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.

Get active

Late Saturday night, early Sunday morning, we wrote this "Editorial: Hey Bully Boy, what's that smell?" We is:


The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim;
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man;
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review;
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills);
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix;
Mike of Mikey Likes It!;
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz;
and Wally of The Daily Jot

"Editorial: Hey Bully Boy, what's that smell?" was our argument that we could smell impeachment wafting off the Bully Boy. Later Sunday, after it posted, Russ Feingold called for a censure of the Bully Boy. Not as opposed to impeachment but to get it on the record that the Senate does not approve of the spying on American citizens without warrants, to get it on the record that the Constitution means something.

I thought when we working on the editorial that Bully Boy was in trouble and Feingold's call only makes it seem more so.

From Democracy Now!, here's what Feingold said on the floor of the Senate Monday:

Now, the facts are pretty straightforward. Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA, nearly 30 years ago to ensure that as we wiretap suspected terrorists and spies, we also protect innocent Americans from unjustified government intrusion. Mr. President, FISA makes it a crime -- a crime -- to wiretap Americans on U.S. soil without the requisite warrants, and the President has ordered warrantless wiretaps of Americans on U.S. soil, so it’s pretty simple. The President has broken that law, and that alone is unacceptable.
But the President did much more than that. Not only did the President break the law, he also actively misled Congress and the American people about his actions. And then, when the program was made public about the legality of the N.S.A. program, he has fundamentally violated the trust of the American people. The President's own words showed just how seriously he has violated that trust. We now know that the N.S.A. wiretapping program began not long after September 11. Before the existence of this program was revealed, the President went out of his way -- he went out of his way, Mr. President -- in several speeches to assure the public that the government was getting court orders to wiretap Americans in the United States, something he now admits was not the case.
On April 20, 2004, for example, when the President told an audience in Buffalo that, quote, "Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretaps, it requires a wiretap, requires a court order. Nothing has changed by the way," unquote. In fact, a lot had changed. But the President wasn't upfront with the American people. Just months later on July 14, 2004, in my own state of Wisconsin, the President said that, quote, "Any action that takes place by law enforcement requires a court order. In other words, the government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order," unquote. And then, Mr. President, last summer, on June 9, 2005, the President spoke in Columbus, Ohio, and again insisted that his administration was abiding by the laws governing wiretaps: quote, "Law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, a federal judge's permission to track his calls, or a federal judge's permission to search his property. Officers must meet strict standards to use any of these tools, and these standards are fully consistent with the Constitution of the United States," unquote.

When you think something's wrong, you have to speak up. When someone breaks the law, you have to speak up. If you don't, you're helping them break the law. And if the Bully Boy isn't bound by the law then why are any of us?

That's pretty straightforward but Feingold's fellow Democrats in the Senate aren't rushing to get his back. There all basically scurrying off, shouting, "Holler!"

Hillary Clinton apparently wants to be president. Why? Where is her bravery? She can't speak out against the war. She can't even offer a "Russ Feingold is right!" So exactly where is the leadership? You want to be president, you want to be the leader of the country, well, why should we think you can handle the job?

If you can't lead as a Senator, why should we believe you can as President?

Same goes for Evan Blah (stealing Rebecca's nickname for the triangulator). There's this conventional wisdom that Hillary has us Black folk wrapped around her finger and we'll all be just as pleased as punch to vote for her. I don't know what world they're living in.

She's yet to demonstrate leadership. Until she does, she's useless.

That goes for anyone dreaming of being president in 2008. They better start showing some leadership. Right now, Al Gore and Russ Feingold are showing leadership. Everyone else is just living the DC ghetto life. They're useless. And they're crazy if they think people aren't following it. Or, for the conventional wisdom set, if they think Black people don't notice what's going on.

For that set, they need to realize that African-Americans were against the war before it started. We've stayed against it. So the idea that Hillary Clinton is a clean sweep is an idea coming from racists who think we're too stupid to follow current events.

We know exactly what she's done. We're not impressed. And if she can't find a voice on the war pretty quick, she can kiss goodbye any idea that African-Americans will support her run. She's got a severe case of "War Got Your Tongue?" and it's noted.

How about you? Are you suffering from it too? Or are you going to speak out and be heard on this third anniversary of the illegal war?

If you're thinking "Someone else can do it," then you're not doing your part. If you're thinking "I'd like to but someone might not like me," then you're a child posing as an adult. If you're thinking the media's going to do the job for you, you're living in a fantasy world. To wake up, read "The war coverage (and lack of it)."

This is the third anniversary. There's no excuse for not having an opinion or for not being able to use your voice. Think there's nothing going on in your area? Wrong. Here's a list of some CODEPINK events through Sunday:



Fredericksburg, Virginia: Three Years of the Iraq War
Friday, March 17th 2006 4:00 to 6:00 pm
Marking 3 years in the Iraq War, we will be standing roadside with signs detailing costs of the war to passersby

Oceanside, California: Iraqi Mother Seeks Your Help!
Friday, March 17th 2006 6:00PM
Iraqi Mother, Faiza Al-Araji, will meet with us to share her experiences with the destruction of her homeland by US forces. This reception is for a small group and will include time to meet and talk directly to Faiza.

Oceanside, California: Candidate's Reception for Iraqi Mother
Friday, March 17th 2006 12 NOON
Faiza Al-Araji arrives in North County and will be welcomed at a special "Candidate's Luncheon".

Oceanside, California: An Iraqi Mother Speaks Out!
Friday, March 17th 2006 7:00PM SHARP
Faiza Al-Araji, an Iraqi mother and peace emmisary, speaks about the US occupation of Iraq and how it is destroying their nation.

Boston, Massachusetts: March Against War, Racism, Sexism and Poverty
Saturday, March 18th 2006 11 AM
Dozens of community organizations are coming together against the war abroad and at home. Contact us at codepinkboston@gmail.com, and check our website calendar (codepinkboston.org) for more info and to join us!

Charlotte, , North Carolina: Charlotte NC St. Patrick's Day Parade
Saturday, March 18th 2006 11AM, with line up time TBA
CODEPINK of Charlotte-Mecklenburg is signed up to march in the 10th annual St. Patrick's Day parade in the heart of Charlotte on Saturday, March 18th. We expect to receive our line up location and number in the line up by Monday night, 3/13/06

Corvallis, Oregon: Peace March and Rally
Saturday, March 18th 2006 11:30 AM
United for Peace and other No More War in Iraq groups meet on South lawn of Covallis/Benton County Courthouse to march through streets of Covallis protesting WAR.

Davenport, Iowa: Peace Rally
Saturday, March 18th 2006 2:00 PM
Peace Rally marking the 3rd anniversary of the "Shock and Awe" Iraq War.Bring signs, banners, placards or anything you may deem appropiate for a Peace Rally.

Fort Collins, Colorado: Peace Rally
Saturday, March 18th 2006 1:00 pm
Death, Destruction and Defecits: it is time to change course

Indianapolis, Indiana: Peace Rally
Saturday, March 18th 2006 1 pm
Hoosiers for Peace Rally will mark the third year of anunjust war. Hoosiers will have an opportunity to contact theirrepresentatives, listen to distinguished speakers, hear inspirational music, and network with others who are against the war and interested in promoting peace. The rally will be family friendly and the focus will be on how families are affected by war i.e. loosing their loved ones, and aplea to representatives to reset budget priorities with the needs of the family in mind. The theme is Honor the Dead, Heal the Wounded, End the War.

Johnson City, Tennessee: Third Anniversary Demonstration of War in Iraq
Saturday, March 18th 2006 12:00 noon
The Joel Goodman for US Congress Campaign will be hosting a Third Anniversary Demonstration at the campaign headquarters.

Louisville, Kentucky: 3rd Anniversary of the Iraq War -2,300 + Empty Shirts Rally
Saturday, March 18th 2006 12 noon-3:00 PM
2,300 + Empty Shirts Demonstration against the Iraq War. Each shirt represents one fallen US soldier in Iraq War. Poignant and impressive.

Manassas, Virginia: Three Years of the Iraq War
Saturday, March 18th 2006 4:00 to 6:00 pm
Marking 3 years in the Iraq War, we will be standing roadside with signs detailing costs of the war to passersby

Melbourne, Florida: 3 Years too Many Demonstration!
Saturday, March 18th 2006 12:00 noon
Peace Activists & military families are marching From Front St. Park in Melbourne to Melbourne City Hall. We are carrying Mock Tombstones honoring Florida's Soldiers call 321-480-9295 for more info.

Minneapolis, Minnesota: International Protest Against the War
Saturday, March 18th 2006 1:00 PM
Protest and march.

New Haven, Connecticut: Connecticut Anti-War Mobilization: 3rd Anniversary of Iraq War
Saturday, March 18th 2006 11AM - 4PM
Starts at 11AM at Fair Haven Middle School, 164 Grand Ave. March to the New Haven Green for Rally with Speakers
March Demands:
BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW END THE OCCUPATION OF IRAQ! MONEY FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF THE GULF COAST, NOT WAR!-No war on Iran-World Nuclear Disarmament-Justice for the Palestinian People-No Attacks on Arab-Americans, Muslims & Immigrants - Civil Liberties for all

Oceanside, California: Get On The Peace Train
Saturday, March 18th 2006 11:30AM
Get on the Peace Train (NCTD Coaster, last 2 cars) in Oceanside at 11:30AM.

Prescott, Arizona: Prescott March 18th Rally for Peace
Saturday, March 18th 2006 6pm
Prescott March 18th Rally for Peace at the Courthouse square (Veteran's Memorial on Montezuma St.) Prescott AZ 86305

Redford, Michigan: Candlelight Vigil for Peace
Saturday, March 18th 2006 6:30 pm
Please join members of Trinity Church of the Brethren as we bear in memory the lives lost and suffering endured by Americans, Iraqis and other people of many nations since the beginning of the war in Iraq three years ago. Bring a candle and meet with us. If you are unable to be at the Vigil, please take some time to grieve in your own way for all these people.

Swarthmore, Pennsylvania: Three Years too Many
Saturday, March 18th 2006 11:00 AM - 12:30 PM
Join members of . . . Coalition for Peace Action A Delaware-Chester CountyandDelaware County Wage Peace & Justice as we vigil and become a Human Bill -Board against the War!

Alameda, California: LET THERE BE PEACE FOR ALL THE WORLD'S CHILDREN: Send their parents home to them alive and bring the National Guard home where it belongs!
Sunday, March 19th 2006 2:00-4:00pm
Peace march and vigil, rain or shine!Child-friendly event; bring the kids!

Cedar Rapids, Iowa: Three Years Too Many
Sunday, March 19th 2006 7 PM
candlelight vigil marking the third anniversary of the war in Iraq

Maplewood, New Jersey: March in Maplewood
Sunday, March 19th 2006 12 noon March and rally through Maplewood Town Center starting at noon to mark the second anniversary of the war.

Mountain Home, Arkansas: Peace Rally
Sunday, March 19th 2006 10:00 a.m.
CST Fellowship at the UU Church followed by peaceful demonstrations against the war in Iraq

parkersburg,wv, West Virginia: 3rd memorial
Sunday, March 19th 2006 1pm meeting on market st, downtown. speakers,march to cross the belpre bridge over into ohio

Portland, Oregon: March and Rally on the 3rd Anniversary of the invasion of Iraq
Sunday, March 19th 2006 1:30 pm
Peace rally and march planned for third anniversary of war on Iraq, calls for bringing the troops home and funding human services. Over 130 organizations mobilize for March 19 at Waterfront Park.

Santa Clarita, California: 3rd Anniversary of the invasion of Iraq ANTI WAR RALLY
Sunday, March 19th 2006 3:00 to 5:00 pm
ANTI WAR RALLY on the 3rd Anniversary of the invasion of Iraq
Sunday, March 19, 2006, 3 to 5 pm at the Westfield Town Center corner of McBean Parkway and Valencia Blvd. Bring your own sign or use ours.

Waco, Texas: War protest
Sunday, March 19th 2006 10 AM
Public demonstration in the heart of Bush country to call for "No more war! No more lies!"

Woodbridge, Virginia: Three Years of the Iraq War
Sunday, March 19th 2006 4:00 to 6:00 pm
Marking 3 years of the Iraq War, we will be standing roadside with signs detailing the costs of the war to passersby.

Thoughts on Michael Jackson and heroes

Okay, so the big news at work was that Neverland has been shut down. Michael Jackson let the insurance lapse and apparently hasn't been paying some employees since December 2005. News came on the radio at the end of work.

Now this is good for some late night comedians to get a few laughs but it's really embarrassing for a lot of people. I don't just mean the fans of Michael Jackson. He really doesn't have that many fans today. He's got a lot of fanatics. He's got a lot of White boys (Justin Timberlake) who want to be him. Apparently the thing Justin Timberlake always wanted to be was an African-American man trying to be Diana Ross.

There are a few people who hung in there. They wouldn't listen to anything he's done in the last ten years but they'll listen to the old songs.

All he is now is a symbol. He's the "American dream." The little kid, Black, who grew up to be a multi-millionaire via his talent proving that we can all achieve. And that messages may be the only reason so many have trashing him the way they would have anyone else.

Despite the plastic surgery and the ever lighter skin, we buy into the "He's black" myth, that he's our standard bearer. When he got mixed up with the kids in the nineties, a lot of us were willing to argue he was innocent. When it flared up again recently, innocent or not, he was stupid and embarrassing.

There was a lot of disgust with the latest news. I think that has to do with the fact that if he's not paying his employees (if), then he's no longer the "success" and for a lot of people that meant facing the reality of the "American dream."

So what is the "American dream" today? It's not the Martin Luther King dream, it's not the dream for all. It's one person succeeds. In the case of Michael Jackson he becomes a symbol. Does he crack up because of it? Or is he still attacked because of his race? Despite all the money, is it his race?

I don't know. I know that a lot of people are disgusted and were talking about it today.

And it does speak to the "American dream" because it, "success," is more and more defined only by money. In earlier times, we could look up to athletes, musicians, actors breaking the color barrier but we were also aware of our leaders. It didn't seem like they were "in it" for the money.

It's not that we don't have leaders today. We have many people fighting. But the media isn't interested in them. John Conyers gets little attention, Maxine Waters, Cornel West . . . As big media chases down the dollar, we end up with hollow "life lessons" and when they turn ugly, as Michael Jackson has, we're left with anger.

I'm not a fan of Michael Jackson. I always preferred Prince growing up. I do feel sorry for him and, more importantly, I feel sorry for the message that's going out and the disappointment people are feeling.

Other big news is John Byrne and Ron Brynaert's "Washington nonprofit where Abramoff was director wrote articles favoring Abramoff clients" so give it a read.

Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush

Here are two of the biggest whoppers.
Just days before Bush ignited the war, Cheney went on Meet the Press to discuss the alleged threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Cheney said: "We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
And in Bush’s address to the nation on March 17, 2003, he said there was "no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
Remember, this was after the U.N. weapons inspectors had been scouring Iraq for evidence of those weapons and had found nothing.In fact, Mohammed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency who received the Nobel Peace Prize last year, told the Security Council weeks before the remarks of Cheney and Bush that not only did Saddam not have any nuclear weapons, there was no evidence that he had even reconstituted his nuclear weapons program.
Bush and Cheney were engaging in "a conspiracy to commit fraud," as Lewis Lapham points out in his pathbreaking essay, "The Case for Impeachment," in the March issue of Harper's Magazine. Lapham notes that the Supreme Court in Hammerschmidt v. United States said someone engages in a conspiracy to commit fraud against the government when that person obstructs lawful government functions "by deceit, craft, or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest" and when its "legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicane, or other overreaching of those charged with carrying out the government intention."
That fits Bush and Cheney to a T.

That's from Matthew Rothschild's "Grounds for Impeachment." So what do you think? Impeachment plausible or not?

I'm half-way through a book put out by the Center for Constitutional Rights entitled Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush. It makes a strong, concise case for impeachment. When you see Bully Boy's actions laid out like above or in the book, it becomes obvious that we either do something or accept that no president in the future will ever have to tell the truth.

C.I.'s got a quote from the book in an entry this morning. Read that and see if you're not interested in picking it up. I think you will be. I read about it last week at The Common Ills and was thinking about getting it but C.I. ended up getting it for all of us so we could discuss it at The Third Estate Sunday Review. Mine arrived yesterday and as soon as I'm done with this post tonight, I'm going to get back to the book and finish it.

It's really hard to put down. Even if you think you know all that the Bully Boy did wrong, you may not know all the legal reasons his actions were wrong. The book makes a strong case for impeachment.

If we don't impeach, we're saying that the actions are okay so we better be prepared when future presidents attempt to do the same thing. It's like, "Do you draw a line in the sand or not?"

He's done so much. The illegal detentions at Guantanamo where he's held prisoners for years and years without any trials; the round up of Arabs and/or Muslims after 9/11; lying us into war; the spying on American citizens without warrants; and, most of all, this desire to ignore the other two branches.

I took the book to work with me thinking I could read some of it on break or at lunch but it didn't happen. Everytime I would pull it out, someone would walk over and, nodding to the book's cover, say, "We really need to, you know?"

I think the people do know. I think it's our elected officials that are out of the loop. I hear a lot of talk about how if the Dems take back at least one house in the 2006 elections, things will change but I don't know how you go over night from spineless to leadership.

On the radio, they're saying that the House passed the Patriot Act. That says a great deal about how non-independent our Congress is.


Anyway, I'm going to get back to reading the book. You can order it online, just click on the title:
Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush.

The Oscars

Didn't blog Friday. Got a call from Rebecca and she said she was headed out and wasn't going to be able to blog. She wondered if I'd like to blog Saturday or Sunday (blog here, she wasn't asking me to substitute at her site). Her thing was that a number of members always feel like they are shortchanged with 'new content' on Saturdays. C.I. posts and Trina and Kat but otherwise all the sites are silent.

My argument there is, "Don't read me on Friday, save it until Saturday." But since Rebecca was taking the night off, I decided to do so as well. I didn't want to make a promise I couldn't keep, so I told her I could blog on Saturday. So we're both blogging today.

You'll have Trina tonight, you've got The Common Ills, you'll have Kat and you'll have Rebecca and me. This isn't going to be 'heavy' post so if you're looking for that, move on.

So tomorrow night is the Oscars and we're hearing all about (CNN, go down the list) how "inclusive" the Oscars are. Let me be blunt: I ain't seeing it. This African-American man ain't seeing it.

I'm using Isaiah's "Brokedown Democracy" at the top of this post. Great comic. And Brokeback Mountain would be a good choice for best film. But in terms of the acting nominations, I wasn't impressed with Heath Ledger who seemed to be just standing around throughout the whole movie trying to look sensitive. Jake Gyllenhaal seemed to be playing an actual character and not 'too pure/good for this world.' Maybe I'm missing something in Heath Ledger's portrayal because I'm straight?

I don't think so. And I don't get the hoopla over straight actors playing gay. I don't think it's bad and I agree that there needs to be more gay characters, especially lead characters, but I'm thinking back a few years. Remember Halle and Denzel?

That was an accomplishment because they were African-American and not just White actors playing African-Americans. (Halle's actually biracial.) There was excitement about those nominations because we wanted to see if the Academy was finally mature enough to give awards to non-whites. Not non-whites playing sympathetic portrayals like Sidney did all those years.
I like Sidney, he paved the way for many (as did people before him) but he was always the 'tour guide' who helped you understand that African-Americans were 'people.'

And the 'you' was White movie goers because African-Americans knew they were people. We appreciated having Sidney who played wise and well dressed men. But I look at the nominations for Heath and Jake and think, "Why are people so excited?"

I mean, they're supposed to be straight, right? So how is this a gay backthrough if either man wins? If it were me, I'd give the supporting actor award to Jake because he earned it with strong acting. And I'm glad he was willing to tackle the role and hope more actors and actresses will play those roles. Hopefully, some of them will be out gays and lesbians.

But if Heath or Jake walks home tomorrow night with the award, I'm not seeing it as "One big step for gay America . . ."

Halle's win meant something. If it had been Sharon Stone, giving a similarlly strong performance, in make up to look Black, it would have been a deserved win but it wouldn't have meant anything for African-Americans. In fact, it probably would have been seen as an insult because with all the Black actresses in Hollywood trying to make it, to give the role to a White woman would have been seen as a cheat.

If Brokeback Mountain wins for best picture, I think it should, that might be something worth getting excited about because the picture is about a relationship between two men. But in terms of the two men themselves, they're straight so I don't understand the hoopla.

I talked to Jerry about this last night. I took the night off from blogging, so I went over to my uncle's house. Jerry's a friend from church and we grew up together because he's just a year younger than I am. Jerry's also gay and, good for him, no longer on the 'down low.' So I asked Jerry and his first response was, "You're not going to make me the voice of Gay America are you?" No.

I wasn't even wanting to talk to him about the above stuff. I was just wondering if Heath and Jake were appealing? I'm sure they appeal to some women and some men but I was wondering because Heath, to me, does nothing in the picture and I can't see how someone who just poses is attractive.

Jerry didn't find Heath even remotely attractive. He said that besides the fact that the character is too simple, Heath's not his type because he's not into "the Dockers & Sears set."
This led my aunt to weigh in and she loved the movie but felt like Heath was the weakest part of it. "I'd do that Jake-ster because he seemed up for anything, but the other guy, it was like he was playing a Lana Turner role. And like Lana, he was more 'well maintained' than actually good looking."

That led to a long conversation about African-Americans in movies (Turner did Imitiation of Life and that remains a picture that people I know talk about -- it's soap opera but we get caught up in the young daughter trying to pass for white and what that means and how we'd respond in the same situation). Jerry said what was missing from movies today was a film about a gay man, played by a gay man, trying to pass for straight. He didn't feel that Brokeback Mountain did that. "It's like when they cast Ava Gardner in Showboat."

So where's the inclusion that the TV keeps going on about? The way I see it, out of twenty acting nominations, African-Americans got one (Terrence Howard for best actor for Hustle & Flow -- a really bad movie in my opinion but he gives a great performance).

So let's forget that I'm not seeing the inclusion and just assume that straight actors getting two nominations for pretending to be gay is a huge step foward and one more step on the road to same-sex marriage. (I support same-sex marriage. Just to be clear.) The Oscar's are "inclusive" this year (if you buy the argument) because gays (men) are recognized. And a few years back it was African-Americans.

Is that the only way the Oscars can be inclusive? One group every few years? I don't think they're being inclusive. I think they've got the usual White, Straight nominations, year after year, and every couple of years, to that mix, they add a person of color or a White person playing gay or whatever.

"This year's token" strikes me more as what happens.

So those are my Oscar thoughts. I'll close with my picks. This isn't who will win, I'm not making predicitions. I'm just saying who I would give the award to.

best actor: Terrence Howard (Hustle & Flow)
Lousy movie but he's great in it. When you can star in this year's Glitter and come out of it without having to apologize, you've done something amazing.

best actress: Charlize Theron (North Country)
She's really got something. You can't take your eyes off her. Even in her bad films, she's worth watching. North Country wasn't a bad one (The Astronaut's Wife was a bad one) and she's pretty amazing in this. Reese Witherspoon? Barbie strums a guitar. Wooden. Give it up for Theron.

best supporting actor: Jake Gyllenhaal (Brokeback Mountain)
The film doesn't work without him. If Heath's onscreen with another do nothing, you're heading for the exits or falling asleep. Heath's like the young guy you see in a small role in a Merchant & Ivory film and then never see again. For good reason. Gyllenhaal gave a strong performance.

best supporting actress: Michelle Williams (Brokeback Mountain)
I could almost go for Catherine Keener because she is very good in Capote. I could see giving it to her for the body of her work because she's got a lot of strong roles in her career. But in terms of the film they're nominated for, I'd pick Michelle Williams. I'd also give it to her for "karma."
Meaning, I watched Dawson's Creek many years ago (I was a kid once too). Priss-pot Katie Holmes always got on my nerves. I watched the show for two years, when it first came on, maybe two and a half. Michelle Williams was worth watching. Not just because, as a teenage boy, I found her hot but also because she was really doing some strong acting. Katie Holmes seemed to be Katie Holmes. Sometimes she was Katie Holmes mad, sometimes she was Katie Holmes happy (most of the time she was Katie Holmes pouting). But Michelle Williams really made you believe Jen was a real character, someone you might bump into at your high school.
In Brokeback Mountain, it's obvious that wasn't just the case of she could play one role. She's great in the movie and she deserves to win.

best song: no award

When you can't even come up with five nominees, strike the award.

best director: George Clooney or Ang Lee

I thought Brokeback Mountain and Good Night, and Good Luck were good movies. I think Brokeback is the better one. But with the footage mixing (real and performed), I thought Clooney did a little bit of a better job. (The postcards scenes in Brokeback made me wish I was watching at home so I could grab the remote and fastfoward.)

best film: Brokeback Mountain

I'm not sure what I was supposed to feel at the end of the other movies. (I hated Munich. It seemed like a science project done by a pushy kid who kept saying, "I'm going to win! I'm going to win!") Helpless seemed to be the feeling for most of the films. Crash (which I really enjoyed) and Brokeback Mountain were the ones who left me feeling and thinking. And thinking. My pick is Brokeback. If you haven't seen yet, you should. If you're one of those silly people thinking, "It's about gays!" just take comfort in the fact that it's only pretend and that both actors, presumably, finished shooting and went on to the arms of women. It's just pretend. Straight guys won't leave the movie thinking, "Hmm, look at the guy over there. I wouldn't mind letting him brokeback my mountain." But it will make you think. If you've ever been in love and lost someone or if you've ever lost out on something (my guess is we all have), you'll find something in the movie for you.

Finally, an award they didn't have a category for but one that was deserving all the same.

best example of crook plays the victim:

Dick Cheney for shooting a friend and allowing his friend to be blamed for it publicly for days and days until finally coming along with the "I was the guy who pulled the trigger of the gun that shot the bullet that shot my friend" nonsense. I'd call the category "Biggest Disgrace" but then Cheney wouldn't stand a chane of winning because Bully Boy has that category locked up.

Senate passed the Patriot Act

I received an e-mail wondering if I had problems like Betty and Kat Tuesday? No. I just didn't blog.

Tuesday was a birthday of a third of Three Cool Old Guys. I was at the nursing home eating cake and having a good time. (Photos will be in Friday's the gina & krista round-robin.)

There's been so much stuff lately, that it's all I can do to keep up by reading. On the fun side, check out "Kat's Korner: Cat Power's Greatness," "Kat's Korner: Nina Simone -- Golden," and
"Industry Shocker: America's Funniest Videos? Not that American" as well as anything at The Daily Jot.

The Senate passed extensions to the Patriot Act (Mike talks about that). How come? At a time when Bully Boy's been exposed, and then some, as a crook who spies on the American people without warrants, why pass it? Read the thing C.I. wrote about this week's NSA hearing and maybe you'll think, like I do, they rolled over. How come?

The ports issue. It's huge news and it's not going away. (That doesn't mean it won't turn around and bite the Democrats in the butt.) So with Bully Boy's national security bonafides being questioned, the Dems move to strengthen their own appearances. I think that was the thinking there. I don't think it was, "I'm going to listen to my constituents. I'm going to think about all the towns, cities and states that have passed resolutions against the Patriot Act."

I think our liberties took a back seat to "image" and I think that's pretty disgusting.

I got the Nina Simone CDs Kat was talking about. I see, or hear, what she means. The first CD is nice enough but the second CD is really the keeper. My favorite song, that I didn't know before I listened to this set, is probably "Sunday in Savannah." I'd never heard that song before.
I agree with Kat that "Pirate Jenny" isn't Simone clowning. She's singing like she's moving lightly, with her head down, while she goes about the chores and awaits the destruction of the occupiers. I laughed out loud when Kat wrote "Nina Simone seems to revel in exploring this song about, to use today's terms, 'the insurgent.'" That's what makes Kat so good at reviews (or
Ava and C.I.), there's something more going on besides "cool songs, man!" It's reflecting the world around us.

That's really it tonight. I'll probably blog tomorrow and maybe have something to say. But I'm not going to act like the news about the Patriot Act passing the Senate is cause to be happy.

Coretta Scott King

Following Malcolm's assassination, King wired Betty Shabazz, expressing his sadness over "the shocking and tragic assassination of your husband. While we did not always see eye to eye on methods to solve the race problem, I always had a deep affection for Malcolm and felt that he had a great ability to put his finger on the existence and the root of the problem. He was an eloquent spokesman for his point of view and no one can honestly doubt that Malcolm had a great concern for the problems we face as a race."
Knowing these facts today, we need to stop viewing Martin and Malcolm as adversaries, between whom we have to choose, and recognize them as allies who complemented one another and who understood that revolutionary leaders need to keep developing.

I wasn't planning on blogging tonight but I saw the link to Grace Lee Boggs' "Malcolm and Martin: Allies, not adversaries" at The Common Ills a little while ago. She's someone that Liang introduced the community to. Liang's a really sweet person so whenever I see that she highlighted something or when someone highlights Grace Lee Boggs, I always pay attention.

I went to the article at the Michigan Citizen and found something on Coretta Scott King that I wanted to put up here.

George E. Curry has a column called "Tarnishing the King Legacy" and I'm going to show it to Three Cool Old Guys. If you get the gina & krista round-robin, you know they were bothered by Coretta Scott King's funeral. Not by the nonsense of "it's too political!" They felt it wasn't political enough and Curry's got some similar points.

Here's some of Curry's column:

Despite their varied contributions to the civil rights movement, none of the aforementioned was allowed to speak at the funeral. Belafonte had been invited but the invitation was withdrawn when Bush decided to attend the funeral. In January, Belafonte called Bush "the greatest terrorist in the world" and equated the Department of Homeland Security with Hitler's Gestapo. Evidently, the funeral organizers were more interested in not offending Bush than recognizing the person who had actually supported Dr. King and his work.
Of the 30 speakers who were neither relatives nor participating in musical tributes, only five or six marched regularly with Dr. King. Even more insulting, William Session, a former FBI director, was given time on the program, even though the FBI, under J. Edgar Hoover, actively sought to discredit Dr. King, taping his private conversations and urging him to commit suicide.


Another thing worth checking out is Phill Wilson's "Coretta Scott King was sensitive to gays and lesbians:"

After her husband's assassination, Mrs. King picked up the pieces, gathered her children to her bosom and assured us that we would get by. And like a good mother, she never played favorites. She was committed to including all of us -- the civil rights one, the peace one, the labor one, the gay and lesbian one, and eventually the HIV/AIDS one. While there were some old guard civil rights leaders who thought "justice" meant "just us," Mrs. King never wavered. When the traditional "civil rights" house defined by the narrow paradigm of racial discrimination became too small, she moved us to a new "human rights" house big enough for all of us.
In 1990, when her son, Martin Luther King III, made disparaging remarks about gay and lesbian people, Mrs. King hosted a Black gay and lesbian summit at the King center. She was also one of the first Black leaders to speak out about HIV/AIDS and the need for Black people to pay attention.
"AIDS is a human crisis, no matter where you live," she said while addressing a gathering of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. "Anyone who sincerely cares about the future of Black America had better be speaking out about AIDS, calling for preventive measures and increased funding for research and treatment."

Coretta Scott King stood up over and over. She was concerned with the humanity landscape and she helped all of us, regardless of color, gender, orientation.

So go check out The Michigan Citizen. They've got a lot worth reading (and a lot worth thinking about).

Move on when you need to

It's Thursday and Elaine can't blog on Thursday (she runs a group on Thursdays) so I grab Thursdays for her and she grabs Wednesdays (church night) for me. If you've never checked out her site, Like Maria Said Paz, please do so. I got matched with her, Eli, Kara and Brad by C.I. early on when I became a member of The Common Ills. We'd exchange e-mails and it was obvious she should be doing her own site. (So should Eli, Kara and Brad.) When she was filling in for Rebecca this summer while Rebecca was on vacation, she started helping out with The Third Estate Sunday Review and she's really sharp so maybe you know her from there? But check out her site: Like Maria Said Paz.

"How dare they try to end this beauty."

So what's the plan for tonight? An e-mail I wanted to get to awhile back but didn't have time (that'll be on my tombstone: "Didn't have time"). Iwanna e-mailed about her church back then and was kind enough to e-mail again this week or I would've forgotten.

She's got a beef and I'll quote her: "So it's not just donate to the plate that's passed around, we also have a Praise Bucket and they just added another one. I keep waiting to see the Car Note Bucket."

She's got a few beefs actually. She says she goes to church for the message and doesn't know "why we have to cluck like hens for 20 minutes at the start of every service while we're 'getting our praise on.'" Another complaint is that her preacher is always requesting, at the end of the service, that everyone go up to someone and hug. Iwanna goes to church with her adult son and her father and she's fine with hugging them "if I have to hug" but she's getting "real tired" of people coming up to her asking for a hug.

She also told me I could share this story. A year ago, there was a disagreement between two women in the choir at her church during choir practice. The first one wanted the solo and the second one said, "You always get the solo!" When the first one didn't back down, the second one cursed her and said, "I'm going out to my car and getting my gun!" The choir had to hold her back (while she was screaming, "Let me go! Let me go!") and Iwanna told her son they were leaving because it was getting crazy.

She has a ton of stories like that and I'm only sharing the ones she gave me permission to. But she's tired of this church. It was her late mother's church so she's continued to going.

But here's my advice, if your church isn't nourishing you and you've given it time, it's time for a change. I think a church is a long term thing and I expect that there will be bumps and all like any long term relationship. But if it stops working and it gets so bad that, like Iwanna, "all I want to do is go in, hear the sermon, and get out to my car" then it's probably time to consider another church.

When it stops speaking to you, and it continues to not speak to you, you need to move on. I hope that doesn't ever happen with me because I love my church but it does happen and when it does you just need to find another house of the Lord to worship in. That's not saying you failed or the church failed, just that you started out together but ended up taking different paths.

Though I put off writing about this here because I didn't have time, I did tell Iwanna that in an e-mail when she first wrote. Maybe seeing it up here will convince her that I mean it?

If your church isn't working for you, find one that does. I think most preachers or pastors would tell you the same thing -- not in a "get out" kind of way but because the message is more important than one church. Like I said, I hope that day never comes for me because my church means a lot to me and, even if that stopped being the case, I would still have a lot of memories tied up with it. I think that's why Iwanna's reluctant to make the break. But when you're miserable and it goes on and on for years, it's time to find a new house of worship.

Might even mean it was time to take a break and spend some time with yourself. But with Iwanna, she seems to just need to hear that it's okay to switch churches. Her aunt's goes to one that Iwanna's really curious about and she should check it out. Same goes for anyone.

The alternative is to just go through the motions and hate it and that does no one a favor. Doesn't do the congregation a favor, doesn't do your preacher a favor and it doesn't do you a favor.

So we've taken care of old business. Now I want to note something from Democracy Now! because Elaine always does:

Rumsfeld Backtracks on Iraq News Planting Denial
In other news, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has reversed his claim that the Pentagon has stopped planting news stories in the Iraqi media. Rumsfeld had made the claim on two separate occasions Friday. But on Tuesday, Rumsfeld said: "I don't have knowledge as to whether it's been stopped. I do have knowledge it was put under review. I was correctly informed. And I just misstated the facts."

Did you hear about that? Because you should have. This is typical for the administration. They act like a child cornered when caught in a lie -- they just create a new lie to get them out of hot water. To get everyone to back off, they lie and say something's stopped. Then, when things aren't being followed as closely, they turn around and retract their lie while claiming they thought that then.

"I just misstated the facts"? Weasel words for "I lied."

For an administration that can't stop invoking Jesus' name, they don't seem very familiar with the basics of the Bible, do they?

But that's often how it is. The people who make a spectacle of their faith are usually the least likely to actually practice it.

If you think about it, the very fact that they have to make a show of it usually means that they're trying to prove something. Now why does anyone have to prove anything? It's not a competition.

I really wish that politicians would invoke the Constitution more than they do the Lord. I don't look at politicians as the spiritual cheerleaders of the nation. When I hear Bully Boy go on and on about how God stopped his drinking and how God did this or did that, I think, "Well why didn't you go into preaching?" Really, if it's true, why didn't he go into preaching?

I don't think God wants us to kill each other. I don't think God wants to see a people lied into war. So when he speaks about God, it sounds phoney to me. I know some eat it up. I think he's dangerous to the country and think he needs to stop casting his opinions as being based in a faith because there's nothing spiritual about lying a nation into war. There's nothing spiritual about carpet bombing a country. Or bearing false witness.

Wally had a funny thing today that some people may miss. (Maybe not.) He gave me permission to post the whole thing so here it is.

THIS JUST IN! BULLY BOY ADDRESSES THE ISSUE OF THE PORTS
BULLY BOY PRESS - DC.

TODAY BULLY BOY HELD A PRESS CONFERENCE TO ADDRESS A CONCERN RAGING THE NATION.

"EVERYONE IS FOCUSED ON THE PORTS. EVERY WHERE I GO IT IS 'THE PORTS' THIS OR 'THE PORTS' THAT. PEOPLE THE PORTS IS ALWAYS WITH US. WHENEVER YOU WANT, YOU CAN DO THEM GOOD. BUT, PAY ATTENTION BILL FRIST, YOU DO NOT ALWAYS HAVE ME."

"LOSING A JOB IS TRAUMATIC," BULLY BOY SAID. "ASK MY FATHER. IT'S DIFFICULT. IT PUTS A STRAIN ON OUR FAMILIES. BUT YOUNGER INDIANS ARE AQUIRING A TASTE FOR PIZZA FROM DOMINO'S. THANK YOU."

"WHAT IN THE WORLD WAS HE TALKING ABOUT?" HELEN THOMAS, DEAN OF THE DC PRESS CORPS, WONDERED.

"SHUT IT, HELEN!" SNAPPED A SOBBING ELIZABETH BUMILLER OF THE NEW YORK TIMES, "HE IS INSPIRATIONAL! SIMPLY INSPIRATIONAL!"


Related: "Other Items"

the new york times
elisabeth bumiller
bully boy
the common ills

Wally's put Jesus' words in Bully Boy's mouth and intentionally screwed them us (the way Bully Boy does in real life). The whole section about "the ports" (the poor) always being with us. I always laugh at Wally's stuff but this one made me laugh a little harder because it really did capture the way Bully Boy trots out scripture and screws it up.

For more laughs see Betty's "Thomas Friedman's one moment of public truth."

And that's almost it for me tonight. Almost. Three Cool Old Guys can't stop laughing when they read Ava and C.I.'s "TV Review: Close To Home (and floating in the toilet)." Sunday, when I visited, they were laughing about it. That was day one. They're still laughing about it and keep saying, "You've got to re-read it, it gets funnier each time." I agree it's up there with their best ones and that's a big compliment. So make a point to read it.

By the way, here's the new content from last Sunday's The Third Estate Sunday Review:

A Note to Our Readers
Editorial: No spine on no spying
TV Review: Close To Home (and floating in the toilet)
1 Book, 10 Minutes (Danny Schechter, The Death of Media)
Psst, here come the gatekeepers
Musings on the service economy

Ava and C.I. do the TV reviews themselves. But on the other features the credits are:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim;
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man;
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review;
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills);
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix;
Mike of Mikey Likes It!;
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz;
and Wally of The Daily Jot.

I point that out because Betty, Kat and me sometimes hear, "You don't blog enough." We probably don't. But we are doing stuff besides what goes up at our own sites. Let me note one more thing because I haven't given Trina enough shout outs. Saturdays, Trina blogs at Trina's Kitchen. I hope you're checking her out. Iwanna, I guess I've added the Shout Out Bucket to this entry.

the daily jot
thomas friedman is a great man
the third estate sunday review
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
kats korner
mikey likes it
like maria said paz
cedrics big mix
thomas friedman is a great man

MALCOLM X: Whether you are a Christian or a Muslim or a Nationalist, we all have the same problem. They don't hang you because you're a Baptist; they hang you 'cause you're black. They don't attack me because I'm a Muslim; they attack me 'cause I'm black. They attack all of us for the same reason; all of us catch hell from the same enemy. We’re all in the same bag, in the same boat. We suffer political oppression, economic exploitation, and social degradation, all of them from the same enemy. The government has failed us; you can’t deny that. Anytime you live in the twentieth century, and you walkin' around here singing "We Shall Overcome," the government has failed us.
This is part of what’s wrong with you: You do too much singing. Today, it’s time to stop singing and start swinging. You can't sing up on freedom, but you can swing up on some freedom. Cassius Clay can sing, but singing didn’t help him to become the heavy-weight champion of the world. Swinging helped him become the heavy-weight champion. This government has failed us; the government itself has failed us, and the white liberals who have been posing as our friends have failed us.
And once we see that all these other sources to which we've turned have failed, we stop turning to them and turn to ourselves. We need a self-help program, a do-it-yourself philosophy, a do-it-right-now philosophy, a it's-already-too- late philosophy. This is what you and I need to get with, and the only time -- the only way we are going to solve our problem is with a self-help program. Before we can get a self-help program started, we have to have a self-help philosophy.

That's from Democracy Now! (On the 41st Anniversary of the Assassination of Malcolm X, "The Ballot or the Bullet"). If you missed it, you can listen online or watch online or read the transcript. But think about how little has changed in all this time.

That's my thought for tonight.

News

In the United Kingdom today, over 200 people gathered at St Nicholas and Writhington Church, in Radstock, Somerset for the funeral of Corporal Gordon Pritchard who died in Basra on January 31, 2005 becoming the 100th British soldier to die in Iraq. 101 British troops have died in Iraq, official count. Gordon Pritchard, who was 31 years-old, is survived by his wife Julie-Ann and his children Stacey, Harrison and Summer.

Alexander Panetta, of the Associated Press, is reporting that Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay maintains that "latest intelligence" indicates that the four memebers of Christian Peacemaker Teams are still alive. The four members, kidnapped in November, were last seen in a January 29th videotape. The four members are:

James Loney, 41, of Toronto; Harmeet Singh Sooden, 32, a former Montreal resident; Tom Fox, 54, of Clear Brook, Va., and Norman Kember, 74, of London [. . .]

Sunday's upsurge in violence continued on Monday. Reuters is reporting that bombings in Mosul and Baghdad today killed "at least 19 people." The Associated Press reports that in Karbala one American soldier was killed in a bombing and that in Mosul, a bomber killed himself in a "restaurant packed with policemen eating breakfast, killing at least five people and wounding 21, including 10 policemen". The Department of Defense has identified Capt. Anthony R. Garcia of Fort Worth, Texas as one of the 34 US military fatalities this month. Garcia died of from gunshot wounds after a February 17th shooting that took place on a military base in Tikrit. Garcia is survived by his wife Doris and his children Kelly and Garrick.

Brian Zimmerman, of Gannet News, is reporting that questions still surround the shooting death of Army Reservist David Douglas who died two weeks after returning to the United States from a one-year stint in Iraq. Commenting on the violent deaths of many returning veterans, National Guardsman Alfonso Williams told Zimmerman:

You have a whole lot of built-up anger from being over there. . . . You can't explain (what it's like) to anybody. And to them, what they may think is screaming and hollering to you is a normal tone.

In 2005, the military reports that 136 active duty personnel committed suicide. No figures are kept for those who are inactive. The current number for US military fatalities in Iraq stands at 2276.

As Jane Mayer reported in The New Yorker, early warnings were ignored by the administration about the environment created for abuse of prisoners in Guantanamo. Noting that "Human rights are under threat," Amnesty International is calling for the closing of Guantanamo. Tuesday, Amnesty International will host a live online discussion:

Live chat with Moazzam Begg, ex Guantánamo detainee, on 21 February, 6-7pm GMT

Moazzam Begg, British citizen, was held for "nearly three years," as noted on Democracy Now!. Amnesty International's call echoes the call of the UN investigation team as well as the prime ministers of Germany, France, England and Malaysia. U.S. Charm Minister Karen Hughes, speaking to Al Jazeera, rejected calls to close Gitmo and reportedly maintained that not only are the people imprisoned in Guantanamo wanting to kill Americans but that some released "have gone back to fighting and killing Americans." If the report is accurate, it is surprising that such an assertion would be made by the Minister of Charm and not Bully Boy himself.

In this country, the Associated Press is reporting that Republican governors George Pataki (New York) and Robert Ehrlich (Maryland) have joined the chorus of voices objecting by administration plans to turn over control of "six major U.S. ports" to Dubai Ports World. Senators Robert Menendez (New Jersey) and Hillary Clinton (New York) are also objecting to the proposed plan. Speaking out against the plan involving the Arab company, Mendendez stated today, "We wouldn't turn over our customs service or our border patrol to a foreign government. We shouldn't turn over the ports of the United States, either."

Feminist Wire Daily is reporting that CWIG (Center for Women in Government and Civil Society) has conducted a study on "the percentage of women in policy-making positions - such as state legislators, elected officials, high court judges, department heads, and top governor's advisors" for the years 1998 to 2005 and found that the rate of growth for women in those positions increased by only 1.6% -- "from 23.1 percent to 24.7 percent." FWD notes:

Slow progress for women in state government has national implications, says Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women in Politics at Rutgers. State and local office serve as a "pipeline" to draw women into national politics. Not to mention, adds Walsh, state legislatures themselves are "making a tremendous amount of policy" –- in 2005, 48 state legislatures considered over 500 anti-choice bills.

On the national level, NOW notes, that although "almost nine million more women voted than men" only fourteen women serve in the United States Senate and only sixty-seven in the House, while of the fifty governors in the United States, only eight are women.

As noted on Sunday's KPFA Evening News, Saturday Feb. 25th, a Counter-Recruiting workshop will be held, open to the public, from 2 to 5pm at the Veterans' Memorial Building, Room 219, 401 Van Ness Ave. March 1st is the National Law Student Day Against the Death Penalty (SDADP).

In other news, Philadelphia Indymedia is reporting that Governor Ed Rendell vetoed the Pennsylvania's Voter ID bill. Rendell, who spanked Casey Junior in the 2002 election race, stated, "I see no reason to enact laws that will result in voter confusion and disenfranchise legitimately registered voters." Member of Protect the Vote had successfully fought against the proposed legislation and were on hand for the veto ceremony.

In other civil liberties news, following what BuzzFlash has called "Just Your Average Week of the Bush Administration Betraying America," the ACLU features a snapshot of governmental spying/snooping in the form of Betty Ball who states:

It is true that I have become more motivated to work for justice and social change knowing that the government is abusing its powers like this. But I am worried about how far the government will go to squelch First Amendment rights and silence dissent. Will we all be rounded up and incarcerated? Already so many people have been frightened away from participating in our events, and have asked to have their names removed from our mailing lists, for fear of the consequences of associating with us. I hesitate to call people to discuss plans for rallies or protests because I don’t want them ending up in an FBI file labeled as a "domestic terrorist."

Meanwhile, author and activist Diane Wilson remains in a Victoria County jail in Texas. Wilson was arrested for unfurling a banner that read "Corporate Greed Kills--From Bhopal to Baghdad" at a Dick Cheney attended fundraiser in Houston on December 5, 2005. Wilson's banners are apparently too much for the delicate sensibilities of the foes of democracy. She is currently serving a 150 day sentence for a 2002 action where she climbed a Dow Jones tower and unfurled a banner which read "Justice For Bhopal." CODEPINK is calling for Wilson's release.
In other take action news, MediaChannel.org is asking you to Take Action: Demand Coverage of Able Danger (more info on the Able Danger program can be found at Able Danger Media Monitoring).

Finally, Monday's Democracy Now! featured:

"Readings From Howard Zinn's 'Voices of a People's History of the UnitedStates:'"
Today we spend the hour with readings from a Voices of a People's History of the United States edited by historian Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove. It is the companion volume to Zinn's legendary People's History of the United States ­ which has sold over a million copies.We will hear dramatic readings of speeches, letters, poems, songs, petitions, and manifestos. These are the voices of people throughout U.S.history who struggled against slavery, racism, and war, against oppression and exploitation, and who articulated a vision for a better world. Performances include Danny Glover as Frederick Douglass, Marisa Tomei as Cindy Sheehan, Floyd Red Crow Westerman as Tecumseh and Chief Joseph, Sandra Oh as Emma Goldman and Yuri Kochiyama, and Viggo Mortensen as Bartolomeo de Las Casas and Mark Twain.

This entry was compiled by:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim;
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man;
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review;
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills);
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix;
Mike of Mikey Likes It!;
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz;
and Wally of The Daily Jot.

democracy now
news
iraq
the common ills
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
kats korner
the third estate sunday review
mikey likes it
like maria said paz
cedrics big mix
thomas friedman is a great man
the daily jot
feminist wire
jane mayer
the new yorker
codepink
diane wilson
guantanamo
national lawyers guild
amnesty international
aclu
counter-recruiting
able danger
buzzflash