Thursdays, so I'm blogging. (If you're new, I try to blog Tuesdays and Thursdays.)
"Telecom Companies Helped NSA Spy on Millions of US Citizens" (Democracy Now):
Three of the country's largest telecom companies have provided the National Security Agency with the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans. This according to a report in USA Today. One source with direct knowledge of the program called it "the largest database ever assembled in the world" whose goal is to collect a record of "every call ever made" within the United States. The Bush administration has insisted its spy program focuses solely on international calls. The companies -- AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth -- have been under contract since after the 9/11 attacks. Only one major telecom company declined to participate in the program. The company, Qwest, reportedly asked the NSA to get FISA-court approval before it would hand over the records. The NSA refused. Although the program does not involve the direct monitoring of phone conservations, it amasses detailed records on who people have called and when they've called them. At least one company had already been implicated in the program. In a lawsuit filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation earlier this year, former AT&T technician Mark Klein said AT&T has been working with the National Security Agency to spy on Americans. In addition to raising new questions about the extent of the NSA spy program and the companies involved, the disclosure also raises new questions about CIA Director-nominee Michael Hayden. Hayden headed the National Security Agency at the time the spy program was implemented. He declined USA Today's request for comment.
If you're thinking, "What's going on?" Well, Elaine's off on Thursdays and I called to check on Mike and he suggested that we both cover the same items. I can't turn down my sick friend. (He said the fever's gone and the chicken pox is going down. I kidded him about having a kid's disease.) So remember how Bully Boy keeps covering up? Remember how Alberto Gonzales told the Judiciary Committee in the Senate that he couldn't talk about all the programs that were going on? This is just one more that we didn't know of. Just one more. There's a lot more going on and if more of it starts coming out, you're going to see the Bully Boy (who has a 31% approval rating right now) look more and more like the crook he is.
"UK Attorney General Calls For Guantanamo Closure" (Democracy Now):
Britain's Attorney General has called for the closure of the US prison facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In a speech in London, Lord Peter Goldsmith said: "The existence of Guantanamo remains unacceptable."
Here's my problem, if we close Guantanamo, where are we going to send the Bush Crime Family after the war crimes tribunal? I'm only half-way joking. I think Bully Boy is in real danger of being tried for war crimes. Not just because he's committed them. But because so many people are outraged by them. I think this is like Anita Hill where people tried to dismiss her and act as though her charges weren't a big deal or weren't true. And that worked during the confirmation hearing for Clarence Thomas, but a year later, there was this huge number of people who believed she told the truth. I think we're going to see something similar when Bully Boy leaves office. All these people who've been silent because they didn't know what they thought or felt that they couldn't think that way about our leader or whatever. When he's out of office, there will be so much disgust expressed openly by people you'd never expect to hear it from.
Go check out Mikey Likes It! to hear Mike's take from his sick bed in the children's ward. (I'm joking with him.)
I listened to KPFA's The Morning Show today and they had an interesting discussion on race issues (they had a great one last week too that C.I., Kat and I were trying to make part of "Where do you get your information?" but everyone was tired. I'm going to push for that topic this weekend. So I'll talk instead about this Canadian documentary they broadcast. It was about the harmful things in the environment -- and the environment is your home. Philip Malderi said in the introduction that it was in a kind of Leave It To Beaver form and it was. I think they named the toddler Sam and I forget the mother, father and older sister's name. But it was a family, and they had a dog, and it addressed the stuff that was in their home without them ever realizing it. Like the dust mites and the dust in the carpet but also things that get tracked in. They used the dog there. He'd been having a blast in the next door neighbor's yard and when he comes back into the house, he's tracking in all the chemicals that they were using in their garden to try to get rid of weeds. And did you know that some of the most pollution you're exposed to is in your car? Sick building disease was talked about too. It was really informative and I'm trying to think of a comment Andrea Lewis made because when I was listening, I thought, "I need to put that in." Now I'm forgetting it. It wasn't about the dust mites. She made some comments on that but it was on something else.
They also talked about how many chemicals children were exposed to. Oh, Andrea Lewis made the point that the air outside was cleaner than the air in many homes. Which also reminds me of Andrea and Philip talking about this one section on air freshners. When people use those, the products usually either just mask the odor or they deaden the nerves (I think it was nerves) in your nose that allow you to smell.
So that was pretty interesting. If you missed it and are interested in hearing it you can go to
KPFA and check out the archives for Thursday or click on The Morning Show and pull up Thursday's show.
Philip almost didn't get mentioned when we were writing "Where do you get your information?" because people were going, "How do you spell it?" (Watch, I'll have mispelled it in this.) "Is it two 'L's?" (C.I. and Kat knew how to spell it.)
Speaking of Kat, I hope everyone's read her four reviews in the last few days:
"Kat's Korner: Pink's not dead or silent"
"Kat's Korner: Neil Young's Living With War -- key word 'Living'"
"Kat's Korner: Richie Havens: The Economical Collection"
"Kat's Korner: Need deeper? Check out Josh Ritter's The Animal Years."
She's done that since Saturday. (She'll have a new review this Saturday.) I've always been a been a big fan of Kat's writing. If you go through the old entries at The Common Ills, you'll see that from before I had my own site. As early as December 2004, I'm praising her because she's a really incredible reviewer. She's doing all these reviews lately for two stated reasons. 1) Ruth is on vacation and music reviews can't replace Ruth but they can provide us with some really interesting things to read. 2) There's so much coming out now that so many have stopped playing "War Got Your Tongue?" (I saw a dopey thing about Bob Dylan and how he performed "Masters of War" in concert -- yeah, and he didn't say one word about the current war. He performed a moldy, golden oldy. He does that on all of his tours because no one's coming to hear the new stuff -- and by "new" I mean anything from the 90s, 80s or 70s. It wasn't a "statement." It was more cowardly acts from the King of Cowards.)
I think there's a third reason. Remember when Kat got attacked by the idiot that she hadn't even written about? And how he e-mailed her with what she needed to put up at her site, only to act like she was saying it and not him? I think she's more than over the All Puff No Politics crowd. They really had a lot of nerve attacking Kat. But that's really the sort of thing they can do -- attack people who speak out against the war while they hide in silence. Grown ups, acting like 12 year-olds addicted to their TVs and putting out puff on really bad TV shows while acting like they're a political site.
They're just a joke. (And a nasty two people, there was this idiotic, screaming rant that one of them sent Ava that could best be summed up as the writer needs therapy.)
So while the Puff crowd have made themselves useless, here's Kat still keeping it real, doing her thing, contributing and refusing to be made useless. Two more things to check out are Betty's "The hopping mad Thomas Friedman" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! HILLARY CLINTON LOVES THE BOYZ WHO CHEAT ON HER!" That's it for me tonight.
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Rove about to be indicted?
"Rove Indictment in Leak Case Remains A Possibility" (Democracy Now):
This update on the CIA leak case -- a reporter from MSNBC has publicly said he is convinced Karl Rove will be indicted in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. The reporter, David Shuster, made the comment last night, a week after Rove made his fifth appearance before the grand jury investigating the outing of Plame, the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Shuster is the same reporter who revealed on MSNBC that Plame was working undercover investigating Iran’s nuclear program at the time of her outing. On Monday the Washington Post reported that Rove had advised his colleagues at the White House on the importance of defending prewar intelligence and countering Wilson's critique of the war.
Rebecca told me that Mike's sick (chicken pox -- Mike, are you ten-years-old, dude!) so for my sick friend, I'll include something from his favorite show at the top of this post and wish him a speedy recovery.
That'd be great if Rove had to do a perp walk.
On a similar/different note, a new family left our church. They moved to the area and started attending about six Sundays ago. It's a Black Church (mainly African-American but we do have other races). The family was nice enough in many ways but they kept making these offensive remarks about Mexicans and Mexican-Americans. With the immigration issue in the news, that might have been part of it. But people were telling them they were offensive and they'd just blow it off. (Comments about how Mexican-Americans couldn't drive, were thieves, etc.)
Our pastor went to talk to them -- for the second time -- and this Sunday, they didn't show up at church. They had really offended Three Cool Old Guys because they felt that after all our race went through to get as far as we have (which still isn't equality), there was no justification for any African-American to "traffic in stereotypes and slurs."
I agree with that. Unless we delude ourselves, we know what is still said about us and it's not as bad as it once was, but it's still bad. There's no reason for us to join in attacks on others.
We have one family that is Mexican-American as well as a woman who comes to church by herself who is Cuban-American. Anybody wanting in the church better realize that everyone who's a member is family and there's no room for new members to bring their hate in.
Three Cool Old Guys are going to make this the topic of their column for Friday's gina and krista round-robin and they've got a lot to say on the topic. Be sure to read it.
What else is going on?
Jim's asked if I would jot some stuff down about the latest edition of The Third Estate Sunday Review? I told him I would but I would note why. He said that was cool.
Why? Ava and C.I. were right. If they wrote the piece he wanted them to write, it would overwhelm everything in the edition -- and it has. But here's what's in the latest edition:
"Radio highlights for Sunday (and one for Monday)" -- if you missed any of the programs highlighted, you can catch archived broadcasts of them (for free) so look at the highlights.
"Why He Took On Rumsfeld: Ray McGovern Talks to Democracy Now!" -- this is about something that really angered a bunch of us. Ray McGovern was on a number of shows, including Democracy Now!, talking about what he did last Thursday -- confronted Donald Rumsfeld -- but if you surfed online, it was all CNN, MSNBC and corporate outlets. If you don't support independent media, who are you helping?
"TV commentary takes a back seat this week to Colbert" -- is the piece everyone's e-mailing about. This is the piece Ava and C.I. didn't want to write but Jim and Ty say it's getting a huge positive reception (and overshadowing everything else in the edition) as well as 20 of the nastiest e-mails (at least half include physical threats) that site's ever received. For the record, I agree with every word in that commentary. I also (and Jim knows this) do not think it was fair or appropriate in what was supposed to be an easy week to tell them the day before, "Oh, we're going to need you to weigh in the whole Colbert thing." They'd already planned their commentary for the week, viewed a show, called friends who worked on it, and roughed out their main points. Ava and C.I. are both hugely involved in about three thousand issues at once and they did all their work for their commentary early in the week in the hopes that they could actually get some sleep. Didn't happen. What did happen, as they suspected, was that they'd end up with the attention getting piece for the edition.
"Book: Anthony Arnove's IRAQ: The Logic of Withdrawal" -- we were tired but we needed to note this book. It's a great book and one you should read and pass on to your friends.
"Shame of the Week (Musical)" -- three mothers saw a commercial and lobbied us to write about it. It is pretty shameful, this shame of the week. If you haven't read it, go read it to find out what offended three mothers. (And those of us writing were offended by it as well.)
"Where do you get your information?" -- this is getting the word out. KPFA has a show called The Morning Show and this is giving you a rundown of that as well as noting Guantanamo. This was actually the start of two pieces but, due to lack of time, it got blended into one piece.
"Head on Home (a musical in four scenes)" -- this is pretty good. More than pretty good. This is one of the things I'm most proud of and point to and say, "Yes, I helped with that." You expect the extreme right wing to call for military solutions to any problem. You don't expect the same from groups like Working Assets. This is a look at the peace movement and quite a bit more. There were actually melodies to the lyrics. Jess, Kat, Rebecca and C.I. came up with this idea and lobbied for it. It had my support right away and I hope we try something similar again. (It doesn't have to be a musical or a play, but just something out of the norm for what we usually do.) Three Cool Old Guys made me sing it to them tonight because they wanted to hear it. Need more music? Check out Kat's "Kat's Korner: Richie Havens: The Economical Collection."
"Darfur" -- is the place that Working Assets and others on the left are calling to be turned over to NATO. With regards to Africa, I get a little bothered anytime the "answer" is to send in troops from the "developed" (read: White) nations. If genocide is going on, what's a way to address that without matching bullets for bullets and turning it even more into a war zone? This proposes one possible means of addressing the conflict and it's one I support strongly. I doubt most people will. Like we say, it's easier to send guns and bullets then to welcome anyone to your country. I think Wally's "THIS JUST IN! IT TAKES A COWARD --- SOMETIMES TWO!"
goes with the piece, so check it out.
"TV: The Urine Stains of David Mamet" -- is the review that Ava and C.I. had roughed out, made calls on, etc. They almost didn't write this. But there were a number of technical problems with posting so they ended up grabbing a few minutes (I think 15) and wrote it up.
It made me laugh. It made my cousin laugh. He's seen the show (because he skips church on Wednesdays) and he said they captured it "to a t."
"Editorial: Bully Boy Thinking?" -- we had another topic for the editorial but no one was in the mood and just wanted to get done. So Dona came up with the idea for this which is pulling together a point that was made in the edition and around the community websites all week: the need for perspective.
"A Note to Our Readers" -- is where Jim gets to offer his thoughts each week.
Except for Ava and C.I.'s two commentaries and Jim's notes, the rest of it was worked on by the following:
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
So that's about it for me tonight. I'll probably have pleasant dreams tonight, thinking about Karl Rove getting indicted.
This update on the CIA leak case -- a reporter from MSNBC has publicly said he is convinced Karl Rove will be indicted in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. The reporter, David Shuster, made the comment last night, a week after Rove made his fifth appearance before the grand jury investigating the outing of Plame, the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Shuster is the same reporter who revealed on MSNBC that Plame was working undercover investigating Iran’s nuclear program at the time of her outing. On Monday the Washington Post reported that Rove had advised his colleagues at the White House on the importance of defending prewar intelligence and countering Wilson's critique of the war.
Rebecca told me that Mike's sick (chicken pox -- Mike, are you ten-years-old, dude!) so for my sick friend, I'll include something from his favorite show at the top of this post and wish him a speedy recovery.
That'd be great if Rove had to do a perp walk.
On a similar/different note, a new family left our church. They moved to the area and started attending about six Sundays ago. It's a Black Church (mainly African-American but we do have other races). The family was nice enough in many ways but they kept making these offensive remarks about Mexicans and Mexican-Americans. With the immigration issue in the news, that might have been part of it. But people were telling them they were offensive and they'd just blow it off. (Comments about how Mexican-Americans couldn't drive, were thieves, etc.)
Our pastor went to talk to them -- for the second time -- and this Sunday, they didn't show up at church. They had really offended Three Cool Old Guys because they felt that after all our race went through to get as far as we have (which still isn't equality), there was no justification for any African-American to "traffic in stereotypes and slurs."
I agree with that. Unless we delude ourselves, we know what is still said about us and it's not as bad as it once was, but it's still bad. There's no reason for us to join in attacks on others.
We have one family that is Mexican-American as well as a woman who comes to church by herself who is Cuban-American. Anybody wanting in the church better realize that everyone who's a member is family and there's no room for new members to bring their hate in.
Three Cool Old Guys are going to make this the topic of their column for Friday's gina and krista round-robin and they've got a lot to say on the topic. Be sure to read it.
What else is going on?
Jim's asked if I would jot some stuff down about the latest edition of The Third Estate Sunday Review? I told him I would but I would note why. He said that was cool.
Why? Ava and C.I. were right. If they wrote the piece he wanted them to write, it would overwhelm everything in the edition -- and it has. But here's what's in the latest edition:
"Radio highlights for Sunday (and one for Monday)" -- if you missed any of the programs highlighted, you can catch archived broadcasts of them (for free) so look at the highlights.
"Why He Took On Rumsfeld: Ray McGovern Talks to Democracy Now!" -- this is about something that really angered a bunch of us. Ray McGovern was on a number of shows, including Democracy Now!, talking about what he did last Thursday -- confronted Donald Rumsfeld -- but if you surfed online, it was all CNN, MSNBC and corporate outlets. If you don't support independent media, who are you helping?
"TV commentary takes a back seat this week to Colbert" -- is the piece everyone's e-mailing about. This is the piece Ava and C.I. didn't want to write but Jim and Ty say it's getting a huge positive reception (and overshadowing everything else in the edition) as well as 20 of the nastiest e-mails (at least half include physical threats) that site's ever received. For the record, I agree with every word in that commentary. I also (and Jim knows this) do not think it was fair or appropriate in what was supposed to be an easy week to tell them the day before, "Oh, we're going to need you to weigh in the whole Colbert thing." They'd already planned their commentary for the week, viewed a show, called friends who worked on it, and roughed out their main points. Ava and C.I. are both hugely involved in about three thousand issues at once and they did all their work for their commentary early in the week in the hopes that they could actually get some sleep. Didn't happen. What did happen, as they suspected, was that they'd end up with the attention getting piece for the edition.
"Book: Anthony Arnove's IRAQ: The Logic of Withdrawal" -- we were tired but we needed to note this book. It's a great book and one you should read and pass on to your friends.
"Shame of the Week (Musical)" -- three mothers saw a commercial and lobbied us to write about it. It is pretty shameful, this shame of the week. If you haven't read it, go read it to find out what offended three mothers. (And those of us writing were offended by it as well.)
"Where do you get your information?" -- this is getting the word out. KPFA has a show called The Morning Show and this is giving you a rundown of that as well as noting Guantanamo. This was actually the start of two pieces but, due to lack of time, it got blended into one piece.
"Head on Home (a musical in four scenes)" -- this is pretty good. More than pretty good. This is one of the things I'm most proud of and point to and say, "Yes, I helped with that." You expect the extreme right wing to call for military solutions to any problem. You don't expect the same from groups like Working Assets. This is a look at the peace movement and quite a bit more. There were actually melodies to the lyrics. Jess, Kat, Rebecca and C.I. came up with this idea and lobbied for it. It had my support right away and I hope we try something similar again. (It doesn't have to be a musical or a play, but just something out of the norm for what we usually do.) Three Cool Old Guys made me sing it to them tonight because they wanted to hear it. Need more music? Check out Kat's "Kat's Korner: Richie Havens: The Economical Collection."
"Darfur" -- is the place that Working Assets and others on the left are calling to be turned over to NATO. With regards to Africa, I get a little bothered anytime the "answer" is to send in troops from the "developed" (read: White) nations. If genocide is going on, what's a way to address that without matching bullets for bullets and turning it even more into a war zone? This proposes one possible means of addressing the conflict and it's one I support strongly. I doubt most people will. Like we say, it's easier to send guns and bullets then to welcome anyone to your country. I think Wally's "THIS JUST IN! IT TAKES A COWARD --- SOMETIMES TWO!"
goes with the piece, so check it out.
"TV: The Urine Stains of David Mamet" -- is the review that Ava and C.I. had roughed out, made calls on, etc. They almost didn't write this. But there were a number of technical problems with posting so they ended up grabbing a few minutes (I think 15) and wrote it up.
It made me laugh. It made my cousin laugh. He's seen the show (because he skips church on Wednesdays) and he said they captured it "to a t."
"Editorial: Bully Boy Thinking?" -- we had another topic for the editorial but no one was in the mood and just wanted to get done. So Dona came up with the idea for this which is pulling together a point that was made in the edition and around the community websites all week: the need for perspective.
"A Note to Our Readers" -- is where Jim gets to offer his thoughts each week.
Except for Ava and C.I.'s two commentaries and Jim's notes, the rest of it was worked on by the following:
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
So that's about it for me tonight. I'll probably have pleasant dreams tonight, thinking about Karl Rove getting indicted.
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Coming up at Third
BC Professors Protest Honoring Condoleeza Rice
In Massachusetts, nearly 100 Boston College professors have added their names to a letter protesting their university's decision to award Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice an honorary degree. Rice has been announced as a commencement speaker for graduation ceremonies later this month. The letters' authors, including theology department chair Rev. Kenneth Himes, wrote: "On the levels of both moral principle and practical moral judgment, Secretary Rice's approach to international affairs is in fundamental conflict with Boston College's commitment to the values of the Catholic and Jesuit traditions and is inconsistent with the humanistic values that inspire the university's work."
Above is a headline from Democracy Now! today. Mike asked me to note it.
I went to the e-mails today (that's news, trust me) and read the first five. Everyone was asking about Sunday's edition of The Third Estate Sunday Review. I called up Dona and asked her if she knew why? She said I'd dealt with some things, clarified them, here and maybe people are expecting that I could on this as well?
As I know it, this is what's planned. There will be a feature that's the lyrics of a musical. This was going to be the entire edition but Jim got nervous about how well that could be pulled off.
(Ava and C.I. were willing to attempt their TV commentary in lyric manner.) So it's now going to be a feature and a long one. That was actually at risk but Jess and C.I. came up with a diagram and that calmed Jim. (I'm writing this with everyone's permission, by the way.) Jim truly was afraid that it might be difficult to pull it off. Jess and C.I. came up with a diagram that demonstrated how it would move.
Does that mean it will work? Not necessarily. But forget the "you can't tell until you try" -- the important thing is stepping outside of the usual. It does free you up. You learn something from it. This is without any feedback. Just doing it, teaches you to think a little differently or try a new approach. So success or failure, it will be worth it.
I've heard two lyrics and seen the outline and I think it will work. These will not be full songs. Jim's limited it so don't expect full lyrics and don't worry that you won't be able to follow. That's why Jess and C.I. nailed down a diagram that shows how the thing will flow.
What else? There will be a book feature. Some were really hoping to do that in lyric form. It would have been something to try and probably shaked things up a bit. But now that the musical is one feature only, we'll probably do it in the traditional manner (discussion). Ava and C.I. will be doing a TV commentary, there will be an editorial, a radio program highlight and probably some quick items.
Everyone, including Jim, is excited about the musical feature now. (The diagram helped silence worries.) But that's not what the e-mails were about.
The e-mails were about the topic that the community's interested in. (You know the one.) Near the end of last Sunday's work (we were all in NYC together), C.I. tossed out something. For those who don't want to board the Force Wagon, there's no option, that's what we're told by the Force Wagon crew. C.I. went historical. What did we think of that? We hadn't thought of it. It had never popped into anyone's head. We were finishing the editorial and Jim felt we should either do a write up of it right then or C.I. should write something up at The Common Ills. C.I. said it would be better as a group feature and we should hold it for next week which Dona agreed with saying that it would be so nice to know that they had a firm topic for one feature before Saturday rolled around.
All week, the concerns been that the Times would suggest it or someone else. C.I.'s had no qualms about not posting in the evening this week because it's hard (this is from C.I.) to do an entry and not be drawn to the topic. So you should look for that. And I should put in "planned" because between computer problems and other things, you never know what's going to happen during an edition -- we're always on our toes.
Dona thinks we could be able to finish our edition very quickly since we've got so much planned already. There's been that belief before and computer problems and other things have ended making it last longer.
Ty's on vacation so everyone (even me) has been helping with the e-mails to The Third Estate Sunday Review. (Ty's on vacation from the e-mails -- he usually gets stuck with reading the bulk of them.) Jim asked me if I noted the positive feedback on the TV review. I had read e-mails on that as well. Ava and C.I. blow off their reviews and act like they're nothing special but readers love them. (I love them too.) Last Sunday they did "TV review: Without a Point" which was about Without a Trace. It's a must read if you missed it.
Please make a point to read Rebecca's report on how Goldie and her mother Marlene's house party went last weekend. That's it for me, the advance man for The Third Estate Sunday Review. (I was joking.) I promised to read over Three Cool Old Guys column for tomorrow's gina & krista round-robin so I'm headed out to do that now.
In Massachusetts, nearly 100 Boston College professors have added their names to a letter protesting their university's decision to award Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice an honorary degree. Rice has been announced as a commencement speaker for graduation ceremonies later this month. The letters' authors, including theology department chair Rev. Kenneth Himes, wrote: "On the levels of both moral principle and practical moral judgment, Secretary Rice's approach to international affairs is in fundamental conflict with Boston College's commitment to the values of the Catholic and Jesuit traditions and is inconsistent with the humanistic values that inspire the university's work."
Above is a headline from Democracy Now! today. Mike asked me to note it.
I went to the e-mails today (that's news, trust me) and read the first five. Everyone was asking about Sunday's edition of The Third Estate Sunday Review. I called up Dona and asked her if she knew why? She said I'd dealt with some things, clarified them, here and maybe people are expecting that I could on this as well?
As I know it, this is what's planned. There will be a feature that's the lyrics of a musical. This was going to be the entire edition but Jim got nervous about how well that could be pulled off.
(Ava and C.I. were willing to attempt their TV commentary in lyric manner.) So it's now going to be a feature and a long one. That was actually at risk but Jess and C.I. came up with a diagram and that calmed Jim. (I'm writing this with everyone's permission, by the way.) Jim truly was afraid that it might be difficult to pull it off. Jess and C.I. came up with a diagram that demonstrated how it would move.
Does that mean it will work? Not necessarily. But forget the "you can't tell until you try" -- the important thing is stepping outside of the usual. It does free you up. You learn something from it. This is without any feedback. Just doing it, teaches you to think a little differently or try a new approach. So success or failure, it will be worth it.
I've heard two lyrics and seen the outline and I think it will work. These will not be full songs. Jim's limited it so don't expect full lyrics and don't worry that you won't be able to follow. That's why Jess and C.I. nailed down a diagram that shows how the thing will flow.
What else? There will be a book feature. Some were really hoping to do that in lyric form. It would have been something to try and probably shaked things up a bit. But now that the musical is one feature only, we'll probably do it in the traditional manner (discussion). Ava and C.I. will be doing a TV commentary, there will be an editorial, a radio program highlight and probably some quick items.
Everyone, including Jim, is excited about the musical feature now. (The diagram helped silence worries.) But that's not what the e-mails were about.
The e-mails were about the topic that the community's interested in. (You know the one.) Near the end of last Sunday's work (we were all in NYC together), C.I. tossed out something. For those who don't want to board the Force Wagon, there's no option, that's what we're told by the Force Wagon crew. C.I. went historical. What did we think of that? We hadn't thought of it. It had never popped into anyone's head. We were finishing the editorial and Jim felt we should either do a write up of it right then or C.I. should write something up at The Common Ills. C.I. said it would be better as a group feature and we should hold it for next week which Dona agreed with saying that it would be so nice to know that they had a firm topic for one feature before Saturday rolled around.
All week, the concerns been that the Times would suggest it or someone else. C.I.'s had no qualms about not posting in the evening this week because it's hard (this is from C.I.) to do an entry and not be drawn to the topic. So you should look for that. And I should put in "planned" because between computer problems and other things, you never know what's going to happen during an edition -- we're always on our toes.
Dona thinks we could be able to finish our edition very quickly since we've got so much planned already. There's been that belief before and computer problems and other things have ended making it last longer.
Ty's on vacation so everyone (even me) has been helping with the e-mails to The Third Estate Sunday Review. (Ty's on vacation from the e-mails -- he usually gets stuck with reading the bulk of them.) Jim asked me if I noted the positive feedback on the TV review. I had read e-mails on that as well. Ava and C.I. blow off their reviews and act like they're nothing special but readers love them. (I love them too.) Last Sunday they did "TV review: Without a Point" which was about Without a Trace. It's a must read if you missed it.
Please make a point to read Rebecca's report on how Goldie and her mother Marlene's house party went last weekend. That's it for me, the advance man for The Third Estate Sunday Review. (I was joking.) I promised to read over Three Cool Old Guys column for tomorrow's gina & krista round-robin so I'm headed out to do that now.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Bully Boy and check out Annette Rubenstein on Law and Disorder
Q The flip side of all that was the rescue of Jessica Lynch.
THE PRESIDENT: It was.
Q Did you get advanced notice that that operation was going down?
THE PRESIDENT: I did. I did. Secretary Rumsfeld told me not to get my hopes up, but there was going to be a very sensitive operation into a hospital where he thought that there would be an American POW. And that's all he said. He was very circumspect, as he should be, to a lot of people, because he didn't want any information to get out that might have jeopardized the operation. But he gave me a heads-up. And then when we heard that she had been rescued, it was a joyous moment.
Q Let me ask you about some of the larger policy questions. Before we went to war against Iraq, one of the reasons that you justified this war was that he posed a real threat to the United States. If he couldn't defend his own country -- and we have not yet been able to find the weapons of mass destruction, which were not even launched in defense of Iraq -- was that overstated?
THE PRESIDENT: No, not at all. As a matter of fact, I think time and investigation will prove a couple of points. One, that he did have terrorist connections. And, secondly, that he had a weapons of mass destruction program -- we know he had a weapons of mass destruction program. We now know he's not going to use them. So we've accomplished one objective, and that is that Saddam Hussein will not hurt the United States or friends or our allies with weapons of mass destruction.
Secondly, we are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. We also know there are hundreds and hundreds of sites available for hiding the weapons, which he did effectively for 10 years from the -- over 10 years from the United Nations. And that we've only looked at about 90 of those sites so far. I mean, literally hundreds of sites.
And so we will find them. But it's going to take time to find them. And the best way to find them is to continue to collect information from the humans, Iraqis who were involved with hiding them.
Q As you know, there's still a lot of skepticism around the world about American motives in Iraq.
THE PRESIDENT: Right.
Q Why not fold in some of the U.N. inspectors to this effort, not turn it over to them, but make them a part of it? Would that help with the credibility, do you think?
THE PRESIDENT: I think there's going to be skepticism until people find out there was, in fact, a weapons of mass destruction program. One thing there can't be skepticism about is the fact that this guy was torturous and brutal on the Iraqi people. I mean, he brutalized them, he tortured them, he destroyed them, he cut out their tongues when they dissented. And now the people are beginning to see what freedom means within Iraq. Look at the Shia marches, or the Shia pilgrimages that are taking place.
The world will see that the United States is interested in peace, is interested in security and interested in freedom.
Q But it is important to find the weapons of mass destruction, or the evidence that he had a massive program underway, isn't it?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. I think we will. I'm pretty confident we will.
I know. You'd be laughing right now if we hadn't lost over 2406 troops, if countless Iraqis hadn't been killed, their homes destroyed, their land turned into a war zone. That's the Bully Boy speaking to Tom Brokaw in April of 2003. Wally passed that on to me (thank you, Wally). He'd called C.I. about what he wanted to do today ("THIS JUST IN! BULLY BOY LAGGING!" read it, it's funny) and C.I. told him, "You know he didn't come out against boycotts when he was asked of the Dixie Chicks by Tom Brokaw." So Wally grabbed that interview online and sent it to me saying I might want some of it. I did. Bully Boy there were no, in fact, WMDs in Iraq. Are you still "pretty confident"? If so, that explains this:
"Bush: Iraq At A Turning Point (Again)" (Democracy Now!):
Meanwhile President Bush announced on Monday that the formation of a new Iraqi government marks a turning point in the war. His comments came three years to the day after he proclaimed that major combat operations were over while standing under a banner that read Mission Accomplished. On Monday he spoke briefly on the White Hose lawn while standing next to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, both of whom had just returned from Iraq. "We believe this is a turning point for the Iraqi citizens and it's a new chapter in our partnership," Bush said. "The secretaries began building this new partnership during their trip. In other words, the Iraqi leaders saw that we are committed to helping them succeed." This doesn't mark the first time the president has declared Iraq has reached a turning point. He did so back in June 2004 when the occupying U.S. forces announced they would transfer sovereignty back to the Iraqi people. Bush also said the 2005 election in Iraq would mark a turning point.
Are you "pretty confident" on that too, Bully Boy? What's your fat gut telling you now?
WBAI's Law and Disorder addressed MayDay Monday (so did Democracy Now! with "The Origins of May Day: A Story of Chicago, the First Labor Movement and the Bombing That Divided Gilded Age America" but I assume everyone in the community heard it, saw it or read it). So the guests were Zayd Dorn, Annette Rubenstein and Julie Ruben -- the last two are with the Brecht Forum. Ms. Rubenstein is 96 years-old and she's lived a wonderful life and seen it all. I really enjoyed her. She said she had some troubles with pinning down dates and that reminded me of Three Cool Old Guys and, I bet, of you and me when we're older. We'll remember really important events but I bet if we're lucky enough to live that long we'll be able to give a general date to some of our memories but not all because those are a lot of years.
She was a really informed person. I enjoyed all of her stories. She and Michael Ratner and Michael Smith talked about how MayDay was demonized and the government tried to weaken it -- which they did. They created a "Law Day" on that day to try to detract from it. But let me back up (as Amy Goodman would say) and start out with what MayDay is and was: a day for the workers. Workers gathered together to fight (and they fought for and won the eight hour work day) and march and celebrate.
You better believe that was as threatening to business then as the immigration rallies are to business today. (For a perfect example of how the organs of business dismiss and trash the immigration rallies, read C.I.'s "NYT: Millions protest so the Times highlights Small Business and the Minutemen.") Ms. Rubenstein could remember so many amazing experiences that she took part in. Someone (Studs Terkel?) should put a tape recorder in front of her if she doesn't want to write her own life story because it's amazing. Michael Smith pointed out that at MayDay events in the thirties, people might meet up, fall in love and marry.
It was these like minded people who cared about the world and weren't going to fool themselves that they or everyone else was getting a fair deal. I think those people still exist (I am one) but I think we've gotten so discouraged. It was really inspiring hearing those stories.
So the government creates Law Day to cut into MayDay. And then they followed that by establishing Labor Day. MayDay got demonized and was basically run out of town. Ms. Rubenstein talked about that happening over a period of many years. There was a funny story she told about how the Catholic kids in parochial school were let out and encouraged to heckle and yell at the people participating in MayDay. They did that at one of her marches and she started a cheer of "No homework" and pools for schools. That shut them up.
Amazing woman, Annette Rubenstein. She lost her job as a principal due to her politics. She's an editor of a magazine, teaches at the Brecht Forum and writes for Monthly Review. I can't find the magazine she edits for (Science Society?) and I'm surprised that she doesn't even have a biography at Wikipedia. But what she does have is a sharp mind, an amazing life that is still underway and a lot of things to share. So listen to the show, if you missed it, at WBAI's archives or at the Law and Disorder site.
Last thing for tonight. There were five e-mails I'd avoided that got answered today. If it's from a community member that I know or recognize their e-mails from the gina & krista round-robin, I'll read it right away. But if I don't know the e-mail, I'll usually let it sit until I'm ready to wade in. There are a lot of racists e-mails. I'm not like Betty (who follows Elaine's advice of waiting and only reading when she feels like) but I will wait if I don't recognize the e-mail address. I answered the five today. I'm sorry for being that way about it but if I don't know the sender (or think I don't), some days it's just not worth it to get that kind of e-mail. With Betty and myself, e-mails that disagree like to go racist. That really doesn't happen at The Third Estate Sunday Review even though Ty's responsible for answering most of the e-mails. (As Ty's pointed out, usually they assume that everyone at Third is White.) Instead they go for foul language aimed at women (which is probably because you get little TV babies wanting to trash Ava and C.I. for saying something "mean" about Nick Lachey or John Stamos or any other guy who really can't act). Rebecca gets that nonsense too. I think they're scared of Elaine because I'll talk to Jess or Ava and they'll say that instead of attacking Elaine in e-mails, they'll attack her in an e-mail to C.I. Wally's gotten the least hate mail. C.I. gets tons. There's always some right winger having a fit and Ava and Jess enjoy it best when it's a "name" right winger. They also enjoy the tantrums from certain reporters. But I think C.I.'s been around so long and posts so often that, except for the TV reviews, they just scream politics in their hate e-mails.
It's interesting, thinking about that. Some time when we need a story idea, some weekend, I'll try to suggest that.
Now who didn't I mention? Mike. Saving him for last because he's writing about WBAI's Law and Disorder too so hop on over there (but remember, he's a slow typer).
THE PRESIDENT: It was.
Q Did you get advanced notice that that operation was going down?
THE PRESIDENT: I did. I did. Secretary Rumsfeld told me not to get my hopes up, but there was going to be a very sensitive operation into a hospital where he thought that there would be an American POW. And that's all he said. He was very circumspect, as he should be, to a lot of people, because he didn't want any information to get out that might have jeopardized the operation. But he gave me a heads-up. And then when we heard that she had been rescued, it was a joyous moment.
Q Let me ask you about some of the larger policy questions. Before we went to war against Iraq, one of the reasons that you justified this war was that he posed a real threat to the United States. If he couldn't defend his own country -- and we have not yet been able to find the weapons of mass destruction, which were not even launched in defense of Iraq -- was that overstated?
THE PRESIDENT: No, not at all. As a matter of fact, I think time and investigation will prove a couple of points. One, that he did have terrorist connections. And, secondly, that he had a weapons of mass destruction program -- we know he had a weapons of mass destruction program. We now know he's not going to use them. So we've accomplished one objective, and that is that Saddam Hussein will not hurt the United States or friends or our allies with weapons of mass destruction.
Secondly, we are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. We also know there are hundreds and hundreds of sites available for hiding the weapons, which he did effectively for 10 years from the -- over 10 years from the United Nations. And that we've only looked at about 90 of those sites so far. I mean, literally hundreds of sites.
And so we will find them. But it's going to take time to find them. And the best way to find them is to continue to collect information from the humans, Iraqis who were involved with hiding them.
Q As you know, there's still a lot of skepticism around the world about American motives in Iraq.
THE PRESIDENT: Right.
Q Why not fold in some of the U.N. inspectors to this effort, not turn it over to them, but make them a part of it? Would that help with the credibility, do you think?
THE PRESIDENT: I think there's going to be skepticism until people find out there was, in fact, a weapons of mass destruction program. One thing there can't be skepticism about is the fact that this guy was torturous and brutal on the Iraqi people. I mean, he brutalized them, he tortured them, he destroyed them, he cut out their tongues when they dissented. And now the people are beginning to see what freedom means within Iraq. Look at the Shia marches, or the Shia pilgrimages that are taking place.
The world will see that the United States is interested in peace, is interested in security and interested in freedom.
Q But it is important to find the weapons of mass destruction, or the evidence that he had a massive program underway, isn't it?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. I think we will. I'm pretty confident we will.
I know. You'd be laughing right now if we hadn't lost over 2406 troops, if countless Iraqis hadn't been killed, their homes destroyed, their land turned into a war zone. That's the Bully Boy speaking to Tom Brokaw in April of 2003. Wally passed that on to me (thank you, Wally). He'd called C.I. about what he wanted to do today ("THIS JUST IN! BULLY BOY LAGGING!" read it, it's funny) and C.I. told him, "You know he didn't come out against boycotts when he was asked of the Dixie Chicks by Tom Brokaw." So Wally grabbed that interview online and sent it to me saying I might want some of it. I did. Bully Boy there were no, in fact, WMDs in Iraq. Are you still "pretty confident"? If so, that explains this:
"Bush: Iraq At A Turning Point (Again)" (Democracy Now!):
Meanwhile President Bush announced on Monday that the formation of a new Iraqi government marks a turning point in the war. His comments came three years to the day after he proclaimed that major combat operations were over while standing under a banner that read Mission Accomplished. On Monday he spoke briefly on the White Hose lawn while standing next to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, both of whom had just returned from Iraq. "We believe this is a turning point for the Iraqi citizens and it's a new chapter in our partnership," Bush said. "The secretaries began building this new partnership during their trip. In other words, the Iraqi leaders saw that we are committed to helping them succeed." This doesn't mark the first time the president has declared Iraq has reached a turning point. He did so back in June 2004 when the occupying U.S. forces announced they would transfer sovereignty back to the Iraqi people. Bush also said the 2005 election in Iraq would mark a turning point.
Are you "pretty confident" on that too, Bully Boy? What's your fat gut telling you now?
WBAI's Law and Disorder addressed MayDay Monday (so did Democracy Now! with "The Origins of May Day: A Story of Chicago, the First Labor Movement and the Bombing That Divided Gilded Age America" but I assume everyone in the community heard it, saw it or read it). So the guests were Zayd Dorn, Annette Rubenstein and Julie Ruben -- the last two are with the Brecht Forum. Ms. Rubenstein is 96 years-old and she's lived a wonderful life and seen it all. I really enjoyed her. She said she had some troubles with pinning down dates and that reminded me of Three Cool Old Guys and, I bet, of you and me when we're older. We'll remember really important events but I bet if we're lucky enough to live that long we'll be able to give a general date to some of our memories but not all because those are a lot of years.
She was a really informed person. I enjoyed all of her stories. She and Michael Ratner and Michael Smith talked about how MayDay was demonized and the government tried to weaken it -- which they did. They created a "Law Day" on that day to try to detract from it. But let me back up (as Amy Goodman would say) and start out with what MayDay is and was: a day for the workers. Workers gathered together to fight (and they fought for and won the eight hour work day) and march and celebrate.
You better believe that was as threatening to business then as the immigration rallies are to business today. (For a perfect example of how the organs of business dismiss and trash the immigration rallies, read C.I.'s "NYT: Millions protest so the Times highlights Small Business and the Minutemen.") Ms. Rubenstein could remember so many amazing experiences that she took part in. Someone (Studs Terkel?) should put a tape recorder in front of her if she doesn't want to write her own life story because it's amazing. Michael Smith pointed out that at MayDay events in the thirties, people might meet up, fall in love and marry.
It was these like minded people who cared about the world and weren't going to fool themselves that they or everyone else was getting a fair deal. I think those people still exist (I am one) but I think we've gotten so discouraged. It was really inspiring hearing those stories.
So the government creates Law Day to cut into MayDay. And then they followed that by establishing Labor Day. MayDay got demonized and was basically run out of town. Ms. Rubenstein talked about that happening over a period of many years. There was a funny story she told about how the Catholic kids in parochial school were let out and encouraged to heckle and yell at the people participating in MayDay. They did that at one of her marches and she started a cheer of "No homework" and pools for schools. That shut them up.
Amazing woman, Annette Rubenstein. She lost her job as a principal due to her politics. She's an editor of a magazine, teaches at the Brecht Forum and writes for Monthly Review. I can't find the magazine she edits for (Science Society?) and I'm surprised that she doesn't even have a biography at Wikipedia. But what she does have is a sharp mind, an amazing life that is still underway and a lot of things to share. So listen to the show, if you missed it, at WBAI's archives or at the Law and Disorder site.
Last thing for tonight. There were five e-mails I'd avoided that got answered today. If it's from a community member that I know or recognize their e-mails from the gina & krista round-robin, I'll read it right away. But if I don't know the e-mail, I'll usually let it sit until I'm ready to wade in. There are a lot of racists e-mails. I'm not like Betty (who follows Elaine's advice of waiting and only reading when she feels like) but I will wait if I don't recognize the e-mail address. I answered the five today. I'm sorry for being that way about it but if I don't know the sender (or think I don't), some days it's just not worth it to get that kind of e-mail. With Betty and myself, e-mails that disagree like to go racist. That really doesn't happen at The Third Estate Sunday Review even though Ty's responsible for answering most of the e-mails. (As Ty's pointed out, usually they assume that everyone at Third is White.) Instead they go for foul language aimed at women (which is probably because you get little TV babies wanting to trash Ava and C.I. for saying something "mean" about Nick Lachey or John Stamos or any other guy who really can't act). Rebecca gets that nonsense too. I think they're scared of Elaine because I'll talk to Jess or Ava and they'll say that instead of attacking Elaine in e-mails, they'll attack her in an e-mail to C.I. Wally's gotten the least hate mail. C.I. gets tons. There's always some right winger having a fit and Ava and Jess enjoy it best when it's a "name" right winger. They also enjoy the tantrums from certain reporters. But I think C.I.'s been around so long and posts so often that, except for the TV reviews, they just scream politics in their hate e-mails.
It's interesting, thinking about that. Some time when we need a story idea, some weekend, I'll try to suggest that.
Now who didn't I mention? Mike. Saving him for last because he's writing about WBAI's Law and Disorder too so hop on over there (but remember, he's a slow typer).
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Tony Snow and a Law and Disorder guest
Snow: Black Underclass Is "Most Dangerous Thing In Our Lifetime"
Tony Snow is already coming under scrutiny for a series of controversial comments he’s made on his radio program. Just last week, he shared these views: "People like Jesse Jackson who have committed themselves to a view that blacks are constantly victims, have succeeded in creating in the United States the most dangerous thing that we've encountered in our lifetime; which is, an underclass that doesn't seem to be going anywhere." Tony Snow went on to criticize what he described as: "the idiotic culture of hip-hop": "You have people glorifying failure. You have a bunch of gold-toothed hot dogs become millionaires by running around and telling everybody else that they oughtta be miserable failures and if they're really lucky maybe they can get gunned down in a diner sometime, like Eminem's old running mate."
This is the man who would save the Bully Boy administration. (Item from Democracy Now!)
First off, Proof (DC12) wasn't at a "diner" but I know facts don't matter a great deal to the right wingers. But what this is really about is a White man who doesn't want to acknowledge that African-Americans do suffer racism. We suffer it all the time. It's not wallowing in victim-hood but it's also not denying a very real fact of life. I think that Snow should go to FX and ask to be in that show where the people switch races (via make up).
He's a White man who misses the good old days of separate water fountains and lynchings. He probably wets his pants anytime he's walking down a sidewalk and sees a "brother" up ahead.
If you're one of those people, let me continue my series of tips by offering you one. I'm not robbing anyone, I'm not mugging anyone. But if you see Black and think "crime," here's a tip, do not immediately pat your wallet to make sure it's still there.
You're saying to the world (of all races), "I got a wallet and it's right here. Must be something in it because I'm real worried about having it stolen."
For more on the laughable Tony Snow, check out Wally's ""THIS JUST IN! "BROKEBACK EACH OTHER'S MOUNTAINS!" SCREAMS SNOW."
Now let's talk Law and Disorder which aired Monday on WBAI. Heidi Boghosian had a remote (from the streets of NYC -- Brooklyn, I think) interview with Bill Brown about the spy cams going up all over NYC. And there was a lot more worth hearing. But Mike and I both were bothered by the contractor issue. I can feel bad when anyone dies. But I'm not going to work up a great deal of sympathy for the employees of Blackwater USA or any other contractor employee in Iraq. No, they aren't all torturing and killing.
But they went over to make money. On some level, whether they believed in the war or not, they had to grasp they'd be profitting while others suffered. The guy made a point to go over there. People are dying over there. He wanted to make a fast buck. He died in Falluja.
Like Mike, I was raised hearing how there was no such thing as an easy buck. The man had kids. He should have thought about them. You don't say, "Fast buck!" and rush to a war zone.
It was a mistake on his part. He lost his life largely because of what others had done. But to try to profit from a war is wrong and that's if it was Dick Cheney or Joe Blow down the street.
Had everything gone well, had he made it home, he would have made a fast buck off the suffering of others. I don't agree with doing that.
I'm sorry he's dead. I can pray for him. But whether or not contractor employees are screwed over isn't my concern. It's like debating the "strategy" for the war and not noting that the war is illegal. At the root, all the "fix its" that argue we can and should stay in Iraq, don't get to the root: the war was illegal.
Profitting from the suffering of others is wrong too.
That's a lesson he should have known just as surely as he should have known that there was no free ride. That doesn't mean he deserved to die a violent death. It just means that some things aren't all that surprising and I won't spend a lot of time worrying about someone being screwed over by a division of Haliburton when, at the heart of it, that person went to Iraq to make money.
Those are the breaks.
I also don't know that I feel he was targeted for being so smart. If he had conflict with his superior, well no one wants someone in a group that's always saying, "Oh, here's how it should be done." For a trained military person, he seemed to have a really hard time following orders.
If he was, as some of the stories seem to indicate, someone who "always knows best," it's not surprising that he had conflicts with his superior.
If his superior was petty and used that to put him at risk, that's not right either.
But there are some real problems in the world. I'm just not seeing this as one that I'll worry a great deal about. If he'd gone there to witness to people or to aid them or to report on what it was like in Iraq, I'd feel different. But his own mother was talking (on Democracy Now!) about how he needed to make some quick money.
I hear that a lot. Some of the guys I went to school with don't see their kids now because they wanted to make some quick money. They ended up behind bars. When one of them tells me that it's not fair, I tell them that they made choices (stealing mainly, one was armed robbery) without thinking them through. At the most basic, they should have realized that if something goes wrong, they won't see their kids.
Being blinded by dollar sides doesn't excuse your obligation to your children. Kids like things, no question. But ask a kid who has lost a parent and most (if not all) would tell you that they'd rather have a parent around.
We have a hideous economy, no question. And the way things are set up, the rule breakers and law breakers at the top get slaps on the wrists, while on the lower rung, they get sent to prison.
But when you have kids you need to give up the American b.s. fantasy of a "quick buck." That's the sort of nonsense you can hold out for when you're a kid. Growing up means learning that some responsibilites go beyond things and that maybe it's better to be poor and do without if you can be with your kids.
I don't blame him if he was focusing on the big easy because we're conditioned to. But that's as much a part of the story and to hear "Oh, it's awful, he just wanted to go to Iraq and make some fast bucks but he was killed" isn't really the story, not the whole story.
Mike and I agreed immediately when we discussed the show on Monday. I wanted to think about it a little before writing because I wasn't sure what I wanted to say here on this part but I'll share. My father died when I was little. He didn't die in Iraq. He did think he was going to make a quick buck. He worked himself crazy driving this route in really limited time and he had a car accident and he died. The only reason he pushed himself like that was because he thought, "Money for my kids!" We didn't end up with money but if we had, it wouldn't have brought him back or made it okay that he was gone. That influences how I'm seeing this (and may influence how Mike sees it because he knows my life story). My mother never said a word against him. But when I was 10, my grandfather (my dad's father) sat me down and explained the thing in terms of "lust and greed" (for money) and how that will lead you to make choices that are wrong for you and will hurt the people around you. I don't remember what the shoes were that I was whining about but I had been on my mom's case about it and how a real mother who loved me would get me those shoes. My grandfather didn't pull any punches. He told me that kind of thinking was the reason my dad, his son, wasn't with us. He really believed that he had to try to provide us with everything.
Given the choice, I'd go through life shoeless if I could just have my dad for even a year more than I did. So I don't blame the guy for thinking Iraq was a "quick buck" and I know it's conditioned in us. But I'm not going to sit here and act like he didn't have other options or he shouldn't have thought them through before he went over there.
I also don't get the whole, "He was supposed to be a bodyguard for Paul Bremer!" Was that supposed to be safer? Or is it that he didn't get what he signed up for? Talk to the soldiers over there and ask them if they got what their recruiters promised them.
Think about your own work and see if someone who's always arguing with the boss ends up getting the wanted task. There are other details to the story. I don't care for the lawyer representing the guy either. He did this with Amy Goodman (maybe Juan Gonzalez too, I think Juan was in that interview too) and he did it with Michael Ratner and Heidi Boghosian. It was a, "Oh good question, now instead of answering, let me get my soundbyte in." It's like he has a script whenever he appears. I think going to Iraq for a quick buck was foolilsh (my grandfather would call the guy a fool) and I think it was his choice. The same choice my father made in pursuing that quick buck. Those choices lead down a path and, at the end, there's no point in wondering how you got there.
I also thought if you were going to stress "He was a trainer for Demi Moore" you'd get her name right. If you're throwing out that detail (and it was tossed out over and over), learn the woman's name. It's not "Dem-me." It doesn't rhyme with Emmy. It'd be like saying, "He was a trainer for Cheryl Stone." Who? Sharon Stone isn't Cheryl Stone and Demi Moore isn't Demmy Moore.
(And Mike made me laugh when he noted that was a huge pet peever of C.I.'s. It really is.)
Tony Snow is already coming under scrutiny for a series of controversial comments he’s made on his radio program. Just last week, he shared these views: "People like Jesse Jackson who have committed themselves to a view that blacks are constantly victims, have succeeded in creating in the United States the most dangerous thing that we've encountered in our lifetime; which is, an underclass that doesn't seem to be going anywhere." Tony Snow went on to criticize what he described as: "the idiotic culture of hip-hop": "You have people glorifying failure. You have a bunch of gold-toothed hot dogs become millionaires by running around and telling everybody else that they oughtta be miserable failures and if they're really lucky maybe they can get gunned down in a diner sometime, like Eminem's old running mate."
This is the man who would save the Bully Boy administration. (Item from Democracy Now!)
First off, Proof (DC12) wasn't at a "diner" but I know facts don't matter a great deal to the right wingers. But what this is really about is a White man who doesn't want to acknowledge that African-Americans do suffer racism. We suffer it all the time. It's not wallowing in victim-hood but it's also not denying a very real fact of life. I think that Snow should go to FX and ask to be in that show where the people switch races (via make up).
He's a White man who misses the good old days of separate water fountains and lynchings. He probably wets his pants anytime he's walking down a sidewalk and sees a "brother" up ahead.
If you're one of those people, let me continue my series of tips by offering you one. I'm not robbing anyone, I'm not mugging anyone. But if you see Black and think "crime," here's a tip, do not immediately pat your wallet to make sure it's still there.
You're saying to the world (of all races), "I got a wallet and it's right here. Must be something in it because I'm real worried about having it stolen."
For more on the laughable Tony Snow, check out Wally's ""THIS JUST IN! "BROKEBACK EACH OTHER'S MOUNTAINS!" SCREAMS SNOW."
Now let's talk Law and Disorder which aired Monday on WBAI. Heidi Boghosian had a remote (from the streets of NYC -- Brooklyn, I think) interview with Bill Brown about the spy cams going up all over NYC. And there was a lot more worth hearing. But Mike and I both were bothered by the contractor issue. I can feel bad when anyone dies. But I'm not going to work up a great deal of sympathy for the employees of Blackwater USA or any other contractor employee in Iraq. No, they aren't all torturing and killing.
But they went over to make money. On some level, whether they believed in the war or not, they had to grasp they'd be profitting while others suffered. The guy made a point to go over there. People are dying over there. He wanted to make a fast buck. He died in Falluja.
Like Mike, I was raised hearing how there was no such thing as an easy buck. The man had kids. He should have thought about them. You don't say, "Fast buck!" and rush to a war zone.
It was a mistake on his part. He lost his life largely because of what others had done. But to try to profit from a war is wrong and that's if it was Dick Cheney or Joe Blow down the street.
Had everything gone well, had he made it home, he would have made a fast buck off the suffering of others. I don't agree with doing that.
I'm sorry he's dead. I can pray for him. But whether or not contractor employees are screwed over isn't my concern. It's like debating the "strategy" for the war and not noting that the war is illegal. At the root, all the "fix its" that argue we can and should stay in Iraq, don't get to the root: the war was illegal.
Profitting from the suffering of others is wrong too.
That's a lesson he should have known just as surely as he should have known that there was no free ride. That doesn't mean he deserved to die a violent death. It just means that some things aren't all that surprising and I won't spend a lot of time worrying about someone being screwed over by a division of Haliburton when, at the heart of it, that person went to Iraq to make money.
Those are the breaks.
I also don't know that I feel he was targeted for being so smart. If he had conflict with his superior, well no one wants someone in a group that's always saying, "Oh, here's how it should be done." For a trained military person, he seemed to have a really hard time following orders.
If he was, as some of the stories seem to indicate, someone who "always knows best," it's not surprising that he had conflicts with his superior.
If his superior was petty and used that to put him at risk, that's not right either.
But there are some real problems in the world. I'm just not seeing this as one that I'll worry a great deal about. If he'd gone there to witness to people or to aid them or to report on what it was like in Iraq, I'd feel different. But his own mother was talking (on Democracy Now!) about how he needed to make some quick money.
I hear that a lot. Some of the guys I went to school with don't see their kids now because they wanted to make some quick money. They ended up behind bars. When one of them tells me that it's not fair, I tell them that they made choices (stealing mainly, one was armed robbery) without thinking them through. At the most basic, they should have realized that if something goes wrong, they won't see their kids.
Being blinded by dollar sides doesn't excuse your obligation to your children. Kids like things, no question. But ask a kid who has lost a parent and most (if not all) would tell you that they'd rather have a parent around.
We have a hideous economy, no question. And the way things are set up, the rule breakers and law breakers at the top get slaps on the wrists, while on the lower rung, they get sent to prison.
But when you have kids you need to give up the American b.s. fantasy of a "quick buck." That's the sort of nonsense you can hold out for when you're a kid. Growing up means learning that some responsibilites go beyond things and that maybe it's better to be poor and do without if you can be with your kids.
I don't blame him if he was focusing on the big easy because we're conditioned to. But that's as much a part of the story and to hear "Oh, it's awful, he just wanted to go to Iraq and make some fast bucks but he was killed" isn't really the story, not the whole story.
Mike and I agreed immediately when we discussed the show on Monday. I wanted to think about it a little before writing because I wasn't sure what I wanted to say here on this part but I'll share. My father died when I was little. He didn't die in Iraq. He did think he was going to make a quick buck. He worked himself crazy driving this route in really limited time and he had a car accident and he died. The only reason he pushed himself like that was because he thought, "Money for my kids!" We didn't end up with money but if we had, it wouldn't have brought him back or made it okay that he was gone. That influences how I'm seeing this (and may influence how Mike sees it because he knows my life story). My mother never said a word against him. But when I was 10, my grandfather (my dad's father) sat me down and explained the thing in terms of "lust and greed" (for money) and how that will lead you to make choices that are wrong for you and will hurt the people around you. I don't remember what the shoes were that I was whining about but I had been on my mom's case about it and how a real mother who loved me would get me those shoes. My grandfather didn't pull any punches. He told me that kind of thinking was the reason my dad, his son, wasn't with us. He really believed that he had to try to provide us with everything.
Given the choice, I'd go through life shoeless if I could just have my dad for even a year more than I did. So I don't blame the guy for thinking Iraq was a "quick buck" and I know it's conditioned in us. But I'm not going to sit here and act like he didn't have other options or he shouldn't have thought them through before he went over there.
I also don't get the whole, "He was supposed to be a bodyguard for Paul Bremer!" Was that supposed to be safer? Or is it that he didn't get what he signed up for? Talk to the soldiers over there and ask them if they got what their recruiters promised them.
Think about your own work and see if someone who's always arguing with the boss ends up getting the wanted task. There are other details to the story. I don't care for the lawyer representing the guy either. He did this with Amy Goodman (maybe Juan Gonzalez too, I think Juan was in that interview too) and he did it with Michael Ratner and Heidi Boghosian. It was a, "Oh good question, now instead of answering, let me get my soundbyte in." It's like he has a script whenever he appears. I think going to Iraq for a quick buck was foolilsh (my grandfather would call the guy a fool) and I think it was his choice. The same choice my father made in pursuing that quick buck. Those choices lead down a path and, at the end, there's no point in wondering how you got there.
I also thought if you were going to stress "He was a trainer for Demi Moore" you'd get her name right. If you're throwing out that detail (and it was tossed out over and over), learn the woman's name. It's not "Dem-me." It doesn't rhyme with Emmy. It'd be like saying, "He was a trainer for Cheryl Stone." Who? Sharon Stone isn't Cheryl Stone and Demi Moore isn't Demmy Moore.
(And Mike made me laugh when he noted that was a huge pet peever of C.I.'s. It really is.)
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Cell Phone Use Tips
Over the past five-plus years, the American people have gotten a taste of what a triumphant George W. Bush is like, as he basked in high approval ratings and asserted virtually unlimited powers as Commander in Chief. Now, the question is: How will Bush and his inner circle behave when cornered?So far, the answer should send chills through today's weakened American Republic. Bush and his team -- faced with plunging poll numbers and cascading disclosures of wrongdoing -- appear determined to punish and criminalize resistance to their regime.
That is the significance of recent threats from the administration and its supporters who bandy about terms like sedition, espionage and treason when referring to investigative journalists, government whistle-blowers and even retired military generals -- critics who have exposed Executive Branch illegalities, incompetence and deceptions.
CIA Director Porter Goss, a former Republican congressman long regarded as a political partisan, has escalated pressure on intelligence officials suspected of leaking secrets about Bush's warrantless wiretapping of Americans and the torture of detainees held in clandestine prisons in Asia and Eastern Europe.
That's from Robert Parry's "Bush Brandishes Jail Time at Critics" (Consortium News) proving I'm not all talk. (Link takes you to a roundtable where I said Robert Parry was the online version of Seymour Hersh but that he gets far too little links.)
"So what's your beef?" That's what David Letterman used to ask Jay Leno when Leno was a guest on Letterman's show and not a host of The Tonight Show. Leno would go off on some topic. I bring that up because I'm about to go off on a topic.
Do you have a cell phone?
There was a time when a considerate person was someone who turned their ringer down low. (Better yet, put it on the vibrate option.) Those were the good old days.
Now days, something's new is happening and someone needs to note it so leave it to me and "my beefs" to cover it.
Everyone's got to have a tune on their ring tones. Everyone needs a song snippet that goes off every time the phone rings. Fair enough. If you've got a favorite song, go with it.
But here's something to remember -- a cell phone does not come with great speakers.
So when you have that thing up full blast and you think you look so cool, guess what? You don't. You sound like the fool with the tape deck in a Ford Pinto, blasting the music as loud as it will go, while everyone you drive past thinks, "What a crappy set of speakers."
That is reality, guys and gals. Your speakers suck. Unless you're going to hook up a set of speakers to your cell phone, turn the damn ringer down.
It doesn't sound cool. It sounds like crap. It's sound like a busted speaker and with all the crackling, it just makes people think, "You need a new sound system."
Maybe an elevator music version of "Hot in Here" isn't meant to be played full blast from your cell phone. Something to consider.
Let me offer one more tip. This is just for those of you using the walkie-talkie option on your cell phones. We all know you're desparately lonely and fear the world gets that you're a pariah. But hearing your friend, at full blast, respond, "Nothin', what you doing?" over and over does nothing to change our minds. In fact, we not only don't envy you, we wonder how lame you and your friend are that you have to talk, right then, at that moment, while you're on the train or in the grocery store, and yet you have nothing to say. You two don't seem exciting, we're not envious. We're just thinking, "What losers."
The Bully Boy and the NSA not withstanding, a phone conversation is supposed to be at least semi-private. Take that as a guideline.
Things to check out: C.I.'s "NYT: Taking a look at the pipeline, ignoring other things"; Mikes' "Law and Disorder, Iraq and more (including Jane Fonda quote)"; Rebecca's "flashpoints and the threepenny opera" and her "flashpoints (rita moreno) cover to cover with denny smithson (jane fonda)"; Elaine's "It's never up to an administration... It all depends upon what people force them to do."; Wally's "THIS JUST IN! THE DEALER IN CHIEF"; audio interview "Cover to Cover with Denny Smithson (Interviewing Jane Fonda)"; and audio, video or transcript of Amy Goodman interviewing "Antonia Juhasz on The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time."
That is the significance of recent threats from the administration and its supporters who bandy about terms like sedition, espionage and treason when referring to investigative journalists, government whistle-blowers and even retired military generals -- critics who have exposed Executive Branch illegalities, incompetence and deceptions.
CIA Director Porter Goss, a former Republican congressman long regarded as a political partisan, has escalated pressure on intelligence officials suspected of leaking secrets about Bush's warrantless wiretapping of Americans and the torture of detainees held in clandestine prisons in Asia and Eastern Europe.
That's from Robert Parry's "Bush Brandishes Jail Time at Critics" (Consortium News) proving I'm not all talk. (Link takes you to a roundtable where I said Robert Parry was the online version of Seymour Hersh but that he gets far too little links.)
"So what's your beef?" That's what David Letterman used to ask Jay Leno when Leno was a guest on Letterman's show and not a host of The Tonight Show. Leno would go off on some topic. I bring that up because I'm about to go off on a topic.
Do you have a cell phone?
There was a time when a considerate person was someone who turned their ringer down low. (Better yet, put it on the vibrate option.) Those were the good old days.
Now days, something's new is happening and someone needs to note it so leave it to me and "my beefs" to cover it.
Everyone's got to have a tune on their ring tones. Everyone needs a song snippet that goes off every time the phone rings. Fair enough. If you've got a favorite song, go with it.
But here's something to remember -- a cell phone does not come with great speakers.
So when you have that thing up full blast and you think you look so cool, guess what? You don't. You sound like the fool with the tape deck in a Ford Pinto, blasting the music as loud as it will go, while everyone you drive past thinks, "What a crappy set of speakers."
That is reality, guys and gals. Your speakers suck. Unless you're going to hook up a set of speakers to your cell phone, turn the damn ringer down.
It doesn't sound cool. It sounds like crap. It's sound like a busted speaker and with all the crackling, it just makes people think, "You need a new sound system."
Maybe an elevator music version of "Hot in Here" isn't meant to be played full blast from your cell phone. Something to consider.
Let me offer one more tip. This is just for those of you using the walkie-talkie option on your cell phones. We all know you're desparately lonely and fear the world gets that you're a pariah. But hearing your friend, at full blast, respond, "Nothin', what you doing?" over and over does nothing to change our minds. In fact, we not only don't envy you, we wonder how lame you and your friend are that you have to talk, right then, at that moment, while you're on the train or in the grocery store, and yet you have nothing to say. You two don't seem exciting, we're not envious. We're just thinking, "What losers."
The Bully Boy and the NSA not withstanding, a phone conversation is supposed to be at least semi-private. Take that as a guideline.
Things to check out: C.I.'s "NYT: Taking a look at the pipeline, ignoring other things"; Mikes' "Law and Disorder, Iraq and more (including Jane Fonda quote)"; Rebecca's "flashpoints and the threepenny opera" and her "flashpoints (rita moreno) cover to cover with denny smithson (jane fonda)"; Elaine's "It's never up to an administration... It all depends upon what people force them to do."; Wally's "THIS JUST IN! THE DEALER IN CHIEF"; audio interview "Cover to Cover with Denny Smithson (Interviewing Jane Fonda)"; and audio, video or transcript of Amy Goodman interviewing "Antonia Juhasz on The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time."
Saturday, April 22, 2006
Hawaii and we're overrun with Fluff
Did you catch "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq" on Democracy Now! Friday? That's the first of a two-part interview. The second part will air sometime next week. If you missed it, you can listen or watch online and you can read a transcript of it online as well.
If you need an overview, here's a piece from the opening of the interview that sets up the topic really well:
AMY GOODMAN: Well, you are looking at 14 coups that the U.S. was involved with. What was the primary reason for the U.S. government's involvement in overthrowing other countries' governments?
STEPHEN KINZER: A lot of these coups have been studied individually, but what I'm trying to do in my book is see them not as a series of isolated incidents, but rather as one long continuum. And by looking at them that way, I am able to tease out certain patterns that recur over and over again. They don't all fit the same pattern, but it's amazing how many of them do.
I always start with the assumption that everyone in the room knows more than I do, so most people are probably aware of the history of Hawaii. I wasn't aware of any of it. I was reading Maxine Hong-Kingston's The Fifth Book of Peace and came across a point that puzzled me. So I asked for clarification (which we all need to do but a lot of times are too afraid to so we just nod and act like we know). Well this was covered Friday on Democracy Now! and it ties in to current news plus it's something that you may not know about. (I honestly didn't until last month). Here's one of the sections from the interview about Hawaii:
AMY GOODMAN: The queen called in ambassadors from other countries for help?
STEPHEN KINZER: The queen was a little bit shocked by all this, as were her cabinet ministers. In fact, they appealed to the United States and asked, "What instability is there? Who's in danger? Tell us, and we'll protect them." The queen had about 600 troops at her disposal. That was the whole Hawaiian military force. And her cabinet ministers actually called the ambassadors from foreign countries in Honolulu -- there were about a dozen of them then -- and said, "What should we do? Do you think we should fight the Marines?" And the ambassadors quite prudently told her that that would be foolish. "You should just accept it and then try to regain your throne by some other means." That never proved possible. But even then, it was clear to the ruler of this small, weak country that there was no hope in resisting U.S. military intervention.
AMY GOODMAN: It still took a few years before Hawaii was ultimately annexed.
STEPHEN KINZER: It's a very interesting story. Immediately after the revolution, the revolutionaries went back to Washington and, sure enough, President Harrison, as he promised, submitted to the U.S. Congress a law to bring Hawaii into the U.S., but there was a great resistance to this when it was understood how the coup was organized and on whose behalf it was organized, so the Congress did not immediately approve the annexation of Hawaii.
And right at that time, the presidency changed. The Republican, Benjamin Harrison, was out of office, and the new president, a Democrat, Grover Cleveland, came in. He was against annexation. He was an anti-imperialist. He withdrew the treaty. And that meant that Hawaii had to become an independent country for a few years, until the next Republican president came into office, McKinley. And then, at the height of the Spanish-American War, when the U.S. was taking the Philippines, Hawaii was presented to the U.S. as a vital midway station between California and the Philippines. And it was at that time, five years after the revolution, that Hawaii was actually brought into the United States.
I was feeling pretty good about myself while they were discussing that because I'd just found about it recently. But then I saw something online and thought I really should note it.
This is from Friday and it's by Chris Newmarker, of the Associated Press, the article's entitled
"Native Hawaiians Honor Grover Cleveland:"
When it comes to Grover Cleveland, many Americans, even residents of his home state of New Jersey, have trouble recalling anything about him except that he is the only president ever to serve non-consecutive terms.
But 5,000 miles away, Native Hawaiians credit Cleveland with sticking up for their rights and sovereignty in the 1890s, when sugar plantation owners overthrew their queen and asked for annexation by the United States.
So it was on Thursday that three Native Hawaiians landed at New York's LaGuardia Airport, carrying about 20 leis, and found themselves getting lost on New Jersey roads as they searched for Cleveland's birthplace in Caldwell and the town's First Presbyterian Church, where his father was a pastor.
The Hawaiians are in New Jersey this weekend to pay their respects to Cleveland in Caldwell and at his grave site in Princeton.
Friday morning, I hear Grover Cleveland's name for the first time, I didn't know about his part in it (or in stopping it), and then I saw this online. I really know nothing about Grover Cleveland other than that he was a president and, as of yesterday, that he stopped the empire from grabbing Hawaii. Possibly, that's why he served only one term?
But I know we have members from Hawaii in The Common Ills community and I know C.I. shouldn't be the only one noting them. Which is one thing I wanted to write about last night but was too tired. C.I.'s holding this morning's entry at The Common Ills so that shout outs can be done to me and Kat for our entries. If that weren't the case, I'd go in detail about the subject (even though C.I. would say, "There really are other things to write about"). Instead, I'll just note that week in and week out The Common Ills is a site that goes far beyond the "White" or the "Male." This week, I laughed so hard at C.I.'s take on this person who wrote into The Nation to say that MLK 'won' and Malcolm X 'lost.' The guy didn't know anything about either man. C.I. responded with "Young, Ignorant and White" which was one of my favorite commentaries this week. So let me note that.
Let me also note Kat's "Both Sides of the Coin -- Ben Harper's Both Sides of The Gun vs. The Living Room Tour" which is great and, if you haven't already gotten Ben Harper's Both Sides of The Gun, you need to. My cousin says he'll be hosting NBC's Last Call all next week, so check that out and if that and Kat's review don't make you think, "I need to get Both Sides of The Gun," I don't know what will.
Last night, Three Cool Old Guys had a mixer at their nursing home. There were some people brought in from another nursing home. And the guys were really bummed for the first half-hour. It was depressing. I asked what was going on and got an earful.
They pointed to one group of women as an example. Right then, they were on couches, talking. This is the thrust of the conversation.
Woman 1: Girl, I love me some bread!
Woman 2: I have to have bread with every meal. I couldn't have a meal without some bread.
Woman 3: I have to cut my ice cream because I'm diabetic. I have to cut it or it's too rich for me.
Woman: Milk and cream and bread, I could live on it.
It went on and on like that forever. I got Three Cool Old Guys' point. I get depressed when I'm around people my age and all they want to do is talk about nonsense. (Big topic at the end of the week was Ace -- whoever that is -- getting voted off American Idol.) It must be even worse, when you're older and wiser and you have to hear that. The conversation on milk, cream and bread went on for fifteen minutes while I was listening and it was taking place before I was standing with Three Cool Old Guys. They're going to write about it for next Friday's gina & krista round-robin so check for that.
I'll just point out that we can talk about fluff or we can talk about the world around us. There's nothing wrong with bread (unless you are on a low-carb diet) but if you're not sharing recipes, I'm not sure why you'd go on and on about it like that. It was never even, "___ is the best loaf of bread" or anything like that. It was always "bread." It made me wonder exactly what I'd be talking about when I was older. Because, and Three Cool Old Guys believe this too, when you're older, you should have a little bit more to offer to a conversation than superficial.
I mean, if bread's your topic, talk about the best loaf you ever had or maybe someone in your family makes great bread or whatever. But to just go on and on with "Oh, I like bread too" seems like a waste of time.
I feel like a lot of time gets wasted with people my age. I hear way too much about American Idol and that dance show that's off right now. But especially with those contest shows, it's like people are so focused on who might win (and it's not them) that they don't care a thing about what goes on in the world. I went to lunch with some people at the office on Thursday and I felt like we'd all taken a stupid pill. The entire conversation was American Idol. And will Fantasia have a career? What about Kelly? What was the name of the guy who lost that year?
Justin. I don't even watch the show, never have, and I know his name. Honestly, I preferred it when the people I worked with were obsessed with soaps. It was stil fantasy but at least something was happening on them. I didn't watch them either but I knew Carly and Sonny and Jax's name and could follow the conversation. At the end of the lunch, one guy pointed out that I hadn't said anything. (Other than "Justin!" when they went on for several minutes trying to remember the guy's name.) I said I don't watch American Idol.
He apologized and said we'd talk about something else on the trip back to work. Guess what it was? Survivor. Which I also don't watch. But it was coming on tonight and . . .
Is that what we're coming to? A bunch of boring conversations about psudeo-reality? Sometimes I wonder. And I blame the corporate media which offers nothing but a headline on one story and then on to the next one. When the follow up, which is usually a kidnapping or some other White woman in tragedy story, it does get talked about. But they won't follow up on important stories. They won't say, "Yesterday, ___ spoke out against the administration's handling of pre-war intelligence and today ___ came forward to offer additional information. For that story, we go to ___."
There are two people I usually go out to lunch with but one's off on vacation and the other had an appointment so I ended up with the Fluff Crowd (who'll read this if they can tear themselves away from American Idol and its website long enough). We'll all listen to Democracy Now! and we can talk about things at lunch. Not just what's going on in the world but maybe someone's brother or whatever. But it seems like a lot of people aren't getting any reality/spinach in their media diet and they've come to the conclusion that obsessing over American Idol for hour upon hour (and they were talking about it after lunch when we got back to the office) is somehow going to enrich their lives.
At the start of the week, this woman came over to my desk and says she heard I follow the news. I say I try to. She says she was busy this weekend and needed to know did Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie get married?
I thought, "How do I respond to that?" Do I tell her, "They issued a statement that says: Live your own lives and quit living their life!" Do I tell her that, since she was well over forty, she was a little old to be obsessing over movie stars' private lives? I just told her that I try to follow news. She replied, excitedly, her too and said she's always surfing E! and The Star. She doesn't care for US weekly because it can be "a little too mean." If US weekly is a grown woman's idea of hard hitting journalism (and she turns from it), what does that say about the country?
Because it's not just this one woman. It's a lot of people at the office. When I got back from California, people at the office wanted to know about the trip. So I was excited and talking about protests and activists and they just wanted to know (except for the two I lunch with and the boss), did I see any movie star homes? That's saying something about the state of the country.
And more importantly about the state of distraction corporate media encourages.
My rant for the morning.
Check out Betty's "When friends are awarded, Thomas Friedman goes fugue," C.I.'s "NYT: A columnist can tell it's news -- why can't the reporting section?" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! ALBERTO GONZALES IN THE MIDST OF MADONNA UP!" but read Elaine's "My pacificism isn't a cloak I wear some days and others put on war drag" immeditately. Mike's got good reasons why in "US number four on execution, Guantanamo prisoners, strong voices."
If you need an overview, here's a piece from the opening of the interview that sets up the topic really well:
AMY GOODMAN: Well, you are looking at 14 coups that the U.S. was involved with. What was the primary reason for the U.S. government's involvement in overthrowing other countries' governments?
STEPHEN KINZER: A lot of these coups have been studied individually, but what I'm trying to do in my book is see them not as a series of isolated incidents, but rather as one long continuum. And by looking at them that way, I am able to tease out certain patterns that recur over and over again. They don't all fit the same pattern, but it's amazing how many of them do.
I always start with the assumption that everyone in the room knows more than I do, so most people are probably aware of the history of Hawaii. I wasn't aware of any of it. I was reading Maxine Hong-Kingston's The Fifth Book of Peace and came across a point that puzzled me. So I asked for clarification (which we all need to do but a lot of times are too afraid to so we just nod and act like we know). Well this was covered Friday on Democracy Now! and it ties in to current news plus it's something that you may not know about. (I honestly didn't until last month). Here's one of the sections from the interview about Hawaii:
AMY GOODMAN: The queen called in ambassadors from other countries for help?
STEPHEN KINZER: The queen was a little bit shocked by all this, as were her cabinet ministers. In fact, they appealed to the United States and asked, "What instability is there? Who's in danger? Tell us, and we'll protect them." The queen had about 600 troops at her disposal. That was the whole Hawaiian military force. And her cabinet ministers actually called the ambassadors from foreign countries in Honolulu -- there were about a dozen of them then -- and said, "What should we do? Do you think we should fight the Marines?" And the ambassadors quite prudently told her that that would be foolish. "You should just accept it and then try to regain your throne by some other means." That never proved possible. But even then, it was clear to the ruler of this small, weak country that there was no hope in resisting U.S. military intervention.
AMY GOODMAN: It still took a few years before Hawaii was ultimately annexed.
STEPHEN KINZER: It's a very interesting story. Immediately after the revolution, the revolutionaries went back to Washington and, sure enough, President Harrison, as he promised, submitted to the U.S. Congress a law to bring Hawaii into the U.S., but there was a great resistance to this when it was understood how the coup was organized and on whose behalf it was organized, so the Congress did not immediately approve the annexation of Hawaii.
And right at that time, the presidency changed. The Republican, Benjamin Harrison, was out of office, and the new president, a Democrat, Grover Cleveland, came in. He was against annexation. He was an anti-imperialist. He withdrew the treaty. And that meant that Hawaii had to become an independent country for a few years, until the next Republican president came into office, McKinley. And then, at the height of the Spanish-American War, when the U.S. was taking the Philippines, Hawaii was presented to the U.S. as a vital midway station between California and the Philippines. And it was at that time, five years after the revolution, that Hawaii was actually brought into the United States.
I was feeling pretty good about myself while they were discussing that because I'd just found about it recently. But then I saw something online and thought I really should note it.
This is from Friday and it's by Chris Newmarker, of the Associated Press, the article's entitled
"Native Hawaiians Honor Grover Cleveland:"
When it comes to Grover Cleveland, many Americans, even residents of his home state of New Jersey, have trouble recalling anything about him except that he is the only president ever to serve non-consecutive terms.
But 5,000 miles away, Native Hawaiians credit Cleveland with sticking up for their rights and sovereignty in the 1890s, when sugar plantation owners overthrew their queen and asked for annexation by the United States.
So it was on Thursday that three Native Hawaiians landed at New York's LaGuardia Airport, carrying about 20 leis, and found themselves getting lost on New Jersey roads as they searched for Cleveland's birthplace in Caldwell and the town's First Presbyterian Church, where his father was a pastor.
The Hawaiians are in New Jersey this weekend to pay their respects to Cleveland in Caldwell and at his grave site in Princeton.
Friday morning, I hear Grover Cleveland's name for the first time, I didn't know about his part in it (or in stopping it), and then I saw this online. I really know nothing about Grover Cleveland other than that he was a president and, as of yesterday, that he stopped the empire from grabbing Hawaii. Possibly, that's why he served only one term?
But I know we have members from Hawaii in The Common Ills community and I know C.I. shouldn't be the only one noting them. Which is one thing I wanted to write about last night but was too tired. C.I.'s holding this morning's entry at The Common Ills so that shout outs can be done to me and Kat for our entries. If that weren't the case, I'd go in detail about the subject (even though C.I. would say, "There really are other things to write about"). Instead, I'll just note that week in and week out The Common Ills is a site that goes far beyond the "White" or the "Male." This week, I laughed so hard at C.I.'s take on this person who wrote into The Nation to say that MLK 'won' and Malcolm X 'lost.' The guy didn't know anything about either man. C.I. responded with "Young, Ignorant and White" which was one of my favorite commentaries this week. So let me note that.
Let me also note Kat's "Both Sides of the Coin -- Ben Harper's Both Sides of The Gun vs. The Living Room Tour" which is great and, if you haven't already gotten Ben Harper's Both Sides of The Gun, you need to. My cousin says he'll be hosting NBC's Last Call all next week, so check that out and if that and Kat's review don't make you think, "I need to get Both Sides of The Gun," I don't know what will.
Last night, Three Cool Old Guys had a mixer at their nursing home. There were some people brought in from another nursing home. And the guys were really bummed for the first half-hour. It was depressing. I asked what was going on and got an earful.
They pointed to one group of women as an example. Right then, they were on couches, talking. This is the thrust of the conversation.
Woman 1: Girl, I love me some bread!
Woman 2: I have to have bread with every meal. I couldn't have a meal without some bread.
Woman 3: I have to cut my ice cream because I'm diabetic. I have to cut it or it's too rich for me.
Woman: Milk and cream and bread, I could live on it.
It went on and on like that forever. I got Three Cool Old Guys' point. I get depressed when I'm around people my age and all they want to do is talk about nonsense. (Big topic at the end of the week was Ace -- whoever that is -- getting voted off American Idol.) It must be even worse, when you're older and wiser and you have to hear that. The conversation on milk, cream and bread went on for fifteen minutes while I was listening and it was taking place before I was standing with Three Cool Old Guys. They're going to write about it for next Friday's gina & krista round-robin so check for that.
I'll just point out that we can talk about fluff or we can talk about the world around us. There's nothing wrong with bread (unless you are on a low-carb diet) but if you're not sharing recipes, I'm not sure why you'd go on and on about it like that. It was never even, "___ is the best loaf of bread" or anything like that. It was always "bread." It made me wonder exactly what I'd be talking about when I was older. Because, and Three Cool Old Guys believe this too, when you're older, you should have a little bit more to offer to a conversation than superficial.
I mean, if bread's your topic, talk about the best loaf you ever had or maybe someone in your family makes great bread or whatever. But to just go on and on with "Oh, I like bread too" seems like a waste of time.
I feel like a lot of time gets wasted with people my age. I hear way too much about American Idol and that dance show that's off right now. But especially with those contest shows, it's like people are so focused on who might win (and it's not them) that they don't care a thing about what goes on in the world. I went to lunch with some people at the office on Thursday and I felt like we'd all taken a stupid pill. The entire conversation was American Idol. And will Fantasia have a career? What about Kelly? What was the name of the guy who lost that year?
Justin. I don't even watch the show, never have, and I know his name. Honestly, I preferred it when the people I worked with were obsessed with soaps. It was stil fantasy but at least something was happening on them. I didn't watch them either but I knew Carly and Sonny and Jax's name and could follow the conversation. At the end of the lunch, one guy pointed out that I hadn't said anything. (Other than "Justin!" when they went on for several minutes trying to remember the guy's name.) I said I don't watch American Idol.
He apologized and said we'd talk about something else on the trip back to work. Guess what it was? Survivor. Which I also don't watch. But it was coming on tonight and . . .
Is that what we're coming to? A bunch of boring conversations about psudeo-reality? Sometimes I wonder. And I blame the corporate media which offers nothing but a headline on one story and then on to the next one. When the follow up, which is usually a kidnapping or some other White woman in tragedy story, it does get talked about. But they won't follow up on important stories. They won't say, "Yesterday, ___ spoke out against the administration's handling of pre-war intelligence and today ___ came forward to offer additional information. For that story, we go to ___."
There are two people I usually go out to lunch with but one's off on vacation and the other had an appointment so I ended up with the Fluff Crowd (who'll read this if they can tear themselves away from American Idol and its website long enough). We'll all listen to Democracy Now! and we can talk about things at lunch. Not just what's going on in the world but maybe someone's brother or whatever. But it seems like a lot of people aren't getting any reality/spinach in their media diet and they've come to the conclusion that obsessing over American Idol for hour upon hour (and they were talking about it after lunch when we got back to the office) is somehow going to enrich their lives.
At the start of the week, this woman came over to my desk and says she heard I follow the news. I say I try to. She says she was busy this weekend and needed to know did Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie get married?
I thought, "How do I respond to that?" Do I tell her, "They issued a statement that says: Live your own lives and quit living their life!" Do I tell her that, since she was well over forty, she was a little old to be obsessing over movie stars' private lives? I just told her that I try to follow news. She replied, excitedly, her too and said she's always surfing E! and The Star. She doesn't care for US weekly because it can be "a little too mean." If US weekly is a grown woman's idea of hard hitting journalism (and she turns from it), what does that say about the country?
Because it's not just this one woman. It's a lot of people at the office. When I got back from California, people at the office wanted to know about the trip. So I was excited and talking about protests and activists and they just wanted to know (except for the two I lunch with and the boss), did I see any movie star homes? That's saying something about the state of the country.
And more importantly about the state of distraction corporate media encourages.
My rant for the morning.
Check out Betty's "When friends are awarded, Thomas Friedman goes fugue," C.I.'s "NYT: A columnist can tell it's news -- why can't the reporting section?" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! ALBERTO GONZALES IN THE MIDST OF MADONNA UP!" but read Elaine's "My pacificism isn't a cloak I wear some days and others put on war drag" immeditately. Mike's got good reasons why in "US number four on execution, Guantanamo prisoners, strong voices."
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Law and Disorder addressed PBS and Armenia
If you missed it in the panting over Katie and Tom having a baby!, (a true miracle, I'm guessing to judge by the coverage), Bully Boy issued some pardons. The name that stood out to me was this one:
Mark Reuben Hale, Henderson, Texas, savings and loan fraud. Sentenced July 10, 1991, to three years in prison.
I know what you're thinking, Neil Bush. Yeah, but move on past that.
Hale defrauded the government of at least five million dollars. He didn't even get a year for each million. So it's interesting that he now gets a pardon. From "UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT_______________No. 92-4790 _______________UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus BILL WILDER, Defendant-Appellant:"
For example, Wilder enlisted the assistanceof Glasscock, Hale, and Kinney in defrauding the two savings and loans and concealing Wilder's participation in transactions through the use of sham land transfers. Moreover, Wilder agreed to release Glasscock and Kinney from liability regarding the G&K land purchase
17
We also note that the parties stipulated that Wilder's scheme to defraud the two savings and loans caused losses of over five million dollars. See United States v. Allibhai, 939 F.2d 244,252-53 (5th Cir. 1991) (upholding district court's finding that amoney laundering scheme was "otherwise extensive" because over onemillion dollars was involved), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 967, 117 L. Ed. 2d 133 (1992).
Thinking of that song where they sing "'Cause you gotta' have friends . . ." Me too. And Mark Hale was there to stick up for his buddy when Bully Boy's AWOL was all the news via 60 Minutes II. In fact, he wrote at The American Spectator that "Somehow we need to raise Johnson from the dead, ask him to make good on the promise, take CBS off the air!" (Swiping from C.I., the link goes to a cached version of Hale's comments, so hopefully no additional traffic for the magazine.)
It's good to be a Republican. You can take part in a scheme that costs tax payers over five million dollars, get a slap on the wrist by serving three years and then have your buddy Bully Boy come along to pardon you.
Are you listening to Law and Disorder? On WBAI Mondays or somewhere else? Mike and I are both writing about it tonight. Heidi Boghosian is with the National Lawyers Guild (I think she's the executive director) and one of the hosts. I think I may have mentioned her last week. But her grandparents came from Armenia so the genocide last century matters to her. (She said "early this century" at one point, I think, but I don't know anyone that's not still making that mistake -- including me. It's like writing checks the first week of January and forgetting to add another year to the date.)
I told C.I. I was writing about this and got two links. The first goes to Democracy Now! giving the history on the genocide. The second goes to an interview Amy Goodman did with Sibel Edmonds where it was mentioned that Denny Hastert got money from Turkey just when Gongress was going to put forth a resolution condeming the genocide (all these years later).
Boghosian talked about how she grew up hearing nothing about the genocide in school and how she asked her mother why people didn't know about it. That's because it didn't make the history books. Our government was in bed with Turkey and the genocide didn't matter. (Like it didn't matter when Saddam attacked people -- until later when we needed an excuse to go to war -- we looked the other way because it was beneficial to us.)
So following WWI, the genocide occurred. And PBS decided to do a program on it but they also wanted a "discussion" on it. And they included, on the panel, two people who are deniers of the Genocide. They wouldn't do a panel on the Holocaust and include deniers and it was one of the Michaels (Ratner or Smith, I think Ratner) who pointed out that denial is another form of abuse. You're denying the tragedy that happened.
I identify with the race issues when they're discussed (and don't pretend otherwise) so I asked Mike if I could grab this one and he was cool with it because he wanted to talk about the Clintons. Discussions on race always grab my interest because I don't think enough of them take place in the media. I think we hear a lot of "things are great" nonsense. I don't think we get much exploration of realities. Which is a good reason to seek out alternative media.
If there's someone stopping by for the first time, I'm African-American. I've heard it all, and on TV and radio, from "Blacks liked slavery! They had jobs and food!" to "Black women just have babies to make money!" Everything in between. Every lie you can imagine.
So I was really glad Boghosian addressed this. Especially after Dalia Hashad talked about her own experiences the week before. With regards to PBS, the news is that none of the big markets ended up carrying the panel (some smaller ones did). Boghosian said it was because of all the e-mails that came in (over 80,000). It's really sad that it takes that.
And it shows how little corporate media (PBS is corporate media -- when you get that much "sponoship" from corporations, you're commercial) gets it to this day. They, my opinion not the hosts, wanted to get their credit for covering a topic they should be covering (and should have been covering a long time ago). But to make sure no one's offended, they'll tack on a panel and invite two people who will say, "It never happened."
From what Ruth's written about PBS (and NPR) and stuff she's told me, that's not the mission of public broadcasting. (But PBS and NPR aren't public broadcasting.) The mission is to introduce ideas. Considering the historical blackout in this country on the genocide, there's no real reason for them to finally address the issue seriously and feel the need to bring on two people to say, "Never happened!"
But when you cater to the right-wing and always try to curry their favor, you can't tackle any event without trying to make sure no one's offended by the truth.
Boghosian spoke about her mother, her father and her grandmother (her grandmother came to this country to marry). I really wish there had been more of that because I'm guessing everyone who makes a point to listen thinks of the hosts as friends to spend time with and, when personal examples can be given, I think it carries more weight. The panel bothered the hosts. I could tell that. It bothered me too. But it really bothered Boghosian because this is a story of her family. If it weren't for the genocides, her ancestors might not have relocated. The genocide is a tragedy and it's history too. But it's also very personal to people whose families were effected. Ruth wrote about the PBS thing, in the round-robin I think, where she was asking people to e-mail on it (e-mail PBS). So I know they covered it before and this was just an update. It's my mistake not to have heard the earlier coverage. But I did miss that (I'll ask Ruth to check her notes and try to find out when that was -- if she can't, Gina should be able to because I am pretty sure the request for people to e-mail ran in the gina & krista round-robin because Ruth wanted to get it out there immediately and didn't have time for a full report).
By the way, I mention Gina and she is African-American but I like Krista too. Gina and I got paired in a group working on a link panel for The Common Ills a long time ago so I've known Gina longer. I am sure Krista would look it up for me gladly but since I've known Gina longer, I have no problem calling her up for a favor. I think the fact that they paired up for the round-robin is great because of their personalities and because they can approach an issue from an African-American perspective and a White perspective. I know Krista beats herself up, to this day, for a story links she suggested. I don't think there was anything wrong with them and never did. If someone's in prison and shouldn't be, it's a story. I'll disagree with Katrina vanden Heuvel on the importance of it. He may be a robber baron but he's not in prison for that, he's in prison because he's a political threat to Putin. Political prisoners need to be highlighted. If Tom DeLay was held in prison not because of his indictment but because of some trumped up reasons, I would object and I hate Tom DeLay.
I like Katrina vanden Heuvel's writing and usually agree with her but I was surprised that time when I heard on Democracy Now! and she responded to Amy Goodman's question in a kind of gruff manner. I know she knows Russia and I don't doubt that the Yukos guy isn't a nice person but I don't believe in political prisoners. (I don't think she does either. But I know her remarks caused Krista to beat herself up because Katrina vanden Heuvel is one of Krista's heroes.) (I don't think I have any heroes, outside of my family, who aren't dead. Maybe Three Cool Old Guys and C.I., that's about the closest I'd come to heroes outside my family.)
So the point of the Law and Disorder segment to me was the power that people can have. Not just with the panel. It took people using their power to even make PBS air anything on the genocide. That didn't happen in one month or one year or one decade. If you're a Howard Zinn reader, I am, you know there are many stories that never make the history books we're encouraged to rely on. But we can make history and we can rescue history and I'd argue that Armenians and people who heard the stories in the early half of the last century rescued this story. It's an important story. To deny it by saying it didn't happen or to deny it by not discussing it robs everyone.
And, to put a modern point on it, the illegal occupation of Iraq will be written into history. We can have input in that by using our voices now and not being afraid to call it an illegal occupation (which it is). And we can continue to protest the war. It won't end it tomorrow or next week and that's true of the reality of what happened in Armenia getting out and true of ending the war. I was thinking, while I listened, what Boghosian's mother must have thought when young Heidi asked that question? It must have been pretty hard to answer because, though her mother said it nicer, the underlying point was, "Dear, they just don't care enough to talk about it." And that made me wonder what her grandmother thought. This is my guess, and I'm just guessing, her grandmother may have thought, "New country. There will be people there who will welcome me. And there will be people who will care about what's going on." If she did think that, and she might not have, I wonder how long she thought it? Maybe she's alive now and got to see the change in thinking? Or maybe she never did. But did she keep hoping in the dark hours?
I have a grandmother who's alive and one who died. The one who died, died before I was born. My grandmothers liked each other and that's apparently not to common among my friends. But Grandma (who is alive) will talk about her like a friend (they were friends). And when she's tired or the world gets too much, sometimes she'll say that my grandmother who passed (she didn't have a grandmother name because she died before there were any grandchildren) was lucky to have passed away when she did, two weeks before Martin Luther King was assassinated. When Grandma's really tired or the news is just too awful, she'll say that and talk about how the dream was alive when my grandmother died. So when I hear someone talking about generations in their family, I wonder what the earlier ones thought.
I think they'd be proud of Boghasian because she really cares about this issue and I know people who don't care about things that came before. I really got angry with a friend (who is African-American) who was griping about the banks being closed on MLK Day. He was whining about how he couldn't put money in the bank. (He doesn't trust ATMs. He does have a reason, the bank lost a deposit of his once. But he was using a teller and not a machine.) My attitude was, "Be glad you have money and maybe you wouldn't if it weren't for the people who came before." Because MLK Day honors the man but it also honors the struggle that millions were involved in. And it stands for more than just this country because the struggle inspired world wide.
I'll give another example. Do you know the phrase "hood rat"? If you don't, you're lucky. Maybe you know Ronald Reagan's "welfare queens"? That's the same thing basically. A "hood rat" is one of those smears on African-American women. That's supposed to be a woman who just wants to live off welfare and child support and turns out a lot of kids (litters like a rat). What's really hurtful about this is that "hood rat" didn't come from a White person. And it's used by African-Americans. It's supposed to be funny. I don't know. Maybe we think it's funny if we say it first? But I have to wonder how many generations that fought the civil rights fight would hear it and think "funny."
I think we're unaware of what it took to get where we are (that's all of us, regardless of race -- and I'm still learning and will be all my life*) and that hurts us as much as anything that happens today. (Maybe because if we don't know our struggles, we just keep repeating them?)
I'll wrap up but I had a blast in California and my "*" was a C.I. story that I'll tell. C.I. won't be mad but will say, "You could have written about something important, Cedric." I think this is important. C.I.'s smart. Members know that. In California as we were going to rallies and meeting with different people, someone would bring up an issue from time to time. C.I. never bluffed. C.I. would just say flat out, "I'm sorry, I don't know anything about what you're talking about. But I loved to hear about it." To me, that's smart. You don't play along and try to put it together in your head and maybe miss key points. You just say upfront that you don't know and let someone walk you through it. I think learning never stops and growing continues for your entire life. There's a lot of things I love about C.I. If I write about a passing, I'll get a call and C.I. will start out saying, "That was so great" and then get all choked up. C.I.'s very generous with the praise and very supportive. But the thing I saw over and over last week was that C.I.'s not embarrassed to say, "I don't know, please tell me." A lot of people pretend they do know. They're too worried about how they'll look and I think they end up missing out on life and knowledge because if you fake your way through, you cheat yourself.
You should check out Law and Disorder because it will make you think and you'll really enjoy all four hosts. Also, check out Trina's "Gazpacho soup in the Kitchen" which is an easy recipe even for me. No cooking at all. I do have a blender so I used the blender recipes (there are two recipes). It turned out pretty good and, if you have cooking talent, it'll probably turn out great.
Mark Reuben Hale, Henderson, Texas, savings and loan fraud. Sentenced July 10, 1991, to three years in prison.
I know what you're thinking, Neil Bush. Yeah, but move on past that.
Hale defrauded the government of at least five million dollars. He didn't even get a year for each million. So it's interesting that he now gets a pardon. From "UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT_______________No. 92-4790 _______________UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus BILL WILDER, Defendant-Appellant:"
For example, Wilder enlisted the assistanceof Glasscock, Hale, and Kinney in defrauding the two savings and loans and concealing Wilder's participation in transactions through the use of sham land transfers. Moreover, Wilder agreed to release Glasscock and Kinney from liability regarding the G&K land purchase
17
We also note that the parties stipulated that Wilder's scheme to defraud the two savings and loans caused losses of over five million dollars. See United States v. Allibhai, 939 F.2d 244,252-53 (5th Cir. 1991) (upholding district court's finding that amoney laundering scheme was "otherwise extensive" because over onemillion dollars was involved), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 967, 117 L. Ed. 2d 133 (1992).
Thinking of that song where they sing "'Cause you gotta' have friends . . ." Me too. And Mark Hale was there to stick up for his buddy when Bully Boy's AWOL was all the news via 60 Minutes II. In fact, he wrote at The American Spectator that "Somehow we need to raise Johnson from the dead, ask him to make good on the promise, take CBS off the air!" (Swiping from C.I., the link goes to a cached version of Hale's comments, so hopefully no additional traffic for the magazine.)
It's good to be a Republican. You can take part in a scheme that costs tax payers over five million dollars, get a slap on the wrist by serving three years and then have your buddy Bully Boy come along to pardon you.
Are you listening to Law and Disorder? On WBAI Mondays or somewhere else? Mike and I are both writing about it tonight. Heidi Boghosian is with the National Lawyers Guild (I think she's the executive director) and one of the hosts. I think I may have mentioned her last week. But her grandparents came from Armenia so the genocide last century matters to her. (She said "early this century" at one point, I think, but I don't know anyone that's not still making that mistake -- including me. It's like writing checks the first week of January and forgetting to add another year to the date.)
I told C.I. I was writing about this and got two links. The first goes to Democracy Now! giving the history on the genocide. The second goes to an interview Amy Goodman did with Sibel Edmonds where it was mentioned that Denny Hastert got money from Turkey just when Gongress was going to put forth a resolution condeming the genocide (all these years later).
Boghosian talked about how she grew up hearing nothing about the genocide in school and how she asked her mother why people didn't know about it. That's because it didn't make the history books. Our government was in bed with Turkey and the genocide didn't matter. (Like it didn't matter when Saddam attacked people -- until later when we needed an excuse to go to war -- we looked the other way because it was beneficial to us.)
So following WWI, the genocide occurred. And PBS decided to do a program on it but they also wanted a "discussion" on it. And they included, on the panel, two people who are deniers of the Genocide. They wouldn't do a panel on the Holocaust and include deniers and it was one of the Michaels (Ratner or Smith, I think Ratner) who pointed out that denial is another form of abuse. You're denying the tragedy that happened.
I identify with the race issues when they're discussed (and don't pretend otherwise) so I asked Mike if I could grab this one and he was cool with it because he wanted to talk about the Clintons. Discussions on race always grab my interest because I don't think enough of them take place in the media. I think we hear a lot of "things are great" nonsense. I don't think we get much exploration of realities. Which is a good reason to seek out alternative media.
If there's someone stopping by for the first time, I'm African-American. I've heard it all, and on TV and radio, from "Blacks liked slavery! They had jobs and food!" to "Black women just have babies to make money!" Everything in between. Every lie you can imagine.
So I was really glad Boghosian addressed this. Especially after Dalia Hashad talked about her own experiences the week before. With regards to PBS, the news is that none of the big markets ended up carrying the panel (some smaller ones did). Boghosian said it was because of all the e-mails that came in (over 80,000). It's really sad that it takes that.
And it shows how little corporate media (PBS is corporate media -- when you get that much "sponoship" from corporations, you're commercial) gets it to this day. They, my opinion not the hosts, wanted to get their credit for covering a topic they should be covering (and should have been covering a long time ago). But to make sure no one's offended, they'll tack on a panel and invite two people who will say, "It never happened."
From what Ruth's written about PBS (and NPR) and stuff she's told me, that's not the mission of public broadcasting. (But PBS and NPR aren't public broadcasting.) The mission is to introduce ideas. Considering the historical blackout in this country on the genocide, there's no real reason for them to finally address the issue seriously and feel the need to bring on two people to say, "Never happened!"
But when you cater to the right-wing and always try to curry their favor, you can't tackle any event without trying to make sure no one's offended by the truth.
Boghosian spoke about her mother, her father and her grandmother (her grandmother came to this country to marry). I really wish there had been more of that because I'm guessing everyone who makes a point to listen thinks of the hosts as friends to spend time with and, when personal examples can be given, I think it carries more weight. The panel bothered the hosts. I could tell that. It bothered me too. But it really bothered Boghosian because this is a story of her family. If it weren't for the genocides, her ancestors might not have relocated. The genocide is a tragedy and it's history too. But it's also very personal to people whose families were effected. Ruth wrote about the PBS thing, in the round-robin I think, where she was asking people to e-mail on it (e-mail PBS). So I know they covered it before and this was just an update. It's my mistake not to have heard the earlier coverage. But I did miss that (I'll ask Ruth to check her notes and try to find out when that was -- if she can't, Gina should be able to because I am pretty sure the request for people to e-mail ran in the gina & krista round-robin because Ruth wanted to get it out there immediately and didn't have time for a full report).
By the way, I mention Gina and she is African-American but I like Krista too. Gina and I got paired in a group working on a link panel for The Common Ills a long time ago so I've known Gina longer. I am sure Krista would look it up for me gladly but since I've known Gina longer, I have no problem calling her up for a favor. I think the fact that they paired up for the round-robin is great because of their personalities and because they can approach an issue from an African-American perspective and a White perspective. I know Krista beats herself up, to this day, for a story links she suggested. I don't think there was anything wrong with them and never did. If someone's in prison and shouldn't be, it's a story. I'll disagree with Katrina vanden Heuvel on the importance of it. He may be a robber baron but he's not in prison for that, he's in prison because he's a political threat to Putin. Political prisoners need to be highlighted. If Tom DeLay was held in prison not because of his indictment but because of some trumped up reasons, I would object and I hate Tom DeLay.
I like Katrina vanden Heuvel's writing and usually agree with her but I was surprised that time when I heard on Democracy Now! and she responded to Amy Goodman's question in a kind of gruff manner. I know she knows Russia and I don't doubt that the Yukos guy isn't a nice person but I don't believe in political prisoners. (I don't think she does either. But I know her remarks caused Krista to beat herself up because Katrina vanden Heuvel is one of Krista's heroes.) (I don't think I have any heroes, outside of my family, who aren't dead. Maybe Three Cool Old Guys and C.I., that's about the closest I'd come to heroes outside my family.)
So the point of the Law and Disorder segment to me was the power that people can have. Not just with the panel. It took people using their power to even make PBS air anything on the genocide. That didn't happen in one month or one year or one decade. If you're a Howard Zinn reader, I am, you know there are many stories that never make the history books we're encouraged to rely on. But we can make history and we can rescue history and I'd argue that Armenians and people who heard the stories in the early half of the last century rescued this story. It's an important story. To deny it by saying it didn't happen or to deny it by not discussing it robs everyone.
And, to put a modern point on it, the illegal occupation of Iraq will be written into history. We can have input in that by using our voices now and not being afraid to call it an illegal occupation (which it is). And we can continue to protest the war. It won't end it tomorrow or next week and that's true of the reality of what happened in Armenia getting out and true of ending the war. I was thinking, while I listened, what Boghosian's mother must have thought when young Heidi asked that question? It must have been pretty hard to answer because, though her mother said it nicer, the underlying point was, "Dear, they just don't care enough to talk about it." And that made me wonder what her grandmother thought. This is my guess, and I'm just guessing, her grandmother may have thought, "New country. There will be people there who will welcome me. And there will be people who will care about what's going on." If she did think that, and she might not have, I wonder how long she thought it? Maybe she's alive now and got to see the change in thinking? Or maybe she never did. But did she keep hoping in the dark hours?
I have a grandmother who's alive and one who died. The one who died, died before I was born. My grandmothers liked each other and that's apparently not to common among my friends. But Grandma (who is alive) will talk about her like a friend (they were friends). And when she's tired or the world gets too much, sometimes she'll say that my grandmother who passed (she didn't have a grandmother name because she died before there were any grandchildren) was lucky to have passed away when she did, two weeks before Martin Luther King was assassinated. When Grandma's really tired or the news is just too awful, she'll say that and talk about how the dream was alive when my grandmother died. So when I hear someone talking about generations in their family, I wonder what the earlier ones thought.
I think they'd be proud of Boghasian because she really cares about this issue and I know people who don't care about things that came before. I really got angry with a friend (who is African-American) who was griping about the banks being closed on MLK Day. He was whining about how he couldn't put money in the bank. (He doesn't trust ATMs. He does have a reason, the bank lost a deposit of his once. But he was using a teller and not a machine.) My attitude was, "Be glad you have money and maybe you wouldn't if it weren't for the people who came before." Because MLK Day honors the man but it also honors the struggle that millions were involved in. And it stands for more than just this country because the struggle inspired world wide.
I'll give another example. Do you know the phrase "hood rat"? If you don't, you're lucky. Maybe you know Ronald Reagan's "welfare queens"? That's the same thing basically. A "hood rat" is one of those smears on African-American women. That's supposed to be a woman who just wants to live off welfare and child support and turns out a lot of kids (litters like a rat). What's really hurtful about this is that "hood rat" didn't come from a White person. And it's used by African-Americans. It's supposed to be funny. I don't know. Maybe we think it's funny if we say it first? But I have to wonder how many generations that fought the civil rights fight would hear it and think "funny."
I think we're unaware of what it took to get where we are (that's all of us, regardless of race -- and I'm still learning and will be all my life*) and that hurts us as much as anything that happens today. (Maybe because if we don't know our struggles, we just keep repeating them?)
I'll wrap up but I had a blast in California and my "*" was a C.I. story that I'll tell. C.I. won't be mad but will say, "You could have written about something important, Cedric." I think this is important. C.I.'s smart. Members know that. In California as we were going to rallies and meeting with different people, someone would bring up an issue from time to time. C.I. never bluffed. C.I. would just say flat out, "I'm sorry, I don't know anything about what you're talking about. But I loved to hear about it." To me, that's smart. You don't play along and try to put it together in your head and maybe miss key points. You just say upfront that you don't know and let someone walk you through it. I think learning never stops and growing continues for your entire life. There's a lot of things I love about C.I. If I write about a passing, I'll get a call and C.I. will start out saying, "That was so great" and then get all choked up. C.I.'s very generous with the praise and very supportive. But the thing I saw over and over last week was that C.I.'s not embarrassed to say, "I don't know, please tell me." A lot of people pretend they do know. They're too worried about how they'll look and I think they end up missing out on life and knowledge because if you fake your way through, you cheat yourself.
You should check out Law and Disorder because it will make you think and you'll really enjoy all four hosts. Also, check out Trina's "Gazpacho soup in the Kitchen" which is an easy recipe even for me. No cooking at all. I do have a blender so I used the blender recipes (there are two recipes). It turned out pretty good and, if you have cooking talent, it'll probably turn out great.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
2005's honor (Marian Anderson) v. 2006's shame
The stamps above are of Marian Anderson who lived from 1897 to 1993. Ms. Anderson was a singer who fought racism and was internationally known. I'll assume we all know her and say thank you to Rebecca for posting the stamps and move on to my point.
Each year, the United States Postal Service puts out many stamps. Due to Black History, they usually do a "Black Heritage" stamp. In 2005, it was Marian Anderson. This year it's Hattie McDaniels. I wasn't aware of that. It's one of the many things I learned over the week. (I think Mike's going to write about that Friday night so I'll just say I think everybody had a great time and know I did.)
Hattie McDaniel was the first African-American to win an Oscar (or attend the ceremony as something other than a servant apparently). So I guess the thinking was, "Them Blacks will just love this stamp!"
Here's the thing. We don't all love the stamp. McDaniel's is a part of history and her story is of interest but that doesn't mean she qualifies for the honor of a stamp. McDaniels played mammys and maids and did so gladly. They were stereotypes. Before someone says, "Oh that's in looking back! In looking back, everything can seem outdated!" No, in real time, McDaniels was criticized for her choices by the NAACP.
McDaniels is a complicated figure and certainly worthy of discussion. She is not, however, worthy of the one stamp we can count on each year -- the one where we can see one of our own applauded for accomplishments.
I'd like to know who decided Hattie McDaniels was the person to pay tribute to this year? My guess? Some White person.
Probably a Gone With The Wind freak who thinks "those people must love that movie because McDaniels won an Oscar for it!" Yeah, that's what we like to do, sit around watching movies about the Civil War where all the characters of color are just happy to be serving Miss Scarlett and bound in slavery. That's our idea of a feel-good movie.
No, "those people" don't all swoon over the love affair between master Scarlett and her Confederate lover Rhett. We don't get all excited in the rooting that things will work out for them (slavery will prevail?) and then feel sad that the plantation system has crumbled.
I'm thinking only under the Bully Boy could the post office make such a ridiculous choice, such an insulting choice.
McDaniel's life is a complicated one and it is certainly worthy of discussion and debate. It is not, however, worth being noted in the Black Heritage series over the very real accomplishments of African-Americans, past and present, who have worked to dispell stereotypes and to advance the cause of civil rights. In the end, the best that may be said of her is that she achieved when others couldn't. Saying that requires examining how she managed that feat and there's not a great deal of pride in that story.
Will 2007 find us honoring Amos & Andy?
I'm posting because I should be the first one who landed. Mike thinks he's going to post tonight but he's getting home late (Wally's getting home the latest, I think). Rebecca's got three entries today so check her out and note that when the rest of us were unable to post she carried her weight and then some. Thank you to Rebecca.
I'll note one thing from Democracy Now! today and call it a night:
Rev. William Sloane Coffin, 81, Dies
And the Rev. William Sloane Coffin Jr. has died at the age of 81. For the past half century he has been a leading anti-war and civil rights advocated. During the 1960s as chaplain of Yale University he was a leading critic of the Vietnam War and strongly advocated the use of civil disobedience to protest the war. In one of the most celebrated trials of the 1960s he faced charges along with Dr. Benjamin Spock and others of conspiracy to encourage draft evasion. He was also an early supporter of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and took part in some of the first Freedom Rides. Courage, he preached over the years, was the first virtue, because ''it makes all other virtues possible.'' In the 1970s he went on to become a senior minister at the Riverside Church in New York. And in the 1980s he played an instrumental role in the anti-nuclear movement.
If you missed the program today, read C.I.'s "Democracy Now!: The Death of The Village Voice?" and you'll know why you need to catch it. Now.
Monday, April 10, 2006
Law and Disorder addressed covert racism
I wasn't sure if I had anything to write about. In fact, I thought I didn't because I'm doing a thing for the gina & krista round-robin about the demonstrations. But Mike came over just now and told me he was writing a little about Law and Disorder. We listened to that a little while ago while we were eating dinner and Mike reminded me that I had a bit to say about the first story.
This was only my second time listening. Ruth's Public Radio Report got me interested in the show and it was one of those "I'll listen" that gets put off. By the way, that's why I'm all for noting Pacifica programs. How many months has Ruth been noting Law and Disorder? I've now listened twice in a row and stuff like that doesn't happen overnight. You hear someone say, "Listen to this!" and, if they're excited, you think about it. If I never listened to it, I think it made a difference just knowing it was out there, just being aware of it. So if you're thinking, "Well, I don't have a blog . . ." remember that you have a mouth. You can use it. And even if someone doesn't listen to the thing you recommend, they know it's out there.
I'm going to focus on the first segment which was Dalia Hashad (of Amnesty and one of the four co-hosts of the show) speaking with the others (Heidi Boghosian of the National Lawyers Guild, Michael Ratner of the National Lawyers Guild). She was in Houston and she's not Anglo/White. She was at a Joe's Crabshack type place (it wasn't Joe's Crabshack) and she was treated in the most rude mannder.
She still left a tip (smaller than she would have elsewhere but still a nice size tip) and when she said that, there were a few groans. I don't mean on the show, I mean as we were listening. But C.I. and my opinion was that if she hadn't left anything, it would have justified the service to the server and other wait staff. The staff would have said, "See, that's how those people are."
I've been in that situation before, a lot of times, and I used to not leave a tip. If someone else doesn't want to, they shouldn't. You shouldn't reward bad service. But one Sunday after church, on my grandmother's birthday, we all went out to eat. The food was pretty good . . . when it arrived. We had to remind the waiter repeatedly (it was over a half-hour after we had ordered before we got our food). My aunt ended up doing our refills because we couldn't get more iced tea no matter how much we asked. So she just got up, went over and grabbed a pitcher of tea, filled up everyone's glasses, then went and grabbed another one. Our waiter would snap "I'm busy!" whenever anyone tried to wave him over. We noticed that the other four tables he was going to were tables he visited all the time. The people at those tables were white. We were African-American.
Like Dalia Hashad said, you're never sure if it is a case of racism. Maybe we somehow offended the waiter? Maybe he just didn't like where our table was located? Maybe he thought he was going to all the tables but would get called to the kitchen before he got us and he didn't realize that?
Or maybe someone at the table looked like an ex-girlfriend or ex-boyfriend so he didn't want to come over? Or an old teacher? You never can be sure because racism still is a big issue but it's covert now. Decades ago, they would have denied you service and said, "You're black, get out."
(Or worse.) Now days, it's more covert.
So after the meal, we were all decided not to leave a tip. The waiter hadn't earned it and our party was so large that an automatic tip was tacked on. But my grandmother was really bothered by that. She felt the guy was racist. And she felt like if we didn't leave a tip, he'd feel good about himself. We leave and leave no tip, he's going to tell himself he did the right thing.
So we left a nice tip.
In that situation, you need to do what you feel like. If you don't want to leave a tip, don't. It's not been earned and, I'd argue, that they should actually being paying you after treating you so rudely. But my grandmother's point is one that I act on now. I want them to come to the table after we leave and see a tip and not have the excuse of "Oh, they didn't tip, no surprise" -- I want them to see the tip and think, "I wasn't even nice to them." Maybe a few of them will feel bad. Maybe, the next African-American customer that comes in will get a little better treatment than we got.
Dalia Hashad also talked about how then she is traveling to New York City for the taping of Law and Disorder and at one point, I think in the train station, she's waiting and it's packed. There's one seat that no one's sitting in but a woman has her cup of coffee in the seat. Dalia Hashad walks over and asks nicely if it's the woman cup of coffee? It is. And she finishes eating her muffin before she finally picks up her cup of coffee. Those things are hurtful.
And because racism's covert you're left wondering exactly what the problem was. Maybe the woman didn't want anyone sitting on that side of her? Maybe she's just a mean person? Maybe it was because of race? But, like Dalia Hashad pointed out, these things happen over and over in a week. (Probably in a day for some people.) It's really hard just to forget it. It's like a missing tooth and you know it's gone but your tongue keeps going back to the empty socket. It does a real number on you. And let's say that Dalia Hashad was white, super wealthy and whatever. If that had happened to her still, she would've wondered what was wrong with her. But race probably wouldn't have been one of the questions she wondered about. When race could be a factor (and often is) it is really hurtful because we're told racism is over or at least not that bad but then we come up against something like that and realize how some people really see us which then makes you wonder, "Well what about other people I know? Do they see me that way too but they're just more polite?" It just does a real number on you and not just when you're walking away but for the rest of the day and there have been times for me where it's been for the rest of the week.
So I was really glad they addressed the issue and that they did it by letting Dalia Hashad talk about her experiences. It happens to everyone and it doesn't matter how you speak or how you dress but she speaks very well so you know you can eliminate that factor and the way she was dressed. I know that it made me feel better. There was one time I went to a large box store to get new tires and was left waiting for an hour while people who came in after me (White) were rushed in and out. I probably spent a day blaming myself because I drove up in wind pants and t-shirt. I kept telling myself, "I should've dressed up." It was probably the middle of the next week before I thought, "Forget that." It was a Saturday morning. I was going in to get my tires, not going to Sunday school. I didn't need to wear a suit and tie to expect even adequate service.
But that's what you do afterwards, you start thinking "Well should I have dressed differently" or "Did I sound stupid?" So hearing her speak about it, I think if you could relate to that situation, you really were glad that it was someone so well spoken that was addressing it.
It shouldn't happen to anyone. But I know that I go to that or clothes immediately because you do start blaming yourself when it happens.
If you missed it and this sounds like a topic you want to hear about it, you can listen to it at
Law and Disorder.
I also want to note "'What I Didn't Find In Iraq' by Bully Boy" because I really like that feature. It's a parody of an op-ed by the Bully Boy and how that happened? Friday, Jim was talking about Joseph Wilson's "What I Didn't Find In Africa" repeatedly (Wilson wrote that, discrediting a claim by the Bully Boy for war, and as a result, the administration attacked him and outed his wife Valerie Plame who had been a CIA agent). After hearing that over and over, C.I. suggested that we think what Bully Boy might say if he had to write an op-ed with the same title? We all liked the idea and C.I. urged us to work on while we were behind the idea and to also knock out something on Friday so it would be one less thing to worry about. I think it was like eleven o'clock (maybe later) but we went ahead and thought up ideas. Everyone thought up at least one idea and we worked on them solo and then came back to fit it together and rewrite. Ty had the shortest one and it falls in the middle which is the only thing that anyone else had input on. Here's Ty's (and if you haven't read the feature it's surrounded by longer items):
I did not find Waldo. But I looked real hard.
That still makes me laugh. Ty didn't believe that we liked it, he kept saying it was "sleight" but I think it's funny and so did everyone else.
This was only my second time listening. Ruth's Public Radio Report got me interested in the show and it was one of those "I'll listen" that gets put off. By the way, that's why I'm all for noting Pacifica programs. How many months has Ruth been noting Law and Disorder? I've now listened twice in a row and stuff like that doesn't happen overnight. You hear someone say, "Listen to this!" and, if they're excited, you think about it. If I never listened to it, I think it made a difference just knowing it was out there, just being aware of it. So if you're thinking, "Well, I don't have a blog . . ." remember that you have a mouth. You can use it. And even if someone doesn't listen to the thing you recommend, they know it's out there.
I'm going to focus on the first segment which was Dalia Hashad (of Amnesty and one of the four co-hosts of the show) speaking with the others (Heidi Boghosian of the National Lawyers Guild, Michael Ratner of the National Lawyers Guild). She was in Houston and she's not Anglo/White. She was at a Joe's Crabshack type place (it wasn't Joe's Crabshack) and she was treated in the most rude mannder.
She still left a tip (smaller than she would have elsewhere but still a nice size tip) and when she said that, there were a few groans. I don't mean on the show, I mean as we were listening. But C.I. and my opinion was that if she hadn't left anything, it would have justified the service to the server and other wait staff. The staff would have said, "See, that's how those people are."
I've been in that situation before, a lot of times, and I used to not leave a tip. If someone else doesn't want to, they shouldn't. You shouldn't reward bad service. But one Sunday after church, on my grandmother's birthday, we all went out to eat. The food was pretty good . . . when it arrived. We had to remind the waiter repeatedly (it was over a half-hour after we had ordered before we got our food). My aunt ended up doing our refills because we couldn't get more iced tea no matter how much we asked. So she just got up, went over and grabbed a pitcher of tea, filled up everyone's glasses, then went and grabbed another one. Our waiter would snap "I'm busy!" whenever anyone tried to wave him over. We noticed that the other four tables he was going to were tables he visited all the time. The people at those tables were white. We were African-American.
Like Dalia Hashad said, you're never sure if it is a case of racism. Maybe we somehow offended the waiter? Maybe he just didn't like where our table was located? Maybe he thought he was going to all the tables but would get called to the kitchen before he got us and he didn't realize that?
Or maybe someone at the table looked like an ex-girlfriend or ex-boyfriend so he didn't want to come over? Or an old teacher? You never can be sure because racism still is a big issue but it's covert now. Decades ago, they would have denied you service and said, "You're black, get out."
(Or worse.) Now days, it's more covert.
So after the meal, we were all decided not to leave a tip. The waiter hadn't earned it and our party was so large that an automatic tip was tacked on. But my grandmother was really bothered by that. She felt the guy was racist. And she felt like if we didn't leave a tip, he'd feel good about himself. We leave and leave no tip, he's going to tell himself he did the right thing.
So we left a nice tip.
In that situation, you need to do what you feel like. If you don't want to leave a tip, don't. It's not been earned and, I'd argue, that they should actually being paying you after treating you so rudely. But my grandmother's point is one that I act on now. I want them to come to the table after we leave and see a tip and not have the excuse of "Oh, they didn't tip, no surprise" -- I want them to see the tip and think, "I wasn't even nice to them." Maybe a few of them will feel bad. Maybe, the next African-American customer that comes in will get a little better treatment than we got.
Dalia Hashad also talked about how then she is traveling to New York City for the taping of Law and Disorder and at one point, I think in the train station, she's waiting and it's packed. There's one seat that no one's sitting in but a woman has her cup of coffee in the seat. Dalia Hashad walks over and asks nicely if it's the woman cup of coffee? It is. And she finishes eating her muffin before she finally picks up her cup of coffee. Those things are hurtful.
And because racism's covert you're left wondering exactly what the problem was. Maybe the woman didn't want anyone sitting on that side of her? Maybe she's just a mean person? Maybe it was because of race? But, like Dalia Hashad pointed out, these things happen over and over in a week. (Probably in a day for some people.) It's really hard just to forget it. It's like a missing tooth and you know it's gone but your tongue keeps going back to the empty socket. It does a real number on you. And let's say that Dalia Hashad was white, super wealthy and whatever. If that had happened to her still, she would've wondered what was wrong with her. But race probably wouldn't have been one of the questions she wondered about. When race could be a factor (and often is) it is really hurtful because we're told racism is over or at least not that bad but then we come up against something like that and realize how some people really see us which then makes you wonder, "Well what about other people I know? Do they see me that way too but they're just more polite?" It just does a real number on you and not just when you're walking away but for the rest of the day and there have been times for me where it's been for the rest of the week.
So I was really glad they addressed the issue and that they did it by letting Dalia Hashad talk about her experiences. It happens to everyone and it doesn't matter how you speak or how you dress but she speaks very well so you know you can eliminate that factor and the way she was dressed. I know that it made me feel better. There was one time I went to a large box store to get new tires and was left waiting for an hour while people who came in after me (White) were rushed in and out. I probably spent a day blaming myself because I drove up in wind pants and t-shirt. I kept telling myself, "I should've dressed up." It was probably the middle of the next week before I thought, "Forget that." It was a Saturday morning. I was going in to get my tires, not going to Sunday school. I didn't need to wear a suit and tie to expect even adequate service.
But that's what you do afterwards, you start thinking "Well should I have dressed differently" or "Did I sound stupid?" So hearing her speak about it, I think if you could relate to that situation, you really were glad that it was someone so well spoken that was addressing it.
It shouldn't happen to anyone. But I know that I go to that or clothes immediately because you do start blaming yourself when it happens.
If you missed it and this sounds like a topic you want to hear about it, you can listen to it at
Law and Disorder.
I also want to note "'What I Didn't Find In Iraq' by Bully Boy" because I really like that feature. It's a parody of an op-ed by the Bully Boy and how that happened? Friday, Jim was talking about Joseph Wilson's "What I Didn't Find In Africa" repeatedly (Wilson wrote that, discrediting a claim by the Bully Boy for war, and as a result, the administration attacked him and outed his wife Valerie Plame who had been a CIA agent). After hearing that over and over, C.I. suggested that we think what Bully Boy might say if he had to write an op-ed with the same title? We all liked the idea and C.I. urged us to work on while we were behind the idea and to also knock out something on Friday so it would be one less thing to worry about. I think it was like eleven o'clock (maybe later) but we went ahead and thought up ideas. Everyone thought up at least one idea and we worked on them solo and then came back to fit it together and rewrite. Ty had the shortest one and it falls in the middle which is the only thing that anyone else had input on. Here's Ty's (and if you haven't read the feature it's surrounded by longer items):
I did not find Waldo. But I looked real hard.
That still makes me laugh. Ty didn't believe that we liked it, he kept saying it was "sleight" but I think it's funny and so did everyone else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)