And the war drags on . . .

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Captain Caveman and the Teen Angels"

Other Items

Iraq

 

Iraq snapshot

Rondi Adamson Lies

Rondi Adamson's "U.S. military deserters don't deserve refugee status" (Christian Science Monitor) is the usual string of lies from Adamson -- that, however, does not excuse the Christian Science Monitor for printing it. (Link provided for everyone to laugh at the under-educated, uninformed Adamson.) Rondi, a big mouth with no brain to back it up, starts from the premise that, during Vietnam, Canada welcomed "war resisters" which is defined as "draft dodgers." Wrong, Dumb Ass Rondi.

It's a real shame that you didn't value your education enough to actually learn but it's more shocking that the Christian Science Monitor would print your garbage. Canada welcomed draft dodgers and deserters. On the latter category, deserters were not required to have been drafted and many weren't. The draft was never an issue in Canada -- which didn't have a draft. The illegal war was the issue.

In fairness to Idiot Rondi, it's not like 'helpers' have made a point to get that fact out. A lot of 'helpers' have wasted everyone's time by talking about "draft dodgers" when there are no draft dodgers going to Canada today but there are deserters.

Since Rondi is such an idiot, let's drop back to January 23, 1977, Robert Trumbull's "Pardon Brings Cautious Response From Some War Exiles in Canada" (New York Times):


Jeff Enger, a deserter from the Army and therefore excluded from the Presidential pardon, will be sworn in as a Canadian citizen next Friday, one of the many self-exiled American war resisters who "want to make our lives here." However, like other deserters, Mr. Egner would like to be able to travel freely in the country of his birth.
The Presidential pardon covered nearly all draft evaders of the Vietnam War period. Mr. Carter postponed a decision on the men who entered but then deserted the armed forces.
Jack Colhoun, a leader in the Toronto exile community, is one of those deseters who insist that they would fight in a "just war," or "if the United States were attacked," as Mr. Colhoun put it.
The men interviewed, who rerpesent a cross section of the estimated 20,000 to 25,000 American war resisters living in Canada, have in common a yearning for recognition by Americans at home that their actions were an acceptable exercise of principle "in the American tradition," as one said.
"We don't expect to be congratulated or anything," said Mr. Egner, a law student at the University of Toronto, "but we believe we acted correctly."
They also share a deep conviction that the deserters, as well as the draft evaders, should be pardoned.

What do you know, Dumb Ass Rondi, deserters during Vietnam! In Canada! Welcomed! Again, it's not just Rondi's fault. The strongest argument for today's war resisters was always CANADA WELCOMED DESERTERS DURING VIETNAM AND NEEDS TO TODAY.

But there's no excuse for the Christian Science Monitor repeating THE LIE.

Someone help Rondi off the floor, it's just hit that there are US deserters from Vietnam in Canada.

Rondi scribbles:

In some cases, it's not clear what the deserters are seeking refuge from. Corey Glass, who faces deportation, was discharged from the US military some time ago, according to ABC News. In other words, he's free to go – but might he miss the sight of those antiwar protesters carrying placards in his defense?

Deserters have attempted the refugee path due to the fact that land immigrant status no longer exist. Corey Glass does not believe that ABC News report and he (and his lawyer) believe that he is (at least) now listed as IRR status and, should he return to the US, the military would seek retaliation that way.

Rondi scribbles, "Try to imagine the reaction to someone spitting on a soldier returning from Iraq . . ." Rondi, are you saying Canadians spit on US soldiers during Vietnam? You must be because that LIE has long been disproven in the US. So you must be declaring that Canadians spat on US soldiers coming back from Vietnam.

Right-wing Americans, Canadian Ambassador Rondi's just delivered you a huge nugget of (mis)information. Have at it. Demand that the Canadian government apologize. Scream at the disrespect they've shown.

The Christian Science Monitor practiced no journalism or oversight. Click here to request the correction that their shoddy practices demand. If you do, remember that they are responsible for the headline, not Rondi. That means it's their LIE that war resisters do not have support in Canada. From the July 1st snapshot: "The Angus Reid Poll finds: 'A majority of Canadians would agree with the decision to let American military deserters stay in Canada as permanent residents, a new Angus Reid Strategies survey reveals. . . In the online survey of a representative national sample, three-in-five Canadians (64%) say they would agree to give these U.S. soldiers the opportunity to remain in Canada as permanent residents. Quebec (70%) houses the highest proportion of respondents who agree with the motion, while Alberta (52%) has the fewest supporters. A gender breakdown reveals that while both males and females would agree to let U.S. military deserters remain in Canada, females are much more sympathetic (69% versus 57%)'." Click here for the polling results and below is AngusReid's summary:

Canadian communities, faith, social justice andpeace organizations, and support organizations for U.S. Iraq War resisters are celebrating the results of an AngusReid poll showing strong support for all Iraq War resisters seeking refuge in Canada.
Results show that three in five Canadians (64%) favour giving U.S. soldiers the opportunity to remain in Canada as permanent residents.
The national public opinion pollster noted that Quebec - at 70% - houses the highest proportion of respondents who agree.
With no word yet from the Government of Canada and only nine days remaining until U.S. war resister Corey Glass is scheduled for deportation, a broad spectrum of organizations including Parliamentary opposition parties and Amnesty International Canada are calling on the Prime Minister's office and Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to take immediate action to stop all
deportations.
On June 3rd, the successful passage of a landmark parliamentary motion called on the federal government to allow U.S. war resisters and their immediate family members the opportunity to remain in Canada as permanent residents.

So the Christian Science Monitor needs to retract this sub-headline to Rondi's bad column: "They broke their contract. Even Canada gets that." Meanwhile, Tom Sandborn's "An ordinary house" (Vancouver Courier) reports on Vancouver's Catholic Workers:

Home to the city's Catholic Workers and their guests (and sometimes referred to as Samaritan House), the modest dwelling has offered shelter to the homeless and support to American war resisters for a decade. All this tireless activism is conducted in the name of an interpretation of Christian ethics first articulated by Dorothy Day, an ex-Communist newspaperwoman, and Peter Maurin, a French émigré and former Christian Brother, more than 75 years ago in the Depression-scalded slums of New York.
Inside the cluttered homey kitchen, the two women who opened this unusual experiment in practical spirituality a decade ago share multiple cups of strong coffee. Library worker Sarah Bjorknas and Vikki Marie opened the Vancouver Catholic Worker House literally on a wing and a prayer. Since then, they have provided hospitality to well over 125 homeless guests, some overnight, some for several years.
Since the beginning of the Iraq war, they have cheerfully housed young American soldiers fleeing combat service, and Bjorknas is a key figure in the local movement to support such war resisters and call on Canada to give them legal status.
"Generally, if someone shows up and we have a bed available, they can stay," says Bjorknas. "We have developed some instincts and discernment skills over time and use those when making decisions about guests. We don't take in families--it's not a good space for kids. We have only three rules that pretty much cover everything--no drugs, no alcohol, and respectful behaviour to everyone in the house."



Republican US Senator Ted Stevens is in the news (due to his indictment). NOW on PBS earlier probed the story of that corruption and return to it this Friday (Friday is when all three programs first being airing, some PBS stations air the programs on other days, check your local listings):

This week, NOW goes behind the breaking headlines to shine a bright light on the scandalous connection between VECO and Alaska's old-boy political network. Three state legislators have already been convicted in Federal court for accepting bribes from VECO, and the FBI has video and audio evidence that reveal VECO executives shockingly handing out cash to those legislators in exchange for promises to roll back a tax on the oil industry. And more lawmakers - including Senator Stevens' own son, former Alaska State Senate President Ben Stevens - are being eyed in the growing scandal.

Bill Moyers Journal have been exploring Capitol Crimes and this Friday on the program will continue their exploration of Capitol Crime:

The Wave of "Capitol Crimes" Continues

Bill Moyers and Michael Winship

Like the largesse he spread so bountifully to members of Congress and the White House staff -- countless fancy meals, skybox tickets to basketball games and U2 concerts, golfing sprees in Scotland -- Jack Abramoff is the gift that keeps on giving.

The notorious lobbyist and his cohorts (including conservatives Tom Delay, Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed) shook down Native American tribal councils and other clients for tens of millions of dollars, buying influence via a coalition of equally corrupt government officials and cronies dedicated to dismantling government by selling it off, making massive profits as they tore the principles of a representative democracy to shreds.

A report earlier this summer from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform builds on an earlier committee investigation that detailed some 485 contacts between Abramoff and the Bush administration. According to the new report, "Senior White House officials told the Committee that White House officials held Mr. Abramoff and members of his lobbying team in high regard and solicited recommendations from Mr. Abramoff and his colleagues on policy matters."

Now Abramoff's doing time in Maryland, at a minimum security Federal prison, serving five years and ten months for unrelated, fraudulent business practices involving a fake wire transfer he and a partner fabricated to secure a loan to buy SunCruz Casinos, a line of Florida cruise ships that ferried high and low rollers into international waters to gamble (its original owner, Konstantinos "Gus" Boulis, was gunned down, Mafia-style, in February 2001). But come September, Abramoff will be sentenced for his larger-than-life role in one of the biggest scandals in American history, a collection of outrages that has already sent one member of Congress to jail, others into retirement and dozens of accomplices running for cover.

Over the last couple of years he has been singing to the authorities, which is why he has been kept in a detention facility close to DC and the reason his sentencing for tax evasion, the defrauding of Indians and the bribing of Washington officials has been delayed -- the FBI is thought to be using Abramoff's testimony to build an ever-expanding case that may continue to shake those who live within the Beltway bubble for months and years to come.

Bill Moyers Journal is airing an updated edition of "Capitol Crimes," a special that was first produced for public television two years ago, relating the entire sordid story of the Abramoff scandals. Produced by Sherry Jones, the rebroadcast comes at a moment of renewed interest, with not only Abramoff's sentencing imminent, but the most important national elections in decades little more than three months away and continuing, seemingly daily revelations of further, profligate abuses of power.

Monday saw the publication of a 140-page report from the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility, confirming that, as the Washington Post recounted, "For nearly two years, a young political aide sought to cultivate a 'farm system' for Republicans at the Justice Department, hiring scores of prosecutors and immigration judges who espoused conservative priorities and Christian lifestyle choices.

"That aide, Monica M. Goodling, exercised what amounted to veto power over a wide range of critical jobs, asking candidates for their views on abortion and same-sex marriage and maneuvering around senior officials who outranked her, including the department's second-in-command... [The report] concluded yesterday that Goodling and others had broken civil service laws, run afoul of department policy and engaged in 'misconduct,' a finding that could expose them to further scrutiny and sanctions."

With the next day's sunrise came the indictment of Alaskan Republican Ted Stevens, the first sitting US Senator to face criminal charges in 15 years. Apparently, the senator was playing the home version of "The Price Is Right," for among the gifts a grand jury says were illegally rewarded him by the oil company VECO were a Viking gas grill, tool cabinet and a wraparound deck for his mountainside house in Anchorage. In fact, VECO allegedly gave the place an entire new first floor, with two bedrooms and a bath. How neighborly.

(By the way, just to round the circle, Senator Stevens received $1000 in campaign contributions from Jack Abramoff directly, which subsequently he donated to the Alaskan chapter of the Red Cross, and $16,500 from Native American tribes and others represented by Abramoff, which Stevens gave to other charities.)

Coincidentally, this week also marks the publication of a new book, The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule, written by Thomas Frank, the author of What's the Matter with Kansas? In an essay in the August issue of Harper's magazine, adapted from the book, Frank adroitly weaves the actions of Abramoff and his pals into a vastly larger ideological framework.

"Fantastic misgovernment is not an accident," he writes, "nor is it the work of a few bad individuals. It is the consequence of triumph by a particular philosophy of government, by a movement that understands the liberal state as a perversion and considers the market the ideal nexus of human society. This movement is friendly to industry not just by force of campaign contributions but by conviction; it believes in entrepreneurship not merely in commerce but in politics; and the inevitable results of its ascendance are, first, the capture of the state by business and, second, what follows from that: incompetence, graft, and all the other wretched flotsam that we've come to expect from Washington.

"... The conservatism that speaks to us through its actions in Washington is institutionally opposed to those baseline good intentions we learned about in elementary school. Its leaders laugh off the idea of the public interest as airy-fairy nonsense; they caution against bringing top-notch talent into government service; they declare war on public workers. They have made a cult of outsourcing and privatizing, they have wrecked established federal operations because they disagree with them, and they have deliberately piled up an Everest of debt in order to force the government into crisis. The ruination they have wrought has been thorough; it has been a professional job. Repairing it will require years of political action."
Have we the stamina, commitment -- or even the attention span -- to take such action? Abramoff may be cooling his heels in minimum security but his pals Delay, Norquist and Reed appear on television and radio whose hosts treat them as political savants with nary a nod to their past nefarious association with Abramoff. Few in the audience seem to notice or care. Former House majority leader Delay's awaiting trial on money laundering charges, and the incorrigible Ralph Reed, who played Christian pastors in Texas for suckers in enlisting their unwitting help for Abramoff's gambling clients, even has a political potboiler of a novel out -- Dark Horse, the story of a failed Democratic presidential candidate who finds God, then runs as an independent, funded, presumably, by the supreme being's political action committee.

"Do we Americans really want good government?" That's a question asked, not by Thomas Frank, but the muckraking journalist Lincoln Steffens, writing more than a century ago in his book, The Shame of the Cities. He wrote, "We are a free and sovereign people, we govern ourselves and the government is ours. But that is the point. We are responsible, not our leaders, since we follow them. We let them divert our loyalty from the United States to some 'party;' we let them boss the party and turn our municipal democracies into autocracies and our republican nation into a plutocracy. We cheat our government and we let our leaders loot it, and we let them wheedle and bribe our sovereignty from us."

From more than a hundred years' distance, Steffens would recognize Abramoff & company for what they are. And we for who we are; a nation too easily distracted and looking the other way as everything rightfully ours is taken.
--30 --
Bill Moyers is managing editor and Michael Winship is senior writer of the weekly public affairs program Bill Moyers Journal, which airs Friday night on PBS. Check local airtimes or comment at The Moyers Blog at www.pbs.org/moyers.

And on Washington Week, Gwen and the gas bags chews up this week's factoids and the scenery. Guest stars include: Time's Karen Tumulty and National Journal's James Barnes.

Devona notes this from Team Nader:

Urgent: Five Days Left in Ralph's Home State

We're up against it here in Ralph's home state --- Connecticut.

I'm Ken Krayeske, the state coordinator, and I promised Ralph I would get him on the ballot here.

We have only 7,000 signatures in hand. And we need to get to 15,000 in five days.

We have 30 to 40 people on the ground collecting in Connecticut and we need to pay for their gas, transportation, copying costs.

You get the picture.

To do that, we need your donations now -- $10, $20, $50, $100 -- whatever you can afford.

Why are we busting it so hard every day to get Ralph on the ballot here?

Because it's not just about Ralph.

It's about you and me and a young man named Derek O'Kanos. (Check out Derek's short video here about why he likes Ralph --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cfltpogno6c)

Last Friday, Derek phoned me.

"I want to help petition," he said.

"How old are you?" I asked.

"Sixteen," he said.

"Wow! That's fantastic, but you need an adult to help you out, because you have to be a registered voter," I said. "But before we get into logistics, I don't often get calls from 16-year-olds. Can you tell me how you know about Ralph?"

"Two years ago, Mr. Nader came to my high school," Derek said.

"What school is that?" I asked.

"Enrico Fermi in Enfield," Derek said.

"No way," I said. "I helped organize that. There was a standing room only crowd. What did you think of Ralph's speech?"

"I didn't see it," Derek said. "I was a freshman, and I was in World History class, and my class didn't go. I guess they thought that Ralph didn't fit with world history."

"Bummer," I said.

"Yeah, but I've been interested in Mr. Nader since then, reading about him, and I want to help him," Derek said.

So we discussed strategies for him to convince adults in his life to go out and petition with him.

Derek recruited his uncle's girlfriend to transport him and witness signatures at grocery stores.

Next, he corralled his grandfather to drive him around neighborhoods in suburban northern Connecticut. (Above is a photo of Derek and his grandfather)

Shortly after, I got this email from Derek:

"Today was truly amazing. No more than a few days ago I felt an overwhelming feeling of worthlessness. I felt that there was nothing that I could do due to my age and transportation issue. Then we talked and I went out and did something. I truly felt like I was a part of something, that I was making history. I could have volunteered for many other political campaigns, but it was the Nader/Gonzalez campaign that truly inspired me. I can openly support every policy of the campaign and sleep at night. This is a campaign that puts national interest before personal interest. We the people -- not for sale! Gives me chills. It is truly amazing to see an entire organization of everyday people working towards one beautiful common goal and putting power back into the hands of the people."

Let's not let Ralph, Derek and all our supporters down in Connecticut.

Donate now whatever you can afford.

Hit the contribute button.

Together, we are making a difference --- in Ralph's home state and beyond.

Onward

Ken Krayeske, The Nader Team

Your contribution could be doubled. Public campaign financing may match your contribution total up to $250.

ShareThisShareThis

Be sure to read Martha's entry from last night. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

iraq
rondi adamson
tom sandborn
robert trumbull
washington week
pbs
bill moyer journal
now on pbs

When the cake falls flat

I Hate The War

Ludacris Gets an Earful From WomenCount
Group demands apology from artist and immediate action from Party leaders
(San Francisco, Wed., July 30, 2008) -- Responding to news that rap artist Ludacris released a song today in which he calls Hillary Clinton an "irrelavant bitch," WomenCount is calling for an apology as well as a blanket condemnation by the Party leadership.In his song entitled "Politics," Ludacris calls Hillary Clinton an "irrelevant bitch" and also attacks President Bush and Sen. McCain. These lyrics are outrageous, offensive, and unacceptable.
In an e-mail this afernoon to its membership, WomenCount states, "It is another example of hateful, sexist language being used on the campaign trail, and now is our moment to make it clear: not on our watch! The leadership of both parties must step up to condemn such hateful speech and demand apologies. The Obama campaign has criticized the lyrics, but we call on the presumptive party nominee, who is the celebrated subject of the new song, to go even further: Publicly condemn the song. Demand an apology on behalf of the targets. Now.
"This is not an issue of being PC," states Rosemary Camposano, communications director for WomenCount, "This is about beginning the grinding and painful process of rooting out this kind of hate language and behavior whenever and wherever it exists. The Democratic leadership have pledged to unhinge our nation from gender-bias, hate-language and misogyny and we are taking them at their word."
WomenCount (www.womencountpac.com) has embarked on a campaign called "Stop the Silence" in which they are promoting specific language be incorporated into the National Platform now being drafted for the Democratic National Convention. Through an e-mail petition campaign, driving content on the blogs, and direct contact with the Democratic Leadership, WomenCount is applying pressure to begin eliminating gender bias in the media and wherever it exists by condemning it "on the spot" going forward.

The above is from WomenCount PAC. We're focusing on sexism and if you don't get why, you must be a drive-by. Drive on by without comment, no one needs to hear from you.

Women paying attention (and those with self-respect) are outraged. And we're outraged for a number of reasons.

1) We're fully aware that our rights are always under attack.

We're fully aware that, as Susan Faludi noted in The Terror Dream, this decade's been dominated by sexism and it's come from the White House and it's come from a compliant media. One that picked and choosed heroes for 9-11 and women didn't get to be heroes. (Mark Bingham was briefly a media hero -- until the media figured out, shocking, he was gay. Gay men, like women, are always suspect 'transgressors.')

2) We're fully aware that an advanced society is one with rights for women. We didn't discover Afghanistan after 9-11. Feminists were calling out the abuses of the Taliban regime (but not calling for the country to be bombed or targeted with war) a decade prior. We're fully aware that when women's rights go out the window, other abuses join them or quickly follow.

3) We know about terror because we live with it. We fend off the "clumsy passes" that are, let's be honest, attempted rape. That's not, "Would you like to sleep with me?" That's a man who doesn't get what "no" means and thinks he can paw and claw you until you set him right with a knee to groin. We're fully aware that the woman mugged or raped could have been us if bad timing or bad luck had placed in that location. We're fully aware that, even today, a number of men think they have a right to hit a woman -- and not only to hit but to hit in order to control. (And 'Christian Dominance' seems to be the new 'trend' story. Hopefully, like all trend stories, it's media created and baseless.) We try to raise capable children (our own or the children of others because, yes, it does take a village) and we worry about them. And we worry about the world they're living in, being raised in. We're worried about the lowered bars for going to war (potential threat someday!). We're worried about the refusal of Congress to hold anyone accountable for the lies that led to the illegal war.

4) And, yeah, straight or gay, we worry about men.

On a good day, we like to hope that men worry about our rights and advances. But then along comes MoveOn last week and those 'progressives' feel the person they should stand with is Nas -- infamous for a hundred verbal attacks on women not limited to his infamous "P**sy Kills." And we realize that we are always the first ones kicked off the ship (unless it's sinking). We realize that even these 'progressive' men and their female lackeys will sell out women without giving it a second thought.

Because in the end, what it really boils down to is a number of men -- including a number of 'progressive' men -- don't think women matter at all. (A lot of Queen Bees don't either. And they're too worried about being the 'exception' to help another woman out.)

We never broke into the club. We weren't welcomed in, we weren't made members. It's still the old boys club. They'll invite in different skin tones but they're not interested in opening it up to the female half of the population. We're always in on a pass. And that's why some women are Queen Bees. They finally made it in and they know that one wrong word and they'll be ejected. So they stay silent and they add to the abuse of women.

It's all about the demonization of women and that demonization is centuries old.

Some decades we're "witches" (with powers that must be killed off) and sometimes we're "bitches" (powerless but we still need to be called off). Despite being the majority of the population, we're still treated as oddities and our concerns are the "other." Mathematical statistics alone dictate that we are the norm but we're never supposed to notice that fact and certainly the bulk of the 'progressive' men don't rush to point that fact out unless it's in a, "Well you're the majority so how could you be discriminated against!"

We're discriminated against because we haven't held the power in centuries. We had to be attacked and vilified in order to reduce us to 'helplessness' and that actually says a great deal more about the lack of masculine strength than it does about women's strength.

In the New York Times this morning, Barack being called a celebrity by the McCain campaign was front page news (in the paper's 'judgment') while the thing WomenCount is calling out gets reduced to a gossip item buried at the bottom of A15. And given the headline "Rapper Praises Obama." Because, in their minds, that is the news. The attack on women -- it's not just an attack on Hillary -- shows up in the second paragraph, as one portion of a sentence ". . . calls Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton "irrelevant" and also a nasty name common in hip-hop lyrics but not in the remarks of presidential candidates." Mike Nizza probably feels really proud of that little write-up. His gossip item runs under Micheal Luo's slam at Hillary (campaign debt turned into a joke -- apparently Hillary's the first one to ever have campaign debt -- is everyone still so outraged that John Kerry had money after the November election that they've forgotten most Democrats go into campaign debt?) and Michael Falcone's item likening the Clinton's to the mafia. How proud the Michaels must be -- today they got to pretend that they were Page Six writers for the New York Post.

Sexism paraded past the media without being called out and, in fact, the media frequently joined in. And who called them out? Not a lot of people.

MediaChannel reposts Carol Jenkins' "Katie Couric & Sexism In The Media" (Women's Media Center):

I was there at the annual NOW conference, participating in a plenary session on sexism in the media, and we certainly had much to talk about. Katie's June 11th Notebook blog post caused a stir in journalistic circles when she said that sexism had a play in the primaries: "It isn't just Hillary Clinton who needs to learn a lesson from this primary season -- it's all the people who crossed the line, and all the women and men who let them get away with it."
Those are rare words coming from inside corporate media. Katie was almost a single voice from within, joining those of us on the outside--on a strictly non-partisan basis--who took the pundits to task for traversing many the line in their analysis of Clinton. If people were coming to the conclusion that Couric's outspokenness is due to her planned departure from her duties at the CBS news desk, that seemed to be cleared up this week. The first woman network anchor/managing editor said she's staying. So did her bosses.

Two other women deserve credit in the MSM: Bonnie Erbe and Cokie Roberts. I'm no fan of the latter. But Cokie Roberts noted history in her brief moments on ABC's primary results coverage. No one else wanted to do that. Many still aren't aware of it. But Cokie deserves credit for talking about history and not just in the sense of "Hillary's a woman so it's historic!" That was historic and certainly Bill Moyers, et al. never felt the need to explore that. But Cokie was addressing the historical electoral realities. (Only one example would be the huge shift for the Latino community in twenty years of voting -- as Cokie noted, female candidates did not do well in the eighties with the Latino community.) Bonnie Erbe was Bonnie Erbe. Her PBS show is called To The Contrary and that's her life's motto. (Saying she was being who she was is not in any way meant to take away what she contributed. A lot of women couldn't be themselves. The Gail Collins and Maureen Dowds seemed to take delight in proving just how destructive they could be to other women.)

Despite the fact that Cokie was talking about the sexism and doing so at the end of the primaries and that Bonnie was as well, when it was time for the New York Times to do their one and only article about sexism in the Democratic primaries, they couldn't find those two women, they couldn't quote them. They couldn't call them for a quote and they couldn't refer to remarks the two women had already made. Doing so would have taken sexism from the maybe-it-happened-maybe-it-didn't plane into the reality of what went down.

MediaChannel is supposed to be a media watchdog and it ignored the sexism throughout the primary. It's good that they reposted the article and, hopefully, this is a topic they will return to often. I could think of a dozen little slams for them but what's the point? Sexism is still being ignored and MediaChannel's one reposting is a hell of a lot more than most outlets have done. I'm not being sarcastic.

Katha Pollitt gets a lot of credit as a feminist. But where was she? Oh, that's right. Like Minnie Mouse and others, she was signing the "Feminists" For Barack petition. How could any feminist have been for Barack? He didn't address reproductive rights (as Marie Cocco has noted, since he became the presumed nominee, he's gone out of his way to echo right-wing talking points). What was he offering women? What programs were going to address the issues that women face? Hillary's healthcare plan -- as Paul Krugman repeatedly documented -- was better for families because it included more than children. It was better for single women because it included adults. Hillary's campaign was better for women because it employed them in larger numbers than the boys-boys-boys Barack campaign. Hillary had a breakthrough proposal for breast cancer research. And most of all, pay attention Katha, Hillary didn't use homophobia. Homophobia is not feminism. This was covered long ago. It's one reason The Ego Of Us All got kicked to the curb -- her constant attacks on lesbians and her constant refrain of how they were the "lavender menace."

Barack put homophobes on stage at a campaign event in South Carolina, he used homophobia as a campaign strategy and no one was supposed to notice. There were no front page articles wondering when America could get beyond homophobia. Bill Moyers didn't do week after week segments on homophobia and how it was ripping the country apart (he didn't even do one segment). Homophobia was a-okay.

That was the message. And Barack sent it loud and clear when Anderson Cooper pointed out that Barack was a product of an interracial relationship, raised Loving v. Virginia and asked Barack how anyone could deny same-sex marriage. (Loving v. Virginia is the Supreme Court case that ended bans on interracial marriages.) Barack -- the Constitutional lawyer -- gave a pathetic response. And it just sailed over heads. Barack claimed that it was a matter for churches to decide. Had the Surpeme Court taken Barack's "Constitutional" approach, interracial marriages might still be against the law in many states. Loving v. Virginia -- a landmark case -- didn't involve churches. It was a couple (Loving) suing a state (Virginia). No one was supposed to notice that Barack was saying races have a right to marry but gays and lesbians don't. The best they can hope for, now or ever, is some form of government sanction that's less than marriage and that marriage should be the church's domain.

That's not Constitutional law. That's flat out offensive. And it's not Loving v. Virginia. The Court did not say, "We'll create a new sanction for interracial couples and leave the marriage issue to the churches." The marriage issue did not belong to the churches and if Barack doesn't grasp that than he's a bigger idiot than I already think he is. In the US, the government controls marriage, not churches. You can have a ceremony in a church but if you don't take out a license (with the government), it's not a marriage (unless the state recognizes common law). He gave an idiotic and insulting answer and, as usual, he got away with it.

Just like he got away with the South Carolina event. So, no, Katha, there were no "feminists" for Barack. There were just a bunch of sad dupes. Now women who are feminists might have wanted to support Barack for other reasons. That's their right. But don't claim it has anything to do with feminism. It doesn't.

African-American women were in a special bind because, for the first time, they were choosing between the first bi-racial candidate and the first woman candidate that had a real chance at the White House. If they made a decision on race (or on race plus other reasons), I've never faulted them for that.

I have faulted the media for repeatedly pushing the lie that minority women (and all minorities) were supporting Barack. Asian-Americans overwhelmingly (male and female) went with Hillary as did Latinos. And Ava and I have pointed that out since the primary season started. Race isn't just Black and White and it's insulting to the country to imply that it is. It's especially important to people of color who do not fall into either category.

Here's another feminist issue that Katha should be familiar with. On the whole, women have less money to toss around. So when Barack started charging to attend events (helped create the myth of those 'small donors') that wasn't a feminist move.

Katha, to her credit, did call out Tom Hayden's sexist column after she decided Barack was her 'girl.' And prior to deciding on Barack, she did do one column calling out the sexism. Many months passed between the two columns and we're all supposed to ignore that?

We're all supposed to ignore that it wasn't just okay, it was encouraged for African-Americans to support the bi-racial candidate but women were constantly lectured (by Mark Karlin and many others) after Hillary won in New Hampshire. We needed to think beyond gender. But no column from that same crowd ever suggested that African-Americans needed to think beyond race.

There's nothing wrong with an African-American or bi- or multi-racial person looking at Barack's campaign or even just the candidate himself and saying, "I'm going to support him." If that provided a sense of pride, that's a valid reason to support a candidate. (There are other reasons, but that is alone is a valid reason. Some supporting Barack did so for that reason alone, some did it for that reason and many others. No one ever needed to explain or justify it.) But women -- of all races -- were never given that same message. Instead they were lectured to (by men) and they were insulted.

Racial pride was okay, gender pride was a sign of a 'defect.'

At MediaChannel's post a "Cord;ey Coit" leaves a comment that's nonsense. First off, he or she cites a 'feminist' that is not a feminist (she was a media creation). S/he then offers this garbage, "Clinton is a woman far from feminism, her covering and being a beard for Billy the Goat had nothing to do for feminism that I can see. Of course there is sexism that is differnt than being sexually oppressive." That's offensive. We'll set Bill aside (a defense could be mounted but he's not the issue). Hillary's far from feminism? Who told you that? Laura Flanders -- the self-loathing lesbian who stayed silent about Barack's use of homophobia -- but did find time to write back then, a dumb ass column calling for him to break with someone she didn't grasp was his political mentor and Michelle's former boss (and friend -- then and now). Laura and Betsy Reed loved to say Hillary wasn't really a feminism. Laura stayed silent during homophobia so she's the last to judge anyone and her own feminist credentials are in doubt. Betsy Reed shares with Katrina vanden Heuvel the fact that The Nation magazine published only 149 female bylines in 2007. While publishing 491 men. That alone calls into question any judgment Betsy Reed might want to offer on any other women's feminism.

These are not minor issues. And while Laura and Betsy lied and tried to say Hillary only did one thing and that was back in the 90s, that was never reality. Hillary has worked on many feminist issues in the US Senate. That both women were willing to lie or else confess their own stupidity was not Hillary's problem. Hillary was calling out what was going to happen to Iraqi women before it started -- before the US started installing puppets. That's only one example. Feminist actions and actions to support women do not get headlines. Laura should damn well know that because she was calling attention to what was happening to the women of Afghanistan in the nineties and she damn well knows she was a lone voice in the media. (And it continues today. Michelle Obama is not a feminist but, as Martha notes, feminists are being ripped apart for not calling out . . . well it's not sexism. Not the examples the man lists. And he's such a 'sweetie' using "Motherf**kers" in his title. He knows how to sweet talk a girl, no? Or maybe he's trying to say all feminists are lesbians? And apparently also into incest if they're "Motherf**kers"?)

The primaries ended in June. Where's The Progressive's examination of sexism? Where's The Nation's?

Neither periodical can stop gas bagging over elections but somehow that topic is never judged worthy for examination. It's why Ellen Willis called out the 'progressives' of the New Left all those decades ago.

It's not as if the 'progressive' community has stopped talking about Hillary. They still need to demonize her. It's not enough for them that Barack's the persumed nominee. They still need to lie and flaunt their sexism. You heard it on KPFA this morning judging from the e-mails. (Ava and I are covering it Sunday.)

But they can't cover the sexism. That attitude, long entrenched in the 'progressive' community, is why the second wave of feminism took off -- and had to.

Katie Couric called it out and got slammed for it. But, if you were paying attention, you saw just how sexist the 'progressive' community was long before this year. You saw it when Katie Couric was named anchor of The CBS Evening News.

Sexist attacks were launched on Katie Couric. She was not judged by how she performed the job and anyone trying to push that lie is not just a liar, they're a bad liar. Ava and I wrote about the attacks on Couric in "TV: Katie Was a Cheerleader." Don't lie and say those attacks were based on what she did as anchor of the evening news because we wrote that article in April of 2006 -- months before she ever anchored her first evening newscast.

Couric was torn apart and ridiculed for being from Today. But Charlie Gibson -- taking the jobs of a reporter wounded in Iraq and a woman who was pregnant -- going from Good Morning America to evening news never raised an eyebrow. It was always about Katie's gender. CounterSpin, after Couric was anchor, decided to 'critique' as a 'media watchdog.' It was a strange sort of media criticism: they sited her ratings. Something they never did with a man. But remember, in 2008, CounterSpin offered non-stop examples of racism (some real, some that were a stretch) and for sexism? One lousy sentence in a headline. The entire primary season. One lousy sentence where they neither identified the CNN program or the participants.

And if you're having trouble connecting it, a culture that repeatedly degrades and devalues over half the population is always going to need to turn that anger onto another country at some point. It's all part of demonizing "the other" and 'proving' how 'wonderful' and 'amazing' you are.

It's over, I'm done writing songs about love
There's a war going on
So I'm holding my gun with a strap and a glove
And I'm writing a song about war
And it goes
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Oh oh oh oh
-- "I Hate The War" (written by Greg Goldberg, on The Ballet's Mattachine!)

Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4124. Tonight? 4127. Just Foreign Policy lists 1,251,944 as the number of Iraqis killed since the start of the Iraq War up from 1,245,538.

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

iraq
i hate the war
the ballet
bonnie erbe
cokie roberts
katie couric
mediachannel
carole jenkins
womencount pac
susan faludi

Martha tells VIBE to f**k the hell off

[Community member Martha asked that the following be posted in full. She's responding to this crap -- not worksafe due to language -- here. I've added some links to back up Martha's points. Title was written by Martha.]

Martha: Vibe's a sewer of ignorance. I saw "The Nappy Diatribe," "One man's throat-chopping reportage" and you knew it was a man, didn't you? I wanted to leave a comment objecting to the non-stop lies, so I registered. I still can't leave a comment even after registering. It shows me logged in. I considered sending them an e-mail but I figure they'd blow it off.

So let me salute the LIARS at Vibe for LYING and promoting HATRED OF WOMEN. This Black woman won't stand for it.

Who the hell told you that you were a journalist?

You're nothing but a LIAR who can't even do research before putting out your LIES.

Ignorance is an ugly think so you're obviously a very ugly man.

He wastes three paragraphs dissin' various rappers and showing off that his mouth is actually a gutter.

Then he gets to his big lies.

I'm reminded of my mid-concert petulance this election season by the deafening silence of all the feminist activists concerning the treatment of Michelle Obama, especially considering how forcefully vocal they were every time Hillary was the victim of sexism both real and imagined. A few months ago you couldn't throw a rock without hitting some scathing article by a pen-wielding woman concerning the legitimate concerns about insensitive comments made by a few knuckle dragging pundits, or some passionate supporter of womens rights arguing their case on some garden variety cable news show. [. . .] I just knew that if Obama became the Democratic Nominee that Michelle could count on that same passion and unwavering support from those same feminist activists who so forcefully had Hillary's back. Unfortunately, there has been nothing but cricket sounds thus far, proverbial tumbleweeds if you will.


Let's deal with the LIES first and I'll just call the man "PIG" since he doesn't put his name to his garbage post.

Pig, Feminist Wire Daily (of the Feminist Majority Foundation) did two items on sexism against Hillary starting in January and ending in May. They've done more than that on Michelle Obama this month alone. [C.I.: Such as here, here, and here.] Why don't you try reading, you stupid idiot? NOW has called out the sexism. [C.I.: Such as here and here.] The Women's Media Center has called it out.

If you're hearing "cricket sounds," it's because you're a SEXIST PIG who doesn't pay any attention to women to begin with. You're a disgusting piece of trash, posting lies to protect Barack Obama. I've seen this game play out and you are played out, PIG. No one's buying it anymore. Everyone's caught on that Barack got to where he is by using sexism. So you can LIE and claim that Michelle got no support. You're a LIAR.

You're an IDIOT.

You're a FOOL.

And you're played out.

As a Black woman who is a feminist, let me further add that Michelle Obama doesn't deserve s**t from the feminist movement and I think they should let her deal with whatever comes down all on her own. Gender doesn't make someone a feminist.

Hillary Clinton is a feminist. Feminists should have defended her. The reality was most were silent. And the reason was because of THUGS like you. Slapping 'em down, trashing 'em. Making them afraid to call your s**t out.

Get it, Two Cents, I ain't scared of your lying, thug ass.

I'll be damned if you're going to attack feminsim and think your hate's going to sell.

I'm reminded yet again that one of my biggest problems as a Black woman is the small but vocal segment of Black men who work overtime to hold a sista down.

As usual, Black women are just supposed to shut up and take this abuse. We're supposed to pretend that we're not women. I'm not playing that game and I'm not selling out my gender for some bi-racial man that's not even Black. I've had it with Hop on the Bandwagon for Barack.

I've had it with women being disrespected and dissed and trashed and slimed. I've had it with that coming from some Black men. Kiss my ass, Vibe, I've had it with you.

This is PIG oink-oinking some more:

Their telling silence when it comes to defending Michelle is deafening, and it is going to make it hard for me to reward them with my undivided attention the next time they are addressing substantive issues on my television screen. I'll be tempted to give them a spirited "Hell NO!" as if I was asked a pretty pedestrian question during a lackluster performance, and proceed to waive my middle finger in the air like I just don't care.

There hasn't been silence. There should be. Michelle Obama is not a feminist. The feminist movement needs to focus their energies on feminist issues. Barack got the nomination by using sexism.

The feminist movement is not all White but a number of the leaders are. I want to make it real clear to them that they are not helping this Black woman by wasting energies to defend Michelle so that Barack can get into the White House.

Not after he used sexism, not after he put those homophobes onstage in South Carolina.

The feminist movement cannot educate or reach men like PIG. They won't admit but they are sexists and they are brothas that will sleep with White women and still be the first to trash White women. Which is why PIG's trashing feminists now. To him, it must be a White plot by White women. He really is that sick.

The feminist movement has let feminists down. Continuing to defend Michelle lets feminism down. She's not a feminist. She never defended Hillary. She added to it. I don't give a damn whether she's becomes First Lady or not.

Glad you got a job, PIG. Hope you don't have a wife and/or kids. If you do, you'll no doubt be fired at some point when you tell a LIE about something someone cares about and, let's face it, PIGS like you and your employer go out of your way not to give a damn about the Black women who get stuck holding the communities together. For that we get called names. For that we get attacked. As Betty so wisely put it back in May, "When Bud Johnson writes or quotes a slam on Black women, when he questions our Blackness, you better believe Black women have every right to scream, 'Enough!' And we should. We're the ones holding the Black community together. And the thanks we get for that is cheap little smears. Our mothers, our grandmothers, our great-grandmothers and on and on got the same thing as well. We haven't had the luxury of 'dropping out' of the larger culture to avoid discrimination. We've faced discrimination in our communities, faced abuse in our own families. We've overcome very real odds and still have a long, long way to go. But we don't get thanked for that. Instead we get questioned. It's tired, it's old (centuries old) and it needs to stop."

We're all supposed to be Michelle -- the little woman behind the man. If we did that, a lot of Black children would be starving because, let's get honest, it's the Black mothers putting the food on the table in most households. I'm real sorry that PIG's ego is so tiny because he's worth so little but this Black woman isn't going to inflate his ego and make him feel good.

He's a LIAR. He's an IDIOT. And I'm sick of having to deal with this in my community. The feminist movement would help me out by realizing that Michelle is not one, does not claim to be one and needs to be left on her own. We're not electing a First Lady, we're electing a president. She can live her life however she wants but there's no need for the feminist movement to equate her with Hillary who is a feminist and who was running for president.

That's something PIG doesn't grasp. He thinks, "Oh, they're both women!" One's a feminist, one's not. One was running for president. It's a whole other level and until the feminist movement grasps that, I get stuck having to live with this crap. The two women are not the same.

To PIG, it's all the same because he reduces us to nothing but vaginas though I doubt he'd use that term. Feminists know better. It's time they demonstrated it.

vibe
sexism
feminism
thomas friedman is a great man

Iraq snapshot