Friday, September 01, 2006

Democrats do have a pulse












"Who's going to call out Donald Rumsfeld?"

Recommended: "Iraq snapshot"
"And the war drags on . . ."
"NYT: "In Latest Push, Bush Cites Risk in Quitting Iraq" (Anne E. Kornblut & Sheryl Gay Stolberg)"
"Other Items"
"Lotta Links pushes Voice of America -- the war crimes of indymedia"
"Roundtable & snapshot"
"Found in the paper"
"A roundtable"
"Watch the Breaking Ranks trailer"
"A roundtable"

Thursday, August 31, 2006

A roundtable

Rebecca: Joint entry that you will see at a number of sites. We're doing a roundtable on a number of issues. C.I. made me laugh with an e-mail comparing me to Liz Smith. When I called to talk about the e-mail we ended up discussing a number of things and I thought, "Okay, we can bring this up here." We will touch on Iraq but we're going to be dealing with a number of issues. Participating are:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Ava;
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man;
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review;
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ils);
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix;
and Mike of Mikey Likes It!;

Rebecca: Okay, I'm going to start the topic off with Tom Cruise. Ava?
Ava: We actually attempted to work this in two reviews, the slaughtering of Tom, two of the TV reviews we did this week. But we weren't able to.
Mike: She means her and C.I. and I'll toss out that what we're talking about is the coverage of Tom Cruise. I noted a recent Zogby poll, that Zogby did just on Cruise. It's crazy. The kind of coverage this has gotten is crazy.
C.I.: I'm going to jump in here and will probably say the most on this of anything.
Rebecca: You don't know the topic list!
C.I.: No, I don't. But this is such nonsense. A fuzzy, overly ripe peach fell to the ground and his name is Bummer Redstone. Bummer Redstone doesn't know crap about entertainment. He knows how to please Wall Street. That's all this is about. Wall Street is upset with the box office returns of the last few years. Wall Street wants heads to roll. This happened before. Marilyn Monroe was made an example of to please Wall Street. At the same time she was filming Something's Got To Give --
Betty: Which was never completed.
C.I.: Which was never completed, Fox was in trouble with the overruns of Cleopatra. They intended to fire Elizabeth Taylor. They couldn't get away with that. This wasn't about what Fox wanted for entertainment, it was about what Fox wanted for Wall Street. Paramount is in a free fall. Paramount needs to do something quick to show they're serious. So they do a show-firing of Tom Cruise. This doesn't have to do with Tom Cruise other than he was made the example, the same way Monroe was. This has to do with the investors. Disclosure, I like Paula [Wagner] and Rick [Nicita]. I'm netural on for Tom Cruise. I'm not saying what I'm saying to defend Tom Cruise. We're not friends, I don't care for his acting, I never have. This isn't about his acting. This is about a war on talent. They're also tossing out Lindsey Lohan. It's not about Cruise about her. Redstone wanted to put the blame for the box office of Mission Impossible III on Cruise's personal life. It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with you don't hire a shitty TV director to do on the big screen the same meandering crap he does on the small screen. It's a testament to Cruise's box office power that the film made what it did. With the first two MI's, you had a directors, film directors, making pop corn features. With MI: III, you had a touchy-feely TV director trying to turn in Felecity Learns To Spy. It wasn't going to play, it wasn't going to draw in a huge audience. The fact that it did, the film was a hit, one of the bigger ones of this summer, is a testament to Cruise's box office.
Cedric: I hope all that got down.
C.I.: Sorry. I am talking very fast but this isn't a topic I care to discuss. However, it's one I feel I have to because I am so sick of the New York Times and everyone else lining up to take their shots. Of course the Times is applauding. They applauded the firing of Monroe. They always applaud when money boys try to throw around what they think is their 'power.' Redstone has no power. He can claim all the phone calls he wants and he may have gotten a few but he's damaged the studio. And the pip squeak running it or 'running it' . . . If Sherry Lansing were still heading things, this wouldn't have happened. But it's the difference between someone who knows movies and someone who knows how to do one deal. If you're in the deal business, get your ass back to managing or agenting. Don't try to run a studio. Let me take a breath. Rebecca had a point she wanted to make.
Rebecca: Well, what's hurting the most, what's allowing the garbage to stick, is the fact that media press, not the Times, isn't eager to rush in and defend and that's because they're still smarting over the fact that they can't get a photo of his child. As someone who used to be in p.r., the smartest thing he can do is to immediately grant a photo-op with him, Katie Holmes and the child.
C.I.: Right. At this point, it probably has to be done which is too bad because it shouldn't have to be. But Cruise isn't unbankable. He's still bankable. He's a man and they have a longer shelf life or a perception of a longer shelf life. For a leading man, he's young.
Betty: I didn't understand the criticism of Lohan.
C.I.: That made no sense. She's not a producer, she's not a writer. She starred in what was offered and though she should have picked better, Scarlett Johansson does, blaming her for box office in crap you cast in her is insane. She's starred in some awful movies. Her fan base gave those movies some sort of an audience. She's a very young woman, still finding her way.
Rebecca: Is Hillary Clinton going to take her to Iraq?
C.I.: No. And she needs to let go of that fantasy. Hillary going to Iraq with Lindsey Lohan has "Hollywood" written all over it at a time when Hillary's trying to avoid anything that might get her dubbed "liberal." If we were talking about someone with less publicized personal drama, it might be a go but right now, there's no Iraq trip. If Loham wants to go, she'd be wise to look to the House and not to the Senate period.
Rebecca: In the Times today there was an article on the guy who wrote The Player --
C.I.: Michael Tolkin.
Rebecca: Thank you, did you read it?
C.I.: No. I'm avoiding their arts coverage. They're trying to pull a corpse into Wall Street so they can all stomp it.
Rebecca: Did you see it, Ava?
Ava: I try to avoid that paper period.
Rebecca: Well Tolkin was talking about how film was suffering from a hero track. I'm trying to think . . .
C.I.: Joseph Campbell?
Rebecca: Yes.
C.I.: Campbell's hero's journey has been used in a number of films including Terminator II and Silence of the Lambs. I didn't read the article. Was he saying it was too predictable?
Rebecca: Yes.
C.I.: Well he's fairly attuned and ahead of the curve which is why he's a strong writer. You can't be a strong writer if today you sit down to write what's on the screen right now. Geez, I can see his point but --
Ava: I think it's more than that. I haven't read the article though.
C.I.: Right. Did he talk about the format of scripts themselves?
Rebecca: No, but that's what I thought about because we've sat through enough films in the last ten years where you've been bored out of your mind.
C.I.: Because they think they seized on the formula. So now everyone does it. By the eighth minute, you've got that turning point after the set up, you've got your first act turning point, you've got your mid-point, you've got the second end turning point that's supposed to speed the last thirty minutes along. Everything is done by this formula and it's so obvious, the formula, that there's no thrill, there's no surprise. We really are seeing the same movie over and over. Sometimes it is well acted and/or has strong dialogue, but it's the same damn movie over and over.
Ava: Right. If you know the formula, you know the movie in ten minutes. You've got everything there but the supporting characters. Once you know the formula, there's no point in sitting through most movies because they're so obvious and the surprises to come have been set up in the ten minutes that started the film.
Cedric: What damages someone's box office?
Ava: A woman? Just about everything you can think of. A man? Hardly anything.
C.I.: Harrison Ford isn't unbankable but how he is bankable has changed and there doesn't appear to be any awareness of that thus far. His biggest hit since his divorce was when he played Michelle Pfieffer's evil husband in What Lies Beneath. Ford's image was as a family man, devoted husband. That marriage didn't last. When it didn't and he ended up with the younger Calista Flockhart, there was fallout. He can't play the usual character in a caper right now and get the usual audience. There's got to be some strong recognition of the change in audiences perception. But it didn't make him unbankable. It just meant that more care needed to be taken with roles selected.
Cedric: Well then what about Tom Cruise. He broke up with Penelope Cruz and he divorced Nicole Kidman before that.
C.I.: His box office didn't depend on an image. By the time he married Kidman, he'd already divorced Mimi Rogers. He'd married Rogers when he was a star. He's not marketed his personal life in a confessional. He's marketed it in the most general terms.
Ava: This is the man who was on the cover of Time and other magazines talking about his love for then wife Mimi Rogers when news broke that they were divorcing.
C.I.: Right.
Ava: The conflict with Brooke Shields isn't that big of thing. Sean Connery's done worse and gotten away with it. The couch hopping was extreme but consider the show. You're practically begged to make a fool of yourself and when you don't, Meg Ryan didn't, it's obvious that the big O isn't pleased.
Rebecca: But all of that could be wiped away with some photos of him with child and Holmes.
Ava: I think so. It's more a puzzlement than a turning away. It's more a "What's up with Tom Cruise?" than a Michael Jackson.
Cedric: So why Cruise?
Ava: You want bragging rights.
C.I.: Redstone's got nothing if he did that to Lohan. In fact, he'd look like the prick he is, my opinion, if he did it to Lohan because she is so young. It would create a sympathy factor. Cruise was selected to make an example of and by choosing someone with that big of a name, he gets to look like he's whipping the entertainment industry into shape when all he's doing is driving people away, predominately to Warner Bros. which has had nonstop meetings.
Rebecca: Talk about that.
C.I.: You're not going to set up shop with some asshole that's going to stab you in the back. What Redstone did is appalling. The entertainment industry works on perception to a great degree, he's attempting to destroy the reality of Cruise's box office with this perception that his career is over. Long after Redstone's name is forgotten by all but the Times, Cruise will still be known. Most don't remember the name of the man who fired Marilyn Monroe. This is the same thing that happened then and I'm about to get really long winded. We're seeing a fundamental shift and people want to pin it off on techonology. It's not about technology. It's about a shift in mood in the country.
Rebecca: Tolkin talked about that.
C.I.: Again, he's very attuned. But this is the shift that the entertainment industry spent much of the sixties trying to address. Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper tapped into something and then, realizing they knew nothing, studios started letting others have that opportunity. Some succeeded, some failed. But the traditional fare had gotten moldy and people weren't lining up for it. It's the same thing today. The three act structure is as predictable as any Doris Day & Rock Hudson sex comedy was then. None of this has anything to do with Cruise. But it lets Redstone look "tough" on Wall Street while driving away a lot of people who will not work for that studio as their first choice. There's talk of "I'll never work for them again." That's true until they offer the better dea, for most people. But Paramount is damaged and Wall Street can do cart wheels and the Times can cheer Redstone on, but they'd do well to remember that Darryl Zanuck ended up back in charge at Fox following the firing on Monroe. But, Mike, you go to movies, do you find them exciting?
Mike: Not really. I love V is for Vendetta and wish I'd gone to see that at the movies. But most of the movies are just boring. Superman was boring and too sweet, like I was getting a cavity just from watching.
Betty: Well, I don't see anything at the movies except animated films, I only go with my kids, but, I'd say when Quentin Tarantino came along, it seemed like there was going to be some life but what I got instead were a lot of bad rip-offs.
Cedric: Rip-offs of the stories. There was none of the excitement of Pulp Fiction. I wouldn't have put it the way you did, C.I. did, but thinking about it now, it is the same story. I'm not talking about the story of the hero as much as I am that I can see those breaks you're talking about and I know instinctively when I can go to the bathroom and not worry about missing anything.
Ava: Right. Because everyone's following Syd Field's three act structure. It's supposed to have been the miracle cure the: Do this and even you can write a script. And it should be noted that a lot of the edges that would make it onscreen get destroyed in test screenings that lead to reshoots.
Rebecca: Anything else before we move to the next topic? No. Okay, next up, and I'm sure C.I. will sit this one out --
C.I.: Unless it's Iraq, I will. Otherwise I'll take notes.
Rebecca: It's not Iraq. Cedric, Betty and Ty responded to an e-mail to Cedric in Cedric's "Noel, who's not in the US military, wants to send them to fight his war." As someone whose own posts led to Cedric be put on the spot, my apologies.
Cedric: No need for that. I was glad to weigh in. Noel tried to make an appeal to me that, as an African-American, I should be on his side regarding Darfur and want the US military over there.
Betty: As a rule, I tend to get nervous when White people are rushing to 'save' Black people. As a Black women, if the 'saving' isn't being advocated by reliable Black voices, I'm already suspicious and the Out of Iraq Into Darfur groupies are White. You can call me racist if that makes you feel better, but this Black woman has seen too many White 'saviors' that have only made things worse.
Cedric: And it's a one-note story that doesn't go into the historical or even recent events. And if you can meet with Bully Boy before your mini-demonstration in March, you're really not a protest group, you're an extension of the administration.
Kat: Good point. What I liked about that response, well what I liked most, was the fact that it was turned back on Noel. The military isn't his toy to be sent here and there whenever he wants. And military solutions are not diplomatic ones. I really enjoyed what the three of you wrote.

Betty: Well, Cedric wrote it up. We all talked about it, but give Cedric the credit for writing it up.Mike's "Lotta Links pushes Voice of America -- the war crimes of indymedia" tonight made me laugh. Mike usually cracks me up. But I thought that was an important point to make, that the Darfur movement/craze must be supported, a website seems to suggest, and proves it by linking to a story from Voice of America.
Kat: I didn't see that yet. Fill me in.
Mike: Lotta Links linked to a Voice of America story on Darfur.
Kat: What?
Mike: Yeah, I was shocked too. They're linking to a propaganda news organization that if legally forbidden to broadcast in this country because it's a propaganda unit of the government and Congress said American citizens could not be propagandized by their government.
Cedric: I'm sorry, Mike, I hadn't read it either. I was just getting home from visiting Three Cool Old Guys when the roundtable was about to start. But they really did that?
Mike: Yep.
Cedric: Then let me you and say, "And this is why the left sucks."
Mike: The Sammy Powers movement, I understand what Betty's saying and agree, but if you ask me, they're nothing but this centuries Carrie Nations. Samantha Powers, grab your axe.
Kat: That is a hilarious comparison.
Rebecca: We're all opposed to sending US troops into Darfur. Do we want to stay on this topic or move on?
Betty: Well, before we do, Guns and Butter, as Kat's noted, did a wonderful two part discussion on Darfur.
Kat: They actually did a show while I was gone, while I was in Ireland, as well. July 17th, I think. I haven't had a chance to listen to it yet but a lot of e-mails say I need to recommend that as well as the two-parter.
Cedric: And I want to back Mike up. Independent media should not be providing the same voice, Eric what's his name, that's all over the mainstream. There are independent journalists, have them on. Have on Keith Harmon Snow or Joshua Frank or . . . .
Betty: Sara Flounders. And it's Eric Reeves.
Cedric: Thank you.
Kat: And to be clear, Z-Net and others have covered this. This Sammy Powers craze is not representative of all of the left. I don't think it's representative of even most of the left. It's made up of a lot of evangical right wingers which is why I find the Carrie Nations comparison so humorus.
Rebecca: Okay, now we're turning to The New Yorker. See, I really did make a list of topics. The August 28th issue had two features that I thought somebody might want to comment on. For the record, I hated them both. First up, George Saunders "Proclamation." In this piece, Saunders attempt to comment on Iran with humor and to do so from the perspective of their president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Kat: I know that article. I picked up the issue at C.I.'s. Did you want to comment on it?
C.I.: No, you go.
Kat: I just found it offensive. It's supposed to be making fun of the president but I felt like it made fun of Iranians, made fun of people who didn't speak English, go down the list. I found it insulting, not funny and thought, "Oh look, The New Yorker's doing 'shit' jokes now. And using the word 'shit.'" This probably can't go up at The Common Ills now.
C.I.: It was already iffy. It'll go up at the mirror site.
Rebecca: Well I agree. It just seemed so pompous, so ha-ha, let me make fun of how the foreigners talk. I wouldn't have cared if the president was a fool, any president of any country, but that really did seem to treat Iranians as backwater, undeveloped, unthinking, simple-minded fools. I found it very offensive too. Anyone else?
Mike: I don't read the magazine unless Seymour Hersh or Jane Mayer have an article in it.
Rebecca: Then you can't comment on the next article, also from that issue, Malcolm Gladwell's "The Risk Pool." Anybody?
Ava: I actually read that because Jess was outraged by it. I was as well. We're in a crisis. I love how we're always in a crisis. But Gladwell tells you we're in a health care crisis and a pension crisis and he pins it on the fact that, he says, there are more retirees than workers. Didn't Paul Krugman already tackle that myth and disprove it? More importantly, people didn't go from 31 to retirement age. Big business doesn't need bail outs, they need to be asked what they were doing all those years when they should have been preparing for retirements. People pay into pensions. Where did the money go? I know where it went, it went to stock points and bonuses. Gladwell wants to act as though the number of people hitting retirement age was an unknown. It was a known, it could be calculated and planned for. If the same companies, he focuses on GM, had forecast so poorly regarding a product, Wall Street would be up in arms. Instead, what you get is, "These things happen and the population bulge is so big" and wah, wah, wah. The bulge was big when those workers started, the bulge was big when those workers were ten years away from retirement. To ignore the bulge was bad planning on the part of big business unless the plan all along was to deny promised benefits.
Cedric: I wish I'd read the article because I'm sitting here nodding along with everything Ava's saying.
Rebecca: Kat?
Kat: No. I read the Saunders thing mistakenly thinking it would be funny. I was so disgusted with it, I had no interest in the rest of the issue.
Rebecca: Okay, we're turning to The Progressive. Ava wanted one thing put on here. Ava?
Ava: I just wanted to say that while I appreciated what Luis J. Rodriquez was saying, he overlooks a perceived threat and if the immigration rights movement is going to confront the obstacles being put in front of the movement, then what people see as threats need to be noted.
Betty: And The Nation had an article on that very topic recently.
Ava: I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but could you talk about that. I haven't read that issue yet. We're all at C.I.'s -- Dona, Jess, Ty, Jim and I -- and the magazines tend to make there way from person to person slowly.
Betty: Okay. It was written by Bob Moser. I don't know the title.
C.I.: "White Heat."
Betty: Thank you. I'm looking for my copy. Moser went to Nashville to attempt to grasp where this anger/fear was coming from. He met a woman who saw herself as a free spirit and she felt she'd usually supported the 'right' left causes but on immgiration, she was vocally and actively opposed to it. He spoke with her, Bob Moser, and to other people as well. Including a dee jay who'd joked that the answer was to "shoot them." The dee jay, and I've got the issue now, so I'm flipping, said his remark was meant as a joke and just off the top of my head but the response at the rally he was attending to his remark was positive. Okay, his name is Phil Valentine. It's the August 28/ September 4, 2006 issue and the article starts on page eleven. He speaks with Stephen Fotopulos who is there trying to create a dialogue and get people to move beyond fear. He says, "What I really value about being in Tennessee right now is that this is Middle America, and there's no winning this immigration debate without understanding what people think here." Here is Nashville which has had a very vocal segment opposed to immigration.
Ava: I think that's a strong point. My point with regards to Rodriguez' article on pages seveteen and eighteen of the September 2006 issue of The Progressive is that I'm not sure whom he's talking to. He's addressing the English only movement. Now, we were all speaking on Tuesday and a number of people my age, we were talking to students, wanted us to speak to some of their parents groups so we stayed over an extra day. I'm Latina so maybe that's why middle-aged women felt that they could raise the issue with me, I hadn't spoken about immigration, we were largely speaking about the war --
C.I.: Jess had spoken about immigration.
Ava: Right, Jess had. But I was approached, at three different events, by three different women, White Anglo women, who felt they were really wronged. Their issue was that they worked in offices, all three did, I don't think they worked at the same offices, but they told the same story. They felt that in their offices, co-workers spoke Spanish to talk about them with others who spoke Spanish. Now, we were in New Mexico by the way, they felt the need to tell me that while they were not in favor of building a wall between the US and Mexico or in turning immigrants into endentured servants, they were in favor of English Only because they felt such a policy would make their office lives run more smoothly. When we got back to California, we were talking to some friends in the immigration and the anti-war movement and I brought that up and was surprised that so many had heard similar stories. I'm not passing a judgement on the women in this roundtable, I'm just noting that this was their fear and it was apparently a not uncommon fear. I wasn't aware of that until we got back to California, that it wasn't that uncommon. If you're addressing the English Only push, if you're responding to it or trying to help people see that this is not an attack on English, I think you need to be aware of it. I wasn't until this week. I was surprised. Then we got back and I heard everyone saying, "Oh yeah, I've been told that." Then I was shocked. I don't cover English Only, I would assume someone who did would be aware of this. There were other issues as well that they raised but I feel llike I've talked too long.
Betty: I will note that I had a supervisor who attempted three years ago to implement an English only in our office for that reason. It only caused more problems. But there were a number of people, Black and Anglo White, who felt that when people were speaking Spanish, they were talking about them.
Ava: Did you ever feel that way?
Betty: No, but I was friends with most of them. I knew them. And when we'd all go out to lunch, they'd mix the two languages and I knew that it wasn't to talk about me but because they were bilingual and it was sometimes a word that came to mind quickest, or a phrase, and sometimes it would be that they weren't sure of the phrase in English, and would say that to me, and other times it's just that it's part of who you are. If you know how to speak another language and someone else does, of course you're going to want to speak it with them.
Ava: But there were tensions in the office for others?
Betty: Yes, a number of people were convinced that anytime something was said in Spanish, especially if laughter followed, they were being talked about. This wasn't true of every Anglo White or Black person in my office but it was true of enough of them that they got together and complained to the supervisor.
Mike: So what happened?
Betty: She implemented a policy. I was outraged. Especially since some people were dealing with people who only spoke Spanish. That was their job. If you've hired someone for that as their job, I don't see how you can then tell them, "Well don't do it." If you have a skill, you need to practice it. But, long story short, too late, upper management got a complaint and the policy was dropped.
Mike: Then what happened?
Betty: It really wasn't an issue after that. I don't know why. Maybe because those complaining about the Spanish in the office realized upper management wasn't going to support them, maybe because while it was briefly in place, they heard that they weren't the topic of conversation. But it went from about nine people being really angry and mad to just one. But it was fear based and I agree with you that it's something, if you're trying to help people get over their unreasonable fears, that you need to be aware of.
Rebecca: Anything else?
C.I.: I'll just add that Rodriguez makes the point that the second generation, the first born of immigrants, tend to immerse in the dominant culture and that is true but it's also true that, regardless of what ethnic or racial group you're talking about, the third and fourth generations tend to have a reclaiming of heritage. The reclaiming isn't noted. But you're avarage majority-minority relations sociology class addresses that in the first weeks of the class.
Cedric: I'll offer my opinion on that, and I did learn that in sociology, when we discussed it, the feeling of the class was that when you're first generation born in America, your like every other kid in America wondering if your parents are embarrassing you? Are they hugging you too much? Are they babying you? Go down the list. So it's part of the growing process that every generation has. And when you add in that you're dealing with language and other issues, that's just more that you're moving from to establish who you are. Your children are, the grandchildren of immigrants, coming at it differently because they have assimilated parents so there's not the same concern when they're attempting to define themselves plus we all love hearing our grandparents stories. That was our spit balling of it.
Rebecca: Our second article from The Progressive, September 2006, is Adolph L. Reed Jr.'s "When Government Shurgs: Lessons of Katrina." By the way, Bety can't italicize at her site without it running together into the next word. Are we using quotation marks?
Kat: Not in sections I've typed.
Rebecca: Okay, well we'll all just not itacilize and assume that people are smart enough to grasp. We have very smart readers.
Cedric: I loved that article. It was my favorite in the magazine. I felt it was the best look at the realities of Katrina. Race is involved but there's class and other issues that factored in as well. I really enjoyed the information and the way that was written.
Betty: He did have an engaging writing style. And what's been done to the evacuees could not have been done without assiatance from Blacks. There's always going to be some who will stab their brothers and sisters in the back and that's been true forever and a day. In New Orleans, they sided with the establishment Whites to do away with public housing and reasonable rents.
Cedric: And the whole concept of who was a 'stakeholder' and how the ones in charge based it upon ownership.
Mike: But it's Bully Boy's method. I'm not giving the ones in New Orleans a pass, but I'm saying it could only happen under Bully Boy. He's done the same thing with Iraq, turned it into a 'free marketers' wet dream. With a real president, the actions taken in New Orleans could not have been taken because a president who truly represents the people would have been disgusted by the choices made and hesitant to rely on big business as the almighty savior.
Betty: Absolutely. He set the tone. And the decision makers knew they had not only a free hand but encouragement. They acted accordingly and it's the people who suffered in the hurricane and in the wake of it that are still suffering.
Kat: The poor. And what stood out to me the most was that section on the distribution of the DVDs. That might have been covered a year ago by the news media, but if it was, I had forgotten it. But, I'm going to quote here because I think this is really important: "Two months before Katrina, Mayor Ray Nagin's administration determined that it couldn't afford to provide public transportation to evacuate residents in the event of a major storm. So the city produced DVDs to distribute in poor neighborhoods, alerting residents that they would be on their own. There was no attempt, as part of the evacuation plan, to promvide transportation for the nearly 100,000 New Orleanians who didn't own dependable cars and couldn't afford to pay their way out of the city. This was triage without the name or the courage of its convictions." Reed goes on to write that this determination is at the heart of the Katrina tragedy because issues of public good always took a back seat to cost ratios. The government's first job is to protect its citizens. If it's not maintaining that, then it's not doing anything.
Cedric: Right, he writes: "The Nagin administration couldn't afford to deploy enough buses as part of its evacuation plan because it gave higher priority to dedicating funds to other purposes -- such as subsidizing development and keeping taxes and fees low."
Rebecca: Which brings us back to the point C.I. made in real time about the difference between tragedy, the hurricane, and injustice, the response.
C.I.: I was noting Judith N. Shklar's The Faces of Injustice. That's was her concept. Just to give credit where it's due.
Rebecca: Okay, great roundtable and C.I.'s got to do "And the war drags on" still so my apologies for breaking the agreed upon half-hour. Cedric upped his participation via Katrina, but Mike, you're lagging!
Mike: I'm sorry, it's the heat and it's past eleven my time. I'll try to participate more.
Rebecca: You're forgiven. By the way, everyone was invited but this was last minute and Wally, Jim, Ty, Jess and Dona had plans to see a concert and, of course, Elaine has group on Thursday nights and I didn't invite her for that reason. She would have tried to participate but after doing therapy all day and then doing it at night, she is wiped out. She would have been here and I'll hear tomorrow that I should have invited her but she would have been exhausted before we started and I wasn't going to do that to her when she still has to go into work tomorrow. But we're in the home stretch, boys and girls, and we're finally on Iraq. "There Is Silence in the Streets; Where Have All the Protesters Gone?" by Andrew Rosenthal ran in this morning's New York Times and, C.I., I don't want to hear that it's an op-ed because this isn't going up at the main site for The Common Ills so you can engage in this conversation.
C.I.: But I haven't read it. I don't usually read the opinions.
Rebecca: Grab the paper, I know you've probably go the main section by the computer in the bedroom still.
Kat: Well, I did read it because Jess and I discussed it. I'll note that it doesn't perpetuate the lie that people are streaming out of the Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young concerts when "Let's Impeach the President" is played. They didn't when I saw them live. But there's this myth, sort of a Pearl Jam redux, that says it is happening. That's the only thing nice I can say about it.
Ava: That was the only nice thing Jess could say as well. He kept trying to get me to read it and I kept saying, "Get that crap away from me."
Mike: So --
Rebecca: We've just delted a lengthy section that I wish we could keep because C.I. had a funny line about Fleetwood Mac. But we'll go back to the Rosenthal column.
Mike: He's basically saying that the generation, younger, of today isn't active and doesn't care to be. He makes comments and comparisons to his day and I don't think he's bothered to look around, he's another desk jockey who didn't see a story in the New York Times so he's convinced nothing must be happening because action is ike a tree falling in the forest, if the paper didn't write about it, did it happen?
C.I.: It's an opinion piece. While I strongly disagree with it, it's also true that he's expressing frustration and on some level may be attempting to goad people into activity, or shame them. Obviously, there's action in the peace movement, whether or not the paper covers it, but I'm not so sure the article wasn't a prove-me-wrong type piece on some level. I'd also add that his comparisons have a built-in problem because he's comparing today to, largely 1968 and after, and we're really just recently arriving at the point where a groundswell could effect in a similar way.
Kat: That's a good point. Kent State is 1970 and it's after other protests have taken place. That's why the National Guard was sent in by Nixon to begin with.
Ava: And if Elaine were here, she's make the point that the peace movement has existed without mainstream support and that it's existed with very little independent media support.
Cedric: Never more so than in the last two months.
Betty: Amen.
Ava: So, it's foolish to compare the two.
C.I.: Today's movement will be led by the people of today. He's staring in the rear view mirror and people are ahead of him on the crosswalks. The sixties had a youth culture before it had an anti-war movement because the youth culture began in the fifties as the baby boom came of age. College students and high school students are involved and their involvement will only grow. Only someone who was out of it at the beginning and out of it now would think that there's been no measurable progess.
Ava: And look at what we had to go up against.
Kat: Like Baby Cries a Lot. Annointed as our liberal voice on radio and he still can't call for the troops to come home.
Rebecca: Exactly. And when C.I. made that point a long time ago, it was considered controversial. Now it's accepted and you can read it in most places. But he did hurt the movement. Now he's not taken seriously and who cares what he thinks. But a lot of people with microphones and platforms were clamping down and saying, "Oh, we've got to stay over there."
Cedric: Well, let me say The Common Ills because I know C.I.'s going to get ticked off, but the community did address the war in the post-election 2004 period and most people didn't. Most people were off drooling over ways to gather up the mythical 'vangical voters. When you think of what we've had to overcome not only from outside the left but from within the left, it's amazing that it's progressed as far as it has.
Betty: And talk about the distractions. We're trying to end the war and the Sammy Powers are trying to pull the troops out so they can go to Darfur. We're up against a lot and the Bully Boy doesn't meet with us and we don't get fawning coverage from the media and we can have 300,000 rally last March --
Ava: At least 300,000.
Betty: At least, and we're treated to less mainstream attention than the small number of Darfurian Saviors. And on Democracy Now, we're presented as the same because we're given the same amount of time, a headline, in the Monday after the protests. Mike?
Mike: And let's be real, independent media lost interest in Iraq for over two months. There has been little support for the movement and the support that it has gotten has been from very few but that was appreciated. But really, dropping Ehren Watada, not going to Camp Casey, that's nonsense. The independent media failed. Plain and simple. There were exceptions. But collectively they failed. C.I.?
C.I.: I don't disagree with you on that. They dropped the ball. Iraq vanished completely. You could go whole weeks listening to independent media and never hear a thing about Iraq beyond headlines. It is very sad. I'm saddened by it. I think those who dropped it should ask themselves some serious questions. It shouldn't have happened, it shouldn't happen again and it shouldn't be the case that the coverage has still not picked back up -- however, the coverage has still not picked back up. I was on the phone with Rebecca's grandmother today and I agree with her completely, when your country goes to war, you don't drop the coverage to grab every other topic in the world. When most people are finally at a place where they want to talk about the war, you don't say, "Oh, okay, we did that now let's move on." But that's what's happened. It's very sad. And don't think Bully Boy didn't know he could divert attention by encouraging and approving of Israel's armed aggression and war crimes. He knew that would defocus attention from him. He or someone with a brain in his inner circle. It was a perfect play in that regard and people got played because instead of offering that story, which did matter, in balance with coverage of Iraq, we got that story wall-to-wall and little else.
Mike: Will you be promiting the upcoming book by --
C.I.: Don't say their names. No, I won't be. Why would I promote them and their book when one of the writers elected to ignore Iraq and still largely ignores it? We won't be noting the book, we won't be noting personal appearances, we don't even note the program. The community turned on it. As I said, I'm not the Bully Boy. I grasp that when opinion has hardened, there's nothing you can accomplish by ignoring it. But more to the point, when someone drops Iraq, they're not someone I'm interested in getting the word out on. Even were we covering the program today, which we no longer do, I wouldn't be promoting the book. Independent media rode Iraq to a larger audience and then, this summer, they turned their back on the war. Overt or not, a pact was made with the audience, you support me and get the word out because I will cover Iraq, I will address it seriously, blah, blah, blah. That pact was broken. I hope that answers your question.
Mike: It does. But I was worried we'd see upcoming appearances and the book noted.
C.I.: Worry no more, it's not happening. If you don't treat the war seriously, the community has no interest in you. There's no point in publicizing something the community doesn't care about. I know you've expressed that you hope the book does poorly. I don't share that wish but I won't be surprised if, as with Baby Cries a Lot, the authors find a smaller audience this go round at publishing. What passed for bravery in 2003 and 2004 doesn't cut it today and, honestly, that program isn't even maintaining that level, they've fallen. As Ann Wright said in July, we have to be upping the ante.
Rebecca: And on that note, I'm calling this to a close. I know C.I.'s still got an entry to do. Thank you to everyone who participated. Thank you to Kat, Ava and C.I. who typed up the transcript throughout. Cedric, do the summary.
Cedric: We started out with Tom Cruise as an example of when big business attacks. We also addressed the so-called unexpected 'crisis' in pensions, Hurricane Katrina, immigration, English only, bad humor and Iraq. See, you can cover more than one topic.
C.I.: Jumping in, Camp Democracy starts next week in DC, September 5th.

Mr. Wrong says "You're wrong!"










Recommended: "Iraq Snapshot"
"NYT: 'Violence Grows . . . in Face of Security Plan' (Damien Cave)"
"Other Items"
"Taste Makers, time for you to wake up"
"Watch the Breaking Ranks trailer"
"e-mails and iraq"
"Who's going to call out Donald Rumsfeld?"
"America is losing Iraq: Is anybody watching?"

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

Who's going to call out Donald Rumsfeld?

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills)
Wednesday, August 30, 2006. Violence and chaos continue with
CBS and the AP calling the fatalities at 52 and the AFP going with 77. The blink-and-you-missed-it truce (with one militia, the Mahdi Army) is off less than 24 hours after it began reports AFP, South Korea's numbers in the so-called coalition drop, in Australia the Jake Kovco inquiry takes shooting lessons, and the Bully Boy has explained to Brian Williams for NBC Nightly News the key to his failure -- Reuters: "Let me, let me . . . look, the key for me is to keep expectations low."
At that, if nothing else, the Bully Boy has succeeded. Equally disappointing is the puppet of the occpuation, Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, who spent much of Sunday swearing there was and would be no civil war. Reality has a a way of slapping the Operation Happy Talkers in the face. Where have you gone
Spinmeister William Caldwell IV, an administration turns its frantic eyes to you?
In Baghdad, an explosion at a market has
killed at least 24 and left at least 35 wounded. CBS and AP report that the bomb went off at "one of Iraq's largest markets, where wholesalers sell food, clothing and house products to businessmen and shopper." AFP notes that "[b]ody parts and the remains of those killed and wounded were strewn across the area. Windows of nearby shops were shattered, two cars were ripped apart and popular restaurant blown open."
The bombing of the market wasn't the only Baghdad bombing today. The
BBC notes that three people are dead and 21 injured as a result of a a car bomb "near a petrol station". CBS and AP identify the three dead from that bombing as Iraqi police officers. Before the market blast in Baghdad, a bomb was hidden on a bicycle in Hilla, AFP reports, "that exploded outside the army recruitment centre" killing at least twelve people and leaving 38 wounded. Reuters notes that five members of a family were killed (three women, a man and a child) and two members wounded from a roadside bomb in Buhriz. Southeast of Baghdad, the AP notes: "An Iraqi army major was killed in Kut . . . by a roadside bomb." Reuters notes "two border guards" are dead in Badara from a roadside bomb. The Financial Times of London notes two dead from a bomb in Karrada. Sabah Jerges (Australia's Herald Sun) reports "a bombing in the oil city of Kirkuk" that took three lives.
Check the math, but that should be 52 killed by bombs today. Shootings?
CBS and AP note that Nadiya Mohammed Hassan and her bodyguard and driver were shot-dead in Baghdad. Reuters notes three brothers were shot dead in Numaniya. The BBC reports that, in Baghdad: "Gunmen shot dead three textile workers travelling to work in a taxi". And CBS and AP note: "a civilian driving in his car in northern Mosul was apparently shot and killed by American troops who opened fire when the man's vehicle came too close to them."
You read that right. Possibly, it's Shirley Jackson time.
AFP reports that one person is dead in Samawa and ten wounded after "hundreds of young men" seeking jobs "pelted stones at the building and burnt tyres when clashes broke out between them and the police." Reuters notes the police fired at the crowd. Bullets, stones? Someone is dead. AFP identifies the person as "a volunteer." The Finanical Times (with a Reuters report) notes a witness who says that the person was shot by the police.
Sabah Jerges (Herald Sun) estimates that today's violence resulted in "at least 77 Iraqis" dead. AFP goes with "at least 77" as well.
AFP notes: "five bodies washed up on the banks of the Tigris south of the capital . . . . blindfolded and shot in the head" while Reuters notes two corpses were found ("gunshot wounds . . . torture marks") in Qaim as well as, in Falluja, the corpse "of a civilian . . . found three days after he was kidnapped" and one in Numaniya "bearing signs of torture."
Of course, on Tuesday, a torture czar could be found in Baghdad. The
BBC reports that on the question of torture (which is illegal, though he and the administration appear to have forgotten), Gonzales stated "it is difficult to decide what is appropriate" and that it's "a difficult decision as to where to draw the line" but that "decision will be made by the Iraqi government". So exactly why did he waste US tax payer money going to Baghdad? To meet with "officials at the Iraqi High Tribunal . . . trying ex-leader Saddam Hussein and six others on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity." Possibly he wanted to try out the defense he'll mount in US courts should he ever be held accountable?
Danny Schechter ( notes, "One recent report placed the costs of the war at $1.75 billion per week. The Cost of Iraq War calculator is set to reach $318.5 billion September 30, 2006. With the skyrocketing costs of the war in Iraq, worldwide military spending soared. Wouldn't you think that that alone would have our news media all over the story? If you think that, think again."
Sadly, he is correct. It's been a summer of chasing after a lot of stories, giving wall to wall coverage, and letting a lot drop through the cracks -- mainly Iraq -- and that's true of all media, big and small.
Along with the dropping Iraq coverage, the numbers in the so-called coalition continue to drop as well. The
Korea Times reports that, on Tuesday, people gathered to see off the 1,179 (South) Korean troops headed to Iraq to replace the 1,8000 (South) Korean soldiers who will be returning home. That's 621 more soldiers leaving Iraq then are headed to it.
In peace news,
Sandip Roy (New America Media) spoke with Bob Watada. Bob Watada is the father of Ehren, the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq. On the issue of Ehren Watada's refusal to serve in the illegal war, his father stated: "It's in the code of military justice, it's in the field manuals that you have a dut to disobey an unlawful order. The Nuremberg Tribunal which we signed on to and probaly drafted parts of, clearly says any military official can be prosecuted if they are complicit in war crimes and clearly we have massive war crimes going on in Iraq today."
Last Thursday night, a military spokesperson noted the recommendation forthcoming re:
Ehren Watada's Article 32 hearing: court-martial. That recommendation is now working its way through the chain of command. To weigh in with support for Ehren Watada, Cedric (Cedric's Big Mix) is advising those calling Donald Rumsfeld (703-545-6700) or mailing him (1000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1000) to say: "Hands off Ehren Watada! Let him go." Billie advises that you can use to e-mail the Pentagon. She suggests "Re: Ehren Watad" or "ATTN: DONALD RUMSFELD." Courage to Resist and will continue to offer resources, ideas and inspiration. Get the word out.
In other peace news Michelle Mason has made a documentary entitled
Breaking Ranks. The film premieres tonight at the Montreal World Film Festival. The festival notes: "Breaking Ranks examines the incidence of U.S. soldiers seeking refuge in Canada as part of their objections to the war effort in Iraq. The film documents the experiences of several American army deserters who face one-to-five years prison time if they are deported and convicted of desertion. If however, Canada refuses to deport the soldiers, it faces considerable friction in its relations with the U.S. Filmed in cinema verite style, the film combines personal stories with political, cultural and historical analysis of the issues these soldiers' actions raise for Candada and for its current policies."
Breaking Ranks plays at 9:30 pm at the Cinema Quartier Latin 13 tonight and at 10:00 am at the same location on September 1st. Nelson Wyatt (Candian Press) spoke to filmmaker Mason as well as war resister Kyle Snyder. Mason noted that she had intended to focus on the Vietnam era but when Jeremy Hinzman sought refugee status that changed -- "I realized that was the story to pursue." Snyder tells Kyle Snyder tells Wyatt, "I would rather take jail than go back to Iraq and fight for something that I don't believe in. If I could avoid jail, that's what I'm going to do and I'm going to whatever it takes to do that."
CODEPINK's Troops Home Fast action continues on its 58th day today with at least 4,833 people participating. The action continues through September 21st (International Peace Day) and those who would like to take part can grab a one-day only fast, a one-day a week fast or a mutli-day fast (seek health advice from your provider before embarking on any long term strike). More information at Troops Home Fast. If anyone's suddenly realizing summer is coming to an end and looking for something to do that you can point to with pride and say, "This summer I . . ." consider taking part in the action.
Indybay Media notes that the World Can't Wait has a full page ad in today's New York Times for the October 5Th action. The ad, on page A9, reads: "ENDLESS WARS! TORTURE! KATRINA! THEOCRACY! BRING THIS TO A HALT!" For more, visit World Can't Wait.
In Australia, the military inquiry into the April 21st Baghdad death of Jake Kovco is on hold.
Belinda Tasker (The Age) reports that those sitting on the inquiry's board as well as the attorneys were busy today receiving gun lessons to attempt to increase their knowledge on some of the issues (such as silent cocking) that have been raised during the hearing. Tasker notes that Thursday, they will be at a shooting range and that the head of the inquiry is upset that images of Soldier 14 were shown on Australia's Nine Networks. For those wishing to see the video, this page has a link. (Soldier 14 is a witness. He's not a victim. We'll put the link up here.) On the issue of Australia's Nine Networks, in May the network conducted a poll and "found 83 percent believe there had been an intentional cover-up over the details of" Jake Kovco's death.

This is a quick post because it's a church night. But I am trying to get something up every day during the week to make sure the snapshot's noted at a time when much of the media doesn't have anything to say about Iraq.

I also wanted to note C.I.'s "Other Items" which Keesha e-mailed me about asking me to note when I blogged again. Rumsfeld's making wild accusations and, like C.I. points out, people dogged Kanye West and Harry Belafonte and others for speaking their truth and it wasn't just the right wingers. A lot on the left lined up to draw a line and, basically say, "I'm not like that crazy Black man!" That's how it played out. I can remember All Puff and No Politics slamming Kanye West, for instance. A White man wanting to correct Kany West's judgement about the Bully Boy's treatment of African-Americans. Because, of course, a White man must know so much better about being Black than a Black man. That's how that played out. So here's Rumsfeld hissing that people who want the troops home are like Nazi appeasers. Well where are the people screaming about his remarks?

And I thought had someone to highlight, someone making the point C.I. did or taking Rumsfeld for task. Instead, it's "the analogy is incorrect because . . ."

Let me call it from one African-American's perspective -- this "Rumsfeld's comparison is wrong because . . ." is not the same as "Harry Belafonte needs to watch what he says" or "Kanye West has crossed a line." It's not the same thing. African-Americans weren't the only ones trashed but we did get trashed. (And, to quote Keesha's e-mail, "Count on C.I. to be one of the few to remember that." Agreed.)

So, especially those White lefties that felt the need to shame Kanye or Harry, a weak "Rumsfeld is wrong because . . ." is not the same thing as the attacks some of you launched on Kayne and Harry. Harry Belafonte is a pioneer and when you trashed him, especially him, you crossed a line. You want to prove it wasn't just a slam-Sistah-Souljah moment to reassure you weren't 'down' with my race, then you better go after Donald Rumsfeld. That's not "he's wrong in his comparison because . . ."

Of course he's wrong. Anyone with at least two brain cells knows that. But here's what I see, his logic is wrong and he's demonizing. Harry Belafonte wasn't demonizing. But a lot of Whites in the center and on the left stood up to trash Harry Belafonte. Will they express the same outrage over Rumsfeld? I doubt it. I thought there was something I could highlight but it turned out to be just "Rumsfeld's talking points are wrong because the comparison . . ." But they're not going to tackle the outragenous of the comparison. But let Harry Belafonte make a (correct) comparison and watch them get their knives out.

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Brownie turns on Bully










Recommended: "Iraq Snapshot"
"It Takes a War Pornographer II"
"Chaos and violence continue in Iraq"
"Iraq, Democracy When and more"
"call it like you see it"
"Chomsky, narrow journalistic 'community,' Iraq"
"Noel, who's not in the US military, wants to send them to fight his war"
"Feeling Moody"

Monday, August 28, 2006

Noel, who's not in the US military, wants to send them to fight his war

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills)
Monday, August 28, 2006 and chaos and violence continue in Iraq, England's defense minister attempts to bring back Top Of Pops -- live from Baghdad -- as Operation Happy Talk continues to reject reality, eight US soldiers died on Saturday and Sundy, and, in Australia, Soldier 14's DNA argument is rejected by a forensic expert in the military inquiry into the April 21st death of Jake Kovco.
On Sunday, as
Ellen Knickmeyer (Washington Post) reported, "Gunmen and bombers claimed at least 69 lives in Iraq". That would be the same Sunday that puppet of the occupation (officially billed as prime minister) Nouri al-Maliki declared on CNN, "In Iraq we'll never be in a civil war." Downplaying "unemployment as high as 40 percent,"
al-Maliki stuck to the Operation Happy Talk latest wave, "
But this is a new Iraq."
Speaking Sunday on
The KPFA Evening News, Antonia Juhasz responded to the latest wave of Happy Talk by noting, "The statements run counter to the facts that, well have been on display every day on our televisions, but even in mainstream media, of violence increasing between Iraqis, between the Shia and Sunni, but also violence increasing tremendously against the presence of the occupation, against US forces. Security is definitely down in Iraq, as are basic services. What is, what is up is Bush administration pressure on the Maliki government to put up a better public face."
Juhasz, the author of
The BU$H Agenda: Invading the World One Economy At A Time, will be at Camp Democracy in DC on September 5th and, Texas community members, she will begin a Texas speaking tour on September 26th.
On Monday, Des Browne, the British defense secretary, wanted to duet with his Iraqi counterpart Abdul Qader Jassim.
Reuters reports the two held a publicity conference where they dueted on how things were looking up, things were looking up, things were looking up . . . They spoke in the heavily secure Green Zone, the bunker-like compound in the midst of Baghdad -- Baghdad being the site of the 'crackdown' with the huge influx of US soldiers since the 'crackdown' began on June 14th. Things are looking up? Apparently that means next week they might step a toe outside the Green Zone. Maybe just half a toe. In the meantime, possibly they could consider recording a duet of Ashford & Simpson penned Motown classics? "Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing?"
The real thing?
CNN reports that, when not dueting with Des Browne, Jassim was busy today "sending reinforcements to the Shiite city of Diwaniya to try to stem ongoing clashes that have resulted in the deaths of 23 Iraqi soldiers and 38 militia fighters". Reuters reports that: "Ahmed al-Haji, in charge of the town's main hospital, said the bodies of 25 soldiers and ine civilians have been brought in."
Sudarsan Raghavan and Ellen Knickmeyer (Washington Post) report that a car bomb went off "at a checkpoint leading into the Ministry of Interior" in Baghdad. Reuters puts the dead at 16 and the wounded at 47. AFP notes that, "The blast and the carnage in Diwaniya were [the] latest blow to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's campaign to convince Iraqis and the world that his government and security forces are up to the tast of restoring order in Iraq." The BBC reports that the Ministry was "frequently targeted in the past and is heavily guarded." In addition to that car bomb, Reuters reports that a roadside bomb in Baghdad claimed the life of one police officer and left two others wounded while, still in Baghdad, a civilian was injured by a roadside bomb. Another civilian was killed in western Baghdad, according to the AP, who notes the dead was in "a car transporting five barbershop workers" and that four were wounded.
Reuters reports, the US military announced six US soldiers died from bombings in Baghdad yesterday: "Four . . . killed by one roadside bomb north of Baghdad and two others killed by separate devices around the capital". AP notes that if you put together Saturday and Sunday's count, eight US soldiers "in and around Baghdad." 8 US troops dead and US military flack wants to brag, "We have reduced the amount of violence. We are actually seeing progress out there."? Try "Iraq: This is what failure looks like" (The Third Estate Sunday Review).
Reuters reports a a police officer was shot dead in front of his house in Mosul, that three other police officers were shot dead "in separate attacks", and that "two women and one man" were shot dead ("members of the same family). AFP reports: "A security official says gunmen have also killed four of former Sunni deputy prime minister Abd Mutlaq al-Juburi's bodyguards in an ambus on their car in Baghdad's Ameriyah neighborhood."
Reuters reports four corpses were discovered in Baghdad ("gunshot wounds").
Maybe Caldwell can join Browne and Jassim as some sort of power-trio? They couldn't cut it as Cream or The Jimi Hendrix Experience, but possibly as some sort of homage to Grand Funk Railroad they could have some chart success? There first single could be "Ride That Wave (Of Happy Talk)".
They might want to review, before warbeling again, what
Nancy A. Youssef and Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reported Sunday: that families are swapping houses in Baghdad "as Iraqis find themselves searching for ways to avoid becoming vitctim to Baghdad's increasingly vicious cycle of sectarian violence. Shiite families in Sunni neighborhoods and Sunni families in Shiite neighborhoods change places."
In peace news,
Ehren Watada's case was addressed by Charles Burress (San Francisco Chronicle) this weekend and he noted that some Japanese-American war vets were against Watada and, as Joan noted this morning, so is Daneil Inouye.
Speaking on Sunday's
The KPFA Evening News, Bob Watada (father of Ehren) explained that people need "to get behind him so that the military knows that what he did, the steps he has taken, and why he's taken these steps is-is-is for democracy, he refused to kill Iraqis, innocent Iraqis, and he's spoken out on it and we're talking about free speech so we need people to support Ehren for standing up [for] the Constitution." Jim McMahan (Workers World) notes, "Many people now consider Watada's statements to be not only his right but his duty."
Cedric (Cedric's Big Mix) is advising those calling Donald Rumsfeld (703-545-6700) or mailing him (1000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1000) to say: "Hands off Ehren Watada! Let him go." Billie advises that you can use to e-mail the Pentagon. She suggests "Re: Ehren Watad" or "ATTN: DONALD RUMSFELD." Courage to Resist and will continue to offer resources, ideas and inspiration. Get the word out.
Ehren Watada refused to deploy to Iraq (the first officer to have done so publicly) because it is an illegal war. Other resisters have found other ways of refusing.
Peter Laufer (Times of London) reports on four who went to Canada: Darrell Anderson: "Soldiers were describing to me how they had beaten prisoners to death."; Joshua Key: ""We was going along the Euphrates river. It's a road right in the city of Ramadi. We turned a sharp right and all I seen was decapitated bodies. The heads laying over here and the bodies over there and US troops in between them."; Ryan Johnson: "I had two choices: go to Iraq and have my life messed up, or go to jail and have my life messed up. So I came here to try this out."; Ivan Brobeck: "I have seen the beating of innocent prisoners. I remember hearing something get thrown off the back of a seven-ton truck. The bed of a seven-ton is probably something like 7 or 8ft high. They threw a detainee off the back, his hands tied behind his back and a sandbag over his head, so he couldn't brace for the impact." Peter Laufer's most recent book is Mission Rejected: U.S. Soldiers Who Say No to Iraq.
In other news of resistance, Bully Boy's latest vacation didn't go as quietly as he might have hoped. From Sunday's
The KPFA Evening News, Vanessa Tait: "Anti-war protestors have followed President Bush to Maine at his summer house in Kennebunkport. An estimated 700 anti-war demonstrators got to within an half-mile of the Bush compound in Kennebunkport yesterday before being stopped at a security checkpoint. They sang, chanted, beat drums and waves signs calling on the president to bring US troops home from Iraq." AFP reported Saturday that Jamilla El-Shafei stated: "Our message to President Bush is: We want the troops brought back home, we want democracy to be restored, we want you to stop trampling on our civil rights."
Things were chilly for US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as well when he was in Alaska Saturday meeting with military families.
Kristin Roberts (Reuters) reports that the questioning got a little intense in a closed-to-the-press encounter. Roberts quotes Jennifer Davis, "wife of one soldier in Iraq," as stating, "I think it was a show."
Cindy Sheehan remains in Crawford, Texas at
Camp Casey III and notes "and hoping to be back on my feet . . . to go and protest George with Mayor Rocky [Anderson] in Salt Lake City and be up and about when he comes back to Crawford for the Labor Day Weekend. Apparently George Bush is a 'regular guy' who meets with his constituents, so I am looking forward to finally getting the meeting with him that I have been asking for all year long." Sheehan recently had surgery ("hoping to be back on my feet"). August 31st is the day of action in Salt Lake City, when Bully Boy (who arrives August 30th) make a speech there.
CODEPINK's Troops Home Fast is on the fifty-fifth day of action with at least 4,833 people participating (that's how many have registered their participation at the site). The action continues up to September 21st. Those wanting to take part can grab a one-day only fast, a one-day a week fast or something longer (on longer, seek advice from your medical adviser).
In Australia, the military inquiry into the April 21st Bagdad death of Jake Kovco continues. To recap in light of today's issue,
Soldier 14 testified Friday and denied 'silent cocking' Jake Kovco's gun. Soldier 14 also continued to maintain (as he did on August 21st and as he did on August 18th ) that he did not touch Jake Kovco's gun the day Kovco died. On Kovco's gun, which is thought to have been the gun that killed him, DNA other than Jake Kovco's was found. Soldier 14 has suggested that a share radio, megaphone, etc. may have led to his DNA being transferred to Jake Kovco and Jake Kovco then transferred Soldier 14's DNA to the Kovco gun. On August 18th, the results of DNA analysis were testified to in the hearing by Michelle Fanco, forensic biologist, who stated that a match could be made of Soldier 14's DNA and the DNA found on the slide of Jake Kovco's gun. Other DNA may have matched Soldier 14 as well and some press reports stated it did; however, Franco testified that only the DNA on the gun's slide could be considered a conclusive match.
Today, Michelle Franco testified to the hearing again.
Australia's ABC notes "forensic expert Michelle Franco told the inquiry it was more likely that the presence of Soldier 14's DNA on Private Kovco's gun was from direct contact." Malcolm Brown (Sydney Morning Herald) reports that Michelle Franco ("of the NSW Department of Health's Analytical Laboratories) rejected the idea that one person's DNA could transfer via an object to another person and then to an object required a very specific time frame and stated "[a]fter 10 minutes it could probably be found but after 30 minutes it would be virtually all gone." Belinda Tasker (The Age) reports that although Jake Kovco and Soldier 14 were on duty together the day of his death: "Given Private Kovco had changed out of his combat gear after finishing duty with Soldier 14 at the Australiam embassy compound in Baghdad, any traces of Soldier 14's DNA on his hands probably would have been wiped off, she said." In addition to the issue of timing, there is the DNA found on the slide which matched Soldier 14's DNA. The Australian reports that Franco also noted the "concentration" of Soldier's 14 DNA on the gun's slide. Malcolm Brown reports: "Had Soldier 14's DNA been deposited onto the pistol in the way he suggested, she would not have expected it to be the major component of the DNA." Meaning it would be secondary and not "a greater concentration" than Jake Kovco's. Belinda Tasker reports that when Jake Kovco's parents' attorney Lt. Col. Frank Holles asked Franco if her testimony meant that Soldier 14 handled Jake Kovco's gun and Franco responded, "It is consistent with that." Jake Kovco's parents are Judy and Martin Kovco, his widow is Shelley Kovco. Soldier 14 is expected to be called to testify re: the latest DNA testimony. Tasker closes with: "Soldier 14, who has refused to be interviewed by police about the DNA tests, will return to the Syndey inquiry tomorrow for more cross-examination."
Friday, we noted the burial of British soldier Jason Chelsea who took his own life (he was nineteen) "because he feared . . he might have to shoot children" (BBC) as he maintained he'd been told during his military training. Felicity Arbuthnot (Palestine Chronicle) provides more details of Jason Chelsea which include that he "joined the Regiment at sixteen" and that, in his final moments, he told his mother, "I can't go out there and shoot at young children. I just can't go to Iraq. I don't care what side they are on. I can't do it."

So how did Soldier 14's DNA get on Jake Kovco's gun? I think that's going to be a detail the inquiry has to answer if they're going to answer anything but I fear it's one they'll push aside.

It's now up to nine soldiers that died on Saturday and Sunday, or that's what they said on the radio (NPR). Ty and Jess filled in and did the "And the war drags on" entry last night and the US military fatality count was 47 then. It's now up to 53. NPR has actually been covering Iraq a little more lately. It's doing a much better job than Democracy Now but that's not too hard to do since Democracy Now doesn't seem to know there's a war in Iraq anymore.

I got an e-mail from Noel who tells me he's White, 22 and can't believe that I feel the US shouldn't send US forces into Darfur. He's got his footy-p.j.s in a wad over Rebecca's "carl webb, joshua frank, ava & c.i. do their own 'podcast' commentary," Kat's "Keith Harmon Snow, Aaron Glantz, etc.," Mike's "Do you hear the war drums?," and Elaine's "Ehren Watada, Iraq and the War Hawks of Independent Media." He figures since "You're black, you should care about Darfur." Somehow that statement seems to cut off before he can add "and watermelon." Our stance on Darfur (and the community's) was noted in "Darfur" (Third Estate Sunday Review) and our thoughts on the idiots screaming for Bully Boy to send US troops into Darfur was noted in "Head on Home (a musical in four scenes)" (The Third Estate Sunday Review).

He's all upset about The Chicago Tribune writer that got arrested. Noel writes "and he also writes for National Geographic."

Okay, Noel, first thing, us black folk, we's not a real fond of National Geographic. We're not real fond of the bare breasted photos of Black women. We're not real fond of the ha-ha-ha look at the third world type coverage. Noel writes that he loved National Geographic as a child, "so surely you must have as well."

No, Noel, I must not have. I don't think it's a magazine so much as it's government propaganda and I think that for a number of reasons. My family thinks that, my friends think that.

I'm glad it gave you a look at "black experiences in Africa" and that it "made" you "care." We all need things to care about. But considering England and the U.S.'s 'efforts' in Africa, I'd argue the last thing the region needs is either country 'caring.' Historically the 'care' didn't translate into better living, quite the contrary.

I don't know the reporter (except that he's White, he "cares" too, I guess). I think he may have created an international incident. Was that his intent when he entered the country illegally? I have no idea.

Noel wanted a "Black" view and wrote me. I'll do Noel one better, I called Betty (Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man) and Ty (The Third Estate Sunday Review) for their views. Here's our Black or African-American view for you Noel.

1) Historically, this is a complex issue. Historically, the US has had a role in it. The same US you want to put troops in. We don't see that as an answer.

At least not an answer that will end the violence.

2) We're not keen on unleashing the Bully Boy. Not for any reason.

3) We think the press reports have been one-sided and racist.

4) We think this is, at its heart, a conflict over land resources (egged on by outsiders). A solution might be agreeing to more equity with regards to access. A solution will not be to send the military in. Sending them in will accomplish nothing unless, Noel, you're in favor of keeping US troops over there for many, many years. (If that's the case, rest assured that all sides in the conflict will then eventually come together -- over their hatred of US troops and being occupied. Why don't you just paint bulls eyes on all the US soldiers' uniforms?)

5) We're wary of the 'do gooders' who resort to the US military as a general rule.

6) You bring up Rawanda and how the US waited. Like Darfur, the US didn't "wait." The US created the situation in Rawanda over many years just as other nations have created the conflict in Darfur.

7) "Don't you care that people are dying?" People are dying all over the world. People are dying from malnutrition all over the world. I don't hear you crying, "Send in the chefs!" Just "Send in the Marines!"

8) There are many regions with conflict. You quote figures. Those are from Eric Reeves. They aren't based on data, he 'extrapolates' from data -- meaning they're a guess. When you're advocating US forces be sent into a country, I think you need something better than a guess as to how many people have died.

9) You mention legislation in Congress. And who sponsored it? You left that out. It's two Republicans. Henry Hyde and I forget the other one. That should give you cause for concern.

10) The region has natural resources. We don't advocate allowing US troops to occupy the region due to Bully Boy's innate greediness.

11) You write that it's "the first and still only issue I care about. I believe you must care about this too." We care about a lot of things. We're honestly shocked that you don't care about Iraq. Maybe you're one of those who can't stomach examining what the US government has done and is doing?

12) You write: "If you continue to stay silent the dying will continue. Each day you're silent, more die." Well, geez, Noel, you seem to talk enough for everyone and the dying hasn't stopped.

13) You write: "As a black man, you must support these people." Must I? Must we (Betty, Ty and I). If we must, we wonder why you "must" -- as a White man.

14) You write: "The New York Times has addressed how serious this issue is." We remember (and Elaine's pointed this out as well) how that paper told us WMDs in Iraq were 'serious' too.

15) You say that leaders of your movement have met with the Bully Boy. You are aware, aren't you, that he refused to meet with religious leaders before invading Iraq, religious leaders, from various denominations, about Iraq. We'd say the fact that he met with your movement is one more reason to be suspicious.

We're focused on the war in Iraq, the one the US publicly started. We're focused on ending that. Not so the troops can turn around and be sent elsewhere. But because Iraqis are dying. The UN estimates that a hundred Iraqis die each day. We think if you 'extrapolate' that, you'll see that the number of Iraqis is far higher than the 'extrapolated' count for Darfur. So if numbers are your big thing, we think you should pull out the calculator.

Hope that answers your questions, Noel. We (Betty, Ty and myself) are opposed to sending US troops into Iraq. We're opposed to allowing Bully Boy to start another war. Maybe you missed it, but Afghanistan and Iraq have not gone 'swimmingly.'

But Noel, if you care so much, we suggest a) you sign up and stop suggesting others go to fight the war you want so badly and b) if you're not signing up because you fear Bully Boy won't send troops, grab a gun and get your butt over there. It can't be too hard to get into the country, the National Geographic/Chicago Tribune reporter did. Maybe you too can lead to an international incident?

For people looking for something to "care" about and not interested in Iraq, closer to home the Katrina victims are still not getting what they need. You can hear all about it on today's Law and Disorder and also check out Wally's "THIS JUST IN! THE REAL 9-11 MOMENT!" which is so important I wish I could claim it was a joint post.