, before she tries to put words in our mouths, she might want to consider putting us in the magazine itself in something other than a "Remember Brown v. Board of Education" special issue. I see a lot of Whites writing for the magazine. I don't see a lot of non-whites. I'm assuming Liza Featherstone is Native American based upon her name and that might be a mistake on my part. But I see Featherstone and Williams and that's really it.

Instead of telling everyone how to speak, that time might be better spent trying to make the magazine more representative of how all of us, from various backgrounds speak.

I didn't realize how offended I was by that column until now.

I think it's because I don't think she was trying to offend to anyone. I think she was trying to offer some inspiration and she does that in many of her columns. But I'm serious on this, if you've got a beef with the way people are talking, stick to your own kind. Don't write suggestions for everyone. Not when everyone is represented equally in your magazine. In fact, if it weren't for the Jewish writers, the magazine would probably be overwhelming WASP.

I'd just intended to write about Afghanistan and have no idea how I even got into this topic. I think it was Bully Boy's "global war." That's a world war. WWIII on terrorism, but it's still a world war. We don't have gas chambers. We do have a government that tortures. We do have a government that rounded up people after 9-11 and it was the dark skinned people, not the ones who looked like Katrina vanden Heuvel.

She's spoken out against torture and I know she gets it and then some. But just because she doesn't make the connections other people make doesn't make them wrong. And it may go to the fact that she's writing from her own perspective while attempting to make universal statements.

I'll stop here because I've been trying to rush tonight because Mike wants to note my post. C.I.'s been asking if everyone's doing their part to note at least one other site each day. I called C.I. and said it was very nice (and C.I. notes me all the time) but that I was doing fine. But C.I. wants to be sure that everyone has a chance to be noted. (And C.I. noted Kat twice this morning. Kat said C.I. asked her not to post her review at The Common Ills until she knew she'd have time to blog at her site too because that way people clicking on her name in the review would see something new.)

I just called C.I. even though I know this is a crazy time. I said I had some strong criticism of Katrina vanden Heuvel. C.I. goes, "And?" Which made me laugh. I said, "Well I didn't want to post it if it was going to make you or the community uncomfortable." C.I. said, "Post it. Your opinion matters. If someone disagrees, they disagree. But you need to share your thoughts or there's no point in writing anything." I said, "Well, you noted you disagreed with her column but I'm going into why I disagree with it." C.I. said, "That's fine. There's nothing wrong with that. She wrote her point of view and you're allowed to write your point of view. That's how free speech works. I'll make a point to note your entry tonight or tomorrow morning depending upon how time goes."

I appreicate C.I.'s support. And feel more than a little foolish for wondering if I'd get it. I know from Wally and Mike that one of the sites C.I.'s concerned about getting attention is mine. Trina's and Seth's are two others. C.I.'s never been anything but supportive and that's probably why I did worry. Like most of the community, I do like Katrina vanden Heuvel's writing. I think she's smart and often inspirational. But I think that was a really bad idea. If you have a problem with that, write me and don't gripe to C.I. Visitor or member, take it up with me. (I know, especially visitors, usually go running to C.I. and I don't want to cause a headache for C.I. Especially after last weekend's marathon, never ending session at The Third Estate Sunday Review.)

Let me add that you should check out Rebecca's "iraq in crisis and chaos - the us continuing the occupation will destroy the country" and Elaine's "Peace comes from being able to contribute the best we have" because they are both making strong points. Also Betty's posting a new chapter tonight. (It may be up already.)

Blabbering when I'm tired

Channeling Wally's Bully Boy Press for a moment:

Sunday Condi Rice accepted the apology of Dave Lenihan's racial slur against her. Said Rice, "It didn't hurt at all. It might have if I were African-American but as a White woman, I frequently use racial slurs against those people as well."

Thanks to everyone who e-mailed to say they enjoyed Wally and my joint entry Friday. It was fun writing with Wally. The other thing I got e-mailed about (three) was what happened with The Third Estate Sunday Review to make it take so long for features to go up there? I can't answer that in full because I had to bail to get some sleep before church. I know from Dona and Ty that it was just a long, long session. While I was taking part, there was a lot of discussion. I think it was a case of feeling like the choices were too wide spread and wanting more of a focus. (Some wanting more of a focus.)

Dona said Jim feels really bad because C.I. and Ava were both wiped out. They wrote their TV review near the end of the morning ("TV Review: Joy Ride?") and they both fell asleep while they were writing it. (I'd already bailed at that point). So Jim feels bad about that and about the fact that C.I. still had to go and post at The Common Ills after that. Saturday/Sunday was like pulling teeth.

Jim may write about it and I'll leave it at that in case he does. But it was just a really long session and I wasn't there at the end so I have no idea how it went in the final hours. Ava and C.I. both agreed, while I was helping, to a piece that they really weren't too keen on and they did it because they wanted features on France (the protests) and on Puerto Rico (the way the FBI's targeting those who are part of the independence movement). They were both promised that if they participated on the feature they didn't want to, those features would be done. Then they didn't get done. There was no time, there was no energy. So Jim feels bad about that.

If you read it now, it's a strong edition. But if you were up Sunday morning and ready to read, you may have been disappointed. Jim said that there was only one thing up at 7:00 pm eastern time (one new thing, not highlights). You did get a strong edition. It just took some time for stuff to go up. And because everybody was working hard to smooth out what was completed, Ava and C.I. couldn't break away for their review. They wrote it and it went up.

Ava said she'd talked to C.I. and neither of them have any idea what they wrote but hope that they got the point across that Free Ride was a good show and that it revolved around the main character (Nate) and the environment (the city he lives in). I've read it and I told her it did. (It's a really strong review. I was impressed reading it. I was more impressed when I found out that they both fell asleep while they were writing it. And not the thing where you doze off and then jerk your head back up and wake up. Ava says they were both out for five minutes at least.) Ava said she'd take my word for it because she never wants to read that review.

That's always weird to me, that they don't go back and read their reviews, because I'll go back and read my stuff. I may think, "Wow that wasn't clear" or I might think I did an okay job, but I'll read it. But from what everyone says, it was just the longest, most never ending writing session and the editorial was taken from roughed out stage to completed at which point Ava and C.I. wrote their review. So I guess if it was me in that kind of process (and that's happened before) maybe I'd see it like torture and just be glad something was up (as long as I never had to read it).

If you missed the latest edition, here's what's up:

Danny Schechter speaks on Iraq and the media 7PM March 29th in NYC (open to the public, no charge for admission)
Will Interview With The Vampire become the new Catcher in the Rye?
NSA Hearings This Tuesday on PACIFICA RADIO
Editorial: Who's hiding in the shadows and who's waving their Feingold?
TV Review: Joy Ride?
The Washington Post leaves us still Waiting For Lefty
The 2008 Democratic primary is already over
Saturday's third hour goes to the arts on RadioNation with Laura Flanders
Why They Crawl


I did talk to C.I. today but mainly we talked about highlighting because C.I. wanted to know if I thought I was being highlighted enough at The Common Ills? I think C.I.'s done a wonderful job highlighting me. I appreciate the concern and the ability to always ask "Am I doing enough?" because a lot of people don't have that. (I'm not referring to anyone in the community.) But C.I.'s always doing that sort of self-examination.

Well not always. We talked mid-day Saturday on the phone and C.I. was pissed. You don't get to hear that side of C.I. too often. But this guy had written in slamming C.I. about Iran. "How dare you say ..." And if the person was disagreeing with what C.I. wrote, C.I. would have tossed it around and wondered whether it was fair or not. But this person was cricitizing C.I. for stuff that Margaret Kimberly wrote. That's the one thing C.I. hates. If you disagree, C.I. is more than willing to discuss it (and usually more than willing to take blame that shouldn't be grabbed, in my opinion). But if you're trashing C.I. for something C.I. wrote and C.I. didn't write it . . .

That's just an issue with C.I. Take apart anything written and fine, it's your opinion and you may be right is the attitude. But don't put words in C.I.'s mouth.

I'm going to repost that section from Friday so you can see how it read and it will let me note Magaret Kimberley who is a write I really enjoy:

The above is from Andrew C. Revkin's "Climate Data Hint at Irreversible Rise in Seas" in this morning's New York Times (Brad noted it). One of the few articles worth noting in what's a very "skimpy on news" newspaper today.
When the DN! entry was done yesterday, The Black Commentator's latest edition hadn't gone up yet. Now that it has, we'll note Margaret Kimberley's "Let Iran Have the Bomb" (Freedom Rider, The Black Commentator):
On August 6, 1945 the United States killed over 100,000 men, women and children at Hiroshima, Japan with the newly invented atomic bomb. Three days later a second bomb was dropped on the city of Nagasaki. Some victims were incinerated into thin air, others fled in agony with their skin hanging from their bodies. Thousands more died in the weeks, months and years that followed.
The justification for this horror is the usual one for blood thirsty behavior. We killed people in order to help them, a convenient explanation for the perpetrators.
In fact, large numbers of civilian casualties were not an incentive for the Japanese to surrender. The napalm fire bombing of Tokyo and other cities created similar numbers of casualties but the Japanese didn't surrender after those human catastrophes. More than likely the Soviet Union's declaration of war against Japan motivated the raising of the white flag. The mass murder of thousands served only as a test for a new weapon, a horrific experiment in mass murder.
The United States is still the only nation to use an atomic weapon on human beings. Keep that fact in mind when we are whipped into a frenzy of fear regarding the possibility of Iran developing a nuclear weapon.
Every impartial observer of Iran's nuclear program agrees that it is at least five to ten years away from attaining a nuclear weapons capability. You wouldn't know it to hear members of Congress, the lapdog press and the Israeli government.
Keesha, Lewis and Carl all noted Kimberley's latest in their e-mails.
From Iran to Iraq, Denise notes Matthew Rothschild's "Press Conference Confessions" (This Just In, The Progressive):
OK, Bush finally fessed up: U.S. troops are going to be in Iraq after he's out of the Oval Office, a day that can’t come soon enough.

So you read it. Did C.I. write about Iran? No. "Every impartial observer of Iran's" was the thing that ticked the guy off. He wrote C.I. asking something like, "How dare you write that! You don't know what you're talking about! People who don't know about Iran shouldn't write about it." And the guy didn't say where the thing appeared, C.I. just knew that it wasn't written by C.I.

But how bad a reader do you have to be to read that and miss Margaret Kimberley's name? Or "Keesha, Lewis and Carl all noted"? Pretty bad.

I liked Kimberley's column. I always do. She's a really good writer.

I'm just blabbering on tonight because I'm tired. I'm almost took the night off but decided to post something, anything. Do yourself a favor and check out C.I.'s commentary on the NSA hearing today with an emphasis on Miss Priss Instant Cuckoo.

THIS JUST IN! CONDI RICE HAS HER OWN SET OF RIDERS

BULLY BOY PRESS IN COLLABORATION WITH CEDRIC'S BIG MIX - DC.
UPDATED AT 8:15 P.M.
THIS JUST IN!

CONDI RICE HAS HER OWN SET OF RIDERS.

THE REVELATIONS THAT DICK CHENEY WOULD NOT TOUR WITHOUT A SET OF DEMANDS BEING MET AT EACH STOP HAS LED TO NEWS THAT HE IS NOT ALONE.

SECRETARY OF STATE CONDI RICE HAS HER OWN LIST OF DEMANDS WHEN SHE IS ON THE ROAD.

AT THE TOP OF THE RICE LIST IS THE FOLLOWING "ALL DEMANDS MUST BE MET OR SECRETARY RICE WILL NOT SPEAK AND MAY ORDER THE BOMBING OF YOUR LOCATION."

THE LIST:

*SANDWICH FIXINGS
MUST INCLUDE:

WHITE BREAD
WHITE MEAT TURKEY
MAYO
WHITE CHEESE (MONTEREY)



*DESSERTS ON HAND SHOULD INCLUDE:
VANILLA ICE CREAM
VANILLA PUDDING
WHITE CAKE
WHITE CHOCOLATE ONLY ***NEVER DARK CHOCOLATE***
NO "ESKIMO PIES" **NOTE THAT SECRETARY RICE DOES NOT FIND THAT AMUSING THE WAY COLIN POWELL DID***
*SUITE MUST BE HAVE PLUSH CARPET, WHITE CARPET. WALLS OF SUITE MUST BE PAINTED WHITE.



*SUITE SHOULD CONTAIN A HOME ENTERTAINMENT CENTER


*CDS SHOULD BE PROVIDED.
MUSIC SHOULD INCLUDE CDS BY:
THE BEACH BOYS
BARRY MANILOW
ELVIS PRESLEY
EDGAR WINTER


*DVDS SHOULD BE PROVIDED
DVDS SHOULD INCLUDE:
SONG OF THE SOUTH
GONE WITH THE WIND
ANY MOVIE BY WOODY ALLEN


*SECRETARY RICE DOES NOT ***DOES NOT*** TAKE HER COFFEE "BLACK." ROOM SERVICE SHOULD NEVER ASK THAT QUESTION.


*SECRETARY RICE INSISTS UPON WHITE LINENS FOR BEDDING. NO PATTERNS, NO COLORS.

*WHEN THE SECRETARY REQUESTS "RICE" IT IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD THAT SHE MEANS "WHITE RICE." ***NOT BROWN RICE, NOT DIRTY RICE.****


Recommended: "NYT: Edward Wong: fluffer or stand up comedian?"
"news roundup and grace (will & grace) socks it to the repubes"
"Iraq, Puerto Rico, Chalmers Johnson and Richard Pryor"
"Will Interview With The Vampire become the new Catcher in the Rye?"
"And the war drags on (Indymedia roundup)"


condi
cedrics big mix
the common ills
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
mikey likes it
the daily jot

Will Interview With The Vampire become the new Catcher in the Rye?

Mike thought I might want to do Democracy Now! with him the way Elaine does. It was certainly fun going over the headlines with him. We picked two and I'm sure he talks about them better but I have a third one (actually the second one listed) that I think I'll offer something different on.

Army Dog Handler Sentenced to Six Months For Abu Ghraib Abuse
An Army dog handler has been sentenced to six months in prison for abusing Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison. The sergeant, Michael Smith, was photographed using un-muzzled dogs to terrify detainees. He could have been sentenced to eight and a half years in prison but he was given a far shorter sentence. Smith is the 10th low-ranking soldier convicted of taking part in the widespread abuse at Abu Ghraib. To date no high-ranking officer or anyone in civilian command has been held accountable for what happened at the prison.

Wasn't he furnished with the dog? Why was he furnished with the dog? That's my first thought. My second thought would be: Who's in charge of making sure the animals are not abused? Who checks up on them? Shouldn't that person, if he or she exists, have known what the dog was being used for?

C.I. had some good points this morning -- "NYT: When everyone below him is derelict in their duty, the Bully Boy is as well:"

Torture was policy. It was imported from Guantanamo. Jane Mayer's "The Experiment" (The New Yorker) went behind the development of that program. (Summarized here.) Though the military oversight (in whatever form it exists) and the Congress want to act like revelations haven't come out, they have.
But in terms of what little has been done (very little, as Schmitt notes), groundwork has been laid. It doesn't seem like it, and it's not nearly enough, but groundwork has been laid if anyone had the desire to pursue it. The message from each trial and review is that obligations weren't lived up to. When that goes up to the chain of command (as it has, ending with Rumsfeld) that reflects (and indicts) the Bully Boy who's prone to play "commander-in-chief" of the nation when, in fact, he's only commander-in-chief of the military.
Bully Boy likes to play dress up, likes to play "war time president." But he's played it very badly.
I understand what Schmitt (and Zernike) are getting at (and agree with it): the excuse of "a few bad apples" has led to only the low ones in the chain facing trial and slaps on the wrists for them.
I agree with that point. Torture was a policy. It wasn't an abberation and Lynddie England didn't go to Iraq carrying a dog leash anymore than Smith went there with his own pet (Marco's the dog's name in some reports). They were provided with instruction, encouragement and props for the torture they participated in. The "gloves are off" goes up to Rumsfeld in writing (according to Janis Kaprinski -- interviewed by Amy Goodman in link) and they go to the Bully Boy who suddenly decided that the Constitution, various laws and treaties were out the window because they might 'constrain' him.
Torture was policy (still is) and the only place that's addressed is investigative reporting. I'm not attempting to stamp a smiley face on the events. I am saying that (think in terms of impeachment charges) when, from the lowest to Rumsfeld, the verdicts and reviews speak of derliction of duty that goes directly to the Bully Boy. The secretary of defense serves under the Bully Boy (and at the pleasure of the Bully Boy). The failure from bottom to top and the fact that Rumsfeld remains (because he was carrying out the policies of the Bully Boy like a good little puppet) goes to the Bully Boy.


Now we're going back to Democracy Now!


American Arrested for Bolivian Bombing
In Bolivia, an American man has been arrested along with an Uruguayan woman for bombing two hotels in La Paz. Two people died and at least seven were injured in the blasts. The attacks were denounced by the Bolivian government. President Evo Morales said "This American was putting bombs in hotels. The U.S. government fights terrorism, and they send us terrorists." Police initially identified the American as 24-year-old Claudio Lestad of New Orleans but he reportedly used several other names. Police said the he might be mentally ill.

Here was my first thought: black ops operation. I still think that's possible. The 24 y.o. could be CIA. "Claudio Lestad"? Made up name. That's so obvious. I thought I had to be remembering wrong so I called Ty who loves horror and science fiction novels. He's read all of Ann Rice.

"Claudio" equals "Claudia" the young girl who's turned to a vampire by . . . Lestat. "Lestad" equals "Lestat." And where did it take place? New Orleans. It's a cover of some kind and a pretty obvious one -- unless the guy's mentally ill but being mentally ill might not be a liability in working for the CIA. But Claudio Lestad is totally made up. Will Interview With The Vampire, by Ann Rice, become the new Catcher in the Rye?

I never read Interview With The Vampire, but I did see the movie. I'm guessing that name was pretty obvious, pretty obviously a phoney, to most people.

Court Rejects Giving Puerto Ricans Right to Vote for President
In Washington the Supreme Court has rejected an effort to give residents of Puerto Rico the right to vote in U.S. presidential elections. "No territory of the United States has ever been able to participate in the presidential elections of the United States of America," Puerto Rican political analyst Juan Manuel Garcia-Passalacqua. "That fact only serves to underscore that Puerto Rico is now in the thinking of the United States Supreme Court a miserable colony of the United States."

It's interesting how we treat Puerto Rico. We test weapons there (and ignore their complaints). We don't let them have independence (and we slaughter their independence leaders) and yet we won't let them vote in the United States election. Maybe they'll set the next Guantanamo prison up there? Maybe they already have?

Thanks to Rebecca who phoned with a heads up. Ava's done an entry for The Common Ills mirror site. It's called "Ava's entry." It's only up at the mirror site, not up at The Common Ills website proper. Be sure to read it. Ava's going over some frequently asked questions.

And Mike and Nina found a pretty good article on Richard Pryor. Jason McGahan's "An Iconoclast Remembered: Richard Pryor" (in Clamor magazine):

Numerous obituaries have made passing mention of Pryor's sojourn in Berkeley in 1969-70 that coincided with his studying the speeches of Malcolm X and familiarizing himself with the political philosophy of Black Nationalism. But this period is of considerable interest for the artistic metamorphosis it resulted in. Malcolm X's posthumous influence on Pryor, reaching him as it did at the peak of the Black Power Movement and in its epicenter in Berkeley, is palpable. "Strangely, I hadn't been affected by Malcolm X's death when it occurred," Pryor wrote in his autobiography. "However, after Redd introduced me to him as a person and what he stood for, I missed him terribly." Malcolm X distinguished himself from Black leaders of the Civil Rights movement by opposing racial integration on the grounds that it reinforced the false notion of white supremacy in the minds of oppressor and oppressed. Most Blacks in the U.S., not to mention in the smoldering ruins of colonial Africa, were fighting for racial equality and self-determination, not mere acceptance by whites. Black people, he said, would have to liberate themselves.
The uncompromising ethos of Black Power was born out of the flames of urban race rebellion and urgently called into question modes of practicality and patience that had marked Black behavior for centuries through the Civil Rights Era. Disagreeable though terms like "house negro" and "field negro" may sound, to many Black youths of Pryor's generation they served to distinguish the old integrationist mindset from the new militancy. Black Power was like a giant breach opened in the historical enclosure of Black racial consciousness and pride. And Pryor was absorbing it all, having befriended leading revolutionary Black intellectuals of the period like Ishmael Reed, Angela Davis and Cecil Brown -- not to mention members of the Black Panther Party of Self-Defense. Imbued with the excitement of that historic moment, he began to reevaluate his art and his politics, and, most importantly to analyze the conditions of his life in Peoria in light of everything he had learned.

This probably isn't much of a hard hitting post. But maybe, like me, you've had a tough week? If so, maybe the slap dash nature of this post will be just what you are hoping to read.

By the way, I got an e-mail on Tuesday's post. A woman wrote in to inform that Barack Obama was "the real deal" and that he's got "lots to say, he's just biding his time." Hope he finds a way to say it real soon. His silence on the war is not helping anyone.

I don't think he's the real deal. I think he's this year's annointed "Black" and they're building him up so huge that he'll fail in a short time.

The woman said I was going to regret calling Obama a "house slave." I don't right now, but maybe I will. I doubt it. Jesse Jackson Jr. has more spirit, passion and drive than Obama who always comes off like Tiger Woods trying to impress you . . . off the golf course.

democracy now
iraq
interview with the vampire
ann rice
the third estate sunday review
like maria said paz
mikey likes it
the common ills
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
puerto rico
lestat
richard pryor

The House Slave Gets Applauded By The New York Times

Proof positive that Barack Obama is both a sell out and too White came Sunday in the New York Times when Anne E. Kornblut penned "But Will They Love Him Tomorrow?" Outside of DC, there's not many people high on Obama.

In it, Kornblut writes that Obama has "One admitted speck: a smoking habit that he is working to break, and a past experimentation with drugs." Well is that two "specks"?

Myself, I don't know a lot of people that would equate smoking cigarettes with a drug habit, but maybe it's a White thang?

The piece of nonsense Kornblut wrote is a press thang.

Obama's not a "golden boy" to anyone not on a deadline to churn out some crap for a Sunday paper. He had an easy race after his only real opponent dropped out when it was revealed he forced his ex-wife to go to 'sex clubs' with him. After that, there was never a real opponent.
And that's about the time that Obama stopped speaking out against the illegal war. Before that, when he had a real race in front of him, he would say the war had to be brought to an end. Now days, he's silent.

He doesn't stand up for Feingold's censure motion and maybe that's why the New York Times wants to call him a "golden boy" -- they like their house slaves, like to reward them with a little praise.

Unlike Obama, Coretta Scott King was no house slave and that's why the paper of record didn't write an editorial or run an op-ed on her passing. She was to Black for the paper of record, too vocal.

A little nothing like Obama, who has consistently demonstrated that he will challenge nothing and offend no one, is the perfect house slave for the paper of record. But he's kidding himself if he thinks that will make him electable for president. It won't.

And what's the deal with the New York Times quoting Doris Kearns Goodwin? No one should but especially not the Times after their problems when Jayson Blair passed off other people's writing as his own. Or maybe there's a different standards for "historians"? Or maybe it comes down to the fact, as it usually does, that Doris Kearns Goowdin is White. That probably gives her a pass.

Sunday, as the illegal war got ready for year four, the paper of record praised Obama. Anyone else notice that he long ago lost his voice on the war? Think it's a coincidence that the paper chooses that time to praise him?

Me neither.

Read C.I.'s "And the war drags on. . ." and Rebecca's "bully boy thinks war is funny, do you?" and be glad that some people never lose their strong voices.

Also, I helped out with the latest edition of The Third Estate Sunday Review this weekend and here's the new stuff up there:

A Note to Our Readers
Editorial: 3rd Anniversary and what have you done?
TV Review: Don't call her Elaine (this is written by Ava and C.I.)
Why We March
Christian Parenti on KPFA's Sunday Salon this am and Air America's RadioNation with Laura Flanders this evening
One voice applauded, one not heard?
The ones who go missing, missing from the coverage
Camilo Mejia spoke with Laura Flanders about the 241 mile march
Miles Cameron can't figure out what news is
It should come in a brown wrapper
Who uses free speech?

About the fighters: Russ Feingold, Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez

On Tuesday, Kathleen Callon left a comment and I wasn't able to read it (or my site) Thursday when I blogged last. To make sure everyone sees it, here is her comment:

If you want Senator Feingold to run for President in 2008, please, come over to http://russfeingoldpetition.blogspot.com/ and sign the petition.
Thanks for your time.

Thank you for your comment, Kathleen.

And thanks to C.I. for highlighting my Thursday post to make sure everyone saw it since Thursday and Friday, they couldn't see it. (That was some issue with Blogger. People coming to the blog were greeted with a message of "Forbidden.")

Picking up on Feingold, I'll note that if the primary elections were held today, with who is supposed to be running, I'd be voting for Feingold. He's the only one in the Senate that's stood up. Joe Biden? Do we really want to hear his State of the Union speech? It might take up his entire first term the way he goes on. Hillary Clinton? Do we want someone who can't figure out where they stand? Three years after the war began and she still can't speak out. That's who we want as a president? She'll need a second term just to figure out what she should do in her first term. Evan Blah? (I love Rebecca's nickname for him.) Does the country need to be made sick in its stomach for four years?

Feingold's the only one who stands up.

I'd noted before that I wasn't very fond of Obama and felt he was overly praised. I'd said I'd criticize him when I felt it was deserved. This week, he could have stood up. He's not facing an election. He was elected to the Senate in 2004. So why didn't he support Feingold's censure?

That's all Feingold was trying for, a censure. He wasn't attempting to impeach. (I'm for impeachment.) And you saw cowards who couldn't get behind something that basic. Those cowards don't deserve anyone's vote.

Obama ran as an anti-war candidate. Then he lost interest. Now he's basically a DLC candidate.
As the only African-American senator he needs to be speaking out. But he stays silent. He's not doing anything except filling a seat. That doesn't cut it.

He's one more slave toiling on the plantation these days, asking White master what he can and what he can't do. It's sickening.

But he lost his voice before he won the election. If you saw the DNC convention, you know that he suddenly stopped being the anti-war candidate and became "Bill Cosby, professional scold."
He's a huge disappointment. He could stand but instead wants to crawl (and kiss the feet of establishment, White Dems).

Because he's "Black," a lot of people praised his awful speech. Maybe it was a surprise to them that African-Americans can speak without saying "yo" or "you know" over and over? Maybe the only time they see us is when we show up at the Grammys and the American Music Awards to claim a trophy. Word.

Is that it? He lectured the nation. He scolded it. He didn't take on the programs that hold us back but pushed it onto "personal responsibility" as if people say, "I think I'll live in poverty." That's not reality.

Maybe the cheering of his awful speech came from the fact that it let a lot of people off? His whole message was: It's your own personal problem.

That's probably a safe message for people who don't want government to serve the people and don't want to face up to discrimination.

Obama's a joke and he's made himself a joke. White gasbags can prop him up but the only one who can save Obama is Obama. There's some real personal responsibility, some he hasn't spoken of. He needs to take personal responsibility for his actions, his votes and his cowardice.

Me, I'm still waiting for the Senate to get a Black man in my lifetime. Maybe Russ Feingold is it?

Go read C.I.'s "And the war drags on (Indymedia Roundup)" and wonder how anyone can stay silent after three years? And if you want to see two real reporters, they do exist, listen or watch
"New York Times Chief Military Correspondent Michael Gordon Defends Pre-War Reporting on WMDs." Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez are the real deal. Read Kat's "Amy Goodman grills Gordon; Cockburn and Christian Parenti on RadioNation with Laura Flanders" and C.I.'s "NYT: Can't own up to mistakes, be it the paper or Michael Gordon." Plus, Trina's got a new recipe:
"Charro Beans in the Kitchen." Check it out.


russ feingold
democracy now
amy goodman
juan gonzalez
michael r. gordon
the new york times
the common ills
kats korner
trinas kitchen

Russ Feingold and the Dems

Go to the comments from Tuesday. There's a link someone left to a thing where you can show support for Russ Feingold. So check that out. My plan was to highlight it here. But I can't read my site right now and you can't either.

Try to and you get this message:

Blog under maintenance
This blog is temporarily not viewable.

Friday, I'll try to highlight the comment that was left. I believe it was by a woman but I'm not sure. I saw it this morning at work and it's a link that you have to copy and paste. If you don't know how that works, take your mouse, right click over the link address to highlight it, after it's highlighted, take your finger off the right click, then left click and choose "copy." From there, go up to the top of your web page where "address" is, delete the address shown and then left click and choose "paste." That'll put the address in the address bar and you can just click on "GO" or hit the "enter" key.

Most people probably know how to do that but I know everyone doesn't because Three Cool Old Guys were asking me about that Sunday and I showed them what to do.

Rebecca wrote a must read "you don't need a pollster to know which way the wind blows" about how Democrats stabbed Russ Feingold in the back.

Feingold Criticizes Fellow Dems Bush Measure (Democracy Now!):
Here in the United States, Senator Russ Feingold has lashed out at fellow Democrats for not supporting his measure to censure President Bush for his warrantless domestic spy program. Feingold has failed to attract any co-sponsors. Appearing on Fox News, Feingold said: "I'm amazed at Democrats, cowering with this president's numbers so low. The administration just has to raise the specter of the war and the Democrats run and hide. … Too many Democrats are going to do the same thing they did in 2000 and 2004.… [Democrats shouldn't] cower to the argument, that whatever you do, if you question the administration, you're helping the terrorists."

And because the Hillarys and Bidens and Liebermans stabbed him in the back, the Republicans are trying to play this as "Now we're going to win in 2006!" In the New York Times, that nonsense was treated as fact in an article called "Call for Censure Is Rallying Cry To Bush's Base." C.I. addresses it in "NYT: It's only news when Republicans issue statements" but why does C.I. have to address it? Because big media sucks. Because they had no interest in reporting on the impeachment in the New York Times and no real interest in the censure until they had Republicans crowing, "It's a win for us!"

If the Dems couldn't get behind a censure, how are we supposed to believe that they'll support an impeachment? And if they can't impeach over an illegal war, over warrantless spying, what can they do?

News flash for the Times, in an election year, anything that happens will be a 'rallying cry.'

That's what C.I. wrote and it's true. And it's why the Dems lose. They refuse to do anything. If they do something, it might give the other side ammo. So they do nothing. Over and over.

I'm really getting tired of the do-nothing Dems. There are ones that will stand up. Russ Feingold did. And John Conyers will and Maxine Waters and Barbara Lee. There really are some who will stand up. But most of them are scared little cowards, cowering in the shadows.

And then they wonder why they're seen the way they are.

It's an election year and their strategy seems to be don't say anything, don't do anything. We're in the lead because Bully Boy has screwed up so we're going to win.

Meanwhile, the Republicans are running, they're trying to win. When they pass the Democrats who are standing still, the Dems won't even notice.

It happened in 2004. They attacked John Kerry all during the GOP convention and the people on Kerry's campaign just sat around and watched it.

Like they were thinking, "We have a lead, we don't have to worry."

They do have to worry. They have to worry about doing nothing.

They let all the stupid worries stop them from doing anything.

Democrats support abortion. You can play with that all you want and run all the Repubes in Dem's clothing you want, but Democrats support abortion. Stop running from what you are.

Democrats support Bully Boy paying for his illegal spying and illegal war.

They're doing the same thing they always do. Stand around and do nothing because they're sure they'll win that way. And when they lose, they'll scratch their heads and blame everything but themselves.