Having botched the Bolton fight on the Senate floor (see "Still Waiting for Guffman"), Douglas Jehl's reporting in "Nominee Vows Tighter Control of Intelligence" should surprise few. While they should have been trying to convey outrage over Negroponte, the Democrats largely took a pass on the whole issue (Senator Ron Wyden appears to be the only exception).

At one point, Negroponte declared, "My punch line is, I believe in calling things the way I see them. And I believe that the president deserves from his director of national intelligence, and from the intelligence community, unvarnished truth."

I doubt people in Honduras are laughing over that one.

But instead of being a voice for the powerless, the Democrats took a pass.

From Democracy Now!:

ZENAIDA VELASQUEZ: What I know is that we were insisting to get a meeting with the ambassador knowing how powerful the ambassadorship to Honduras from the United States is. And we finally met in October of 1983, but to no abate. We were not either -- lucky to have, save the lives of our people. Whenever I think that Negroponte as the Ambassador of the United States to Honduras had the power to intervene before the Honduran authorities to stop the human rights abuses, he could have saved the lives -- not say about my brother, because he got there a little bit after my brother was kidnapped and disappeared. And who knows? Maybe he was still alive. But, at least, what I say is at least he could have saved the lives of people that were kidnapped, tortured and disappeared during his tenure as Ambassador to Honduras.

When the issues on the Senate floor go to procedural (basically "how will you handle this post") and only that, you start to wonder if the Democrats are even interested in staking a claim to the moral ground.

They botched Bolton and gave Negroponte a pass.

From Democracy Now! again:

ROZ DZELZITIS: Well, for six years, I and the staff of May I Speak Freely? Media have been researching the legacy of human rights abuses in Honduras. And in response to Negroponte's testimony in his last two confirmation hearings, May I Speak Freely? Media produced a memo to address members of the intelligence committee directly about Negroponte's human rights record in Honduras, and the memo describes evidence that suggests Negroponte knew, or at the very least should have known, about what widespread government sanctioned abuses. In addition to not reporting abuses in annual human rights reports, which incidentally we now know that the C.I.A. knew about and were reporting, he praised the government's protection of human and civil rights to the U.S. press. And because the U.S. Congress did not receive information about government sanctioned abuses, it increased military aid to Honduras in order to fight communism in the region.

Where was the grilling? And if he's going to be an intell czar, was it too much to expect that they might have, at the very least, grilled him on "what he should have known?"

They took a pass. When people wonder where the outrage is over the torture in Iraq and Afghanistan, they need look no further than the Negroponte hearings which were devoid of serious discussions and played more like interviewing Miss America contestants: "How would you use your title?"

Senate Dems took a pass on Negroponte's record and accountability. Others tried to raise those issues but spineless Dems were happy to lap up Negroponte's "for world peace" lines.

By refusing to walk the public through Negroponte's past record and actions that he either tolerated or was unaware of (or possibly far worse), Democrats again reduced what should have been a debate about where our country is headed into a standard job interview.

Is Negroponte qualified for the post? If you're comfortable with anything being done in your name, absolutely. If you balk at seeing everything this country is supposed to stand for destroyed by ever lowing expectations, be thankful for outside voices because they were the only ones raising that issue.

E-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]

The article in this morning's New York Times that everyone's e-mailing on (Rob, Kara, Paul, Zach, Erika, Keesha, Lincoln, Tamara, Lloyd, Billie, Corey, Alabama, Krista) is Steven R. Weisman's "Ex-Official Says Nominee Bullied Analyst on Arms."

In caustic and unusually personal testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Carl W. Ford Jr., who was assistant secretary for intelligence and research, said Mr. Bolton was a "kiss-up, kick-down sort of guy" who "abuses his authority with little people," and an ill-suited nominee to become ambassador to the United Nations.

Guffman emerged yesterday, after the long wait, and judging by the Times, the play's still closing. Having pinned all their hopes on Carl W. Ford Jr., Democrats were surprised to find that Republicans just didn't give a damn.

Ford painted Bolton as a serial abuser of underlings: screaming and yelling, finger wagging, someone's whose management 'style' could best be described as "he reamed him a new one,"
" an 800-pound gorilla devouring a banana," a "serial abuser," and someone fond of ringing up a departing employee to snarl "I'm glad you're leaving" before hanging up.

Realizing that his receding hairline was all he shared with Kevin Costner, Senator Lincoln Chafee recast himself as Vivian Leigh in Gone With the Wind and joined Senator Richard Luger in chanting: fiddle-de-dee, I'll think about that tomorrow.

Senator Christopher Dodd came off like Cassandra fortelling the danger that will accompany confirming Bolton, but Chafee and Luger were unconcerned with "management style" (or what the Times and some senators generously termed Bolton's tendency to fall into "group think").
As ambassador to the United Nations, Luger and Chafee seemed to say, diplomacy really wasn't a prerequiste for the job.

The Dems pinned their hope on a mythical Guffman. Yesterday Guffman arrived in the form of Carl W. Ford Jr. and there was little impact on Republican senators from his testimony. When not offering damning testimony on Bolton, Ford was praising the Bully Boy and the administration. Not a real surprise when you consider his statements re: Venezuala in 2002. But this was the Dems mighty Guffman, the savior who would carry the show.

Next time, they'd be better off casting the role with someone less known as an administration lackey. Carl W. Ford Jr.'s charges appear to have been dismissed by Republicans as a "personality conflict." Possibly anyone the Dems brought in would have been? If so, next time they might try casting the role with someone who could do real damage as opposed to someone swearing fidelity to the administration while taking pains to point out Bolton's disqualifiers?

The role demanded someone whose comments would enrage the nation. Instead, we got a low level supporter of the Bully Boy detailing personal conflicts. The Republican senators were always going to dismiss whomever the Dems trotted out. Any Guffman's only hope would be to enrage a nation and cause public outcry. Ford was always ill cast for that role.

In the film Waiting for Guffman, Guffman never shows. Having cast Ford in the role, the Dems learned that a lack of star power is a liability. Hopefully, they also learned that cheerleaders for the Bully Boy weren't the way to foster outrage in the public.

Keesha: That's the best that they could do? Someone who blows kisses at the Bully Boy while painting Bolton as a bounder, a cad?

Apparently so. This time. Turning over the senate to Ford was a mistake. It had the effect of endorsing the views of the administration and making it seem that the only real difference was over approach, not outlook.

Senator Joe Biden attempted to go for a moment of folksy wisdom, " "This is a big deal, guys and ladies. I believe that this appointment is damaging to our national interests."

While I agree with Biden, he and the Dems never demonstrated why it was "damaging to our national interests." They accepted the Bully Boy's terms of the debate and wanted to quibble over management style.

Bolton's repugnant and offers none of the diplomacy needed for the post. But when you parade witnesses swearing loyalty to the Bully Boy, you're not making a case for outrage. This should have been a time to paint larger issues about diplomacy and our role in the world, to stand against the unilateral bullying posture of the administration. Having failed to establish such a stance, Dems were left chanting, "Bolton's the boss from hell." No doubt Bolton is, but that's not going to score any points with the public.

Far be it from me to suggest how to "frame" an event. However, the issue should never been about one person, it should have been about questioning the direction the country was moving in. They reduced it to one person and when their big witness, their Guffman, failed to deliver outrage, the Dems really shouldn't have been surprised.

E-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

Community member Ruth will be doing Morning Edition Reports from time to time. If you missed her previous entry explaining some biographical information and why she feels it is important to monitor NPR, please check it out.

Whenever she hears something she feels is worth noting, Ruth will be offering her opinion. So that what she is commenting on can be heard by those who may have missed Morning Edition, the earliest an entry of her's would post would be in the evening during the work week. That way she can provide links. (Or if she doesn't have the time, I will hunt them down for her.)

She had wondered if she needed to do an essay or could just "jot down" something. Whatever she's fine with, I'm fine with.

Like Ruth, I feel that NPR has gotten far too many passes. This is her contribution to the community and I hope you'll enjoy it. If anyone would like to add to it with additional comments on Morning Edition or by covering another NPR program, feel free.

And remember, she's taking care of her ten-month-old grandson during the day, so she'll be doing this when she has time. (I see anytime she can share her thoughts as a gift and hope you will too.)

We're talking about a blog just for Ruth's Morning Edition Report but right now Ruth is just going to e-mail it in and we'll post it here.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.


 [Note: This post originally appeared at The Common Ills.]

Ruth: Listening to NPR's Morning Edition Monday made me think of The Third Estate Sunday Review. Specifically, it made me think of the roundtable from Sunday and the comments of Ty (The Third Estate Sunday Review) and Betty (Thomas Friedman is a Great Man).

Ty: Exactly. I almost came to blows with this idiot on campus last month. He said, "The problem with you people is that all you care about are basketball stars and rap artists." Well no, we don't all care about anything. But yeah, you can't grow up in this society and not notice who is getting the spotlight and who isn't. We've got writers, writers who sell books, that you'll never hear about in The New York Times. And just because all that guy knew about my race was basketball stars and rap artists doesn't mean that that's all we are.
Betty: And we're not all criminals!
Ty: Yeah, don't forget that. That's the other way the spotlight shines on our race. So not being a rap artist or a sports star or a criminal, I'm not really expecting that CJR Daily or anyone else is going to take the time to highlight me. The mainstream treats us like foreigners in our own country.

Now what do you suppose made me remember that Monday morning while I listened to Morning Edition?

Well there was this story:

Commentator John Feinstein discusses Tiger Woods' dramatic victory at the Masters in Augusta, Ga. It was Woods' fourth Masters win and first major victory in almost three seasons. He edged out Chris DiMarco in a playoff hole by sinking a 15-foot putt.

There was also this story:

He rose to fame as the producer behind one of the '90s most influential hip-hop groups. Now he's set his sights on Tinseltown. Robert F. Diggs, better known as The RZA from the Wu-Tang Clan, discusses his Hollywood plans and his new book, The Wu-Tang Manual.

Morning Edition is not noted for it's inclusion. But we got the "rap star" and we got the "sports star" just like Betty and Ty were saying.

The only thing we didn't get was the criminal. Unless you consider war criminals:

Colin Powell spent 35 years in the military, rising from ROTC in college to become a four-star general and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the 1991 Gulf War. He has worked in the administrations of six presidents including serving as secretary of state from 2001 to 2005.

If Mr. Powell is attempting to repair his tattered image, he'll need to do a bit more than offer up a poorly conceived paen to Americana that sounds like a freshman's attempt to copy Henry Wadsworth Longfellow ("On the shores on Gitche Gumee . . .").

NPR hired, and has since lost, Tavis Smiley in an attempt to be more inclusive. Like the Bully Boy, Morning Edition hit the trifecta Monday: sports star, rap star and possible criminal. Sad but true, that's the most inclusive Morning Edition's been in some time. One wonders why Cokie Roberts and other commentators brought on to offer perspective all fit the same demographic and race?

Betty & Ty called it and I'd argue that they were right.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]

Democracy Now! (Marcia: "always worth watching"):

Headlines for April 12, 2005
- Gov't Memos Link Negroponte to Iran-Contra Affair
- Sharon Vows to Build Settlements Despite Bush Warning
- Guantanamo Judge: "I Don't Care About International Law"
- NYPD Caught Editing RNC Arrest Video Evidence
- Wholesale Prescription Prices Jump 7 Percent
- Washington University Students Stage Living Wage Sit-In
- Feminist & Activist Andrea Dworkin, 58, Dies

Senators Grill Bolton on Past UN Comments, Politicizing Intelligence
During the confirmation hearing of John Bolton as UN ambassador nominee, members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee grilled Bolton on his highly critical comments on the UN and his treatment of intelligence officials in the state department. We play extended excerpts of the hearing. [includes rush transcript]

Israeli Journalist Amira Hass Reflects on Reporting Under Occupation
Amira Hass, the only Israeli journalist living in the Occupied Territories, joins us in our firehouse studio to discuss the current withdrawal from Gaza and expansion of settlements in the West Bank, the "apartheid system" in Israel and life in the "prison" of the Occupied Territories. [includes rush transcript - partial]

From Democracy Now!'s headlines above, Marcia requested that this be highlighted:

Feminist & Activist Andrea Dworkin, 58, DiesAnd the feminist writer and activist Andrea Dworkin has died at the age of 58. She was best known for her feminist critique of pornography which she first outlined in her book Women Hating. She was the author of over a dozen books on pornography and violence against women. In 1983 she helped a drafted a law that defined pornography as a civil rights violation against women. The law was passed in Indianapolis in 1983, but was overturned by an appeals court two years later. She often argued that pornography was a precursor to rape. She said in 1986, "Pornography is used in rape - to plan it, to execute it, to choreograph it, to engender the excitement to commit the act." Gloria Steinem said of Dworkin, "In every century, there are a handful of writers who help the human race to evolve. Andrea is one of them." Four years ago the Guardian newspaper described her like this: "Dworkin is a threat, of course, to exactly the extent that radical feminists have always posed a threat - pointing out unapologetically the degree to which violence against women and children by men remains rampant." Dworkin died on Saturday at her home in Washington.


Bill Clinton's in the news speaking out against newlywed Finklestein. Lynda e-mailed highlighting Big Brass Blog's Pam's take on it:

He can talk tough when defending his wife, but when it came to defend the right of gay people, even self-loathing Finklestein, to marry -- he threw us under the bus for political expediency. He's the man that gave us "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act, empowering the Repugs to take gay-bashing to the next level....And then he told Kerry in 2004 to support the state marriage amendments in order to gain votes.
And as the clock is ticking...* gays can still legally be fired from a job * a transgender person can most certainly get the crap beaten out of them or worse in many parts of the country* gays cannot adopt in many places* gay couples in several states now cannot form private legal agreements and health care POA because of state amendmentsAnd look at the state of the bigoted marriage amendments.
For all the gains that have been made, city by city, state by state, there are thousands of gay people that have lost rights in those states that passed amendments. Those laws have jeopardized partner benefits and legal arrangements to protect gay relationships that married people take for granted. Bill Clinton and his DLC legacy resulted in a Democratic Party with lack of desire/inability to reframe any issues regarding gay rights, save a few brave souls, like Mel Watt. The silence is deafening. His 2004 advice to Kerry was telling. Clinton's actions gave the Right permission to make gays the whipping boy for electoral success. It only served him to call out gay-baiting when his wife was involved.
Sorry, Bill, f*ck that. You and Finkelstein just have more in common on this front than you're copping to.
***I'm not letting Finkelstein off the hook; he is about as nasty and right wing as they come on the campaign trail.

From Bob Somerby's The Daily Howler today:

AS A MATTER OF FACT, YES--THEY'LL BE PUNISHED: In this morning's lead editorial, the Washington Post provides describes the cost of killing the estate tax for good. But in their closing paragraph, the eds indulge in some clueless self-contradiction:
WASHINGTON POST EDITORIAL (4/12/05): The estate tax is a tough vote for some lawmakers in part because of the enormous amount of misinformation surrounding it. House members who fear that a vote for the more responsible Pomeroy alternative will be used against them should ask themselves two questions: Will my constituents really punish me for a vote to exempt 99.7 percent of estates from taxation? And how can I justify adding to the deficit, or cutting other programs, to underwrite a costly tax break for the extremely rich?
In that first sentence, the editors note the load of disinformation surrounding the fearful "death tax." But right after that, they seem to suggest that it's silly for members of Congress to think they'll be punished for retaining the tax. "Will my constituents really punish me for a vote to exempt 99.7 percent of estates from taxation?" they ask. But duh! The answer to that question is yes, precisely because of the disinformation the press lets the pseudo-right spread.
For decades, Rush and the gang have spread disinformation about the effects of the "death tax." (For one key example, see the Post's paragraph about family farms.) And, as usual, the mainstream press has refused to stand up and confront what these demagogues have been doing. But then, you know the ways of that mainstream press corps, with its "right-leaning dinner-party centrism!" Not for them the dirty task of challenging Mark Levin's kooky best-seller--and not for them the dirty task of describing the disinformation machine that keeps misleading American voters about the way this tax really works. So yes--various members will be punished if they vote to keep the estate tax. They'll be punished because voters have been misled by Rush and the gang for years--and because our dinner-party pundits are too timid to stand up and fight them.
That quoted paragraph is the perfect portrait of the way this cohort works. In one sentence, they note that the public has been disinformed. But in the next sentence, they seem to ridicule the idea that voters will punish the House about this. How do those two ideas go together? Next time you attend a fine Washington party, put down your wine glass and ask the eds this. But uh-oh! Don't expect to get an invite to the next centrist soiree.

Dominick e-mailed to note Ruth Conniff's Monday's blog. This week's entry is entitled "Colin Powell Grasps at Straws:"

But wait, there's more: "The students were still concerned because they thought the waitress might have to pay for it out of her salary. She smiled and she said, 'No, the manager said he is glad you are here in the United States. He hopes you are having a good time, he hopes you are learning all about us. He said it's on him.'
"That," Powell concluded, "is the America I believe in, that's the America the world wants to believe in."
Hey, maybe there's still time to substitute a Chili's manager for John Bolton as our ambassador to the UN!
You have to feel a little bad for Powell, exiting from the Bush Administration after the far-rightwing insiders made a fool of him. As the guy who took America's "iron-clad" case about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to the Security Council, he can be forgiven for wanting to dwell on a more benign image of his country than the one he saw while in office.
All the same--can he think of NOTHING in his whole career that expresses American generosity, goodness, or decency, better than this hamburger hearsay?
That's a sad commentary on the last four years.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]

At the News Dissector, Danny Schechter is addressing Iraq (among other issues) this morning.
Here he is speaking of Rumsfeld trip to Iraq:

He is apparently there to urge the new government not to retaliate against soldiers who served the old regime and who are now fighting the "insurgents." BBC reported from Baghdad that Washington fears payback by Shia officials against them because many were part of the post Gulf War 1 repression of a Shia uprising. The NY Times put it this way:
"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld warned the country's newleaders of government corruption and civil turbulence thatcould delay a constitution and national elections."
Meanwhile, Salon is reporting on a new tactic which US forces may be using in Iraq and which they are denying:
American troops were accused Sunday of violating international law by ]taking two Iraqi women hostage in a bungled effort to persuade fugitive male relatives to surrender. Soldiers seized a mother and daughter from their home in Baghdad two weeks ago and allegedly left a note on the gate: "Be a man Muhammad Mukhlif and give yourself up and then we will release your sisters. Otherwise they will spend a long time in detention." It was signed "Bandit 6," apparently a military code, and gave a mobile-phone number. When phoned by reporters an American soldier answered, but he declined to take questions and hung up."

BuzzFlash has an interview with Barbara Ehrenreich:

BuzzFlash: Your landmark book, Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America, was published in 2001. How have things changed for working families over the last four years under the Bush Administration?
Barbara Ehrenreich: They've just gotten worse. As I'm sure you know, wages have actually declined. And with slightly higher unemployment, it's harder for workers to challenge anything in the workplace because it's so easy to replace them – replace anybody who appears to be a troublemaker. As we speak, there is an incredible assault going on, not just on the poor, but also the middle class, especially with the campaign to privatize Social Security. There's also the recent bankruptcy bill that passed, which I am aghast at, that will provide loopholes for the wealthy so they can protect their assets. But for the poor and the middle class, it's going to mean, as Paul Krugman says, there's no fresh start, and families will be tied to what he called debt peonage.
BuzzFlash: The bankruptcy bill was completely construed to make it sound like working people were abusing or gaming the system, when the reverse is true. As you said, it's actually the rich who have the ability to make risky investments but then turn around and get protection and avoid personal responsibility. The credit card industry has been working on this legislation since 1997. Why do you think progressives weren't better able to inform working Americans that their pockets were being picked?
Barbara Ehrenreich: That's the question about so many things -- the tax cuts for the rich, the coming federal budget, which is full of cuts in almost any program that has helped poor and working-class people, like Medicaid. I don't think it's unique to the credit card legislation. I don't know the reason why there’s not more outrage.

We'll have an NPR report from Ruth this evening.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]

The New York Times this morning can't seem to get it up to report the news on the front page (don't even get us started on the laughable front page -- front page! -- story on Judith Regan). Even Steven R. Weisman's "Nominee to U.N. Defends Record at Senate Panel" reads more like a montage of recent films than a report of what went down in the Senate yesterday.

Granted, the report's not helped by what appears to be Lincoln Chafee fancying himself as Kevin Costner in Tin Cup. ("Play it as it lays.") And Bolton appears to have thought of another nineties film, What's Love Got To Do With It?, and cast himself as Ike Turner.

From the article:

Mr. Bolton sought to turn his criticism of the United Nations to his advantage, saying his views made him the right person to help restore credibility to the organization and make it more effective.
"If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with this committee to forge a stronger relationship between the United States and the United Nations, which depends critically on American leadership," Mr. Bolton said. "Such leadership, in turn, must rest on broad, bipartisan support in Congress. It must be earned by putting to rest skepticism that so many feel about the U.N. system."

Which can be boiled down as "Sure I smacked Tina around and disrespected her. You could even call it battery or abuse. But put me in the room with her now and if I can turn out a record, the whole world will see that music reigns supereme."

Or they might see Tina Turner beat the s**t out of Ike. (Though I'd never want to see such a rematch take place, if it did, I'd root for Tina.) On the subject of Christian Westermann, Bolton comes off like Ike trying to justify fining the Ikettes for a spray spangle on their stage
costumes: The problem wasn't that we disagreed, it was that he sought clearence for alternative wording.

We'll sum up that response by noting Tina Turner's "Nutbush City Limits*:"

A one-horse town
You have to watch what you’re putting down

Apparently.

But the Times has to take responsibility for skirting the issue of the following statement (which is alluded to but does not appear in this morning's paper):

JOHN BOLTON: If you think that there is any possibility in this country that a 51,000 person bureaucracy is going to be supported by most Americans, you better think again. The Secretariat Building in New York has 38 stories. If you lost 10 stories today it wouldn't make a bit of difference.

You can hear that and more at Democracy Now!'s "John Bolton In His Own Words: Bush's UN Ambassador Nominee Condemns United Nations." (You can watch, listen or read the story.)

You could lose ten stories? Hmm.

You'll learn from the story that some are pinning their hopes on Carter Ford. Let's hope they're right and Ford's able to torpedo the nomination. We'll probably address this later today. But why is waiting for Carter feeling like Waiting for Guffman?

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

Note: Tina Turner wrote "Nutbush City Limits." You can find a version of it on her album Simply the Best.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]

This morning's New York Times begs the question of is better late than never really better?
Reading Jim Dwyer's "Videos Challenge Accounts of Convention Unrest" one has to wonder.

Here's an excerpt:

Accused of inciting a riot and resisting arrest, Mr. Kyne was the first of the 1,806 people arrested in New York last summer during the Republican National Convention to take his case to a jury. But one day after Officer Wohl testified, and before the defense called a single witness, the prosecutor abruptly dropped all charges.
During a recess, the defense had brought new information to the prosecutor. A videotape shot by a documentary filmmaker showed Mr. Kyne agitated but plainly walking under his own power down the library steps, contradicting the vivid account of Officer Wohl, who was nowhere to be seen in the pictures. Nor was the officer seen taking part in the arrests of four other people at the library against whom he signed complaints.
A sprawling body of visual evidence, made possible by inexpensive, lightweight cameras in the hands of private citizens, volunteer observers and the police themselves, has shifted the debate over precisely what happened on the streets during the week of the convention.
For Mr. Kyne and 400 others arrested that week, video recordings provided evidence that they had not committed a crime or that the charges against them could not be proved, according to defense lawyers and prosecutors.

It's a nice-sized story and it's certainly "better" that the Times has reported on what it failed to report on in real time. However, there's another issue here.

For instance, we find out that for 'technical reasons' (my term, read the article), the prosecutor's office had originally 'edited' a tape of a man accused of using his bicycle to ram police officers. He didn't. The full tape showed him calmly walking up. That's news to those who rely solely on the Times, but it's not news to others. Where are they in the story this morning?

The Times mentions citizens activists and others taping but it's strange that the paper can't find any of them to talk to. That's why I question the "better late than never." This is still a half-assed story.

What went down in NYC is a mystery to those who get their information solely from the Times.
(The Poor People's March was only one story they refused to cover.) On this topic, you were informed, in real time, of what was going on if you watched Democracy Now! (no surprise there).

Let's note a paragraph from this morning's Times:

In what appeared to be the most violent incident at the convention protests, video shot by news reporters captured the beating of a man on a motorcycle - a police officer in plainclothes - and led to the arrest of one of those involved, Jamal Holiday. After eight months in jail, he pleaded guilty last month to attempted assault, a low-level felony that will be further reduced if he completes probation. His lawyer, Elsie Chandler of the Neighborhood Defender Service of Harlem, said that videos had led to his arrest, but also provided support for his claim that he did not realize the man on the motorcycle was a police officer, reducing the severity of the offense.

Plain clothes police officer? On a motorcylce? Gee, that's interesting. Let's go to Democracy Now! (August 30, 2004):

JEREMY SCAHILL: One of the things that I thought was one of the most disturbing tactics is when we were moving up Broadway as the mouse bloc was moving to another Broadway show, the police came in on motorcycles, there was no identification that they were police whatsoever. They were actual motorcycles, they were wearing helmets that said Harley-Davidson. At first I thought it was a group of bikers who were coming to attack the protesters. And they drove the motorcycles into the middle of the crowds.

Drove the motorcyles into the crowds? Harley-Davidson helments? The Times doesn't tell you about that, does it?

Let's stay with the same story from Democracy Now! for a moment:

AMY GOODMAN: And as we followed the crowds, it was frightening. The motorcycles would race up, and Sharif Abdel-Kouddous, another producer, and I were walking, the police were moving in on the protesters and not giving them a chance or warning. There was a man in front of me wearing a bandana and jeans who was walking slowly, and I said to him, it seemed like a bystander, I said, please move ahead. We were just about to be -- the police were moving in very fast. He slowed down. I realized later, he was an undercover cop, which meant he was penning us in with the protesters. And as we quickly made our way down the street trying to observe everything, as the police tackled these protesters, who were saying "I’m trying to get away," we heard one of the officials in charge, say to the other police around him, "If they stop, if they ask a question, cuff them." Cuffing them is not just cuffing them. It's slamming them to the ground as they say, "What have I done? What have I done?"

Gee, did Dwyer think to call up Amy Goodman? She was actually out in the streets reporting.
She's a journalist. And she's covered this topic.

But you don't hear from reporters. You don't even hear of some the rare reporting that the Times did in real time in Dwyer's article. You get the district attorney's office, you get the police, but you don't hear from the "citizen activists" and you don't hear from a reporter who might have actually witnessed anything.

Better late than never? Over six months later, I think the Times is still giving us "never" when they run a half-assed article like this. (As always, what appears in print under a reporter's name may or may not reflect what he or she originally wrote. Which is why we're saying "the Times" and not "Dwyer.")

You might or might not remember, that while the paper of record* did a poor job of covering the protests, they spent freely on the GOP visitors. From Democracy Now! (August 26, 2005):

ARUN GUPTA:The -- that's a funny little anecdote about how the Republican Party didn't want the republican delegates to see such stuff as Assassins, which is a Steven Sondheim musical, I believe, about people who tried to assassinate the president, or Rent, which is a gritty musical about the Lower East Side.
JUAN GONZALEZ: They're actually going, as I understand it, to about seven or eight different Broadway shows all sponsored by The New York Times, special performances for the republican delegates. What the liberal New York Times is doing spending hundreds of thousands of dollars bankrolling entertainment for a partisan political organization, I’m not quite sure. But it hasn't gotten much attention in most of the press.
ARUN GUPTA: There were people who were joking about how protesters should sponsor people to go see Assassins, you know, and as a counter to that, but it really is amazing, it shows you where the corporate press comes down. Even the liberal establishment.
AMY GOODMAN: But instead, they're offering discounts to, is it Naked Boys Singing?
ARUN GUPTA: Yeah. Something like that.

As Juan Gonzalez rightly asked, what is the New York Times "doing spending hundreds of thousands of dollars bankrolling entertainment for a partisan political organization?"

Did the shoddy coverage of the convention protests have anything to do with the fact that the Times was funding delegates to the convention? Is that issue ever going to be dealt with? (Two community members forwarded e-mails they sent to Daniel Okrent, the so-called "readers' advocate," on this issue back in August. No surprise, it wasn't addressed.)

The Times wants to, ideally, do two things. Carry the weight of official sources (which they rely on to be the "paper of record") and maintain their stance (pose?) of objectivity. I'd argue that this clearly demonstrates that when official sources come into conflict with objectivity, we see which one wins out. For the record, you can't be "objective" if you're funding delegates to a convention you're covering.

(Someone will argue, possibly Candy Perfume Boy who loves the 'contract labor' excuse, "They didn't fund the delegates!" They gave money to items that went to delegates. We're not talking providing free papers here, we're talking tickets to shows. Once they do that, they set up the appearence of a conflict of interest.)

The superficial reporting in the Times today may slip past those readers who depend solely on the Grey Lady for "all the news that's fit to print." But a lot more went down than the paper ever told you about. Now, all these months later, they want to return to the scene of their omissions and they're still doing a lousy job. NYC is their "stage," their "platform." If for no other reason, you'd think they do a better job. Considering the implications for free speech, you'd think they'd flood the zone, using the latest details as a reason to inform you of the status of other arrests and information that they never provided readers with.

It doesn't make the paper of record* and it really didn't before. So maybe they can delude themselves that it's a nonstory and that running today's piece on the front page somehow sets the "record" straight? If so, they're kidding themselves.

Who in the world do you think that you are fooling, Democracy Now! has already done everything that you are doing -- and done it better. ***

For those who've missed out on real coverage of the protests or who've forgotten, I'd recommend the following stories to you:

"RNC Aftermath: A Look at Undercover Cops, Preemptive Detention and Police Surveillance"
(September 8, 2004)

Excerpt from that story:

AMY GOODMAN: On the last night of the RNC, I had a chance to talk with Deputy Police Chief Michael Collins across the barricades at 30th and 8th Avenue where more protesters continued to gather as President Bush spoke inside. Here is some of what Deputy Police Chief Michael Collins had to say.
MICHAEL COLLINS: The strategy this week was to ensure that the rights of all New Yorkers and all visitors to New York were protected, and that people who needed to go to work and go about their daily lives could do so with as little interference as possible with preparations for the convention and preparations for any demonstrations that were planned, and I think overall, we accomplished that mission. Most people could get around New York as needed. Most of the demonstrations went off without incident, and when there was lawbreaking, police used minimal -- minimal force in effecting those arrests. There were very few people injured on the police side and on the demonstrators' side. With just about everyone in the crowd, or every other person in the crowd with a camera, I have not seen any video or pictures that trouble me. It looks like the police were professional and patient.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Deputy Police Chief Michael Collins on the barricades on the last night of the Republican National Convention just after President Bush addressed the convention at the Madison Square Garden a couple of blocks above where Collins was. We're joined right now by Donna Lieberman, Executive Director of the New York chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, and Marc Steier with the Mass Defense Committee of New York City National Lawyers Guild. Why don't you start, Donna Lieberman, with your response to what the Deputy Police Chief had to say.
DONNA LIEBERMAN: Well, I think that the Deputy Police Chief must not have seen the videos which were aired on TV of hundreds of people being swept up for following the instructions of the police department, as to how they could have a lawful march. That happened across from Ground Zero on Fulton Street with the War Resistors' League demonstration. It happened in Union Square, or off Union Square, on 17th Street where a group of protesters negotiated where do we march lawfully, go on the sidewalk. They went on the sidewalk and boom, they were swept up. That's not to mention the scores of bystanders, maybe hundreds, who were swept up in the indiscriminate sweeps. Those sweeps included bystanders, press people, medics legal observers, and we believe that indeed the police department may have been targeting the green-hatted guild legal observers. Our observers from the New York Civil Liberties Union in the blue caps were not targeted. Only one received a summons that was an utter case of harassment for which we will be filing a complaint. I think we have a lot to investigate here. Indiscriminate arrests is just the tip of the iceberg. We saw a couple of incidents of violence. He must have missed the mopeds, police in plain clothes driving their mopeds into the crowd on Monday night. Then I think the huge story is about the indefinite or the prolonged detention of people who were arrested. The police bragged that they were giving DAT's in virtually all of the cases.
AMY GOODMAN: Desk Appearance Tickets.
DONNA LIEBERMAN: Which is supposed to be the fast track to getting out on a minor offense and it took tons longer, days longer to get out on a DAT, Desk Appearance Ticket, for a disorderly conduct, than it would take on a misdemeanor charge or even a felony charge. And then, of course, there are the conditions at the pier, at Pier 57. The New York Civil Liberties Union has taken a sample of Pier 57 that was brought to us, and we're having it analyzed for toxic chemicals.
AMY GOODMAN: Let's talk about the scope of what happened last week. Watching the talk shows this weekend, no one might have are realized the level of the protests, as they wrapped up the significance of the week. We're talking about the largest mass protest in the history of political conventions. We're talking about the largest number of people arrested in a single day, over 1,000 on Tuesday, in the city's history. The single largest number of arrests, and one of the largest in the history of this country. And overall, the number of arrests close to 2,000, more than 1,800. Let's go to the videotape again, to Deputy Police Chief Michael Collins talking about several issues, including the conditions at Pier 57.

Wonder what Deputy Police Chief Michael Collins would say today? The Times this morning gives you Paul J. Browne speaking for the police department. One wonders what real reporting might have done with this story? Might Collins have been confronted with his earlier statement and asked to justify it? If Collins refused to speak to the Times, might real reporting have at least meant reprinting his "rows and flows of angel hair and ice cream castles in the air" statement? (". . . ice cream castles in the air" is from Joni Mitchell's "Both Sides Now." Her version of the song, which she wrote, appears on the album Clouds. Judy Collins** recorded the song earlier on her album Wildflowers.)

"Crackdown: 400 Arrests as NYPD Unveil New Policing Tactics & Surveillance Methods" (August 30, 2004)

AMY GOODMAN: The Democracy Now! team was on the streets of New York in different parts of the city yesterday to cover all of the different protests before and after the major march. Producer and correspondent Jeremy Scahill joins us in the studio now. We'll be speaking with one of the protesters who was arrested this week in a banner-hang and she faces many decades in jail. We begin, though, with Jeremy. Jeremy, welcome.
JEREMY SCAHILL: Good to be here, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: Well it was quite a day yesterday.
JEREMY SCAHILL: It's really remarkable what's going on. I think the real story of yesterday beyond the enormity of that march is the battle going on between the independent media movement in this country and activists and the police in terms of who is becoming more sophisticated in their tactics. What we're seeing is this unprecedented level of text messaging around the city. Various activists groups and the Independent Media Center are blasting out these text message updates to people's telephones telling them where the action is. If the police are beating people on a certain corner, within moments, hundreds, or thousands, of activists are getting the text messages on their phones. They're responding to it throughout the day. Going all the way to Central Park. But the police are using sophisticated tactics. There are at least 200 police officers roaming the city that have cameras mounted on helmets that are beaming back, wirelessly, video images to the central command area they have set up called the Multi-Agency Coordination Center. Some 66 federal, state, local agencies working in coordination with each other. On a tactical level, what we're seeing in the streets is the police – many of the police not identifying themselves in any way as police. In fact, Amy, you and I yesterday were at a protest of the mouse bloc where they were moving from theater to theater, in the theater district around Broadway, around 47th street. When the republican delegates would come out of their discounted theater shows, the mouse bloc would confront them and get into arguments with the Republican delegates as they were coming out. Well, as they ran around and made their way from theater to theater, a number of times, the police used tactics to cut them off, to split the march. One of the things they did, was to take orange fence-like -- a mesh -- orange mesh fence-like material and to literally surround the demonstrators with it. Anyone caught in the orange mesh netting was then arrested and was put onto city buses, New York City buses. One of the things that I thought was one of the most disturbing tactics is when we were moving up Broadway as the mouse bloc was moving to another Broadway show, the police came in on motorcycles, there was no identification that they were police whatsoever. They were actual motorcycles, they were wearing helmets that said Harley-Davidson. At first I thought it was a group of bikers who were coming to attack the protesters. And they drove the motorcycles into the middle of the crowds.

"Shout Heard Around the World: Nearly 1,000 Arrested in Series of RNC Protests" (September 1, 2004)

More than 950 people were arrested yesterday as thousands of activists carried out a series of direct actions and civil disobedience at locations throughout New York City yesterday. The protests were organized by the A31 Action Coalition, a decentralized umbrella group made up of scores of activist organizations and affinity groups. Yesterday's arrests brought the number of arrests during the Republican National Convention to over 1500.
The groups participating in yesterday's coordinated actions ranged from the War Resisters League to the Ruckus Society to CODE Pink to Direct Action to the San Francisco-based Stop the War. The protests targeted Republican delegates, corporate media outlets, mega corporations and government buildings, as well as other sites. A few hours before the actions kicked off, some of the groups working with the A31 Action Coalition held a press conference.

"Activists Face 25 Years for Hanging Anti-Bush Banner At Plaza Hotel" (August 30, 2004)

On Thursday, in one of the first protests against the Republican National Convention, four activists dropped a huge anti-Bush banner from the Plaza Hotel. The banner featured two arrows facing opposite ways. The arrow pointing forward read Truth. The arrow pointing backward read Bush.
The banner drop went off without a hitch.
The four activists were arrested. They expected to face minor charges.
But the four now face two Class D felony counts and up to 25 years in jail. The police charged them with assault because a police officer stepped in a skylight and cut his leg while responding to the crime.
The New York Times reports that in March the Police Department instructed officers under certain circumstances to consider charging protesters during the convention with second-degree assault if any are injured while trying to make arrests.
Their attorney Gerald Lefcourt said he had been defending protesters since the Vietnam era and had never seen an assault charge applied in a similar situation.
He told the New York Times "It is really a bogus charge, probably to try to scare off future demonstrators…. Assault requires an intent to cause injury and taking steps to cause that injury”
We are joined now in our studio with Terra Lawson-Rember, one of the four activists involved in the banner drop action.

The New York Times will do an update on that case when?

"Making Protest Painful: Detained RNC Protesters Held in Crowded, Oil-Contaminated Conditions" (September 2, 2004)
Protests against the Republican convention continued yesterday throughout New York City. The police arrested 19 people in separate incidents, bringing the total of those detained so far during seven days of relentless convention-related protests to more than 1,760 - a record for a political convention.
Hundreds of people protested the conditions under which those arrested are being held before going to court saying the site was contaminated with oil and asbestos. Pier 57 is a three-story, block-long pier that has been converted to a holding pen.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has denied the city was operating what some called "Guantanamo-on-the-Hudson." And defended the use of the of the pier garage saying "It's not supposed to be Club Med."
Last night, a judge ordered protesters who had been held for 24-hours released with desk appearance tickets if they were not charged with serious crimes. Before midnight, some protesters started emerging from 100 Centre St. around the block from our firehouse studio. Some 200 supporters greeted them with cheers and offered food and medical treatment. Despite the judge's orders, a large number of protesters remain imprisoned.

"Guantanamo On the Hudson: Detained RNC Protesters Describe Prison Conditions" (September 2, 2004)

Protests against the Republican convention continued yesterday throughout New York as Democratic Sen. Zell Miller delivered the convention's keynote address and Vice President Dick Cheney accepted his nomination to run for a second term.
Early in the day, AIDS activists from the ACT UP group breached the Madison Square Garden convention hall and briefly interrupted a speech by White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card to young Republicans, including Bush's twin daughters.
Outside, five thousand people protesting high job losses formed a silent, single-file unemployment line that stretched for three miles from Wall Street to 31st Street, just shy of the convention center. Tens of thousands other protesters gathered for two hours in a designated demonstration area two blocks from Madison Square Garden in support of more union jobs in the United States.
Later in the day, some 2,000 people staged a "March on the Media" to protest what they say is uncritical coverage of the Bush administration by the mainstream press. Other major protests yesterday included a women's rights demonstration and a protest against Coca-Cola.
The police arrested 19 people, bringing the total of those detained so far during seven days of relentless convention-related protests to more than 1,760, a record for a political convention.
Hundreds of people yesterday protested the conditions under which those arrested are being held before going to court saying the site was contaminated with oil and asbestos. Pier 57 is a three-story, block-long pier that has been converted to a holding pen.
Yesterday morning we received a call from one of the protesters being held at Pier 57 who had smuggled a phone inside. Detainees passed the phone to each other and described the conditions of the holding facility. Democracy Now! producer Mike Burke took the call and spoke with the detained protesters.

"Harlem Rallies Against Bush & GOP" (September 3, 2004)
The Republican National Convention has wrapped up and so too have the mass protests that have rocked the city for a week. More than 1700 people were arrested, the largest number of arrests ever at a political convention. Beginning early yesterday, the protests continued as 20 AIDS activists were arrested for staging a protest in Manhattan"s Grand Central Station. A small group of protesters followed Bush through the day as he made his way from the Waldorf Hotel to a New York Church to Madison Square Garden. In the evening there were a number of rallies, culminating in a street demonstration just outside the convention.
One of the largest events of the day yesterday took place in Harlem. It was a rally organized by Artists and Activists United for Peace. It"s focus was on many of the issues of great concern to many in Harlem--jobs, housing, healthcare, reparations and police brutality. Democracy Now! producer John Hamilton was there and prepared this montage.

And guess what? That's not all the stories you can find at Democracy Now! on the protests. Search the archive (type in "republican protests" and move through the archives until you're into September). The Times could buy tickets for delegates to the convention, they just couldn't, and apparently still can't, seriously report on what went down in NYC.

(Democracy Now! also had a report by a female who had access to footage filmed from a camera mounted on a bicycle, I believe it was her bicycle, but I'm not able to locate that in the archive. If anyone knows the title of this story or a way to locate it, please e-mail at common_ills@yahoo.com. I believe the footage was filmed from the Friday before the convention began.)

*"The paper of record" is a term Okrent wasted time disputing (he really enjoys berating readers and wasting everyone's time) in one of his obnoxious little op-eds that were supposed to deal with readers' concerns and questions. Instead, he raked them over the coals for the use of "paper of record" claiming that it wasn't applied to the paper other than by outsiders. Okrent is wrong and we've noted that before and wondered if before he steps down shortly (thankfully steps down), he'd bother to correct his ERROR. He still hasn't. Since his days are (thankfully) numbered, we'll help him out a little by steering him towards the seventies. That's all the spoon feeding he gets. He's a big baby, but it's time he got out of the high chair.

** For Susan and Julia, Judy Collins has an album due out April 19th entitled Portrait of an American Girl. (It's from her Wildflower label.)

*** "Who in the world do you think that you are fooling?/ Well I've already done everything that you are doing." From "Two Kinds of Love" written by Stevie Nicks, Rick Nowels and Rupert Hine, off Stevie Nicks' album The Other Side of the Mirror.


[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]

A Winding Road is back up at the original site and Folding Star has also created a mirror site (due to problems with Blogger*). From today's entry:

Today the hearings on John Bolton began, after being delayed from last Thursday, and being the political junkie that I can be I made sure to tape the hearings on CSPAN. I'm actually playing (and fast forwarding, I haven't the time or the patience to listen to the Republican members of the Committee kiss up to Bolton to show their approval) the tape as I write this, so I have yet to see it all the way through.
So far, the highlight has been the disruption by a handful of women who, directly after Bolton's questioning by Republican Senator Chafee of Rhode Island, stood up with large pink banners with slogans that said 'Bolton = Nuclear Proliferation', 'Diplomat For Hire No Bully Please' and 'Ban Bolton, Not Treaties' and calling out "No on Bolton. He does not represent our interests. He does not represent global security!"
The women were calm and moved out as soon as the security officers ordered them to do so, one calling out "Please vote no. We're here because there are no Senators representing the District of Columbia. This is my voice!"
The women were peace activists from Code Pink, and watching their peaceful disruption was truly watching Democracy in action, especially as, for about thirty seconds, someone moved to stand in front of the CSPAN camera, blocking any view of the women and their signs. Whether or not this was a purposeful attempt to block viewers from the protest, I can't say.

* I was asked whether I thought CJR Daily or Slate would cover the issue of Blogger in their blog reports. In e-mails that went out Sunday, I said, "No, I didn't. Having missed it on Friday, they wouldn't acknowledge their mistake (or that Wired beat them to the punch) come Monday."

How did it play out?

Rory, who reads CJR Daily out of "some planned frustration desire," e-mailed noting Candy Perfume Boy covered the blogs today and, no surprise, no mention of the brownout. (For Susan, "Candy Perfume Boy" is a term derived from Madonna's "Candy Perfume Girl" song. She uses the term in that song -- off Ray of Light. For Vanessa, yes, I'm sure that Chrissie Hynde's use of
"bully boys don't bother me, I purse my lips and they run away" from Pretenders "Sense of Purpose" is the reason for the use of the term "Bully Boy" to apply to Bush. "Sense of Purpose" first appears on Pretenders album Packed! And before anyone writes in, Hynde has stated it's "Pretenders," not "the Pretenders.")

Rory: CJR Daily is it's usual blend of uselessness. There are nine links in the "Blog" Report. Let me repeat, the "Blog" Report. How many of the nine links go to blogs? Did you guess nine? Wrong. Did you guess eight? Wrong again. Did you figure that at least half had to go to blogs?
Still wrong. Three go to blogs. Three links out of nine go to blogs in what they call a "Blog" Report. I only visit to laugh at them.

Glad they make Rory laugh, however, one of the links goes to a "blog" by Washington Monthly so some might argue that it's five sources (ABC, the Times, etc.) and four to blogs or "blogs."

We'll also note, since Candy Perfume Boy never tells (he's such a don't ask, don't tell boy, no?) that Candy Perfume Boy interned at The Washington Monthly. He's written for them (on NPR in 2003). He'd dispute employed, I'm sure. (I'm blanking on exact wording.) But isn't it strange, that CJR Daily, while reviewing others, doesn't feel the need to disclose what some might see as a conflict of interest? I'll agree with Jess (Third Estate Sunday Review), this is the true "circle jerk."

And while Candy Perfume Boy is slapping people down (as he is in the copy and past Rory sent me) for not admitting mistakes, he might want to check with his colleague Suzy Q who wrote a newspaper report during the campaign but left out a key piece of information. When it was brought to her attention, she noted that the info appeared in a Washington Post article. But the thing is, it appeared in the New York Times article she was originally reviewing (by Jodi Wilgoren). A community member pointed that out in real time. So her "correction" is less than honest. (And the community member has a comment up in the comments section on it from real time. Unless they've deleted it.)

So possibly, when Suzie Q's "correction" still wasn't correct and CJR Daily had the information (and has it in the comments section now unless they've deleted it), Candy Perfume Boy shouldn't be wasting everyone's time harping on the mistakes of others?

Or maybe there's just a set of standards they apply to others, but not themselves? That would explain a great deal.

David Wallace-Wells does the Slate blog report today (Lyle e-mailed it in). For the record, Juan Cole is correct and DW-W shows the same attitude people criticize in the mainstream media by doing "Cole says" and "but ___ says." He quotes a political scientist, DW-W, holding two degrees in poli sci, I'm confused as to what allows the "political scientist" quoted to claim the term but if he (and as Rebecca would say, "It's always a he") majored in political science, he may need to supplement his college education because he's missed Juan Cole's point. (Or maybe he just read quickly?) At any rate, when dealing with basic facts, DW-W should do more than offer a he said/she said.

For those who felt I came off "too nice" (Gina, Lincoln, KeShawn) to CJR Daily and/or Slate in the roundtable (I don't believe I even mentioned Slate by name, but I may have), I'm sorry if the impression was that I was being nice. I wasn't attempting to be nice. Or even "fair." Neither have ever figured in my life too prominetly. A friend who dabbles in politics e-mailed me a Slate story back in April of 2004 and I chewed her out for it. Hold on and let me see if I saved that e-mail.

Here it is:

"Please don't send me this s**t anymore. You yourself have talked about the fake left of The New Republic. I know you're not familiar with the site but if everyone you know recommends things to you, and think of how large that list is, and you're finding out about the ever floundering Slate via a sidebar on MSN, that should tell you all you need to know. Life is too short (or mine anyway) to spend it reading this f**ked up, psuedo left crap. If you're looking for an online only magazine, check out Salon which is really come to life these days. Please, never again e-mail me something from Slate."

That pretty much sums up my feelings for Slate. (We've noted Jack Shafer here, for pointing out Judith Miller's Hardball appearence and critiquing it. If you have to visit Slate, do so for Shafer, not the rest of the nonsense passing for "informed" discussion.)

The only time I see Slate these days is if a member sends it in via e-mail. The same with CJR Daily. Life's too short. And let's note that Slate got an award from members (more than one) in our year-in-review as something like "biggest waste of time." The community doesn't care for half-assed posing. And Erika, who's never sent Slate in via e-mail, has noted in e-mails is as obsessed with The New Republic as CJR Daily. One wonders if the rag might have already gone under were it not from the "props" from those two.

I wasn't attempting to be "nice." I just have nothing to say about either CJR Daily or Slate that's positive and they really don't effect my daily life. There were other topics I was interested in. And one of those will pop up in the next roundtable (which Ava's hoping we can do this weekend).

Lastly, to those asking about the The Nightline episode on PNAC (mentioned in the roundtable) it aired March 5, 2003. The site's version of it was "edited" to say the least. Members who missed the broadcast can e-mail and I'll send you a copy of the transcript (done from the episode by a friend).

E-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]

Democracy Now! (Marcia: "always worth watching"):

Headlines for April 11, 2005

- Up to 300,000 Iraqis Protest Against U.S. In Baghdad
- 40 Iraqis Die in Violence Over the Weekend
- Rep. Shays Calls on Tom Delay To Resign Post
- Mexican Populist Candidate May Be Barred from Running
- Cardinal Law to Celebrates Mass For the Pope
- Israeli Forces Kill Three Palestinian Teenagers
- Eric Rudolph Pleads Guilty to Abortion Clinic Bombings
- GM Pulls Ads From LA Times Over Coverage

Extreme Unilateralist or Strong Leader? A Debate on UN Ambassador Nominee John Bolton
The confirmation hearings for John Bolton - Bush's choice for US ambassador to the United Nations - begin today in Washington. We host a debate with Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies and Peter Brookes of the Heritage Foundation. [includes rush transcript]

Fmr. Honduran Human Rights Commissioner: "Impossibly Negroponte Did Not Know About Human Rights Violations" in Honduras
Senate confirmation hearings on John Negroponte's nomination to the post of National Intelligence Director are scheduled to begin Tuesday. We take a look at his record as U.S. ambassador to Honduras with a Honduran activist whose brother was disappeared by Honduran security forces, the former Honduran National Human Rights Commissioner and a filmmaker who has profiled human rights issues in Latin America. [includes rush transcript]

Venezuela: Revolution in Progress
Today is the third anniversary of the failed coup attempt to overthrow democratically elected Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez. We speak with filmmaker Matt O'Neil about his new documentary, "Venezuela: Revolution in Progress." [includes rush transcript]

Bob Somerby's addressing a number of topics in today's The Daily Howler but we'll focus on the Times with this excerpt.

ELISABETH BUMILLER--PAP WITHOUT END: Bill O'Reilly will trash the New York Times tonight--and, this time, he'll mainly be right. He'll be trashing the Times for this Gail Collins ed, which calls those Arizona Minutemen "gunslingers" and "vigilantes" and says that they're "taking the law in their own hands." Collins sniffs at this lower breed--but makes no attempt to explain or defend her characterizations. O'Reilly will trash her work tonight--and this time, he'll mainly be right.
But Bill won't mention the other Times--the Times of Elisabeth Bumiller. Surely, Zeus' great halls rocked with laughter last night as her latest fatuous piece was posted, in which she types what the White House told her about the president's tastes in music. How exactly does Bumiller know what tunes are on the president’s iPod? Simple--she doesn't know what's on that Pod, she only knows what Bush's agents have told her. But she's always pleased to type up some pap, as long as her pointless (but politically pleasing) "information" came to her straight from the White House. By the way, what's the headline on today's piece? "Favorite Tunes for the Freewheelin' George Bush!" Freewheelin'! You have to love that! Just like the younger Bob Dylan!
As we mentioned last week, Bumiller's Monday "White House Letter" has been one of the most embarrassing projects in this age of press corps pimpistry. Her subject matter is relentlessly banal--and she always types just what she’s been told. And remember--this feature continued throughout Campaign 04, producing a weekly tongue-bath for Bush. Oh yeah! Who did the weekly, feel-good "Campaign Letter" on Kerry? No one did it--it didn’t exist! This is the side of the vacuous Times Mr. O'R won't be citing.

Over at Why Are We Back in Iraq?, Ron has "Two 16-year-old Girls Alone In Prison (part 3) :"

(Please scroll down and read the previous two posts if you missed it yesterday (Part 1 and Part 2). It's about two 16-year-old girls from New York City - one Guinean, the other Bangladeshi whose parents entered this country illegally - who have been detained as possible "suicide bombers" based on what looks like no evidence whatsoever. They need our help and support; they need e-mails and letters written to whomever can help them; they need phone calls and marches and rallies and whatever it takes.)
I know that there have been some people who have been hesitant to get behind this case because both of the girls are illegal immigrants and so are their parents. But maybe the fact that both girls have brothers and sisters who were born in America and are American citizens will help change their minds. These girls need our help.
Adem Carroll, a friend of the Bangladeshi girl, is a "a tireless fighter for Muslim civil liberties" who is allied with the Islamic Circle of North America. Adem is also 16 years old.
At a Yahoo newsgroup called "Shobak::CNN FOR THE LEFT" there is a page that contains a heartfelt letter Adem wrote the morning after the arrest and more details that he gathered in an interview with the parents of the Bangladeshi girl; her name is included there, too, but since she's only 16 I don't feel comfortable including that information at this time. If you follow the link please respect whatever privacy the 16-year-old girl still retains, but feel free to contact the lawyer who didn't show up for her hearing; his name I did include.

Comments on the two above excerpt. Ron's piece. The government has told us that ___ is a terrorist only for us to see the entire case fall apart later. So for anyone thinking, "Oh, we'll they're terrorists," I'd say they're innocent until proven guilty. Leaks to papers from the prosecution often indicate a weak case (in any case).

Comments on Somerby excerpt. First of all, on Feb. 9th, I did comment on a Bumiller "White House Letter." I saw that this weekend and my apologies for thinking I hadn't. Wasn't the first time I was wrong and won't be the last. I'll comment on Somerby with no op-ed for the Times restrictions. When a list includeds the names that were printed in the Times, it's not about what the person is listening to, it's about covering bases, so I'd agree that those quick to swallow should be a bit more skeptical. I howled at the inclusion of a Joni Mitchell song -- some aide trying to come off erudite and probably cursing themselves that Bully Boy gets credit (and not s/he) for knowing an obscure Mitchell song. (A cover version of a song made famous by Elvis and one of the worst recordings Mitchell has ever done -- my opinion.)

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

Oh, Susan will ask. if she didn't see the article, "You're So Square (Baby I Don't Care)" is the Mitchell song that makes the list. (Are you laughing, Susan? Me too.) And it's off Wild Things Run Fast.

To answer a question that pops up in today's e-mails frequently, "Juliet" (Stevie Nicks song I quoted during the roundtable for The Third Estate Sunday Review) is off the album (Stevie Nicks solo album, not Fleetwood Mac) The Other Side of the Mirror. If I'd read over the piece after Ava and I finished the TV review, I would have asked that the album title be included because I know from past experience here that e-mails will come in asking that.

To answer the question that popped up the most in the e-mails, Kat will have a Kat's Korner up by this Sunday. (That's according to Kat.) Ruth had suggested an older album and Kat wanted to check with Eli to see if he knew either of the two Ruth suggested. (Kat: I was hitting a block with the Beatles because they've been written and rewritten about.)

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]