Democracy Now! (Marcia: "always worth watching"):
Headlines for May 20, 2005
- NYT: Army Abuse Report Details Widespread
- Carriles Charged
- Uzbekistan Rejects UN Request
- Haiti March for Aristide Return
- U.S. To Fly 100 Israelis to Testify Against Al-Arian
- Desecrated Koran Delivered by Amazon
- Pinochet Hospitalized
- Child Abuse In Military Families

Battle Over Judicial Nominees, Filibuster Heats Up in Senate
The battle over the filibuster continues to heat up in the U.S senate as the nomination of Texas Supreme Court justice Priscilla Owen comes under debate. Racial politics also entered the debate over the nomination of Janice Brown. We speak with Christy Harvey of the Center for American Progress and Jeffrey Johnson of People For The American Way.

Washington Retains Strong Ties With Uzbekistan Despite Notorious Human Rights Record
Uzbek President Islam Karimov has rejected calls for an international inquiry into a bloody crackdown on protesters in the town of Andijan last week that left up to 750 dead. Washington has close links with Uzbekistan despite the country's notorious human rights record. We speak with a researcher with Human Rights Watch, the editorial director of Antiwar.com and we go to Andijan to get a report from the ground.

Indigenous Community in Colombia Fears Start of "Dirty War"
A large indigenous community in Colombia is predicting that a so-called dirty war could break out in an area that has been at the forefront of non-violent resistance to the government of the pro-US regime of President Uribe. We speak with the former mayor of Toribio and a surgeon and human rights activist from Toribio.


Todd e-mails to inform us that BuzzFlash's GOP Hypocrite of the Week is . . .

Welcome back to the BuzzFlash.com GOP Hypocrite of the Week.
Some might call Neal Horsley the "Mule Whisperer" because of his history of mumbling sweet nothings in the hairy ears of a few equestrian hybrids.

To learn how Horsley earned his award, use link to continue reading.

And "let's just give it up to BuzzFlash today" (as Keesha suggested in her e-mail).
Keesha steers us to Dan in Dallas's BuzzFlash contribution "NY Times Hides Galloway in "International," and Leaves Out Damning Testimony." Here's an excerpt:

Today The New York Times hid its news article on the damaging and blistering anti-Bush anti-war testimony of MP Galloway before the US Senate in the NY Times "International" section ... guess that the US Senate is foreign territory now for NY Times editors.And guess who the NY Times had to 'write' its most pro-Bush spin ---- none other than the lying Judith Miller--the neo-cons' mouthpiece at the NY Times. Propagandist Judith Miller is Chalabi's best newswhore that the NY Times put front page for weeks on end in the Bush administration's push-to-war-damn-the-facts "reporter."And don't bother to re-read today's Judith Miller piece on Galloway's Senate testimony thinking you missed what Galloway actually said------because the NY Times did not publish ANY of the damaging testimony of Galloway----IT'S NOT THERE.

Eddie also e-mails to note a BuzzFlash exclusive, Pamela Troy's "Dangerous Clowns" which is the first of a four-part series. Here's an excerpt:

Look up the name "Julius Streicher" in the index of most recent books on the Third Reich and you’re likely to be referred to one or two brief mentions. He was a lout whose anti-Semitic newspaper, Der Sturmer, was so crude that he’s sometimes called “Hitler’s pornographer.” He is usually described as a squat thug with a paltry talent for harnessing the combined power of ignorance and malice, someone who intelligent people could safely ignore with a contemptuous laugh.
Many of those who watched the rise of the Third Reich as it happened weren’t that dismissive. In 1936 Time Magazine referred to him as "One of Nazi Germany’s Most Dangerous Clowns." Hitler himself considered Streicher’s ability to mobilize the masses to the cause of Nazism invaluable and Himmler was quoted in Streicher’s newspaper Der Sturmer, "In times to come when the story of the reawakening of the German people is written, and when the next generation will be unable to understand how the German people could ever have been friendly with the Jews, it will be said that Julius Streicher and his weekly newspaper were responsible for a good part of the education about the enemy of mankind." The tribunal at Nuremberg in 1945 agreed. Part of the indictment against Streicher read:
In the early days he was preaching persecution. As persecution took place he preached extermination and annihilation and, as millions of Jews were exterminated and annihilated, in the Ghettoes of the East, he cried out for more and more. The crime of Streicher is that he made these crimes possible, which they never would have been had it not been for him and for those like him.
For the past twenty years, Streicher's voice has been most faithfully echoed in the pronouncements of people like Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter and countless other less well-known "clowns" who frequent cable TV, talk radio and the Internet. Like Streicher, they are often dismissed as so obviously ridiculous that they’re barely worth the attention of well-informed citizens. And while they are not anti-Semites and their rhetoric is unlikely to lead to the mass murder of those they target, it has, like Streicher's, made mindless hatred not just acceptable in the minds of many people, but downright virtuous.

And another BuzzFlash exclusive is noted by Martha, Wes Owens "Constitutional Crisis 101:"

As I sit here watching the Senate on CSPAN, I see we have arrived at a constitutional crisis.
Because I have made my living working as either a contractor or on the direct payroll of the US Federal Government since 1974, the business of the US Govt has been an interest of mine.I never really appreciated the US Senate as an institution until about 1985 when I became friends with a staffer of ex-Senator Roth (R-Delaware, you remember the Roth IRA?) and was concurrently reading Robert Caro's biography of Lyndon Johnson. If I recall, some critics of Caro's work dismissed the 2nd volume of Caro's bio., "Master of the Senate," as a rehash of high school civics. Not so. You see, just today, I was led to re-read the Constitution of the United States (the internet is a wonderful thing).
This reading of our Constitution reminded me of the fact that in the original document, the founding fathers designed the Senate as a forum where tradition, stability and the rights of the minority have not only a voice, but the means to speak dissent to the power and passions of the current majority. This is fundamental, basic and necessary to our system of checks and balances in the governance of the United States.

I'll note Barbara's Daily BuzzFlash Minute. Here's the opening paragraph:

George Bush is a perfect example of why we don't want biased, partisan, faith-based judges appointed to the courts. Thanks to 5 overly biased, partisan, faith-based Supreme Court Judges who took it upon themselves to overrule the majority vote in the United States and appoint a moron to the presidency, we've had 5 long years of pure hell, with no end in sight! And he wants more of the same to insure our demise and his success in the future. I can see it now, the courts stacked with holier than thou judges who would agree with Bush in 2008 when he decides to become the Dictator he's aspired to be all along! No thank you, Frist, no thank you, Senators, we don't want any more of your biased, partisan, faith-based bull shit! KEEP THE FILIBUSTER IN THE SENATE!!!!


The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
_____________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!

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

Via BuzzFlash, Riverbend's latest at Baghdad Burning:


She stood in the crowded room as her drove of minions stood around her...…A huddling mass trying to draw closer to her aura of evil. The lights flashed against her fangs as her cruel lips curled into a grimace. It was meant to be a smile but it wouldn't reach her cold, lifeless eyes… It was a leer- the leer of the undead before a feeding...
The above was not a scene from Buffy the Vampire Slayer- it was just Condi Rice in Iraq a day ago. At home, we fondly refer to her as The Vampire. She's such a contrast to Bush- he simply looks stupid. She, on the other hand, looks utterly evil. The last two weeks have been violent. The number of explosions in Baghdad alone is frightening. There have also been several assassinations- bodies being found here and there. It's somewhat disturbing to know that corpses are turning up in the most unexpected places.
Many people will tell you it's not wise to eat river fish anymore because they have been nourished on the human remains being dumped into the river. That thought alone has given me more than one sleepless night. It is almost as if Baghdad has turned into a giant graveyard.


From Centcom:

SOLDIER KILLED IN VEHICLE ACCIDENT AFTER IED EXPLOSIONLSA ANACONDA, BALAD, Iraq – One 1st Corps Support Command Soldier was killed in a vehicular accident following an improvised explosive device attack during a combat logistic patrol north of Taji at approximately midnight May 20. The Soldier was evacuated to a nearby medical facility where he was pronounced dead.The name of the Soldier is being withheld pending next of kin notification.

From CounterPunch, Stan Goff's "An Open Letter to Democrats: Listen to Galloway and Learn Something:"


Dear Democratic Elected Officials of the United States (with damn few exceptions),
I am writing this open letter to call your attention to the remarks made day before yesterday, May 17, 2005, to the United States Senate, by British MP George Galloway of the independent Respect Party. I do this because he serves as an example of why your party should be abandoned by the U.S. working class, by U.S. women, by oppressed nationalities in the United States, and by anyone who professes to be a progressive or a leftist.
George Galloway did that for which you have proven incapable; he spoke as an opposition. Since there seems to be a great dark space in the middle of your heads where the notion of opposition should be ­ a void filled by parliamentary molasses and the pusillanimous inabilty to tell simple truths ­ I suggest you all review the recordings of Galloway's confrontation with Republican Senator Norm "Twit" Coleman to see exactly how effortless it is to stand up to these cheap political bullies (watch the video). While you are at it, you can watch your colleague Carl Levin demonstrate exactly what I mean about most of you and your party, as he alternately hurls petulant cream-puff insults at Galloway and kisses Coleman's stunned, clueless ass to give that toothy dipshit some comfort in the wake of Galloway's verbal drubbing.
Galloway didn't have to walk up to the docket and slap the cowboy shit out of Coleman ­ though I admit I still struggle with my own secret urges to do just that with most of the air-brushed, combed-over, Stepford meat-puppets who now people the United States Congress. No, all Galloway had to do was tell the unvarnished truth, and it had exactly the same effect. If Democrats had half the spine that Galloway does if you would stop chasing your creepy little careers through the caviar and chicken-salad circuits of duck-and-cover American political double-speak, then not only would people like me not be calling for all to abandon the Democratic Party and take their fight to the streets like good Bolivians not only that, but you'd have won the last election.

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

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

With Douglas Jehl's "British Memo on U.S. Plans for Iraq War Fuels Critics," the memo the Sunday Times of London ran at the start of this month finally becomes the topic of a news story in the New York Times. (For the record, Monday, Paul Krugman discussed it in his column on the op-ed page. Though I don't focus on the op-eds in my comments, "for the record," it bears noting and linking to.)

More than two weeks after its publication in London, a previously secret British government memorandum that reported in July 2002 that President Bush had decided to "remove Saddam, through military action" is still creating a stir among administration critics. They are portraying it as evidence that Mr. Bush was intent on war with Iraq earlier than the White House has acknowledged.
[. . .]
It has long been known that American military planning for the Iraq war began as early as Nov. 21, 2001, after President Bush directed Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to begin a review of what would be required to oust Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi leader. By July 2002, the war planning was sufficiently advanced that newspaper accounts that month reported details of some of what was being considered.

Jehl is correct that "[i]t has long been known." If the paragraph inspires anger among some (or possibly many), they will hopefully direct it at the paper and not Jehl. The New York Times elected to front page Judith Miller during the lead up to the invasion/occupation. To this day, Jehl's stories are likely to appear in the Saturday paper, in the paper as in "inside." His reporting loses out to various lifestyle stories that the Times trumpets. But on Saturdays and other days, his topics are usually news.

It's news today. And the article's not given much space, nor is it front paged. As various staff from the Times have noted in e-mails, reporters do not determine where the story lands or the headline for their articles.

As I type this, no one's yet to e-mail about it (placement does determine how much attention an article -- and the information it contains -- receives). But if members want to comment on it, we can do an entry on it. However, please remember that Douglas Jehl did not determine where his story was placed. There's also a good chance that he did not suddenly decide to write it. Yazz will grasp that this is an "in fairness" entry. While there are many things to blame the Times reporters for (and I'm sure Jehl hasn't "hit one out of the park everytime" -- to put in one of those sports analogies the Times so enjoys utilizing), with regards to news of the memo not appearing until now and being buried inside the paper, those are issues with the paper and not the reporter. Were Jehl a part of the Elite Fluff Patrol or not regularly buried inside the paper, I probably wouldn't take the time to make this point which is too bad because even the Fluffers deserve a defense. But they'll have to go elsewhere for that.

(Note that Jehl also has another article on an important topic in the paper today, "Intelligence Czar Is Focus of Legislation," and it too is buried inside the paper.)

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

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

Even as the young Afghan man was dying before them, his American jailers continued to torment him.
The prisoner, a slight, 22-year-old taxi driver known only as Dilawar, was hauled from his cell at the detention center in Bagram, Afghanistan, at around 2 a.m. to answer questions about a rocket attack on an American base. When he arrived in the interrogation room, an interpreter who was present said, his legs were bouncing uncontrollably in the plastic chair and his hands were numb. He had been chained by the wrists to the top of his cell for much of the previous four days.
Mr. Dilawar asked for a drink of water, and one of the two interrogators, Specialist Joshua R. Claus, 21, picked up a large plastic bottle. But first he punched a hole in the bottom, the interpreter said, so as the prisoner fumbled weakly with the cap, the water poured out over his orange prison scrubs. The soldier then grabbed the bottle back and began squirting the water forcefully into Mr. Dilawar's face.
"Come on, drink!" the interpreter said Specialist Claus had shouted, as the prisoner gagged on the spray. "Drink!"
At the interrogators' behest, a guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days, could no longer bend. An interrogator told Mr. Dilawar that he could see a doctor after they finished with him. When he was finally sent back to his cell, though, the guards were instructed only to chain the prisoner back to the ceiling.

The above excerpt is from Tim Golden's "In U.S. Report, Brutal Details of 2 Afghan Inmates' Deaths" in this morning's New York Times.

Francisco e-mails to note Tim Golden's "Cuban Exile Is Charged With Illegal Entry:"

Homeland Security Department officials said Thursday that they had charged Luis Posada Carriles, the violent anti-Castro militant, with illegally entering the United States.
The charge could be the first step in the deportation of Mr. Posada, 77, who resurfaced outside Miami and was arrested on Tuesday after 45 years of shadowy combat against Fidel Castro.
It also represents a legal and political dilemma for the Bush administration.

Taylor draws our attention to David E. Rosenbaum and Edmund L. Andrews' "An Architect of Bush Plan on Retirement Urges Retreat:"

Robert C. Pozen, the business executive who developed the theory behind President Bush's plan to trim Social Security benefits in the future, urged the president on Thursday to drop his insistence on using part of workers' taxes to pay for individual investment accounts.
This was one of two blows during the day to Mr. Bush's policies on Social Security and retirement saving. In the House, Representative Bill Thomas, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, disregarded the methods favored by the president to encourage workers to save for retirement - mostly tax incentives for the affluent - and offered completely different proposals of his own.
The president's Social Security and retirement measures have faced trouble in Congress all year, and the developments on Thursday raised further doubt about their prospects.

Lori notes Katharine Q. Seelye's "Red Cross Reported Koran Abuses:"

The International Committee of the Red Cross said yesterday that it had given the Pentagon "multiple" reports from detainees in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, that American personnel had mishandled the Koran. The committee said the complaints from detainees then ceased.
The Pentagon confirmed that it had received these reports from the committee, but characterized the incidents as minor and rare and said that detainees themselves had also mishandled the Koran.

With regards to the Bully Boy's latest war (the war on the Fourth Amendment), Cedric e-mails
Eric Lichtblau's "Democrats Fault Plan for F.B.I.:"

Several Democrats voiced strong objections on Thursday to a plan by the Bush administration and Republican leaders for expanding the Federal Bureau of Investigation's counterterrorism powers and said they would fight to have the issue fully debated in public rather than behind closed doors in the Senate.
"The F.B.I. already has the power to get what they need in investigations," Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat who sits on the Intelligence Committee, said in an interview. "I'm unwilling to give the F.B.I. unfettered authority to conduct investigations and take away the last vestige of accountability, which is essentially what they are seeking here."
A proposal advocated by the Bush administration and Republican leaders on the Senate Intelligence Committee would allow the F.B.I. to demand records from businesses and other institutions in intelligence investigations without getting an order from a judge.

Bernado e-mails to highlight Clifford Krauss' "A Tie-Breaking Vote Saves Liberal Leader in Canada:"

Prime Minister Paul Martin and his Liberal government survived on Thursday evening by a single vote in the House of Commons after limping for months as a result of a party scandal.
While the victory in the deeply divided legislature will avert an immediate election, it probably will mean only a brief respite for Mr. Martin from the continuous political troubles that have shaken his ability to improve security and trade relations with the United States and infused new oxygen into the separatist movement in Quebec.


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

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

This morning while doing quick read over the post with members comments on Daniel Okrent, an e-mail arrived from Ruth (her Ruth's Morning Edition Report). Her post went up (as it always will, we enjoy Ruth's posts) but I thought we might follow up with an interview to round it out. Ruth gladly agreed.

First, the community loves Ruth's Morning Edition Report.

Ruth: Thank you and thank you to all the members who write. I would like to do something on the e-mails in the next week again because I enjoy the feedback, the questions and the comments. I'll also say thank you for adding my correction this morning.

You'd heard "lewd" but then realized the guest on Rehm's show had used "food."

Ruth: Right. "Food fight" not "lewd fight." It was in my notes and when Tracey rad over it, she asked me what was "lewd" about Bill Moyers? That's when I realized I had used the wrong word.

And we'll thank our friend of the community who went and fixed that during the day because I'm not able to. And note that it first got fixed as "rude." I got a call and I was saying "Thank you, but it's 'food.'"

Ruth: I'm sorry if there was any trouble.

No, but I knew it was important to you and I wanted to get it fixed it ASAP. But if a mistake goes up in a post, it is corrected, if you catch it or a member does. But mistakes will happen and I wanted to be sure, after you contacted me about it, that you knew it's not a big deal. Mistakes will be made and as long as they're caught and corrected, it's not a problem. Let's jump into the thing Media Matters did this afternoon. We're talking about an interview that aired on NPR's The Diane Rehm Show.

Ruth: My granddaughter came by to pick up my grandson and she asked me if I'd seen it yet and I hadn't. So I immediately checked that out. It was very strong and covered a great deal. I hope people will read it. Instead of discussing the strong points that Media Matters already covered, I'd like to focus on some additional areas.

We discussed a few issues on this earlier, when we spoke of the correction. There was a frustration on your part with Ken Tomlinson, CPB chair, and you felt you weren't able to go into the interview on your own.

Ruth: It was so frustrating to listen to and, I think I noted this, I couldn't deal with it "straight" and I wasn't able to find a way to deal with it humorously, the way Tracey had suggested, because I just found Mr. Tomlinson so offensive and depressing because he's got the power to destroy NPR.

One thing that you'd mentioned was the comments on Israel and Palestine and since that wasn't in the Media Matters item, how about we start there?

Ruth: Well, obviously, I'm Jewish. A Congressman, Brad Sherman, felt that the Middle-East coverage was biased against Israel and Mr. Tomlinson kept returning to that allegation. Diane made the point of that being one complaint and asked is he'd spoken to anyone else? His reply was that there was a meeting with a lot of Jewish people who were offended by the coverage. I don't doubt that it happened. There are a lot of Jewish people in this country who are offended. But there are a lot more who aren't. Myself, I think we need more coverage of reality and I think NPR tries to provide that. Diane offered that, this is a paraphrase from my notes, "whenever we have done a program on what's happening in the Middle East we have always tried to represent the Palestinian perspective and the Israeli perspective and on each program they have been criticized from both sides of having favored one." Mr. Tomlinson wouldn't address specifics and resorted to terms such as case by case basis. He said let it be decided on a case by case basis. Diane asked for an example and he couldn't provide one, he fumbled around and started saying the examples would come later but that people needed to have their complaints heard and addressed. Which led to Diane pointing out something very basic, NPR already has its own ombudsmen doing that and yet he's assigning two ombudsmen in addition to that, to cover both NPR and PBS. Coming as it did in the conversation, it could be thought that the ombudsmen were being added in some part due to the Middle East coverage.

Mr. Tomlinson repeatedly cited a right-wing advocacy group for Israel. He wasn't interested, when Diane brought up the question, of whether or not some listeners might find the Middle East coverage anti-Arab. He also compared NPR to the NRA. Diane asked him if he'd heard any complaints that the coverage was anti-Palestinian and he didn't want to address that issue. He was very selective in what he cited and what he chose to discuss. So, when I was reading the Media Matters review, I thought this was something that didn't get mentioned that we could pick up here.

That segment really bothered you. When we spoke earlier in the day, that was the first thing you identified.

Ruth: It bothers me because I didn't enjoy my religious beliefs being lumped in with people I share nothing with. Mr. Tomlinson spoke as though all Jewish people, because they were Jewish, felt one way which is simply not true. He portrayed as a monolithic, right-wing group. There is a faction of that among Jews in this country but it's a small overall faction. In the larger picture, you do have people who are apethetic and you do have people who feel that the faction is knee jerk and not reflective of any consensus. Diane noted that he was citing the views of advocacy group. Mr. Tomlinson cut her off, as he did frequently, and the issue she attempted to raise was that this group was a sub-section of the American Jewish community. This may have been, it probably was, why I had so much trouble offering anything to the community other than what I did. Mr. Tomlinson stereotyped and traditionally stereotypes have harmed all Jews regardless of their political or personal beliefs.

What you offered was a kind of heads up.

Ruth: Exactly. But it troubles me, and I'm probably not addressing this correctly, that Mr. Tomlinson wanted to advocate a position and instead of honestly stating that he was utilizing a right-wing group of hawks to back up his opinion, he attempted to portray the divide as "The Jewish people are offended." That's not the case. He was using us for cover to hide behind. Then we had Congressman Sherman call in and make similar claims. This was an important part of the broadcast to me and the best I feel like I'm doing right now is going around circles.

Okay, let me offer something and you can respond to it. Tomlinson wants to argue that the coverage of NPR, the reporting, is anti-Jewish, he used that term repeatedly. To make the claim, he appears to equate support for the policies of the Israeli government's actions with being Jewish? Is that a correct reading of your impressions?

Ruth: That's it in a nut shell. Israel is foreign government, a government, not a religion, not a club. No government is beyond criticism. Somehow Mr. Tomlinson appears to feel that because I'm Jewish, my loyalties are with, automatically with, a foreign government. I am American and I am Jewish. I'm also a widow. My husband passed away several years ago. If I wanted to live in Israel, I'd live in Israel. It's not my home. The United States is my home and I felt offended that, because a group of right-wing hawks want to act in a manner similar to the way right-wing Cuban exiles in Florida might act, Mr. Tomlinson wants to equate my religion with some allegience to a foreign government. Mr. Tomlison is doing that to push his own agenda and may or may not be aware of it. But as an elderly Jewish woman, I am quite aware of the nonsense of "Jewish conspiracy" and the nonsense of "divided loyalties" and how both have been used historically to stigmatize Jewish people. He's using it to advance his own agenda and may or may not be aware of how offensive his stereotype is but it is offensive and, historically, that stereotype has resulted in actions that harmed all Jews. That a voice, with power on the CPB, wants to promote stereotypes that are in fact harmful honestly disgusts me.

We have a members in our community who are very intelligent, much smarter than I am, but we also get visitors every day and in case anyone's confused on this point, I'd like to you to elaborate on the "Jewish consiparcy" myths.

Ruth: Historically, they've been used to do harm to Jewish people. Whether it's that we control all the money in the world or that we're sacrficing babies or whatever nonsense has been put out there in this stereotype, it always creates the impression that we're not fully vested in the larger communities in which we live. We're, instead, according to the stereotype, attempting to control the world. The result is that a Hitler or whomever comes along and uses the stereotype to justify harm to all Jewish people. That's the extreme harm that can come, a loss of life, an extermination of a people. But the stereotype is harmful on a day to day basis as well.

There is a faction, of Jews in this country, with loyalties that might appear to lie partially or completely with the Israeli government. But it's a faction. When Mr. Tomlinson equates being Jewish with support for a government, a foreign government, he falls back on a dangerous stereotype that's brought great harm to all Jews. I find it offensive as a Jewish woman. I hope that the use of such a stereotype reveals Mr. Tomlinson's ignorance because I hope that he wouldn't engage in dangerous stereotypes he knew were false just for political gain.

And, while we're addressing the issue of the government of Israel, it should be noted that not all Israelies support the actions of the Sharon government.

Ruth: Correct. There are divisions within their own country. You can see it with the actions of the refuseniks who refuse to serve in the Israeli army or with the opinions regarding the wall that would act as physical barrier or border. I hope that this is just a case of Mr. Tomlinson being an outsider looking in that results in his reducing all Jewish people to a monolithic group sharing one set of opinions and beliefs. But regardless of why he's doing it, what he's doing is stereotyping and using a historically dangerous stereotype. As someone servince on the CPB board --

Corporation of Public Broadcasting.

Ruth: Corporation of Public Broadcasting, right. As someone serving on a public board, he has no business in engaging in stereotypes. I honestly feel he should be removed from the board immediately. He should be asked to step down because he has promoted a very dangerous stereotype that has been historically harmful. Public broadcasting, NPR or PBS, is a domestic organization that's meant to represent the American people. By equating my religion with a foreign government, he's cast me as less American than some. That is offensive to me and suggests that he is unable to represent the people of this country. He did not merely acknowledge that a segment of Jewish people in this country might feel a certain way. He repeatedly implied that this is how all Jews in this country feel, that to be Jewish was to subscribe to this one belief system. That is not the case. When Diane asked him for examples of bias in the reporting, he was unable to provide any. I bring that up again because he is going impressions and stereotypes and anyone doing that needs to be working at a private organization and not one responsible for serving the public.

You spoke earlier of National Congress Radio.

Ruth: Tomlinson only values the voices he wants to value. That's evident when he listens only to one group of Jews. It's also evident when he places so much weight on the opinions of Congressman Brad Sherman, for instance. The wall that CPB is supposed to provide between the Congress and the people at NPR or PBS is being torn apart. Congressman Sherman, who later called in to the program, was cited repeatedly by Mr. Tomlinson. I'm confused as to why a Congressman's opinion matters more than the public's. It is National Public Radio. It is not National Congress Radio. I believe they already have C-Span as their voice and NPR belongs to the public.

With e-mailers and callers, Mr. Tomlinson openly mocked their opinions. It is National Public Radio, not National Congress Radio. Jeff Chester made a similar point when he called in to the show.

Jeff Chester of the Center for Digital Democracy.

Ruth: Correct. Mr. Chester made the point that public broadcasting is for the public and not intended to be an arm of the government. Mr. Tomlinson fails to grasp that.

You spoke earlier of how the interview bothered you in terms of NPR's future. What is your
fear of what Tomlinson means to the future of NPR?

Ruth: This is a man, Mr. Tomlinson, who can't comprehend the difference between reporting, which is what NOW often does, and a talking heads show full of pundits offering their opinions. He thinks that NOW and Paul Gigot's show are equivalent. He even said they were both advocacy journalism which implies that he doesn't grasp what advocacy journalism traditionally entails.
Gigot's show is editorializing, it's op-ed, it's not reporting. Mr. Tomlinson equates opinion with reporting and that's a very dangerous misunderstanding. Diane addressed his spoken of desire to replace news programming with classical music. I'm unaware of any public cry for make classical music. But it's another step in removing actual reporting. When it aired, my hands were trembling as I made notes. I thought Diane did a great job. I thought she pressed him to answer questions and I think if it weren't for her earlier show, he wouldn't have even felt compelled to respond to the public criticism. She interviewed him and allowed to him express his opinions. What I heard was disturbing to me.

If we can, I want to return to a point you made earlier, when Tomlinson brought up the NRA.

Ruth: He referred to NPR's listeners as "liberal" and stated that they get aroused when they perceive NPR is under attack the same way that NRA members get aroused when they feel the Second Amendment is under attack.

Second Amendment being the right to bear arms.

Ruth: If he's attempting to suggest that NPR listeners are concerned with the free speech clause of the First Amendment, he's correct. Like the Bully Boy, he's attacking facts as "liberal." He sees "liberal" everywhere. NPR was liberal in its early days. But as Scott Sherman pointed out those days were some time ago. They have moved into the mainstream. Mr. Tomlinson is either unaware of that or he's pulling out a straw man. But when he speaks of Gigot's need to balance out NOW, he's unconcerned that PBS offers stock market programming on the economy but no weekly programs on the economy that address a working class perspective.

He is either unable to move beyond his very narrow views, full of stereotypes, or he's aware that he's being dishonest. Either way, he is a danger to PBS and NPR. I've listened to NPR my entire adult life. Morning Edition has suffered tremendously since the departure of Bob Edwards. But The Diane Rehm Show, Nina Totenberg and other old lions continue to make it worth listening to and continue to provide information and serve the public. I was, and still am, worried about what it means for NPR that the kiddie patrol lacks the skills of the old lions because when they retire or are forced out we're not left with much. The purpose of my contributions here was that by highlighting the current problems, a dialogue could be started and members could address this before it was too late for NPR. If Mr. Tomlinson is put in charge, I fear that there's no time to address it. By his statements, he's interested in destroying NPR as a news provider and he's interested in replacing news with opinion.

NPR's strength is a serious discussion with perspective and that appears to be the very thing that Mr. Tomlinson wants to destroy. When I started doing my contributions here, I assumed that there was time to plant some seeds in the minds of a few members who would plant seeds in their own circles. The hope was that the dialogue would allow for NPR to strengthen their best qualities and that my grandchildren would be growing up with a strong news source. With Mr. Tomlison on the horizon, I now worry that those hopes have been voided.

The community is split on NPR in terms of whether it's worth saving or not. We're a community of the left and we don't see the rampant liberalism at NPR that Tomlinson does. But, as you know from the e-mails that are forwarded to you, your earlier remarks on the importance you still see NPR having did touch some who were otherwise prepared to write NPR off. FAIR's latest action alert regarding the CPB provides contact information and we'll provide a link because I'm thinking that your remarks tonight will make some who haven't gotten involved want to take action.

Ruth: I understand why some would feel "What's the point?" You wrote about that and how you were sure you'd take part in an attempt to save NPR and PBS again but you were distressed by the impression that NPR and PBS stood on the sidelines during the battles. Has your opinion changed?

I think Diane Rehm has done a wonderful job. There's obviously a line she has to acknowledge, as a journalist, and she's done that. She's raised the issue and made sure that NPR listeners had access to information. I'm less impressed with what I've heard on other NPR shows. Rehm's one of the "old lions," as you call them. Media Channel.org has a take action page on this issue and we'll provide a link to that. Media Matters' entry also includes contact information so members who are interested can go there as well. In terms of making a difference, I think to this community, you've made a strong case for activism on this issue. Rebecca (Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude) has noted that your remarks and calling attention to Diane Rehm's previous show on this topic made her decide to fight the fight one more time. Between her post and the e-mails that arrive, I think an impact's been made that wouldn't have been otherwise.
I do understand the attitude of why should we bother again and I do understand those who feel we'd be smarter to invest our time and monies into BuzzFlash, Democracy Now!, The Nation, The Progressive, Free Speech Radio News, et al. Speaking for myself and not the community, I'm willing to sign on for one battle to defend public broadcasting. And I'll give you and Diane Rehm equal credit for that.
Before we go, I'd like to touch on a non-public broadcasting issue. In your last two Ruth's Morning Edition Report, you included no Yiddish words. I wish you would include them. I was discussing that and some members reactions with a friend during a long phone call this weekend (the battery in her cordless phone went out). This week Francisco offered a comment on Daniel Okrent for the community and he used two Spanish words. One was for trash and I understood it immediately. The other I didn't know. That's fine. If I want to know it, I'll look it up and I feel that any member can do that. Type in the word in a search engine and I'm sure you'll be able to find a definition. I've always encouraged Francisco to use Spanish whenever he wanted to. I always harp on the need for more voices -- not less. Part of "more voices" includes not just opinions, but also expression. When you use a Yiddish term, members who know Yiddish, or some Yiddish, are delighted. Those who don't should be able to determine the meaning from the context or by looking it up online. So I hope you won't censor yourself.

Ruth: There have been a few e-mails, as you know, that have requested I stop using a Yiddish word here and there. Tracey, my granddaughter, also expressed her displeasure that none were used in two entries this week. I think, if I had used them in the last entry for instance, I wouldn't have felt so frustrated and unable to address my reaction to Mr. Tomlinson's statements and attitude. So they will be popping back up. If I could, I'd also like to address why it's always called Ruth's Morning Edition Report. That's the show I can always listen to in the morning while I'm getting ready for the day and waiting for my grandson to be dropped off. If I hear a promo for a show on later in the day that sounds interesting, I'll drag out all the toys and we'll be in the middle of the living room playing during that show. I still call it Ruth's Morning Edition Report because if I'm emphasizing Diane's show or another show, it's saying that I heard nothing on Morning Edition that moved enough to comment. When Bob Edwards hosted the show, I could always find something worth commenting on. But if I'm focusing on another show that means that either Morning Edition had nothing that I thought was worth commenting on or that
Nina Totenberg did a report and there's not much I could say to that other than, "Listen, she knows what she's talking about." For instance, this morning she gave a strong, historical report on Robert Bork. You're not going to get that sort of reporting on Good Morning America, The Today Show or whatever CBS is calling their latest attempt at a morning show.

Absolutely.

Ruth: The statement was made, by Congressman Sherman when he called in, that an internal report by NPR was impossible for him to get ahold of. While he did have the report, he didn't have the research data. He was speaking of an internal study of NPR's Middle East coverage. Tomlinson never noted, as Media Matters does, that he's refused to release the study he commissioned with tax payer funds on Bill Moyer's Now. I'd like to quote two paragraphs from the Media Matters report:
In the interview on the May 18 edition of NPR's The Diane Rehm Show, responding to an email from a listener who cited "numerous conservative figures" appearing on Moyers' program, Tomlinson responded in jest, "Am I gonna have to go back and hire another consultant and demonstrate this is incorrect?" The reference was to an outside content review study of NOW he reportedly commissioned in 2004. The study is reported to have cost taxpayers $10,000, but Media Matters for America has been unable to determine the identity of the firm conducting the study. Further, Tomlinson never sent the results to the CPB board, and he has yet to release them to the public [The New York Times, 5/2/05].
The identity of the firm conducting the study would be relevant for a number of reasons, including Tomlinson's apparent willingness to engage the services of a conservative firm that employs questionable methodologies. Tomlinson has reportedly contacted S. Robert Lichter, president of the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA), "about conducting a study on whether NPR's Middle East coverage was more favorable to Arabs than to Israelis." As Media Matters has noted (here and here), CMPA, which has received funding from right-wing organizations, has conducted numerous flawed studies purporting to confirm liberal bias in media and academia, and Lichter himself has misrepresented those findings in media interviews.
While Congressman Sherman complained that he'd only been able to see a report, not the research, on a study of NPR's Middle East coverage, Mr. Tomlinson refuses to release the report he had commissioned, at tax payer expense, on Bill Moyer's Now.

Good point. Diane Rehm's interview with Ken Tomlinson aired Wednesday, May 18th and people can listen to it online.

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

[This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]
 

From Baltimore IMC, Susan e-mails to note William Hughes' "Jobless America: Outsourcing Prosperity!" Here's an excerpt:

How can there be a so-called "economic recovery" without the creation of new jobs? Well, thanks to author, activist and social critic, Stanley Aronowitz, we now know the scheming Plutocrats have been able to "delink" the two. Speaking in Baltimore, MD, at Red Emma's Coffeehouse, he detailed some of the means used to deprived workers in this country of their jobs. Outsourcing, of course, is only one of those Labor-bashing tactics.
Baltimore, MD - Stanley Aronowitz's timing was impeccable! The activist, author and educator arrived in town, on Friday, May 13, 2005, to talk about a continuing economic crisis. He labeled it as "The Paradox of the Jobless Recovery," which is also part of the title of his latest book. (1) On the same day that he arrived, General Motors' sprawling Broening Highway plant, which had been in operation for over 70 years, closed its doors forever. It is located on the east side of the city. Over 1,100 of its workers were permanently put out of their jobs through no fault of their own. The GM plant's demise, as a manufacturing colossus, follows hard on the heels of the collapse of the once-mighty Bethlehem Steel, and its Sparrows Point plant, and the earlier loss, also on the east side, of the Western Electric facility.
"There are about 121 millions jobs in this country for wages and salaries," Aronowitz began, "in both the public and private sector. A small percentage of the jobs in the private sector, however - very small - are tied to the domestic economy. The rest in the private sector are connected to the global economy. As a result of that connection, we have lost about 10 million jobs, industrial jobs, the very best paying jobs, in recent years. Today, we have an estimated 11.5 million factory jobs left. In the steel industry, back in the late 50s, there were 600,000 steel workers. Today, we only have 175,000 jobs left. We have lost almost 2/3 of the good paying steel-working jobs that we once had in this country," he lamented.
Aronowitz emphasized that this is all part of "the bleeding that is going on in the U.S."
Referring to the GM plant closure in Baltimore and a recent plant closing in New Jersey, he added, "Plants shut down and plants stay open, and the working class, understandably, gets jittery about what is going on. What is going to happen next? Of course, outsourcing is one of the main things that is going on." Over the decades, under Democrats and Republicans, Aronowitz found, as he details in his latest tome, that economic growth had become "delinked" from job creation and that the rich have received "financial windfalls" at the expense of most other Americans as a result of that unfair, deindustrialization process.

Colorado IMC is back up and I know we're all happy about that. Glen Newell has
"Hacker, Schmacker- A COIMC volunteer responds" which is a response to the way the hack has been played out in Boulder Weekly. We're going to note it in full:

Let me begin by saying it's clear to me that Joel Warner is good at his job: He got all the right facts in the right order, he talked to everyone he ought to, and he told a really good story. I was enthralled.
Trouble is, it's just a story.
True- facts are facts, and most of them are there. But facts can be presented in such a way that it becomes clear that rather than tell the story as it is, Joel Warner , the NEWS EDITOR for the Boulder Weekly ('Boulder's true alternative voice'), is about selling newspapers. That's a fact, too. It's his JOB.
First, as a volunteer for the Colorado Independent Media Center , I am disappointed: I am saddened by the characterization of the criminal 'Clorox' as some kind of misunderstood hero. He committed a crime, not only against the law, but against the very principles we hold most sacred as an organization: everyone gets a voice, noone gets shut out, we're a community of volunteers dedicated to serving social good. What he did was the philisophical and moral equivalent of driving by a community center and throwing a brick through the window.
It took very little actual skill, and his tantrum ruined a good thing for a bunch of other people, and only for a short time ( so not only was it childish and selfish, it was wasteful and inefficient). I can't speak for other IMC's, but I can tell you /I'm fairly certain /that no volunteer content manager would 'dump' an article simply because it was pro-bush, if at all. It's simply not true that he was ostracized for his political beliefs.
I will even make an offer publicly that if he is serious about writing, he should post to our open wire. If he's as smart as he thinks he is, and has something to say, I bet there are people who want to hear it. On the other hand, as I understand it, there is some history here, antagonism that goes back further in history than he will admit, and noone is required to facilitate bullying, especially volunteers.
Next, as an Information Technology professional, I am appalled at the comparison of these kinds of miscreants as heros: Clorox the punk has nothing at all in common with Oxblood Ruffin or Kevin Mitnick: both of these men, as well as the MIT engineers who coined the moniker many would like to lend this childish thug, would view him as nothing more complimentary than a precocious infant.
As for 'letting us find him on purpose', that's hogwash. The people that found him are smart, experienced professionals. If he really wanted to do something that he could be recognized for, why has he used TWO diffferent aliases ( that we know of) in his vandalism? What he has proved is nothing more than it is possible to do what he did, but noone ever denied it was possible. It's just that most grown-up people would deny that it was necessary.
One of the subjects Warner interviews tries to liken himself to the 'A Team' ( that's a TV SHOW, by the way...) but this group of common thugs ( okay, goons is an appropriate title) has niether the skill, nor the committment, nor the pr staff for the comparison . And furthermore, the several mis-used references both to 'hacker' culture and technology, bring into doubt the quality of the research conducted, even if he did talk to all the right parties.
"It would be kind of neat to have my face in the paper." (Clorox)
What a telling quote that is. And you, Mr Warner, played right into his adolescent fantasy. I say shame on you.
Glen Newell
Volunteer, Colorado Independent Media Center
Information Technology Consultant

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

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

For those wondering how last weekend's independent media conference went, from Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center, we'll note John Peebles' "Seymour Hersh, Other Prominent Media Personalities Offer Perspectives on Media Control at University of Illinois Conference:"

Democracy Now's Amy Goodman was one of several distinguished guests, including Seymour Hersh, Rep. Bernie Sanders, Phil Donahue, Naomi Klein and other prominent media professionals....
Hersh claimed the Iraq War was increasingly being conducted "off the books" by mercenaries, retired military personnel, and private contractors beyond the scope of accountability.... "Body bags aren’t going to stop him," Hersh said, referring to Bush....
According to...Congressman (Sanders), this media distortion is no accident; as fewer and fewer corporations control more and more media outlets, viewpoints are increasingly channeled and contrived to benefit narrow commercial interests at the expense of the public good....Klein defined the obsessive prominence of the Michael Jackson and Terri Schiavo cases in the media as "spasms of collective mourning."
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign was the site of a conference entitled “Can Freedom of the Press Survive Media Consolidation?” on May 10th and 11th, 2005.
The Conference focused on the impact of media conglomeration and corporate control on the dissemination of news in the United States.
Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman was one of several distinguished guests, including Seymour Hersh, Rep. Bernie Sanders, Phil Donahue, Naomi Klein and other prominent media professionals.
The Illinois Initiative for Media Policy Research sponsored the conference in conjunction with various University of Illinois academic departments and the Center for Advanced Study/MillerComm series. University of Illinois Professor Robert McChesney, Executive Director of I.I.M.P.R., was instrumental in organizing the conference.
According to McChesney, the press' failure to provide unbiased information in the lead-up to the Iraqi War repeated similar tendencies from previous American wars. Early in the history of the American Republic, founders saw the dangerous consequences of unchecked military power, and sought to balance the threat with public accountability for decision-makers, in a strong press protected by the 1st Amendment.
McChesney also criticized large media corporations for claiming to act in the public’s name while using their powerful lobbying influence to limit media ownership and control.
Kicking off the conference was Seymour Hersh, famous for reporting the My Lai massacre from the Vietnam War, and more recently recognized for breaking the inmate abuse story at Abu Ghraib.
Hersh claimed the Iraq War was increasingly being conducted "off the books" by mercenaries, retired military personnel, and private contractors beyond the scope of accountability.
The Pulitzer-prize winning journalist revisited the Abu Ghraib story, noting how prosecution focused on the prosecuted guards as "bad seeds," while ignoring the possibility of any illicit behavior from higher-ups in the chain of command. Hersh alluded to photographs of inmates engaged in homosexual acts as an intentional violation of Arab cultural precepts, as a "way to the soul of the Arab man."
Hersh highlighted the inaction of the Bush Administration in a timeline which began with photographs of abuse at the prison taken in September, 2003, and culminated in a disk sent up the chain-of-command in January, 2004, which Defense Secretary Rumsfeld called "a catastrophic blow to winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis," should it be made public. Steering responsibility for Abu Ghraib toward Rumsfeld, Hersh claimed the Defense Secretary had been "de-programmed"--judging from a lack of any coherent response to the briefings he'd been through which must have addressed the events at Abu Ghraib.
The Arab world now sees the US as a "sexually perverse society" because of the photos, Hersh said.
The investigative journalist alluded to disturbing recent events in Iraq--including the reconstitution of Saddam's secret police formerly known as the Mukhabarat. As for the January elections in Iraq, Hersh said voting was conducted exclusively along religious and tribal lines, and threatened to cut Iraq into pieces, under militia rule. The US is apparently looking the other way as Kurds assert military control over strategic oil fields in Northern Iraq.
Information has been increasingly hard to come by through traditional sources, Hersh said. Information on targets hit and the quantities of bombs dropped in Iraq has become unavailable since the bombing campaign accelerated in the Fall of 2004, unlike Vietnam, where Hersh said data had been readily available.
Hersh referred to attempts by the US military to limit information on Iraqi casualties in Fallujah, preceding the US attack on the city in November, 2004, as referenced in the English paper The Guardian (1).
According to the accounts of Dr. Ali Fadhil, doctors in Fallujah had been tied up and their cell phones taken, as to prevent casualty data from escaping the US zone of control around the city.
Hersh alluded to many of the current problems in Iraq as the direct result of military action by the US which targeted key Iraqi ministries early in the Occupation. The "machinery of occupation" has undoubtedly contributed to the "insurgency", a term Hersh said had been spun to give the mistaken impression of a US victory, followed by some form of rebellion against a legitimate government--terminology which avoids any notion of resistance to illegitimate foreign occupation.
On the domestic front, Hersh said Bush is convinced that democracy can be brought to Iraq, despite clear indications from his advisers that his goals for the nation are not being achieved. "Body bags aren’t going to stop him," Hersh said, referring to Bush.

Also from the Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center, we'll note Philip Stinard's "Puerto Rican legislature paralyzed by losing gubernatorial candidate’s quest for power:"

Pedro Rosselló, defeated New Progressive Party (NPP) candidate for Puerto Rican Governor in the November 2004 elections, has brought Puerto Rican Senate business nearly to a standstill in his unrelenting quest for the presidency of that legislative body. The Puerto Rican people rejected Rosselló as governor in the 2004 election, Rosselló was not elected to the Puerto Rican Senate and Rosselló does not have the support of his fellow Senators to be Senate President. However, in Puerto Rican politics, these are just minor inconveniences.
Pedro Rosselló, defeated New Progressive Party (NPP) candidate for Puerto Rican Governor in the November 2004 elections, has brought Puerto Rican Senate business nearly to a standstill in his unrelenting quest for the presidency of that legislative body. After losing a hotly contested election to Popular Democratic Party (PDP) candidate Aníbal Acevedo Vilá, the former Governor (1993-2001) and NPP President vowed to rule Puerto Rico from the Senate, and he was not content with being "just another Senator," he had to be Senate President. He only had two obstacles in his way: he was not a Senator, and the Senate had already elected a President, NPP Senator Kenneth McClintock.
No stranger to corruption during his previous stint as governor (cabinet members and political associates diverted public funds for AIDS treatment to NPP politicians, used public monies for partisan political activities, sold off public assets to cronies, etc.), Rosselló exercised all of the political pressure at his disposal, cajoling, threatening, and bribing the newly elected Senators from his party in the hopes that one would resign so that he could be appointed in their stead. The pressure paid off, and a Senator from Rosselló’s home district of Arecibo (alleged home district, since Rosselló had recently moved to Puerto Rico from Virginia to run for governor "at the request of the people of Puerto Rico") resigned hours after being sworn in. After Rosselló occupied the empty seat, he expected his party's Senators to lie down at his feet and declare him Senate President, but he had forgotten that he had personally approved McClintock’s presidency at a November 4 party caucus, following the election, but before a winner was declared in the gubernatorial race, and McClintock was not going to give up his position of privilege willingly.
Rosselló used his position as NPP President to convene an assembly of NPP delegates on May 15, and he set the following rules: the delegates were to select the Senate President from between Rosselló and McClintock, and any Senator who did not vote for the President chosen by the assembly would be disciplined, up to and including expulsion from the NPP. The results were a foregone conclusion. McClintock supporters boycotted the assembly, and fewer than 50% of the eligible delegates voted. Among the delegates who did vote, 96% supported Rosselló, and Rosselló declared a mandate for assuming the Senate Presidency. "The people have spoken, and I must obey."

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

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

At IPS (Inter Press Service) Dahr Jamail has an article entitled "Iraq: U.S. Claims Over Seige Challenged." Here's an excerpt:

As with the siege of Fallujah six months back, U.S. claims over the siege of the Iraqi town Al Qa'im are being challenged now by independent sources.
The U.S. military claims a "successful" end to the weeklong operation earlier this month around Al-Qa'im, a town about 320km west of Baghdad close to the Syrian border. The operation was launched against what the U.S. military saw as the presence of Al-Qaeda fighters in the town. Iraqi civilians and doctors in the area say no foreign fighters were present in the town.
Al Qa'im and surrounding areas have suffered great destruction, and many in the town population of 110,000 were killed, they say.
Abu Ahmed, a resident of Al-Qa'im, told IPS on telephone that "all the fighters here are Iraqis from this area."
He said continuing violations by U.S. soldiers had provoked people into confronting the occupying forces. He said troops had been raiding homes, sending women into the streets without their hijabs and entering areas where women sleep.
"The fighters are just local people who refuse to be treated like dogs," he said. "Nobody wants the Americans here."
Abd al-Khaliq al-Rawi, head of communications for the local government in Al-Qa'im said on Al-Jazeera television that the fighters were all local Iraqis. "We have not seen any outsiders. The fighters are from the area. They are resisting the occupation."

From the Independent Media Center, we'll note this "Police detained an independent journalist and charged him with assaulting a police officer!" Here's an excerpt:

On Mon 16th May in Warsaw, during politicians' talks during the third summit of the Council of Europe, demonstrations organised by grassroots citizens' movements from around Poland. The demonstrators protested against the hypocrisy of Council of Europe politicians and the inclusion of states in which human rights are violated (e.g. Russia and Turkey) and whose leaders are responsible for the war in Iraq.
After the demonstration, a conflictual incident with the police occurred. The full events were reported live by Independent Media - INDYMEDIA POLAND. When protesters started leaving to go home, police started checking people's identities and detained a selected number of people (see the film at indymedia poland).
11 people were detained, including 3 members of Amnesty International, a woman journalist working together with Indymedia as well as an Indymedia reporter, who was filming the police behaviour during the demonstration with a film camera. The Indymedia reporter - Grzegorz Prujszczyk - was wearing a reflective orange vest with the word PRESS and was reporting and documenting the demonstration; he was in no way involved in the conflictual incident which had occurred earlier with the police. The police have filed against him summary charges of assaulting a police officer; the first court hearing occurred Wed 18th May (today). Neither family nor journalists were given access to him. The court decided to commit Grzegorz to (partial) police custody until the next hearing. He is threatened with a penalty with a maximum sentence of 8 years' imprisonment. Lesser charges were placed against 10 other people, for example, insulting police officers, and they were freed after about 20 hours of detention.

From UK Indymedia, Terrence e-mails "One year of DIY culture:"

The UK has had it's share of squatted political spaces over the decades but the last few years has seen something of a resurgence in activity, inspired by the strong social centres movement found in Spain and Italy etc. Social Centres have been springing up all over the country but their existance is often precarious, dependent either on maintaining rent or retaining a squatted property.
[. . .]

ramPARTY details and lineup
Other coming events:
22nd May - Movimientos Day School
27th May - Post-criticalmass G8 Bike Ride Benefit (flyer)
28th May - GUADALAJARE Benefit

From Ireland's Indymedia I.E., Bernado e-mails "Interview: Postal Workers Under Fire
by Kevin Doyle:"

Over the last year or so, the working conditions of staff in An Post have been the subject of cutbacks and attacks by its management and ultimately the government. This includes shutting the SDS Courier service, withholding pay-rises, and understaffing many sorting offices. The strategy is to undermine workers' morale and thereby to facilitate either privatisation or simply to weaken An Post in order to benefit private competitors. Kevin Doyle interviews a postal worker in Cork to find out the mood on the shop floor.
- What is the situation in An Post now?
Right now they are the focus of privatisation efforts in the public sector. They are not needed like ESB workers who can stop power, nor are they seen as essential like health workers. They are perceived as an easier target and are weaker.
- Was the recent shutting down of SDS a part of this strategy?
Yes, it had to do with the opening of the markets wider for the private mail companies that are already working in Ireland and making profit - like DHL, Federal Express etc. These companies only deal with parcels and packets and it's a profitable business. SDS provided the same service at low cost, which is what you expect of a public service, but now with SDS out of the way, it will be even better for the private operators. People need to realise how dangerous privatisation will be. Right now wherever you live in Ireland you get the service that anyone else gets... it's even. But privatisation will change that. The money is to be made in the high population density areas where post can be moved in bulk easily. So a lot of people and a lot of communities will lose out if privatisation happens. The service will become uneven and unequal.
- How is the privatisation issue being pushed?
An Post management is trying to convince the workforce that privatisation is the only way forward for the company. It is a EU directive, they claim, that cannot be ignored. It's a method of bullying. As part of this we see all the new investment in technology. But the new technology has not increased productivity. Similarly, they want to leave a lot of workers go, on the grounds that it would make An Post more efficient. Management claim they have no money to pay workers and yet the give themselves huge bonuses and salaries.

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

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

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

Headlines for May 19, 2005
- U.S. Rethinks Plans to Cut Back Troop Level
- Army Officers Staged Mock Executions in Iraq
- Senate Opens Judicial Nominee Debate
- AIDS Becomes Leading Cause of Death in South Africa
- FBI May Gain More Power To Subpoena Records
- FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force Criticized
- Environmental & Animal Rights Activists Seen As Threat
- 16 Arrested At Halliburton Protest in Houston

A Life of Reinvention: Manning Marable Chronicles the Life of Malcolm X
Malcolm X was born 80 years ago today. To commemorate the occasion we hear a speech by Columbia University professor Manning Marable chronicling his life. Marable is currently working on a major new biography of Malcolm X which is tentatively titled "Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention."

Malcolm X: Make it Plain
On the 80th anniversary of Malcolm X's birthday we play excerpts of the documentary, "Malcolm X: Make it Plain" produced and directed by Orlando Bagwell. It includes rare archival footage of Malcolm X as well as interviews with such figures as John Henrik Clarke, Maya Angelou, Ossie Davis and much more.

From Headlines, we'll note this item:

FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force Criticized For Questioning Activists
The FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force is coming under new scrutiny for a series of interviews it conducted ahead of last year's political conventions. Dozens of activists and antiwar protesters were questioned by local and federal authorities. At the time FBI officials and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft said that the interviews were based on indications that protesters may be planning violent disruptions. Authorities said one specific threat involved plans to blow up a media van in Boston. But now the FBI has begun releasing documents connected to the conventions and they tell a different story. According to the Washington Post, the new memos provide no indication of specific threat information. Instead, one heavily censored memo from the FBI's Denver field office, characterized the effort as "pretext interviews to gain general information concerning possible criminal activity at the upcoming political conventions and presidential election." Mark Silverstein, of the ACLU of Colorado, said "It's absolutely clear now that the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force -- the one right here in Denver -- is collecting information about peaceful political activity that has nothing to do with terrorism."

From Ruth Conniff's Monday blog at The Progressive, KeShawn e-mails to note "Hillary, Newt, and the real leftwing candidate:"

But this alliance is not really so surprising. Craven self-promotion often trumps ideology in Washington. The buzz Newt and Hillary are generating is something akin to the inside-the-Beltway excitement about the unveiling of a Vice Presidential candidate. Joe Lieberman! Imagine! How daring! How outside-the-box!
As Hillary rolls on toward her inevitable run in 2008, Democrats, progressives, and pundits are talking more and more about whether the old lightning rod for rightwing resentment could turn out to be a viable, moderate candidate after all. Everyone loves the contrarian, "surprising" analysis on Hillary, and the Newt Gingrich news feeds into it: Maybe she's a moderate after all. Maybe she's for a stronger military and a weaker plan for health care.
Actually, Hillary's hawkishness and incrementalism have been on view for a long time.
The enormous hatred she aroused in the Clinton years had little to do with her actual policy positions. As much of the Hillary-bashing focused more on her hairstyle and facial expressions and presumed ball-busting personality as on her (wrongly) perceived leftwing politics. That's why a little shift to the right won't make much difference in how people perceive her. Just the fact of her running will motivate tons of angry Christian soldiers to go to the polls.
Remember, the Republicans took down John Kerry on his Vietnam War record--and for running away from his progressive positions, including his principled opposition to Vietnam. Do you really think Hillary can pull off the moderate makeover that Kerry did not?

Melody e-mails to note Tom Hayden's "No Mystery to Iraq Insurgency, No Mystery to Peace." Here's the opening:

It's scary when the Emperor is blind, especially when it's the Empire's scribes like the New York Times Sunday Review, pondering "the mystery of the insurgency" in Iraq (May 15, 2005). Admitting their complete lack of understanding of the “insurgency”, all the experts interviewed by the Times nevertheless conclude that the military occupation must continue. In this "analysis", the military invasion and occupation become the response to the "insurgency" when the truth is the reverse: the occupation is the cause. The common thread of the diverse strands of insurgency is nationalism. Unable to grasp this essential, the Times is unable to consider that ending the occupation could reduce the violence. Instead, in this weird imperial logic, maintaining the occupation, even it was a mistake, is essential to restoring order. It’s possible, of course, that this mysterious "insurgency" will wither and collapse. But that would be to indulge in faith-based thinking. If the Times would interview anyone with experience in revolutions, armed struggle, or successful peace processes, a different perspective might emerge.

That's just the opening. It's worth reading in full.


The Black Commentator has a their new edition up. (Note, there will not be a May 26th issue:
"Black Commentator will not publish on May 26, 2005. BC will be attending the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists Convention in Phoenix, Arizona.") From it, Russ notes Hollis Henry's "Song of a Never-Was South: Will Disney re-release a twisted film." Here's the opening:

"Davy, Davy Crockett, trackin' the redskins down!" the song goes. If you want to hear the rest, buy Walt Disney's "Davy Crockett – The Complete Televised Series," DVD. The lines, and other choice lyrics like “them redskin varmints,” are from the theme music of the 1950’s show. The DVD was released in 2001. For over two decades now, Disney has been much more careful with another of their “classics” – “Song of the South.” But next year, after resting in the company vault since the 1980’s, this controversial film may be available again.
Since its original, highly successful release in 1946, “Song of the South” has had and continues to have detractors. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. is reported to have called the film an “insult to American minorities.” The NAACP was highly critical of it. Movie critic Roger Ebert, while not advocating total censorship, said in his Chicago Times-Tribune column, that it should be withheld from general audiences because of the effect it could have on children. Of its own volition, Disney sealed away the movie since its last theatrical re-release in 1986 because of the racial stigma attached to it. Jim Hill, a writer specializing in Disney news, reported on his website in late March that the company plans on releasing a "Song of the South" DVD in 2006 for its 60th anniversary.
But the question isn’t whether the film should be banned. The important phenomenon is the legion of incensed and activist fans (white and black) of the movie, fighting hard to have Disney release “Song of the South.” They argue that it’s only a children’s movie. They say any offensive elements the film might have can be looked past. They say Walt Disney’s intentions were good. And most importantly, they question whether the film is offensive at all.

And note that in the upcoming In These Times, Aaron Sarver has an interview with Howard Zinn.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
____________________
Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour

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

Ruth: The Diane Rehm Show broadcast a very important story yesterday.

10:00 Corporation for Public Broadcasting
The CPB is reportedly reviewing public radio and television programs for political bias and has said that funding for national news programs may be reduced. CPB board chair Kenneth Tomlinson joins Diane to discuss what's ahead for public television and radio.
Guests
Kenneth Tomlinson, chair, Corporation for Public Broadcasting

Listen carefully as Mr. Tomlinson dismissed questions Rehm's asks. Listen as he tries to interrupt as she reads an e-mail from a listener. Listen as he dismisses the listener's opinion while he speaks at the same time about how important it is to listen to listeners. It's obvious that he only wants to listen to one listener. He characterizes the "fight" between himself and Bill Moyers as FOOD not "lewd."
Blame it on an old woman's hearing, but "food fight," not "lewd fight."

Mr. Tomlinson dances around repeatedly and embarrasses himself. If you're concerned about the future of NPR and Mr. Tomlinson's attempts to destroy NPR, I would urge members to listen to this broadcast.

I've tried to find an amusing way to discuss this and even spoke with my granddaughter but it just upsets me too much. Praise goes to Diane for her defense of listeners and of NPR and PBS and for her to the point questions.

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