Ruth: Thursday on NPR's Morning Edition, a "commentary" was provided. Now when NPR brings on someone to do a commentary, you might think they'd need to be knowledgable in the area they are speaking of? You would be incorrect. NPR has their own version of George Will but, instead of a bow tie, he wears a cowboy hat.


Cowboy Poet
By Baxter Black
Nationalizing Professions
Morning Edition, May 12, 2005 · Commentator Baxter Black says some people would like to have nationalized health care. He says if that's the case, other professions should be nationalized as well.

Are times tough in the large animal vet practice? That would explain Black's anger but can anything explain his ongepotchket commentaries?

My granddaughter Tracey loves the TV show Jack and Bobby. She thinks the oldest brother is a "hottie." (I believe Jack is the older brother's name.) And every now and then, she'll come over on Tuesday nights to get me to watch with her. Christine Lati plays the mother and the program actually deals with issues so it's no bother to watch it with her. Gore Vidal had a guest spot this week. My biggest surprise was that my teenage granddaughter not only knew who Gore Vidal was but also knew his writing. Surprised in a good way, mind you. I enjoy Gore Vidal's writing and would rank 1876 as my favorite novel by Mr. Vidal. Tracey and her friends read his essay collections, like Dreaming War, and it's good to know that good writers are being read by our young people.

The reason I bring up Jack and Bobby in the first place is that Baxter Black seems to have a case of the Jack and Bobbys. Addressing the issue of universal health care, terminology he never utters, Black seeks out the "wisdom" of his brother who's right up there with "Solomon" in Baxter's eyes.

While it's good for families to be close, perhaps next time Mr. Black could seek out someone who is actually versed in the topic? Mr. Black clearly lacks knowledge on the issue of health care.

As he intones "socialized medicine" repeatedly, you grasp that he's against it. Myself, I'm for it. I think we need it and that it would benefit both employees and employers as well as the vast number of unemployed adults and children everywhere.

So Mr. Black and I disagree. Fortunately for him, I neither own a large animal or buy the verse of Cowboy Poets, so he doesn't have to worry that he lost a customer.

But Morning Edition should have worried about putting him on air. They should worry not because of his opinion, he can be opposed to universal health care, but because he either doesn't know the facts or doesn't care about them.

"Doctors say socialized medicine reduces the quality of health care available to most, does not pay doctors adequately or reward them for the responsibilty they bear."

That's the view of some doctors and he sums it fine; however, he's far from even handed.

"Those promoting socialized medicine believe good health care is a right for all regardless of income, citizenship, or personal responsibility."

I'm bothered by the "or personal responsibility." I wonder exactly how would be Judge Black rules on that issue? Is someone with cancer, resulting from environmental pollution, personally responsible? What of those who become sick due to lead paint that a landlord doesn't deal with?

But before I can get a grip as to where he stands and whether or not he's just being snide, Mr. Black is back to telling us about his brother and his brother's suggestion to "nationalize the legal profession" if we create universal health care.

Why?

"Skyrocketing malpractice insurance is a direct result of doctors being sued by lawyers for the pawn in the middle: us."

But malpractice insurance is not a result of law suits. That is the myth that Bully Boy puts out and certainly GE owned NBC's Nightly News never misses a chance to spin the story in that direction but most educated people are aware that the rising insurance rates have more to do with poor return on stock market investments which created losses that the insurance companies have passed on to their customers.

When GE's companies spin the truth, it's not that surprising. When National Public Radio, which is supposed to be for the public, does, it is very sad.

Mr. Black continues and advises that "the litigous atmosphere has tarnished the image of everyone, it's made the doctors become aloof from their patients, the patients seem greedy and the lawyers look like opportunists." Mr. Black lives in the state of Arizona and, I'm guessing, the state of Denial as well. Doctors looking aloof from the patients due to the "litigious atmosphere?" As the mother of two doctors, I wonder what "research" Mr. Black has to back that up? If he asked my sons, they'd tell him that it had more to do with the medical programs and the grinding schedules. But large animal vets and their brothers apparently know better than doctors themselves.

As someone old enough to remember a time before Republicans had so demonized class action suits, I can tell you that my own experiences with doctors, including one uncle, have almost always been best described as their being "aloof." My mother, God rest her soul, could speak of a time when doctors gave individual care and actually spent time with you. I doubt Mr. Black is old enough to remember those days; however, if he is old enough, then he's old enough to realize that appearing "aloof" has little to do with rising malpractice insurance and that it predates that talking point.

Mr. Black wants so badly to scream "Commie!" that he almost can't get through his uninformed commentary. Quickly he, and his brother, propose that if health care is nationalized, we do the same with the legal profession. But we don't stop their, according to NPR's Jack and Bobby, we go on to set up "tribunals" to hear medical malpractice suits.

And according to Mr. Black, this would force us to "face reality" at which point he returns to "personal responbility" as he castigates the overweight (as though the food being served at most fast food places is anything like the actual food he or I grew up on), smokers, and those "who engage in risky pursuits" which he leaves undefined but I'm sure most listeners could fill in the blanks.

Like a mentally cracked, conservative Supereme Court Justice, Mr. Black is all about the slippery slope and sees it everywhere. When he was eight, my son David once had a nasty accident on a Slip 'n Slide. He lept onto it and slid off it across the half lawn stopping only when he went head on into my rose bushes. Did Mr. Black have a similar experience?

Is that what leads his mind to jump to the idea that universal health care would lead to people being "appointed to office" and "voting" being "abolished?"

He never gets to scream the word he so dearly wants to, "Commie." But he does get a little red-bating in with his concluding statements:

Wait a minute you say, "Who would be in charge? I guess we'd have to ask FEE-Dell how that works."

Yes, he means Castro and that's truly how he mispronounces Fidel. How this kochleffl's uninformed commentary made it to air is a question that might only be answered by the current ideology struggle going on at NPR and PBS. Bringing him on to speak against universal health care wasn't the problem because all voices should be welcomed on NPR. Allowing him to distort reality with no clarification on the part of Steve [Inskeep], who seemd quite amused, was a problem. If NPR is going to abandon the facts, there's little point in fighting to keep it around.
That's something the producers of Morning Edition might want to seriously consider.

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

The latest In These Times arrived via mail Tuesday. We've already noted Naomi Klein's "How to End the War" a few days ago. So let's note the cover story, By Nicolas Bérubé and Benoit Aquin's "Chiquita's Children:"

Carlos Alberto Rodriguez sits prostrate in his rocking chair all day, from dawn to dusk. At first view it looks like this ex-plantation worker--young to be retired, at the age of 55--is giving his body a much-deserved rest after a lifetime of hard work, in which 14-hour days and six-day weeks were the norm. But when he took his retirement nine years ago, Rodriguez's health quickly deteriorated. First he lost his memory, then his ability to speak, and finally, his capacity to engage in any way with the people around him.
Today, Rodriguez, reputed to have been a jovial bon vivant, is unable to walk or take care of himself. His wife Membreño stopped working in order to care for him. She spoon feeds him and washes him daily; she addresses him like one would a newborn.
For 23 years, Rodriguez irrigated the fields of the Chinandega area, the most important banana region in Nicaragua. His job was to ensure that the pesticide used at the time, Nemagon, was distributed uniformly over the entire surface of the fields. It was a meticulous assignment that he performed dutifully, without thinking for one minute that the fine whitish mist that fell atop the banana plants every dawn was in fact one of the most dangerous poisons ever created. A pesticide so toxic that it was banned from use in its country of conception, the United States, where today those responsible for public health believe it should never have been put into circulation.

We'll note the second part of Salim Muwakkil's look into the African-American clergy. This installment is entitled "Black Clergy Rebuff Bush:"

During the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the Rev. Al Sampson helped to organize Chicago’s Black Mobilization Committee Against the War and regularly opened his church to anti-war rallies and other progressive actions. His Fernwood United Methodist Church, on Chicago’s far South Side, showed films like Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism and Fahrenheit 9/11.
And Sampson's church is just one of many in Chicago that aggressively confronts the Bush administration’s cynical attempt to capture black mind share with its focus on God, gays and vouchers.
As I noted in my last column, the GOP is trying to hitch a ride on Christian piety into the black community. But that ride is getting rather bumpy. In January, an unprecedented gathering of the nation’s four largest black Baptist groups issued a joint statement that basically repudiated the thrust of the GOP's outreach efforts. The group gave short shrift to issues like same-sex marriage and abortion, heavily pushed by Bush's evangelical supporters.

Ben Terrall's "Democracy’s Death: Haitian dissidents find themselves the targets of massive repression" is worth noting:

In sync with its grandiose claims about building democracy in the Middle East, the Bush administration is promoting new elections in Haiti in October and November as the great hope for the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere. Yet, while Washington provides diplomatic, political and military support for the Haitian government of Interim Prime Minister Gerard Latortue, hooded police and death squads are systematically repressing political supporters of former president Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
Aristide's Lavalas Party is still the Haitian political organization with the most popular support by a large margin. Months after the February 29, 2004, coup that drove Aristide from office, Conrad Tribble of the U.S. Embassy in Port-au-Prince conceded, "If there were an election held today, Lavalas would win." But today, Lavalas partisans can barely go outdoors safely, while the right-wing paramilitary leader Guy Philippe, who was trained by U.S. Special Forces in Ecuador in the '90s, has launched his own political party, the Front for National Reconstruction.
In the beginning of February 2004, Philippe led U.S.-trained paramilitaries across the border from the Dominican Republic in attacks on Haiti's second largest city, Cap-Haitien. Also directing the paramilitary attacks was Louis-Jodel Chamblain, former second-in-command of the Revolutionary Front for Haitian Advancement and Progress, an anti-Lavalas death squad that the CIA helped create in 1993. In the following two weeks, these forces emptied Haiti's prisons; among those set free were anti-Aristide death squad veterans from the 1991–1994 coup period. The new regime has now filled the jails with government officials, teachers and Lavalas supporters.

Lastly, we'll note House Rep. Bernie Sanders' "Remote Control:"

In recent years, the Republican leadership has used unprecedented measures to crush dissent in Congress. During the recent passage of the Bankruptcy Bill, for example, no opposition amendments were allowed on the floor of the House--effectively silencing public debate of the bill.
Perhaps the most blatant example of intolerance for dissenting viewpoints, however, comes from Bush himself, who is currently traveling the country holding "town meetings" on his Social Security privatization plan. Despite the fact that these ostensibly public meetings are paid for by taxpayers, American citizens who disagree with Bush are not allowed to attend.
It is in this context of an overall attack on dissenting opinions that the effort to censor cable and satellite TV becomes truly frightening. This is not simply about cleaning up offensive content; it is about the extreme right wing pushing to limit the free exchange of ideas. The time has come for all Americans who love freedom to let the government know that they don’t want Uncle Sam turning into Big Brother.

There are many other articles and columns worth reading so remember these were highlights.

We'll also note the following as soon as it's available:

Light and Solidarity
By Erin Mosely
Susan Plum is challenging the Mexican government’s massive failure to effectively investigate and halt the killing spree in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, which has taken the lives of more than 370… This article will be available soon.

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

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

There's another article in the Times that I'd like to comment on but I'm feeling under the weather and let's take that as a sign that we could all use a break from the Times.

I haven't received the latest Nation (it should be mailed out today) but we'll note three articles that haven't yet been noted here. (The story on Hager was linked to yesterday via BuzzFlash.)

Naomi Klein has "Torture's Dirty Secret: It Works." Here's an excerpt:


The fear is even thicker among Muslims in the United States, where the Patriot Act gives police the power to seize the records of any mosque, school, library or community group on mere suspicion of terrorist links. When this intense surveillance is paired with the ever-present threat of torture, the message is clear: You are being watched, your neighbor may be a spy, the government can find out anything about you. If you misstep, you could disappear onto a plane bound for Syria, or into "the deep dark hole that is Guantánamo Bay," to borrow a phrase from Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights.
But this fear has to be finely calibrated. The people being intimidated need to know enough to be afraid but not so much that they demand justice. This helps explain why the Defense Department will release certain kinds of seemingly incriminating information about Guantánamo--pictures of men in cages, for instance--at the same time that it acts to suppress photographs on a par with what escaped from Abu Ghraib. And it might also explain why the Pentagon approved the new book by a former military translator, including the passages about prisoners being sexually humiliated, but prevented him from writing about the widespread use of attack dogs. This strategic leaking of information, combined with official denials, induces a state of mind that Argentines describe as "knowing/not knowing," a vestige of their "dirty war."
"Obviously, intelligence agents have an incentive to hide the use of unlawful methods," says the ACLU's Jameel Jaffer. "On the other hand, when they use rendition and torture as a threat, it's undeniable that they benefit, in some sense, from the fact that people know that intelligence agents are willing to act unlawfully. They benefit from the fact that people understand the threat and believe it to be credible."

Here's a sample of the editorial "Anti-war, Pro-democracy" and if you don't subscribe, look for the print edition because to view the article online, you have to subscribe:

The Administration portrays the choice in Iraq as between occupation and insurgent atrocity. But it's a false choice. Practical alternatives already exist. In the Iraqi election the consensus of all leading parties was that there is a need for a timetable for American withdrawal. Only a timetable accompanied by, and spurring, negotiations among all parties will give hope for an end to the instability and violence. One lesson from Vietnam, Palestine and Northern Ireland is that many insurgent nationalists can be drawn in, isolating those addicted to nihilistic sectarian violence.
[. . .]
The US antiwar movement--activists outside and inside electoral politics--must now seize the language of democracy that Bush has so devalued, finding ways to support the majority of Iraqis who want to regain control of their own future. As Naomi Klein said recently at a teach-in sponsored by the Institute for Policy Studies, "The future of the antiwar movement requires that it become a pro-democracy movement." And with Iraqis and Americans alike growing impatient, the future vitality of the Democratic Party requires that it become a strong voice for an end to occupation.

Let's note Katha Pollitt (who, by the way, has a poem in a recent New Yorker -- it arrived in the mail this week, so I'm sure it's a week behind) whose a favorite of many members. In the latest issue she has "Virginity or Death!" Here's the opening paragraph:

Imagine a vaccine that would protect women from a serious gynecological cancer. Wouldn't that be great? Well, both Merck and GlaxoSmithKline recently announced that they have conducted successful trials of vaccines that protect against the human papilloma virus. HPV is not only an incredibly widespread sexually transmitted infection but is responsible for at least 70 percent of cases of cervical cancer, which is diagnosed in 10,000 American women a year and kills 4,000. Wonderful, you are probably thinking, all we need to do is vaccinate girls (and boys too for good measure) before they become sexually active, around puberty, and HPV--and, in thirty or forty years, seven in ten cases of cervical cancer--goes poof. Not so fast: We're living in God's country now. The Christian right doesn't like the sound of this vaccine at all. "Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful," Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council told the British magazine New Scientist, "because they may see it as a license to engage in premarital sex." Raise your hand if you think that what is keeping girls virgins now is the threat of getting cervical cancer when they are 60 from a disease they've probably never heard of.

Okay, we'll go over three. Pin it on my bad math, if you like, but I really don't like highlighting things (on matter how strong) if they aren't available to all. Online only, you can (subscriber, non-subscriber) read reactions to the new look of the web site. Also online (available to all) is Greg Palast's "Ecuador Gets Chávez'd :"

George Bush has someone new to hate. Only twenty-four hours after Ecuador's new president took his oath of office, he was hit by a diplomatic cruise missile fired all the way from Lithuania by Condoleezza Rice, then wandering about Eastern Europe spreading "democracy." Condi called for "a constitutional process to get to elections," which came as a bit of a shock to the man who'd already been constitutionally elected, Alfredo Palacio.
What had Palacio done to get our Secretary of State's political knickers in a twist? It's the oil--and the bonds. This nation of only 13 million souls at the world's belly button is rich, sitting on 4.4 billion barrels of known oil reserves, and probably much more. Yet 60 percent of its citizens live in brutal poverty; a lucky minority earn the "minimum" wage of $153 a month.
The obvious solution--give the oil money to the Ecuadoreans without money--runs smack up against paragraph III-1 of the World Bank's 2003 Structural Adjustment Program Loan. The diktat is marked "FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY," which "may not be disclosed" without World Bank authorization. TheNation.com has obtained a copy.

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

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

Also in the Times this morning, Alan Cowell informs us that "Britain Backs Penalities if Iran Restarts Nuclear Program." Does it? Perhaps the headline (which Cowell didn't write) should read "Tony Blair Backs Penalities . . ."? Sipping his cup of tea in the photo accompanying the article, The Poodle probably assumes he looks relaxed. He's striving too hard for "relaxed" to actually appear that way. Cowell has noted, in a previous article, Blair's problems and what the election results appear to imply (The Poodle better watch himself and mind the yapping).

But the Times really hasn't driven home to its readers how awful the election results were for Blair and how shaky his hold is. Add in that the Times has yet to address the July 23, 2002 memo that the Sunday Times of London published May 1st (well it's only twelve days later, right?):

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
[. . .]
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

See the continued ignoring of this memo by the New York Times is the sort of thing that makes people angry. (And why I dub it the New York Timid.) Bill Keller will give a rah-rah speech at some location (and sometimes a healthy crowd turns out for it, sometimes it doesn't and an editorial berates students for not showing -- but maybe they're tired of the song and the dance?). But the Times doesn't have to work all that hard to report on this memo -- a memo that is big news in England and you can be sure Alan Cowell is aware of. But the paper draws the veil on this (as they did with Naomi Klein's revelations about James Baker, to offer only one example).

Readers of the Times today don't just depend solely on it for the news. And thank God for that, or we'd be woefully uninformed.

The memo was big news at the first of this month in England and it continues to be big news.
Writing on Blair's promises to back up his Bully Boy, Cowell's writing with one hand tied behind his back. He can't speak of how weakened Blair has been by the elections and the memo. Blair can bluster (over his tea cup) all he wants. It's highly unlikely that Blair has the power to back the Bully Boy. Too bad for any reader who depends solely on the Times for their news because they may have no idea how weak the ground Blair's standing on currently is.

On a similar topic, it's choir time. Join me in singing:

The sun don't beam
The moon don't shine
The tide don't ebb and flow
A clock won't strike
A match won't light
When Judy goes scoop
Nothing goes right*

Yes, that can only mean one thing, Judith Miller is back to screaming "scoop" yet again. Today the paper refuses to allow her to soil herself on the front page. Instead, they let her stink up page A8 (and presumably "minder" Craig S. Smith is stuck with clean up -- our hearts go out to you, Smith). The article's entitled "House Releases Iraqi Papers On Strategy for Oil Sales."

On the plus side, Judy goes "scoop" this time on the record. (See the panel's proposals are having an impact -- let's hope it's not a limited one.) Possibly because of that, Miller can't work up her usual grudge f**k rage. But we've moved beyond sad, we've beyond delusional and are in the Land of Pathetic.

Judith Miller was not "proved f**king right!" as she once so demurely snarled. Quite the contrary. And the paper should find her another beat. Actually, they should have fired her ass long ago. But since that's not happening, they should find an area for her to cover that doesn't remind readers of how awful her reporting/cheerleading in the lead up to the invasion/occupation was. Not only does it discredit the paper, it undercuts all efforts to paint Miller sympathetic in her current legal battles.

It's as though Judy borrowed your car keys in the midst of a bender and smashed it up. She's due to face the judge in a matter of days and instead of keeping her nose clean in the meantime, she's hitting the booze hard and starting back on another bender.

This is not how you rehabilitate someone's image. But Miller's apparently still not grasped how badly she trashed her own reputation. (Which probably explains why she originally thought her Sally Field imitation would play.)

A partisan committee attempts to work up a scandal (supposedly based on documents -- as though anyone paying attenting during the initial months of the invasion is unaware that the documents, like everything not having to do with oil, were not secured) and Miller rushes in to give them prime space in the paper. She also allows them to pontificate at length while "short-handing" the responses of the accused.

Let's go to Democracy Now!'s Headlines from yesterday:

Antiwar European Politicians Accused of Iraq Corruption
Back in this country, a Senate committee report on the so-called Oil-for-Food scandal released last night alleges to have uncovered "significant evidence" that the antiwar British politician George Galloway was allocated millions of barrels of oil from the government of Saddam Hussein. The committee says it based its charges on documents from the Iraqi ministry of oil and interviews with senior officials of Saddam's government, including former Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan. Galloway immediately refuted the allegations. He said "It is merely the repetition of false accusations that have been made and denied before. Something does not become true because it is repeated by George Bush's Senate majority." Galloway just won a hotly contested race for parliament against one of Tony Blair's strongest allies. The Senate investigation is led by Minnesota Republican Norm Coleman. The report also accuses former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua of profiting as well.

Guess what? In headlines you got a better picture of what's going on in one paragraph then you do in the entire nineteen paragraph (check my math) grudge f**k co-penned by Miller.

Actually, the paper notes that "Judith Miller reported from New York for this article and Craig S. Smith from Paris. Alan Cowell contributed reporting from London." Left out of the note is that Miller's misguided ego apparently contributed more than anything else.

One more time, everybody:

The sun don't beam
The moon don't shine
The tide don't ebb and flow
A clock won't strike
A match won't light
When Judy goes scoop
Nothing goes right

That this article goes beyond embarrassing is hardly surprising. That no one at the Times realizes how this sort of nonsense revives all the ill will (to put it mildly) towards Miller is surprising. At a time when efforts to remake her as "demure" and a soft spoken little Norma Rae for the First Amendement have failed repeatedly and miserably, it's as though the Times (the organization) has decided to throw in the towel. If that's the case, who could blame them?
Miller's "benders" are off-base "reporting" and as long as she refuses to go stone cold sober, what can anyone do?

How can you help someone who refuses to help themselves? How many interventions can be done when Miller still refuses to stand up and say, "My name is Judith Miller and I have a problem with reporting the facts?" Miller's benders are her own problem but that the paper continues to enable her reflects poorly on the Timid.

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

* As noted in "Judith Miller returns to the New York Times front page, America left skeptical:
"When Judy goes scoop, nothing goes right." If you've seen Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, hum the Harold Adamson and Hoagy Carmichael song "When Loves Goes Wrong" that Marilyn Monroe and Jane Russell sing in that film. Just substitute "Judy" for "love" and "scoop" for "wrong" [. . .]
See also "Parody: Rudith Miller weighs in on journalism and Judith Miller's front page story in this morning's Times."

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

Last December, after a high-profile federal terrorism prosecution in Detroit collapsed amid accusations of government misconduct, the Justice Department resorted to a backup plan. Prosecutors brought much less serious charges of insurance fraud against a pair of one-time terror suspects from Morocco, accusing the men of falsely reporting injuries in a minor car accident.
Prosecutors said at the time that they viewed the insurance scam as a serious offense. But internal Justice Department memorandums show that senior prosecutors had serious doubts about the strength of the case and recommended against bringing it, only to have the department go ahead with the lesser charges.
Bringing the fraud case "would appear to be vindictive," a senior federal prosecutor in Detroit wrote in an e-mail memorandum to senior Justice Department officials in 2003. The same prosecutor wrote that the F.B.I. believed that the move would harm counterterrorism efforts among Muslims and "may actually encourage extremists."

The above is from Eric Lichtblau's "U.S. Had Doubts About Lesser Case Against Terror Suspects" buried deep inside the paper. It's an important story. (And readers of The New Yorker will be aware the actions aren't a first for the Justice Dept. under J-Ass. For one example, see Jane Mayer's "Lost in the Jihad.") Buried inside the paper, I have to wonder how much attention it will garner.

Rob e-mails wondering what a "photo-op is doing on the front page?" Rob's referring to Raymond Hernandez's "Newt and Hillary Agree, Oddly Enough, to Agree."

Rob: Is the article mind reading, it is "news analysis?" Can anyone make heads or tails of it?
If a photo-op makes it onto the front page in text, shouldn't the actual photo as well?

Anne e-mails to note Douglas Jehl's "Nominee for U.N. Moves to Senate; No Endorsement:"

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee sent the nomination of John R. Bolton to the full Senate without a recommendation for its approval, after Republicans fell short of the solid support among their members necessary to endorse him as ambassador to the United Nations.
The highly unusual move was only the third time in 22 years that the committee has sent a nomination to the Senate without a favorable recommendation. But it moved one of the most contested of the White House's foreign policy appointments a step closer to approval, given the Republicans' majority in the Senate.
[. . .]
Later Thursday, however, Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, placed a hold on the nomination, according to her spokesman, David Sandretti. He said she wanted to get State Department documents that Democrats have been seeking involving Mr. Bolton's dealings with American intelligence agencies over Syria. In rejecting the request several days ago, Ms. Rice said disclosure of the documents could have a chilling effect on debates within the administration.
By placing the hold on the nomination, which is a privilege that any senator can invoke, Ms. Boxer can prevent it from going to the Senate floor for a vote. Under Senate rules, it takes 60 votes to overturn a "hold."

Lynda e-mails to note Folding Star's commentary on the Bolton proceedings:

The Committee's basic job on Nominees is to sound them out fully on behalf of the rest of the Senate, and then move them forward if the Committee finds them suitable for the position. The fact that they moved Bolton's nomination forward without a recommendation to Confirm is a minor victory, to be sure. The lack of recommendation by the Committee could very well give some Republican members of the Senate a legitimate reason to vote against Bolton on the Senate floor.
But, we probably shouldn't hold our breath there. The Republicans control 55 seats, after all. The Democrats would not only all have to stick together on this (hopefully they would do so), they'd have to have at least six Republicans join them in their opposition.
I don't know how likely that is. There are a handful of moderates, it's true, but the pressure on them from Bush and the party leaders to vote in favor will be intense.
Senator Voinovich of Ohio is very likely to vote against Bolton on the floor. He is the only reason, in fact, that the Committee moved the nomination forward without the traditional recommendation. It became clear during the vote today that, though Voinovich would vote to move the nomination forward to the next step, he did not think Bolton right for the job.
In fact, Voinovich couldn't have been more clear about his feelings:
"This is not behavior that should be endorsed as the face of the United States to the world community at the United Nations. It is my opinion that John Bolton is the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be."
In my view, a Senator feeling this way should not have voted to move the nomination forward, especially when he knows that doing so increases the chance of Confirmation greatly. Voinovich, like Senator Chafee, seemed willing to overlook his own serious doubts and reluctance and be a 'team player', putting their political party before the people they represent.

Troy e-mails to note Carlotta Gall's "Protests Against U.S. Spread Across Afghanistan:"

Anti-American violence spread to 10 of Afghanistan's 34 provinces and into Pakistan on Thursday as four more protesters died in a third day of demonstrations and clashes with the police.
Hundreds of students took part in three separate demonstrations here in the capital, where they burned an American flag, and a provincial office of CARE International was ransacked in a continuation of the most widespread protests against the American presence since the fall of the Taliban government more than three years ago.

I'm going to post this to get something up quickly. There are other entries coming up this morning and we'll do another entry on the Times. But between a stream of nonstop phone calls and also my feeling under the weather this morning (with repeated trips to the bathroom to hurl), I'm running way behind. (My apologies for that.)

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

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

Bob e-mails to note this upcoming event via Seattle IndyMedia:

"Rachel Corrie: An American Conscience"
author: Roberto [. . .]

Monday, May 16th
Condon Hall Rm 109
(1100 NE Campus Parkway, University of Washington)
7 pm - 9 pm

This is the first Palestinian film to be shown to the General Assembly at the UN.
Come see the new film for a special screening and discussion with director - in Seattle: "Rachel Corrie: An American Conscience" A Documentary Film From Palestine

Monday, May 16th
Condon Hall Rm 109
(1100 NE Campus Parkway, University of Washington)
7 pm - 9 pm

This is the first Palestinian film to be shown to the General Assembly at the UN. Yahya Barakat, the director of this powerful documentary, goes beyond the politics of the Occupation to depict facts on the ground. He shows the Palestinian dilemma and what motivates members of the international peace movement to come to Palestine. Barakat's earlier movie is "The House of God", a documentary that brought to life the memorable siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem by the Israeli army in 2002. Yahya Barakat will be in attendance at the showing. He is eager to talk with the audience and answer questions after the film.


International Solidarity Movement activist, Rachel Corrie, was killed when an Israeli soldier ran her over with a bulldozer in March 2003. Rachel was from Olympia. The bulldozer is made by Caterpillar which is here in the United State. Rachel died trying to stop the demolition of the home of Dr. Samir Nasrallah and his family. for more info, call 206-568-7110

Presented by Ruckus

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

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

Billie highlights this from North Texas IndyMedia:

PROTEST: Halliburton Annual Shareholders Meeting by Diane Wood - CODEPink and 1919 Hemphill Wednesday, May 11 2005, 5:56pm

Wednesday, May 18, 2005 3:30 p.m. – 5:30 p.m. Halliburton Office Main and 7th Street(Carter-Burgess Plaza) Fort Worth, Texas(FORT WORTH) – On May 18, in Fort Worth and Houston, a blast of whistles will blow to signal an alert to expose Halliburton’s crimes in Iraq. Protesters from Fort Worth will join in solidarity with protesters from Texas and around the country, who will rally and march outside the Halliburton Annual Shareholders Meeting in Houston. North Texas citizens will also be traveling to Houston. Actions will draw attention to Halliburton’s shameful actions in Iraq and demand that the company cease operations in that country.
The Fort Worth whistleblower protest will consist of a peaceful rally outside the Carter-Burgess Plaza, which houses one of the Fort Worth Halliburton offices. "Halliburton, with the help of its friends in the Bush administration, is making a killing off the death, destruction and corruption in Iraq," says Diane Wood, a representative of CODEPink Fort Worth and 1919 Hemphill.
"We're here to blow the whistle on Halliburton, showing that the company's shareholders have the blood of innocent Iraqis, U.S. soldiers, and even Halliburton employees on their hands. It's time for Halliburton to withdraw from Iraq and bring its workers home."
CODEPink is a women-initiated national grassroots peace and social justice movement. CODEPink Fort Worth is co-sponsoring this action. 1919 Hemphill is a local center advocating for a broad spectrum of peace and justice issues. For more information contact Diane Wood at (817) 800-4249, or Ramsey Sprague at (682) 556-0553.

This is an announcement so we're posting it in full and Billie hopes that other members in her area (DFW) will turn out for this. People in nearby areas, or who will be visiting the area May 18th can also turn out.

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

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

From San Diego IndyMedia, we'll note lotu5's "Pablo Paredes Puts the War on Trial." Here's an excerpt:

On May 11th, 2005, Pablo Paredes was found guilty of missing movement. The unauthorized absence charge was dismissed. Sentencing continues today, May 12th in the court martial. BUT, DURING THE PRE-SENTENCING PHASE...Marjorie Cohn made ABSOLUTE MINCEMEAT OUT OF THE PROSECUTION!

Click the link for more including testimony from attendees of the court martial.

For those who missed Democracy Now! today, from Headlines:

Iraq War Resister Pablo Paredes Convicted
In a special court martial proceeding yesterday in San Diego, a military judge convicted Iraq War resister, Navy sailor Pablo Paredes of one of two charges against him for refusing to redeploy to Iraq. The judge dismissed the second charge, saying it was duplicative. Paredes could get up to a year in jail. He faces sentencing today.
New Investigation Ordered in Army Resister Kevin Benderman's Court Martial
Meanwhile in Fort Stewart Georgia, the court martial of another war resister, Army Sergeant Kevin Benderman, came to a sudden halt yesterday when a military judge ordered a new investigative hearing for the soldier. The judge ruled that the investigating officer who recommended trying him in a general court-martial had compromised her impartiality in an e-mail to a military prosecutor.

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

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