Three quick items. Later today (about nine hours from now, but check my math always) on The Laura Flanders Show (7pm to 10pm is the eastern time zone):

Sunday 7pm-10pm
Iraq didn't have W.M.D., but the U.S. continues to and this Monday, world leaders, and citizens from around the world will converge on the United Nations to decide the fate of the endangered Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Some politicians are standing up: we'll talk to British Member of Parliament BRIAN SEDGEMORE, who left the Labour Party just days before a general election to protest Tony Blair's lies on Iraq. Then JACKIE CABASSO, Executive Director of the Western States Legal Foundation and United for Peace and Justice will tell us what anti-war activists can do to on the anniversary of the Vietnam War's end. And hear from THOMAS H COREY, President of Vietnam Veterans of America and we'll get the whole perspective. Finally, in studio for the full hour: MEDEA BENJAMIN, co-founder of CodePink and co-editor of "Stop The Next War Now: Effective responses to Violence and Terrorism".
And Don't miss Laura's latest appearances and book tour:
Tour 2005 Bushwomen: How They got Their Man in the White House
BOULDER, COLORADOMonday 5/2, 4 pm Lecture at University of Colorado, Old Main Building, followed by reception with the Womens Studies Department at Womens Studies Cottage.
7 pm Word is Out Womens Bookstore.
DENVER, COLORADO Tuesday 5/3, 12-1 Denver University Gender & Womens Studies Department.
5:30-7:00 The Denver Womans Press Club. 30 minute talk with reception.

7:30 The Mercury Cafe.
BOULDER, COLORADO Thursday 5/5, Aft Commencement Keynote at CU Womens Studies Graduation ceremony.
ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI Thursday 5/12, 7 pm, Left Bank Books.

Medea Benjamin, among others, on The Laura Flanders Show later today, that is your heads up.

Powell's Books has an interview with Jim Wallis (of Sojourners and author of God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It). From the interview:

Farley: If you don't mind shifting back a little bit, you referred to the coarsening of the culture. In the book you went so far as to say that the culture is broken. You hear all the time from the Right that the cause of this coarsening is "liberalism," which I think is just more self-serving scapegoating. But, I'm curious if you have any insights where this coarsening is coming from? What is the real cause?
Wallis: Well, that is exactly the right question. And I would like to get a number of religious leaders together from across the political spectrum who would agree that the coarsening of the culture is a problem and say here's the common project. Let's agree on the things that are most offensive in the culture — the gratuitous sexuality, the hedonism, the greed, the banality... all these things — and trace them back. What are there points of origin? I believe their points of origin, by and large, are the corporate culture.
Farley: What do you mean by that?
Wallis: I mean, these problems are mostly tied to an economic motivation. It's the Fox network. Fox is the favorite network of the conservatives. But how do the conservatives just give a pass to Fox? Some of the worst shows have been Fox. The other networks, too, but Fox has been praised by conservatives, Murdock runs it, so why not better programming?

Lastly (but not leastly) our friend Luke of wotisitgood4 e-mails to highlight something.

And you're asking where is it? We're getting to it. But this keeps running together in the posting stage so I'm hoping that providing this non-link paragraph will act as a barrier.

Here's what Luke wrote in to advise us about:

i see that you pointed to the Sibel Edmonds case the other day - here is another piece - http://tomflocco.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=109
[. . .] she made this statement [. . .]: " I'm telling you that not a single newspaper covered what happened to me on Thursday when I went into court,"

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

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

Let's get the bad out of the way first. Reporting on the shooting of the car carrying Giuliana Sgrena, the Times still won't tell the readers that Sgrena says the car was shot from behind.
Considering that the military report the Times announces depends on the car being shot as it "approached," this is rather sad. Whether the Times believes Sgrena or not, this is a part of the story Italians have heard. The rest of the world. Democracy Now! viewers (listeners, readers).
So why the Times has such a problem with a simple sentence stating that "Sgrena disputes that the car was shot from in front."

Evidence, such as it is, does make one wonder why the driver in the front seat wasn't shot but Sgrena and Nicola Calipari sitting in the back seat were shot. The Times notes recommendations the report makes about checkpoints. Recommendations that anyone following the checkpoint situation for the last two years already knew.

Whether the paper believes Sgrena or not, for Americans to understand why Italy isn't buying this story, the paper needs to inform the readers of Sgrena's claims.

As with the 60 Minutes II report, there's selective editing here that goes far beyond pruning.

Dominick and Eli both e-mail in regarding Lizette Alvarez's "Chased by the Past, Sinn Fein's Leader Looks Ahead." Both note that Alvarez's article appears even-handed but wonder why the paper wants to take a softer tone (because Gerry Adams and his party appear to be sitting pretty) and act as though allegations were made elsewhere. (Dominick clipped the Times editorial and intends to hold on to it.) They agree that Alvarez was right to mention the tentative nature of the peace, but wonder why it never occurred to the editorial board that seemed intent on inflaming the public. (It didn't take.)

Kara e-mails to note that Scott Shane's grabbed the mop but decided to mop up after John Bolton in "a fluff piece that would do Elisabeth Bumiller proud." Kara also notes, "If Bolton's being Bork-ed, as the right wing claims, he's Bork-ing himself. He looks ridiculous with that mustache and someone should have asked him to shave it off some time ago."

The Nepal article we noted yesterday (because it was available online yesterday morning) appears in today's paper, for anyone wondering.

Liang found Bernard Weinraub's article on "30 Years Later, Cake and Credit Cards in Saigon" to be "insulting in it's lack of basic awareness."

And as though they wanted to prove me right about their concern for social justice, the Times front pages a story (Katie Hafner's "First Come Cellphone Towers, Then the Babel") about the ugly eyesores that are causing blight to Mendham Township, New Jeresey which, as the paper quickly notes, has citizens who are "among the wealthiest in the nation." Where there is money to throw around, the Times is there! Not quite the Red Cross motto but then I doubt the Red Cross would employ the likes of Judith Miller. (I could be wrong.)

Keep front paging those "hard-htting issues!" Town & Country shouldn't be the only ones addressing them!

Moving on (I hope everyone got that the paragraph above was intended to be humorous), we'll note two should-be-front page stories. We'll start with Don Van Natta Jr.'s "U.S. Recruits a Rough Ally To Be Jailer" which actually did make the front page.

Here's the opening:

Seven months before Sept. 11, 2001, the State Department issued a human rights report on Uzbekistan. It was a litany of horrors.
The police repeatedly tortured prisoners, State Department officials wrote, noting that the most common techniques were "beating, often with blunt weapons, and asphyxiation with a gas mask." Separately, international human rights groups had reported that torture in Uzbek jails included boiling of body parts, using electroshock on genitals and plucking off fingernails and toenails with pliers. Two prisoners were boiled to death, the groups reported. The February 2001 State Department report stated bluntly, "Uzbekistan is an authoritarian state with limited civil rights."
Immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks, however, the Bush administration turned to Uzbekistan as a partner in fighting global terrorism. The nation, a former Soviet republic in Central Asia, granted the United States the use of a military base for fighting the Taliban across the border in Afghanistan. President Bush welcomed President Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan to the White House, and the United States has given Uzbekistan more than $500 million for border control and other security measures.
Now there is growing evidence that the United States has sent terror suspects to Uzbekistan for detention and interrogation, even as Uzbekistan's treatment of its own prisoners continues to earn it admonishments from around the world, including from the State Department.

On page A23, you'll find another story, one that's also front page news, but the Times needs to inform us the blight of cell phone towers on rich communities instead, Neil A. Lewis and Eric Schmitt's "Inquiry Finds Abuses at Guantanamo Bay:"


A high-level military investigation into accusations of detainee abuse at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has concluded that several prisoners were mistreated or humiliated, perhaps illegally, as a result of efforts to devise innovative methods to gain information, senior military and Pentagon officials say.
The report on the investigation, which is still a few weeks from being completed and released, will deal with accounts by agents for the Federal Bureau of Investigation who complained after witnessing detainees subjected to several forms of harsh treatment.

For anyone who hasn't heard, 60 Minutes has a report that's supposed to be worth viewing tonight. No, not the Goldie Hawn story! (Although I'm sure that will be nice. And Hawn has a book due out.) (Or did, last I heard.) "'Sex-Up' Tactics at Gitmo" is the report I'm referring to:

A former Guantanamo Bay translator says prisoner interrogations were staged to give visiting congressmen, senators and generals the impression that valuable intelligence information was being gleaned from cooperative detainees on a regular basis. He also says detainees were treated in sadistic ways, including being taunted sexually. Former Army Sgt. Erik Saar talks to Correspondent Scott Pelley in his first interview, to be broadcast on 60 Minutes, Sunday, May 1, at 7 p.m. ET/PT. Saar spent six months at Guantanamo and believes "only a few dozen" of the 600 detainees at the base were real terrorists, and that little information was obtained from them. Visiting authorities were led to believe otherwise, says Saar.

(Note, the online summary of Goldie Hawn doesn't mention it, but she does have a book and it's due out Tuesday. The title is A Lotus Grows in the Mud.) (And yes, I too can already hear the pithy review from Janet Maslin, or what passes for "pith" from Maslin.)

So I grab the Book Review to see if they have a slam, er review -- they're always fair, right -- on Hawn's book (advance copies were made available to some outlets, guess not the Times, hard to be a player in Hollywood for the paper still?) and find instead a wet kiss (to steal from Harry Reid) from Fareed Zakaria to Thomas L. Friedman (the neos live to stick together!) The Times run this today. Read this sentence and ask yourself how they can ever again accuse anyone of being "a soap opera queen" or whatever Maslin accused Fonda's writing of:

And while this book is not as powerful as Friedman's earlier ones . .. its fundamental insight is true and deeply important.

"True and deeply important?" Zakaria's reviewing a book here or inscribing a yearbook?

"True and deeply important." Sing it and it's practically a Savage Garden song!

Ay-yi-yi.

In other book news, since I opened the section, Jane Fonda's My Life So Far remains at the number one spot, for the second week in a row, on the nonfiction best sellers (hardcover). Thomas Friedman has slipped to number two. (More wet kisses, Zakaria, pronto!) If you haven't picked up My Life So Far, it's a strong story well told. (Scanners like Maslin miss that. Folding Star, who's an actual reader, loved it.)

Juan had a comment on the two book reviews of My Life So Far that the Times has run (Maslin first, then Maureen Dowd last Sunday).

Juan: As you noted in your review of Maslin, she avoided mentioning the fact that the Times trumpeted Jane Fonda's arrest on drug charges but buried the later news that they were just vitamins. Dowd managed to miss that too. Which is strange since one of the photos the paper chose to illustrate Dowd's review was a mug shot of Fonda.

Yes, that was strange. Especially since they ran a mug shot.

But ours is not to reason why, ours is but to . . . wait and wait and see if the paper ever arrives. (I promise Dallas, I haven't forgotten about the entry I need to write.)

Usually we do our Sunday evening thing about what's being reported in the rest of the world.
I would like to do that tonight and hope to. However, Rebecca's going to talk me through some software that she's used which I really need to learn if I'm going to be able to share a contribution from one of our community members. Watching America is a site we link to on the left, always on the left, so feel free to check that (and other sites) out. If you have suggestions for stories from around the world, please e-mail them in and I'll make every effort to share them. But Rebecca's going to be teaching me the software during The Laura Flanders Show and that's usually when I hunt down things to share.

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

Coming up on The Laura Flanders Show:

Saturday, April 30
There were more rips in society’s safety net this week, courtesy of King George and Congress. Meanwhile wartime profiteers, big oil and big medicine are raking in profits. Is the struggle of retirees at General Motors to keep their benefits a sign of what’s to come for US workers? And speaking of health care, what’s really happening to the people delivering most of it - America’s nurses? SUZANNE GORDON, author of “Nursing Against the Odds,” and DEBRA BURGER, president of the California Nurses Association, talk about life where the buck stops.Then Nigerian music legend KING SUNNY ADE, on two decades of touring in America, why his music is loved by so many people across the world and the real meaning of Juju music!

The Laura Flanders Show airs on Air America. It begins in a little over five hours from when I'm typing this (I'm not in the mood to do time zones, my apologies). For more information, click the link. And if Air America doesn't air in your listening area, remember that you can listen online.

Don't forget that Marty's So What Else Is News starts an hour earlier than usual beginning today. Or that Ring of Fire is now two hours. The Kyle Jason Show follows The Laura Flanders Show:

Tonight on The Kyle Jason Show, Kyle speaks to Nassau County Legislature Dave Mejias, about his upcoming marathon and race for re-election. Later in the show, multi-award winning actor and director, Rome Neal and famed Composer Bill Lee stop by to chat with Kyle abou the their most recent production titled, "Monk", a play about the life and times on Thelonious Monk. Don't miss this exclusive interview with two of the greatest artisitic performers and creators of our time.

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

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

Programming notes from Air America.


Politically Direct Airs Sunday
Politically Direct, Air America's latest progressive news and interview show, launches this Sunday, May 1 from 2:00-3:00pm EST directly from Washington, DC. Veteran activist David Bender hosts. Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Robert Byrd join him to discuss the "nuclear option."

In October, David Bender co-hosted the Sunday program Campaign Countdown with Rachel Maddow. (Link takes you to to the Air America Place archives for that show.)


Ring of Fire Expands to Two Hours with Callers
The new two-hour, call-in Ring of Fire debuts this Saturday from 5:00-7:00pm, with hosts Bobby Kennedy and Mike Papantonio. The Pap Attack returns as a featured segment.

The Pap Attack? Popular segment Papantonio did on Unfiltered. Kent Jones does "Kent Jones Now" on The Rachel Maddow Show these days which is also a revival of a popular segment that
appeared on what show? Oh, yeah, Unfiltered. Rachel Maddow co-hosted what show? Unfiltered. That's not a slam at Papantonio, Jones or Maddow. It is noting that a network that was more than happy to pull the plug on Unfiltered continues to pick the bones of that program.
Chuck D and Lizz Winstead (co-hosts of Unfiltered)? I don't know. I hear Montel Williams and Sally Jesse may be interested in radio programs. (That's sarcasm.) No word yet on whether Rikki Lake will be replacing Randi Rhodes.

Let's jump over to Lizz Winstead's site to get her take on the Bully Boy's press conference since we won't get her voice from Air America these days:

Social Obscurity
Thank God the OC was preempted for that! Now I finally understand the Bush Strategy on Social Security.
I just needed to hear his overall plan for the future before I could comprehend it and because I am pretty sure I was blacklisted from his LieLapalooza Tour, I had to wait for last nights Network Television debut to see the show.
So let me lay out the four major points of his plan and then explain how he is gonna achieve it.
In a nutshell: Create a world where the life expectancy rate is oh, say, 12. That way you can eventually do away with Social Security altogether. This is why he never talks about solvency. We dont neeeed solvency. Now you can shut up about it!
Combine that with the Rapture and youve got yourself a plan everybody can get behind and not be left behind.

Winstead goes over the points so click on the link.

Last programming note:

So What Else is News? Changes Hours
Marty Kaplan delivers his usual "un-spinning" of the days news, just an hour earlier. Tune in from 3:00pm-5:00pm this Saturday.

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

Molly e-mails to note Douglas Jehl's "Bolton's Nomination Is Questioned by Another Powell Aide:"


A fourth senior member of Colin L. Powell's team at the State Department expressed strong reservations on Friday about the nomination of John R. Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations.
The official, A. Elizabeth Jones, is a veteran diplomat who stepped down in February as assistant secretary of state for Europe and Eurasia. Among those who have now voiced public concerns about Mr. Bolton, Ms. Jones joins Lawrence Wilkerson, Mr. Powell's chief of staff; Carl W. Ford, Jr., who headed the department's intelligence bureau; and John R. Wolf, who was assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation. Associates of Mr. Powell have said he has expressed concerns of his own in private conversations with at least two Republican senators.
"I don't know if he's incapable of negotiation, but he's unwilling," Ms. Jones said in an interview. She said she believed that "the fundamental problem," if Mr. Bolton were to become United Nations ambassador, would be a reluctance on his part to make the kinds of minor, symbolic concessions necessary to build consensus among other governments and maintain the American position.

Regarding Eduardo Porter's "A Democrat on Bush's Social Security Team," Billy e-mails in wondering how a Democrat can be in bed with Bush? I'll avoid the easy laughs and once again note that there's not a huge gulf between neoliberals and neocons. One bullies at gun point, the other through economic blackmail. Either way a country's right to self-determination and self-rule goes out the window when the "neos" come along. As for Bush's embrace of "Democrat" Robert C. Pozen, the Republicans love Zell Miller too. Maybe Pozen, Miller and Joe Lieberman can big-tent their way into another party?

Paul, Joan, Keesha, Zach, Elaine, Carl and Beth all e-mailed regarding "National Briefing." For members not familiar with the section, this is a series of paragraphs on various states. In November and December, we often utilized this section because it was where the rare Ohio story appeared (or at least ones not mocking). Two items are standing out to members this morning.

The first item is:

WEST CALIFORNIA: SPRAYED PROTESTERS WIN SUIT A federal jury in San Francisco sided with eight logging opponents who said law enforcement officials used excessive force when they swabbed pepper spray on the eyes of protesters to break up demonstrations in 1997. The eight jurors awarded $1 to each plaintiff against Humboldt County sheriff's deputies and Eureka police officers. Carolyn Marshall (NYT)


To anyone new to the above story, it has been covered by Democracy Now! many times. For
a longer story that will provide background, I'd suggest the September 8, 2004 story entitled
"Trial Set to Begin Over Use of Pepper Spray-Soaked Cotton Swabs on Non-Violent Protesters in 1997."

Here is in the introduction to that report:

On three separate occasions in a three-week span in the fall of 1997, Humboldt County police officers arrived at peaceful sit-in protests calling for the protection of Headwaters Forest in northern California.
On all three occasions, the activists - who ranged in age from 16 to 40 years-old - locked their arms in metal pipes to participate in a non-violent protest of logging practices. And on all three occasions, the police responded using a method that Amnesty International would later deem "tantamount to torture."
One by one, police officers forcibly seized the heads of each demonstrator and inserted cotton swabs saturated with the chemical agent pepper spray into their eyes. In two of the cases, officers also sprayed the substance directly into their eyes at close range.
The eight activists filed a civil rights lawsuit against Humboldt County later that month. In connection with the suit, police video-tapes of the pepper spraying were released to the public. When excerpts of the tapes aired on network television news, the graphic images drew international outrage and condemnation.
The case went to court in 1998, but the trial ended in a hung jury. Over the following years, challenges were made at the state, appeals court and US Supreme Court levels. Today the civil rights case of the "Pepper Spray Eight" returns to trial in San Francisco.
To talk about this case, we are joined on the phone from San Francisco by the lead counsel in the lawsuit, Dennis Cunningham and one of the plaintiffs in the case, Spring Lundberg. Before we speak to them, we go back seven years to the morning of September 25, 1997 where Spring and other activists were engaging in a sit-in protest at Pacific Lumber's offices, in Scotia, California. The police arrived on the scene. This is what happened.

The report is listen, watch or read. You'll see footage of the forced swabbing. It's a powerful report.

As for the monetary involvement, it was a symbolic victory. The San Franciso Chronicle has a report on this entitled "Logging protesters win pepper spray case Jury awards $1 each after third trial over Humboldt incident." From the article by Stacy Finz:

This time, Attorney Dennis Cunningham asked the jurors to award Spring Lundberg, who was 17 at the time of the protests, and the other seven plaintiffs in the case between $10,000 and $100,000 for pain and suffering. Despite the jury's paltry award, he said his clients feel vindicated.
"It was never about the money," Cunningham said. "It was always about the principle."
He said that the jurors, who appeared to be emotionally drained after the two-week trial, didn't say much about how they came to their decision. He said he could only surmise that the eight-person panel compromised.
"They probably felt that the cops had to do something," said Cunningham, adding that although the protesters did not suffer long-term injuries from the pepper spray, it was a "profound experience that will stay with them for the rest of their lives."
Police and deputies put pepper spray directly into the eyes of the protesters, who had chained themselves together, in hopes that the burning would force them to unlock their shackles.

Why doesn't the Times play it up as an full blown article and not just a brief? Well, hey, I'd be the last to knock the Times' committment to social justice on environmental matters in their own area. I mean, they're always front paging pressing issues effecting wealthy and powerful friends who are concerned that their doorman might not be able to hear the call of a bird or some other pressing need. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) The Times appears to prefer their environmental activism take place around a table at Elaine's. (That sarcasm is aimed at the reporting in the main section. The science section does do actual environmental reporting. Editorials frequently speak out on pressing environmental issues. But as many have noted, to make the front page, you need to occupy one of a certain set of addresses.)

The second item from "National Briefing" that members are e-mailing about is this:

OREGON: CITY QUITS TERRORISM FORCE Portland became the first city to pull out of an F.B.I.-led Joint Terrorism Task Force after the City Council voted for the action on Thursday. The departure stems from an impasse between the bureau and Mayor Tom Potter over his request for top-secret clearance. Mr. Potter said he needed the clearance to supervise two police officers on the force, both with top-secret clearances. The bureau denied the request. Eli Sanders (NYT)

This is a follow up to a story (we noted it earlier) and it was big news to members then. Now it's a paragraph, an aside, but please note, we get another full story on the Michael Jackson case.
No doubt, the Times will be so proud of their coverage of the Jackson case that they'll compile it into one volume and issue it as a book. Kind of like those People Profiles paperbacks that People was so fond in 1999. (They may still be fond of them, I don't believe I've seen any since Julia Roberts or Meg Ryan graced the cover.)

Might I suggest a title for that volume? Perhaps "The New York Times Goes Wacko for Jacko?"

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

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

On the frong page of this morning's New York Times, Kate Zernike's "Plea Deal Is Set For G.I. Pictured In Abuses in Iraq" which deals with Lynndie England, visible in so many photographs coming out of Abu Ghraib.

Inside the paper, Alan Cowell has "For Blair, a Mere Victory in the Election May Not Be Enough:"

For much of this week, Mr. Blair's campaign has been shifted off course by opposition attacks on his credibility that culminated in his decision on Thursday to release in full the ambiguous 13-page legal advice he received in March 2003, shortly before the war started, from the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith.
Even Thursday night, as he face an audience of young people on television, the mood was primarily one of hostility. One member of the audience accused the prime minister outright of having lied to the people in explaining why Britain went to war.
[. . .]
At issue, most political experts here still feel, is not whether Mr. Blair will win, but how convincingly. In the British system, a reduced majority in Parliament can leave a prime minister with little authority, vulnerable to attack by opponents and rebels within his own party. He could be replaced at 10 Downing Street in mid-term if the party decided to switch leaders, or if Parliament forced an early election.

Francisco e-mails to note Larry Rohter's "O.A.S. to Pick Chile Socialist U.S. Opposed As Its Leader:"

In a rebuff to the Bush administration's efforts to press Latin America to take a tougher stance on Cuba and Venezuela, a Chilean Socialist emerged Friday as the consensus choice to become secretary general of the Organization of American States.
The O.A.S. is scheduled to convene in Washington on Monday to formally elect the Chilean, Interior Minister José Miguel Insulza, 62. His opponent, Luis Ernesto Derbez, the Mexican foreign minister and Washington's favored candidate, withdrew Friday afternoon after negotiations in Santiago, Chile, that involved Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and several of her South and Central American counterparts.
It is the first time in the organization's history that a candidate initially opposed by the United States will lead the 34-member regional group. Until it became clear that the numbers were not in its favor, the United States sought twice to block Mr. Insulza, by first supporting a Salvadoran and then Mr. Derbez.

Krista e-mails to call our attention to Somini Sengupta's "Nepal Ends Crisis Rule, but Bans Some Protests:"

The implications of his announcement, however, were far from clear, particularly the fate of emergency measures, including the jailing of political dissidents, curbs on news media freedoms and special powers awarded the military in the name of squelching the Maoist rebellion in the country. Perhaps more important, the king did not address what would be done to restore democratic rule. His handpicked deputies have governed the country since Feb. 1.
[. . .]
In India, analysts discounted the king's move, citing the continuing rebellion and his failure to address the question of a return to democratic government. "Thirty people killed here, emergency lifted there doesn't make a difference until the structure of the conflict begins to change," said Ajai Sahni, executive director of the Institute for Conflict Management, a research organization based here.
The secretary general of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, had pressed for "a return to constitutional rule as soon as possible." "I made this clear to the king," Mr. Annan told reporters last week in New Delhi, India's capital.

The dateline on the above article is " Published: May 1, 2005 ." Obviously, it's one intended to run in tomorrow's paper. (Today's the thirtieth.) So don't grab your editions (the way I did) and flip through wondering how you missed rare news of Nepal (rare for the Times). You didn't miss it in the print edition.

Every now and then, the Happy Talkers come out re: Iraq. While Operation Happy Talk has long been a favorite ploy of the Bully Boy administration, as Lloyd notes, it's been "very depressing and distressing" to see some Democrats engage in it as well. Lloyd notes the Associated Press article online at the New York Times entitled "Attacks Kill 10 as Violence Continues in Iraq:"

Insurgents launched fresh attacks in Baghdad and northern Iraq on Saturday, killing at least 10 Iraqis and wounding more than 30, officials said, in a second day of violence aimed at shaking the country's newly formed government.
[. . .]
Some of the worst attacks occurred in the capital, still reeling from Friday's onslaught in which at least 17 bombs exploded in Iraq, killing 50 people, including three U.S. soldiers.
A suicide car bomb exploded Saturday near the offices of the National Dialogue Council, a coalition of 10 Sunni Arab factions that had been negotiating for a stake in Iraq's new Shiite-dominated government. The blast killed two Iraqi civilians and wounded 18, police said.
Another suicide car bomb targeting an Iraqi army patrol exploded Saturday near the Mohammad Rasoul Allah Mosque in eastern Baghdad, killing two Iraqi women and a girl, and seriously wounding four soldiers, police Lt. Col. Ahmed Abboud Effait said.

Rob and Kara both e-mailed to note Steven Erlanger's "Putin Urges Israel to Let Palestinian Security Forces Use Weapons:"

President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia urged Israel on Friday to allow Palestinian security forces the weaponry required to fight terrorism as he completed a three-day visit to the Middle East intended to revive Russia's fading influence in the region.
Mr. Putin met with the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, for two hours to discuss peace talks and renewed Russian economic and security aid to the Palestinians, Moscow's former clients.
In particular, Russia will provide Mr. Abbas with two transport helicopters to replace those of his predecessor, Yasir Arafat. Israel had destroyed them to limit Mr. Arafat's movements after the Israeli Army returned to the West Bank in the spring of 2002 to try to put a stop to Palestinian attacks, some organized by the security services. Israel also put severe restrictions on weapons allowed to the Palestinian police.


KeShawn e-mails to note Warren Hoge's "Lawyer Who Told of U.S. Abuses at Afghan Bases Loses U.N. Post:"

M. Cherif Bassiouni, a professor of law at DePaul University in Chicago who was the human rights commission's independent expert for Afghanistan, said Friday that he had received an e-mail message from a commission official in Geneva a week ago telling him his mandate had expired.
The day before, he had released a 21-page report saying that Americans running prisons in Afghanistan had acted above the law "by engaging in arbitrary arrests and detentions and committing abusive practices, including torture."

This has shaped up as an international look provided by the Times. There are a few other things members have e-mailed on and I'll put them in an entry to immediately follow this.

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

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

On Monday, the New York Times ran an article that resulted in comments at other sites. To bring everyone up to speed, from our Monday entry:

We'll start the discussion on this morning's New York Times with this:
Arianna Huffington, the columnist and onetime candidate for governor of California, is about to move blogging from the realm of the anonymous individual to the realm of the celebrity collective.
She has lined up more than 250 of what she calls "the most creative minds" in the country to write a group blog that will range over topics from politics and entertainment to sports and religion. It is essentially a nonstop virtual talk show that will be part of a Web site that will also serve up breaking news around the clock. It is to be introduced May 9.
[. . .]
Ms. Huffington's effort - to be called the Huffington Post (www.huffingtonpost.com) - will also seek to ferret out potentially juicy items and give them legs. In fact, she has hired away Mr. Drudge's right-hand Web whiz, Andrew Breitbart, who used to be her researcher.
But unlike the Drudge Report, the Huffington Post will be interactive, offering news as well as commentary from famous people and allowing the masses to comment too, although not always directly with the celebs. Notables will oversee certain sections, with Gary Hart, the former Colorado senator, for example, taking the lead on national security issues. R. O. Blechman, the magazine illustrator, has designed the site. All material will be free and available on archives.
That's from Katharine Q. Seelye's (or "Kit Seelye" when blogging during the debates) "A Boldface Name Invites Others to Blog With Her."

I was asked my opinion and here it is.

When the fright wing screams, "Shut up, Hollywood!" we realize that's nonsense. Actors, directors, writers, producers, technicians, et al are part of this country. They have every right to speak up.

I have no idea what was behind some of the comments made.

There seemed to be an attitude that they wouldn't "speak the truth about Bully Boy" because they had their careers to worry about.

I don't recall that stopping Janeane Garofalo. Or Bruce Springsteen. Or Dave Matthews. Or Carole King. Or Sharon Stone. They and others in 2004 spoke out freely.

But more importantly, there are issues to highlight. It's not just about a candidate. Jessica Lange's testified to Congress on the issue of farming. Meryl Streep's gone before Congress.
Certainly Jane Fonda's career never prevented her from activism.

Nora Ephron, who was cited in the Times article, isn't just a wonderful director or an excellent screenwriter, she's also someone who spent years as a professional journalist. I'm not clear on why she's not qualified to post to a blog?

Ephron's a feminist and she's addressed that topic as a journalist and a filmmaker. I can't imagine she'd silence herself at this late date. Perhaps people commenting are unfamiliar with Nora Ephron?

Warren Beatty was on the list. Is it a regional thing? Did the news not travel east about Beatty's strong remarks regarding the "triangulation" b.s. of the Clinton administration? When has Warren Beatty ever censored his political beliefs? When he was working on George McGovern's campaign? When he was working on Gary Hart's campaign? Is he worried his beliefs might hurt his career? He made Reds over objections of that sort. He didn't censor himself when people screamed, "You can't make a film on John Reed!" So why exactly would he back down now?

Warren Beatty is a strong liberal and he's never hidden that. Again, maybe the news didn't travel east, but Beatty had strong words about what the Democratic Party needed and what it didn't. He didn't censor himself so this is nonsense to think that he would now.

During the Vietnam conflict, Jane Fonda spoke out. Give her credit for her courage and her activism. But she wasn't the only one. You had others. John Phillips (the Mamas and the Papas) credited his own statements to Jane Fonda's activism. So instead of getting upset that some celebrities will be blogging, it would be smarter to realize that the ones who get involved will encourage others to. And people that Fonda might not have reached, John or Michelle Phillips might have. It's about more voices. I say that all the time and I mean it.

If a celebrity wants to write on any topic that brings traffic to this new site, that's good news. There will be coverage there that is about politicians and legislation. And the environment and a living wage will be addressed there. By having a variety of people willing to contribute, the site will have a variety of issues it can cover.

People who haven't even read it (there's nothing up there yet) are condemning it and they don't even understand what Huffington's doing and why she's doing it.

She's trying to include more voices and she realizes that celebrities will attract people to the site.

This isn't an attempt to destroy some other web sites or bloggers. Nora Ephron will probably write there more often than she does the yearly or so op-ed for the Times, but she's not going to be a daily blogger. (If she would be, we'd all be better for it. And anyone who thinks otherwise may not have ever read her journalism.)

If Drew Barrymore wants to write about peace, she should. I'll read it. I'm sure it will make many of us think. Provided we're not screaming, "Not a real blogger! Celebrities shut up!"

I mean, isn't that a Laura what's her name book title? (I know her name, I'm just not in the mood to mention it.) Isn't that a tactic of the right?

More voices is always the answer. What Huffington's attempting to pull off (and my hopes are with her) is to provide a variety of voices speaking of issues that matter to them. She's not attempting to stage a coup on the blog world. There is a place for this (and I hope it succeeds).
I hope our members here will check out the site when it goes up.

I'm not threatened by the site. I'm hopeful it will build a huge membership quickly. Whether anyone likes it or not, we are a celebrity obsessed/driven community. So people who don't normally visit blogs will visit Huffington's.

And it will get people talking and thinking. I don't see how that's a bad thing.

(We'll also try to highlight people who blog there. And I won't be doing "disclosures" on that. We'll support the project and since I don't believe it's a money making business -- I could be wrong there -- I won't be doing "disclosures" if we highlight someone I know.)

In case anyone's forgotten, it took Cher calling C-Span to seriously raise the issue of the neglect of wounded troops returning to this country. Don't dismiss her as a Vegas diva or a Hollywood actress because that's what the right does. Cher is active and has been active. And she's aware of the world around her.

She has a right to comment.

I don't understand the panic. George Clooney has been outspoken, does he not have that right? Or does he just not have that right online? Is Russell Simmons just allowed to speak to reporters? He can't blog? Is that how it works?

I don't think so. Carly Simon and Russell Simmons have been working on the issue of drug sentencing. Are the people worrying about Huffington's site aware of that? Alyssa Milano was on the campaign trail speaking for John Kerry. Are the ones condemning Huffington's blog aware of that?

It's not a threat. It's an opportunity to get more voices out there and, because of who they are, there will be some curiousity (hopefully a great deal). The site's not going to hurt the blog world. The site may lead some people to seek out other blogs, it may raise their curiosity about what's available online. And apparently Gary Hart's involvement in the site (reported by Seelye in her article) has been overlooked as well.

Some of the comments on Huffington herself were troubling. I know some people are bothered by her choice of spirituality/worship. Huffington's spirituality is her own business. Hopefully, it nourishes her. I've found her to be a smart and caring person.

And the attacks are reminding me of the recall race when she was urged to drop out. That made no sense. She was the only one seriously addressing any issues with Ah-nuld, the only one not pulling punches. And it was obvious Bustamante was going bust -- obvious to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention. (Maybe news didn't travel east?) Davis was in trouble. Some of it wasn't his own doing but some of it was. Huffington was a strong candidate. No one was going to be forced to vote for her. You'd think that even people rooting for Bustamante would have been happy Huffington was in the race due to the fact that she was taking on Ahnuld and she was going to the people, not to Jay Leno and Tim Russert and anyone else who would toss her softballs.

But some sites wanted to question her. And for some reason that always means going personal.
"Do you know what she believes in?" (Her spirituality.) "Do you realize who she was married to?" "Do you know that she used to write right wing columns and books?" Over and over, the message was "I don't trust her!"

If someone's got some dynamite expose on Huffington, they should publish it. They could easily interest in Judith Regan in such a book. But the fact of the matter is that Huffington's a populist and that's where she's at today. If it was about "personal exposure," she had more outlets in the nineties.

If you've got a problem with the politics she's been practicing for some time now, you need to say so. But this, "I don't trust her!" nonsense that flairs up anytime she's seen as a threat (either in a race for office or someone's misguided belief that they're in a race with her for web visits) really reflects more on the people condemning her.

I like Arianna Huffington. I think she challenges us all to remember the debt we have to one another. I believe she's avoided dealing with the easy topics and addressed more complex ones -- ones that are easy to shy away from. I've found her genuine and I don't doubt or question her motives.

What she's attempting to do would be wonderful for the country and I'm surprised people aren't rushing in to say, "Thank you, Arianna!" They should be.

Her site will not be a threat to other blogs. It will be a resource providing more voices. That should be welcomed. She's provided a valuable resource to our nation for some time now. So why is it that it becomes "she has a funny accent" (she has a charming accent, my opinion) and "she's not really left the right" every time she steps out of the box that people want to place her in?

Maybe people were objecting to the language in Kit Seelye's article? I didn't pay too close attention to that. But maybe there was a problem there? If so, take it up with Seelye. Huffington didn't write the article.

When the site goes up, we'll provide a link to it (a permalink) and we'll highlight it.

Huffington will go on Pyramid or anywhere else she can go to try to get the message out. This is another avenue to pursue social justice. I'm not seeing any ulterior motives. The easiest thing for Huffington to do would be to lay by the pool. Instead she's being active (yet again).

So others are welcome to have their problem with her or being threatened by her, but, to me, this is another example of how Arianna Huffington is committed to change and doing more than her share. I applaud her. And if others are booing, they might need to take a look within. Huffington's attempting to plant seeds and further the cause of social justice. I don't see how there's a problem with that. If The Huffington Post is a success, it will only increase awareness and discussion.

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

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

Eric e-mails this item in and notes that he saw it at BuzzFlash. So let me note, when you see an item at BuzzFlash, AlterNet or Raw Story, please pass that on. Why? If people aren't visiting those sites, it lets them note what they can find there. It's one more way to underscore how a site you enjoy visiting is a resource.

The article BuzzFlash steers you to is from the Toldedo Blade, Mike Wilkinson and James Drew's "FBI raids Noe's condo, seizes 'some property': Investigators seek evidence of campaign-fund activity:"

The federal probe into whether local Republican fund-raiser Tom Noe was illegally funneling money to the Bush campaign had been ongoing for months. It reached a turning point Wednesday night.
FBI agents swept into Mr. Noe’s Maumee condo about 7:30 p.m., spending three hours scouring the home of one of the most prominent Republicans in northwest Ohio. They were looking for evidence of violations of federal campaign contribution laws.
The federal probe is studying Mr. Noe’s campaign contributions to the President, and specifically contributions made by others who may have received money from Mr. Noe, possibly allowing him to exceed the $2,000 spending cap.

This story makes me think of a point Mike Malloy was making last night on his show, that we're seeing the beginning of the end of the Bully Boy's free ride.

On another note, Guerrilla News Network is a great resource. Boyd e-mailed to ask me why I wasn't highlighting it. I haven't been and there is a reason. I think it's a great resource. But when I linked to it, I had no idea that Frances Moore Lappé's son was involved in running it.
I've never met Anthony Lappé, but his mother is someone I've met and who's been a huge inspiration to me. (Not just with Diet For a Small Planet but obviously that's the starting benchmark in her long career of activism.) I found that out a few weeks ago when a friend said "I'm really happy you're linking to Anthony's site." I asked who because I had no idea which site she was speaking of. And she then informed that she was speaking of Guerrilla News Network and that one of the people involved was Frances Moore Lappé's son. So to avoid charges of conflict of interest, I've avoided linking since then unless a member was highlighting it.

So Boyd, start highlighting it in e-mails and we'll highlight it here. And unless a member expresses concern over this, I'll start highlighting the site on my own as well. But I'm not going to type "disclosure" everytime it's highlighted by me. (I won't highlight it except by members if anyone feels it's a conflict of interest. Just e-mail me by Sunday if you think it is a conflict of interest.) So consider this the heads up.

Cedric e-mailed, on another topic, "Please don't go back into the entry." That's regarding my mispelling of Cedric's name which I didn't realize until this morning. He says with this site and the mirror site, it's too much trouble for a typo. Since those are his feelings, I'll leave it as is; however, his name is Cedric and my apologies to him for getting his name wrong ("Cedrick").
Cedric's a very active member in this community and I was just in one of my idiotic modes when I mispelled his name.

I was hoping to write about a problem Dallas brought to my attention today. Dallas isn't the only one with this problem. I appreciate everyone who responded and I hope it's okay that I'm putting this off until tomorrow. I'm fading, sorry. I will attempt to do the thing on "celebrities blogging" tonight but if you don't see it up, that means I saved to draft and went on to bed.

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

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

At Ms. Musing, Christina notes that Ms.' "No Comment" is now available online. If you've read Ms., you're familiar with this feature. You've enjoyed it. By being available online, you can (hint, hint) e-mail it to friends.

Christine also notes one of my favorites (who I've sadly never met), Susan Faludi:

Susan Faludi spoke at Radcliffe this week as part of the 2004–2005 Voices of Public Intellectuals Lecture Series: Feminisms Then and Now. Her talk dealt with the post 9/11 anti-feminist reaction and the reinforcement of gender roles as reflected in advertising and other media. How are things now? Harvard News' Ken Gewertz writes:
Despite feminism's victories over the past three decades, in certain ways women are worse off now than they were 30 years ago, Faludi said. While 1974 was "a bleak scene for women," with female representation in leadership positions and in the professions far below what it is today, there was still a sense that "women were busting out" and questioning social institutions in a way that is no longer much in evidence.

In the same entry, Christine notes that Barbara Ehrenreich will be speaking at Radcliffe on May 10th.

Josh e-mails Katrina vanden Heuvel's latest Editor's Cut:

"Now that we're there, we're there and we can't get out," Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean told an audience of nearly 1,000 at the Minneapolis Convention Center on April 20th. "The president has created an enormous security problem for the US where none existed before. But I hope the president is incredibly successful with his policy now that he's there."
I agree with Dean--a political figure I admire-- that the war in Iraq has put the US in greater danger. But the question facing us today is who will speak for the millions of Americans who believe that continued occupation increases the danger? Who will speak for the millions who believe that the US has gotten bogged down in Iraq? Who will speak out against the (majority of the) Democratic Party's silent consent to the Bush Administration's Iraq war policies? Who will speak out about the wrenching human and economic costs of occupation? Who will speak out in support of a clear and honorable exit strategy? Who will make a clear, unequivocal declaration that the US will not maintain permanent military bases in Iraq?

[Actually not her latest. I'm seeing a new one up that must have gone up after Josh visited. We'll highlight that this weekend. Note, Katrina vanden Heuvel then quotes Tom Hayden's open letter to Howard Dean. We'll quote that tomorrow. I'm holding off due to fair use. ]

Trina e-mails to note that over at Iddybud, Jude's highlighting Jim Wallis' recent article from Sojourners:

It is now clear there are some who will fight this religious war by any means necessary. So we will fight, but not the way they do. We must never lie or misrepresent the facts or the truth. We must not demonize or vilify those who are our opponents. We must claim that those who disagree with our judgments are still real people of faith. We must not fight the way they do, but fight we must. A great deal is at stake in this battle for the heart and soul of faith in America and for the nation's future itself. We will not allow faith to be put into the service of one political agenda. This is a call for the rest of the churches to wake up. This is a call for people of faith everywhere to stand up and let their faith be heard. This is not a call to be just concerned, or just a little worried, or even just alarmed. This is a call for clear speech and courageous action. This is a call to take back our faith, and in the words of the prophet Micah, "to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with our God."

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

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