Get A Job!
Regular readers know I can handle this and more importantly know I need the damn work, so please feel free to heap the praise on!
Thanks!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Previous PostsWell, NowRIO??? Twelve Minutes Never Forget The Bottom Line I'm Your Neighbor, Too RIP Sen. Edward Kennedy 1932-2009 Gee, Ya THINK? Have You Got A Nickel? Punk'd? Regular Reads
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]() Radio Links
![]()
![]() Friends2+2=5A-Changin' Times Anonymoses Ayn Clouter The Beat Bush Blog The Central Tabulator The Counterpoint Dashiell Engines Of Mischief The Estimated Prophet FAR Manor The Funny Farm Futurballa Home Of The Brave The Huck Upchuck Ink from the Squid Mad Kane The Mahablog Monkeyfister News Of The Restless Big Phil's Love Parade Sergeant Freedom Take Back The Media Under The LobsterScope Why Now? WTF is it NOW? ArchivesDecember 2002January 2003 February 2003 May 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 |
Tuesday, May 31, 2005Get A Job!Hey, I just discovered that Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo has started a group blog and is looking for an Associate Editor. I have sent out several requests for letters of recommendation to a bunch of my blogger friends, but if any of you want to write one, please feel free to write one in the comments section or e-mail it to me, and I will forward it along to the powers that be.
Regular readers know I can handle this and more importantly know I need the damn work, so please feel free to heap the praise on! Thanks! Democracy In ActionAs the NY Times and others sneeringly discuss what a "setback" it was for the EU that the French voters voted against the EU Constitution, let me point out what the real story is:
First, this is a perfect case of the democratic process in action. President Chirac (and by the way let me remind everyone that Chirac is a conservative) actually had to make a case to the people of France that this was a good thing for them. He could have done like Bush does, had a scripted, invitation only event, but he didn't do that, either because he respected the democratic process enough not to, or because he simply didn't have the power to. Second: the French people, however they ultimately feel about the idea of a single European nation, are obviously unhappy with how its been presented in its current form. And since, as our Declaration of Independence states, governments derive their powers from the consent of those governed, the French people were simply confirming that. From what I understand, the EU Constitution is a pretty complex piece of writing, I would imagine that it needs to be simplified, at the very least. In my column, Pax Liberalis, I tried to write a Bill Of Rights for a global Constitution (not wanting to hazard what form of government it would encompass) that drew on elements from the French, British, German, but mostly the US Constitution (hey I'm biased, what can I say). Maybe if they can boil it all down to something that simple, the next time, the French may say "oui". Monday, May 30, 2005A Hundred Shows, (Almost) A Hundred Posts
Special Commentary! Click Here To Listen!
Listen here. Comment below.
Send me your Stupid Boss Tricks! Has it been that long? Yes it has, this June 4th it will be twenty months and counting, one hundred shows in all, hard to believe how long it's been since I started doing this show. My radio career, if you can call it that, began even further back, in July of 2002 when I appeared with Joey Davis on the Joey Joe Joe Show, that was almost three years ago. I have a lot of people to thank for me being here, and first and foremost I want to thank my beautiful, wonderful wife for putting up with me doing this all this time. There are a lot of women in the world who wouldn't tolerate someone putting so much time and effort into doing something like this when it brings so little money in, but she has always been there for me and supported me, and I love her all the more for it. I also want to thank my former partner Joey Davis, because he was the one who showed me how to put together the radio show to begin with: he showed me the software and how to use it, and how to mix everything together. Joey and I did thirty-three shows together before we packed it up, and even though we haven't spoken to each other in a long time, I still think about him and how he's doing. I want to thank Ben Burch of the White Rose Society. Ben hosts my archives and you can find every single episode of the Cup O' Joe Radio Show there. Ben does a remarkable job doing that not just for my show, but for fifteen radio shows, from lil ol' me all the way up to Randi Rhodes, the Queen of Air America Radio. I can't think of anyone who's done more for the cause for so little reward than Ben, and it's high time the powers that be on the left woke up to that. I want to thank my guests and occasional co-hosts: authors such as Mark Satin, Mark Crispen Miller, and David Bornstein, who were kind enough to share their time and expertise on the show. Rick Laupus, who helped me co-host for a few shows and has now moved on to bigger, better things, and most recently Phyllis Huster, who is doing wonderful work at countpaperballots.com, I hope to have her on the show more as her busy schedule permits. Also people like my friend Tim Widerquist from Japan (whose wife just had a child, congratulations you two!) American Stranger from Take Back the Media and Sean Kennedy, who do great work on their shows, and of course my friend George Lowe, voice of Space Ghost, who always encourages me. I want to thank Smokehouse and Cimmerian for having me on Rant Radio, where I have been for seventy-two shows now, and practically the ONLY voice from the left on that station...but that's OK, Smoke and Cimm are doing some good work there. I want to thank the folks at WNYMedia up there in upstate New York, for having me on their schedule as well, and my thanks to some networks who carried me in the past that are now defunct, like RadioPower.org. I want to thank not just Bartcop, but the whole bartcop community for inspiring me to do what I'm doing now: bart's been at this for far longer than I have, and it was through him that I met people like Fud and Avedon Carol and so many others who I hang out with in the bartcop chat room. I want to thank my fellow bloggers for continuing to fight the good fight, even when we yell at each other, and yell at each other we do. You know who you are: look at the regular reads list! I want to thank my friends from the Japanese Animation Club Of Orlando, from Anime Weekend Atlanta and Corn Pone Flicks, who venture here from time to time and speak out, especially my friend Dave Merrill, who's living la dolce vida, eh? up in Canada with his equally talented wife. And last but most important, I want to thank all my listeners, whether you're listening from the blog or from Rant Radio or WNYMedia, or from your Ipods. You're the reason I'm doing this, because if you weren't there this wouldn't be a radio show, it would be masturbation, and while I'm not entirely against that, it's not something you want to send out over the airwaves, so to speak. In honor of this auspicious occasion, I went back through the archives to find what I thought were the best posts, the links are below. It turned out that there were almost a hundred of them, 97 to be precise, soon I'll have enough for a book, maybe... October, 2003 The Sanctity Of Life Every Soldier Counts Blogging The Watchmen The Realities Of Rugged Individualism Confessions Of A "Bush Hater" Framing The Message My Letter To The CAP November, 2003 Lined Up And Shot Welcome To The Future Howard, Maha, The Rebel Flag, and Me Campaign Finance Mr. Smartass And Mr. Highhorse Dear David Brooks Republicans Hate Soldiers December, 2003 The Old In-Out January, 2004 The Increasingly Irrelevant "Professional" Print Media Joe's Rules For A Good Workplace (Part 1) Joe's Rules For A Good Workplace (Part 2) They Shoot Candidates, Don't They? They Brought It On Themselves February, 2004 Dear NY Times (Re: "Come Back, Little Deaniacs") The Harkonnen Candidate Little Things April, 2004 Doing What We Can The Freak Show I Guess I'm Just Stupid R-E-S-P-E-C-T, Find Out What It Means To Me (By Tim Widerquist) Untermenschen A Fairy Tale Life, The Universe, And Everything What's The Use? May, 2004 Hobbit Sense The Terrorist Production Line Why We'll Lose Dear Bill Cosby June, 2004 Splitters Fahrenheit 911 July, 2004 Frivolities Bootstrappers The Difference August, 2004 Like Children The End Of The Nation-States Life At The Bottom Cowards American Communism Happiness September, 2004 Labor Day History Repeating Itself Defeatism Status Anxiety October, 2004 Wake The Hell Up Bangitty Bangitty Bang The Great Leap Backward November, 2004 Revolutionaries Leaving The Slave State Just Wondering Whales The 28th Amendment December, 2004 Michael Moore Speaks For Me Why Do We Work For Free? Merry Christmas, You're Fired! The Poorest People On Earth January, 2005 Crime Pays Blood "Bitter" February, 2005 Life Is A Team Sport I Hate Money The Mother Of All Holes Bullshit Michelangelos Voting Out Of The Loop More On Voting March, 2005 The F Word It Ain't Easy Don't Say I Didn't Warn You Revenge Of The Deaniacs Republicans Hate You Rigging The System, Foreign And Domestic Where's The Outrage? Animal Country April, 2005 Bunker Mentality Like Cockroaches Gun To Their Heads The GOP Welfare Machine It's Happened Here The Bug Man Perfectly Clear May, 2005 It's All About Us Fumigation Silver Lining Quit Yer Whining Put Up Or Be Shut Up "Real" Values How Much Is Your Soul Worth? Are You Republicans Or Are You Americans? More Negativity Endgame Sunday, May 29, 2005Thom Hartmann Interviews George Galloway(From Common Dreams)
Thom Hartmann: Thom Hartmann here with you on AM 620 KPOJ in Portland and we're also going to record this and play it on our national program. Thanks so much, Mr. Galloway for being with us today. George Galloway: You're most welcome. TH: First of all, my apologies if I have your title wrong. I'm calling you mister. Is that how? GG: Mister, mister's more than adequate. TH: OK. I'm wondering, what is your opinion on the legality of Guantanamo Bay and what do you think of the construction of a death chamber there, which was reported by the BBC yesterday? GG: Well, it's an utterly illegal process which is being followed. People are being taken, in some cases from third countries. One of the British citizens, for example, was taken from the Gambia. Others have been taken from Pakistan. Others still from, from Afghanistan. They're taken by force, drugs forcibly injected into them, hooded, chained, and taken to a cage in the tropics where by all accounts they're being kept in conditions that you wouldn't keep a dog in in your country or mine. And if you did, you'd be, you'd be had up for cruelty by the authorities. And then there's very clear evidence of systematic torture. There's the desecration of the Koran which may or may not have happened, depending on which edition of Newsweek you are prepared to believe. This is a big scar on the face of the United States. And it seems to me that too few citizens of the United States have fastened on to the fact that the protestations by your president and your government of being interested in human rights and democracy and freedom are quite negated by the very existence of Guantanamo Bay. But of course, that's not the end of it. Bagram Air Base is exactly the same kind of place. Abu Ghraib prison, well we perhaps, on a family show, shouldn't probe too deeply into the disgusting obscenities that were going on there. And, it turns out, that where the United States itself is not prepared to physically torture people, it merely subcontracts out the task; sending people to the likes of Uzbekistan and Egypt and other prison states where less squeamish governments will torture people for the United States and give the U.S. the testimony they get as a result. Which, of course, it goes without saying, is almost never of any use because anyone will say anything under torture. TH: Yeah. GG: And all sorts of wild goose chases are no doubt embarked upon as a result of all this. So I'm afraid Guantanamo is a blot on the landscape and the fact that the United States occupies it in Cuba without Cuba's agreement is just the icing on the cake. TH: Yeah. George Galloway, Member of Parliament in the, in Great Britain, of the House of Commons. Why do you believe that Tony Blair decided to join president Bush in waging war when, as has recently emerged with this Downing Street memo, he knew that the case was flimsy, and do you think that either Blair or Bush or people in their administration should be prosecuted on any, on any level for this activity? GG: Well, first of all I am sure that they will not be prosecuted, because it is only losers that are prosecuted. In the international system that we have there's no chance of the likes of Henry Kissinger, for example, the greatest living war criminal in the world today with the blood of millions of people in Vietnam and Cambodia and Laos and Chile and East Timor or in many other places on his hands. He will never appear in a court or be behind bars. That's for the tin pot tyrants, the tiny tyrants like Milosevic; they get sent there. The big tyrants never face justice. I wish I knew the answer to your first question, why did Tony Blair join it? Certainly, it's been utterly ruinous to his political reputation. He will, he will be followed into the history books and into the grave with this mark of Cain on his forehead. He will be remembered for nothing other than that he followed George W. Bush over a cliff; took the rest of us with them, and we haven't yet reached the bottom, I'm afraid. All I can say from my own conversations with Mr. Blair, man to man, are that I think that both him and George W. Bush are possessed of a kind of messianic belief that somebody, God perhaps, gave them the job of shouldering the white man's burden, which is the world. That someone gave them the right to step outside of international law; go anywhere, do anything, pay any price in other people's blood, to reshape the world in their image; in the image that they want to see. And I think that both men will be damned in history. Both men have made their respective countries the two most hated countries in the world. They have endangered the lives and safety of our citizens. They have damaged our economic and cultural and social interests, and they should face prosecution, but never will. TH: Mr. Galloway, you called for a police inquiry into ballot fraud and ghost voting in Bethnal Green and Bow. In America, now, we just have this, just recently released, Congressman John Conyers went to Ohio and held hearings, 13 or 12 members of Congress, several weeks of hearings under oath, and determined that there was considerable election fraud in this last election where George Bush became president. And of course we know now that, in fact it was first reported on the BBC - Americans didn't know it but, but folks in the UK knew - within weeks of the 2000 election, that George Bush's brother Jeb and Kathleen Harris in Florida had conspired to remove the names of thousands of legally registered, tens of thousands of legally registered African Americans - largely Democratic voters - from the rolls there in Florida. What do you think is the solution to making elections, both in the United States and the United Kingdom, and around the world for that matter, open, fair and accurate? GG: Well, you know, we're used to sending observers to third world countries and former banana republics to observe their elections. But the British election recently, and your election just a little more distantly, and the one in 2000 for that matter, really, if they had been observed by third world observers would have been declared bogus and deeply flawed. Your president stole the presidency in Florida using his brother and his brother's close friends to cheat the people of the United States out of their freely elected president who was undoubtedly Al Gore. Even if you only counted the votes that actually made it through the hoops in order to be cast, the president was really Al Gore. And in Ohio, and I've read the stuff that Congressman Conyers is doing and I commend it, it's clear enough on the face of it that there was substantial fraud in that state and thus delivering the Electoral College vote for president Bush. In our country, the government have vastly inflated the number of people voting by post which, as the courts have found, is wide open to electoral fraud, and electoral fraud there has been. I don't need to deal with the allegations, which are in their thousands. I can just deal with the cases that have already been dealt with. Six new Labour councillors were struck off and thrown out of the council in Birmingham, which is Britain's second city, having been caught red-handed in a room around a table at the dead of night, at midnight, with thousands, and I mean thousands, of other people's ballot papers that they were happily filling in, and they are now facing criminal prosecution as a result. Another new Labour councillor in the town of Blackburn, where the Foreign Secretary Jack Straw represents, and he was a close associate of Jack Straw, and he was a 65 or 67 year old man, has just been sent to prison for three and a half years for having been caught red-handed doing exactly the same thing. When you add the thousands of allegations that there now are of voter fraud in the last election then I've called for the police to move in en masse, because we are heading down the road towards a kind of corruption that we never thought we'd see. Perhaps it's an innate sense of democratic superiority on our part. We use to think that that kind of ballot-rigging and voter fraud was something that happened in other countries, not in the mother of democracies, Great Britain. TH: Now this was a vote by mail problems that you had in the UK. Here in Oregon, we have the only vote by mail system in the state and I think we always thought that it was impregnable. It was, it was immune to this sort of thing. GG: Well, yours may be, yours may be. Ours is very far from that. And when the electoral rolls are in the state that they are in... In my own constituency, for example, there were no less than 14 voters registered in one flat in Brick Lane, which is a heavily Asian, Bengali area, a Bangladeshi area in my constituency, and when we went there, not only were there not 14 voters living there, which would have been odd in any case given the size of the apartments, but there were no voters living there. Indeed, there was no one living there, it was utterly derelict. Now, somebody registered them and many hundreds, maybe even thousands of others for votes that they would cast by post who simply didn't exist. And of course, the scam is that someone picks up the ballot papers when they are posted out by the authority, fills them in and returns them. TH: Yeah. George Galloway, Member of Parliament, Member of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom. What lessons have you learned, if I can change the topic just for a moment to economics, and then if you have another moment, GG: Of course. TH: I'd like to get back to the loss of freedoms in the wake of 9/11, but I'm curious about privatization in the UK. It's all the rage in the United States. I was over there when you were privatizing your railroads, could you speak to the citizens of America about the dangers of privatization, please? GG: Well, what a way to run a railroad! That's what most people in the country are saying now, and how's this for a turnaround? British Rail, which was owned by the state, which was a nationalized railway, was probably the least loved institution in the United Kingdom when Mrs. Thatcher privatized it. Now, fully 80% of the people of the country, 80, eight zero percent of the people of the country want the railways taken back into public ownership because they realize now that we're paying three times the subsidy to the private owners of the privatized railways that we were paying to the nationalized railways and we've got a dirtier, more dangerous, and more expensive service as a result. It takes longer now to go from London to Birmingham on the train than it does to go from where I'm sitting in the House of Commons to the Eiffel Tower in Paris, and it's only 110 miles from London to Birmingham. We've had a whole series of railway disasters caused by people cutting corners to save costs, to make more profits. We've had delays that would make your hair stand on end; people in the depths of winter being delayed 5, 7 hours on railway journeys, and we have rolling stock which has not improved since the public sector days. All that's happening is that we're giving huge state subsidies to private owners who are putting it in their pockets. TH: Yeah. GG: Now, we are the only country in the whole world that privatized our Air Traffic Control space; even the United States did not do that. TH: We're talking about it here. GG: Yes, you're talking about it. Mr. Blair was ahead of you. He was ahead of Mrs. Thatcher, who wouldn't have dreamt of any such reckless measure. And we've now handed over control of our Air Traffic Control space to people whose primary responsibility, who's very legal and fiduciary duty is to use their investment to make a profit for their shareholders. That's got to be legally their first priority; to make a profit for their shareholders. Now, just like an equally deadly privatization, though it doesn't sound like it, it might sound banal, when we privatized the cleaning services in hospitals, we immediately passed on to companies a duty not primarily to keep the hospitals clean, but primarily to make a profit for their shareholders. The result has been an explosion, a veritable explosion, in re-infection rates; so-called MRSA which is a kind of super bug mutant, which is actually killing 10,000 people a year in Britain. And there are many hospitals, including the one in my own constituency, miscalled the Royal London Hospital, though you'd never find a member of the royal family in it, I can assure you, where you're as likely to come out sick as you are to come out cured because of the state of the cleaning services in the hospitals. And that's directly linked to the privatization of that service. So I say to the people of the United States that the rest of the world is falling out of love with privatization. Some things are too important to be left to the private sector. And just as some things are too important or specialized to be left to the public sector, nobody's saying that every cafe or fish and chip shop on the corner should be owned by the state - that would be absurd. But there are some things like Air Traffic Control, like national railway networks, like the cleaning of hospitals, like the teaching of our children in schools which are too important to be left to people who are doing it for profit. TH: Well said, and in fact, Senator Bill Frist, the fellow who's leading the United States Senate now, his family fortune was built on hospitals, previously public hospitals being made private, and we're seeing the consequences of that in the United States with exploding health care costs and other problems. GG: Yes. Well we say here - it might be a little unfair - we say here that if you fall down in the United States, the ambulance man must feel for your wallet before he feels for your pulse. TH: Yes, and to some extent it actually is true. My last question for you is sort of a two part here. I know you have to get back to the work you're doing and I very much appreciate you spending your time with us, sir. GG: You're welcome. TH: First of all, Senator Norman Coleman, whose committee you testified before and to whom you spoke the week before last, as I recall, or last week - recently. There are reports, which I've been unable to absolutely confirm, but apparently, from the searches of the senate web site, it looks like your testimony has disappeared from the record. GG: That's right. TH: Do you know about that, and what are your thoughts on that? GG: It has been. It has been. It has been airbrushed from the, from the record. And in a way, if you saw the testimony, you'll know why. Because what I managed to do, and I thank God for the breath that he gave me to do it, was blow away the smokescreen that these people are trying to throw up to divert attention from the very real crimes, high crimes and misdemeanors that they themselves are responsible for. And I've had, and I'm not exaggerating this, more than 12,000 emails from the United States. 12,000 emails, and it's not easy in the United States to find out the email address of a British parliamentarian. TH: Yeah. GG: And these people have all written to me. Many of them have drawn attention to the fact that although for one day, just 24 hours, my testimony was on the web site it has now been wiped off it. And that tells you all you need to know, really, about the quality of the commitment to democracy and open government that these people really have as opposed to the talk that they talk. TH: Well, and finally, with regard to democracy, what do you see the problem with the new laws we're debating, enhancing actually the so-called Patriot Act here in the United States. I know you have these kinds of things going on in the UK, the curtailment of freedoms, the loss of liberties in the wake of 9/11. I'm assuming that you've probably seen the Power of Nightmares, the BBC documentary which nobody in the United States has seen. Do you think that these changes are necessary or useful? What's your, what's your opinion of this? GG: Well I'm afraid I'm an advocate of the great Dr. Johnson, the English man of letters who said that patriotism was the last refuge of the scoundrel. He didn't mean, of course, the patriotism which is a noble, genuine love for what's best about your country and its beauty and its achievements and so on, but those who wrap themselves in flags and blow the tinny trumpet of patriotism as a means of fooling the people. As a means of getting them to fall in behind the colours and march off to ignoble wars; wars of conquest, wars of aggression, wars for exploitation. And that's what I think this Patriot Act is all about. It's about fooling the American people into believing that if you just arm the state with enough fly swats you'll be able to whack away all the beasts that are coming your way. But the truth is, these mosquitoes are coming out of a swamp; a very real swamp of grievance, of bitterness and hatred at our injustice and at the policies that we are following. And unless we drain that swamp by reversing the policies of injustice that have germinated this threat then it doesn't matter how many Patriot Acts you pass, it doesn't matter how many fly swats you hand out, how many mosquito nets you wrap yourself in, you're not going to be able to stop them hurting us again. TH: Yeah. Well said. Mr. George Galloway, thank you so much for sharing your time with us today. GG: You're welcome. Any time. TH: I do appreciate it. I truly appreciate it. GG: Thanks. TH: Thank you very much for being here on the Thom Hartmann program. GG: Bye Saturday, May 28, 2005Scream Until Daddy Buys The iPodEver since the fifties, when TV show hosts told the kiddies to bug their parents to buy a box of cereal or a particular toy, poorer families who couldn't afford to buy these things have had to scrap and save in order to get hem, or face a whole lot of crap from the kid. If you're a parent, you know what I mean. Even if you're not, I'm sure you get a good idea of it. And over the years these things have become more and more expensive. Now the kiddies have to have iPods and mp3 players (and not just any mp3 players mind you, but the top brands) that are far out of reach for a household making far less in real terms than their parents did.
When I think of all the things I wanted when I was growing up, and looking back on it now, I would give them all away if I could have gotten to know my parents a little better. I'm sure these kids these days will feel the same way, eventually. Toys come and go. Popularity is fickle. Money comes and money goes. But the important things in life are the things that last. Science InactionThe Smithsonian is apparently going to play a film touting "intelligent design". I think I'll make a film that argues the case that a when a bowling ball and a marble are simultaneously tossed from the roof of a three-story building, the bowling ball will hit the ground first, and present said film to the Institute. The documentary will include "noted" scientists who represent both the bowling ball and marble industries. Naturally, no one will bother to really drop a bowling ball and a marble from the roof of a three-story building. Real science nowadays, just like real journalism, means giving "opposing viewpoints" "equal time".
Digging A Hole In Order To Fix ItFrankly, I can't think of a more perfect metaphor for our times than this article about how Ahhnold is having streets torn up so he can go down there and have a photo-op of him "repairing" the hole. This event follows the Bush script almost to a tee. Take a problem (potholes, terrorists), make things worse (tear up a street, start a war), and stage a photo op making it seem like you're actually accomplishing something when you're really not (get a crew filming you filling in a hole they just tore up, land on an aircraft carrier and declare victory).
Oh and yeah, do everything in secret and demonize anyone who tries to talk a little sense. All in a day's work for our glorious Republican Party. (Via Daily Kos) Friday, May 27, 2005Thursday, May 26, 2005The Day America Died For those of you who can't read Japanese, that's what that headline says. Years ago I would have been angry at a picture like this, not I'm just saddened. Because we did this to ourselves. We allowed scum like Bush and his neocon pals to have the power to do things that no nation, especially one as idealistic as ours, has any right to do.America has been slow in dying: it was wounded when JFK was killed, yet again when RFK and MLK were killed. It was stabbed in the back by Nixon and is now being strangled by the Bush administration, the GOP leadership, and their financial backers. Despite all that, though, I don't believe America is dead just yet. There's still a spark left, if we can kindle it. Not Necessarily The NewsNewshounds gives us a summary of what kind of news you can expect from FOX:
So Much For MikeWell, whatever respect I had for Mike Piazza just went out the door:
EndgameOn the subject of torturing prisoners in Gitmo, Avedon Carol asks:
All I know is, I don't want to live in whatever world their endgame entails. I'm not interested in having to become like them: concerned always with money and power, just to survive. What I would like, what millions of others like me would like, is to be able to live our lives in peace, support ourselves and our families, and generally enjoy the short time we have on this planet. I don't mind having to do something extra if necessary in order to defend that lifestyle (what I do here and on the radio show could be considered fighting for that cause), but frankly I am not interested in the games others want to play with my life. My endgame is a simple one: to prevent people like Bush and his ilk from holding political power, to keep them from killing other people just so they can get more of what they don't really need anyway. And as simple as that seems in principle, in reality it is a long, hard fight that never really ends. Wednesday, May 25, 2005BlowoutTeresa Nielsen Hayden, in a post on Making Light, hit on what the Bush people are doing:
(Via Avedon Carol on Eschaton) More NegativityJuan Cole tells us why we shouldn't expect a whole lot in the way of success in Iraq:
This is not, by the way, being "negative." This is a blunt assessment of what's going on. I feel the same way about domestic policy: we lost the war against the right-wingers thirty years ago, and it may take another thirty years to take back what we've lost, if the rest of the world doesn't step up and do something about it before we do. Monday, May 23, 2005The Deal (No Deal)Well the compromise has been made. Others will make more detailed comments than I, but I don't see how this was a win for anyone. The freepers are screaming bloody murder, but that's to be expected, they do that every time they don't get their way.
Compromises are a natural part of the political process, but recent history has shown time and time again that you simply cannot trust Republicans to keep their word on anything. We gave them an inch, you can bet they'll take a mile. One thing you can be sure of that there will be no peace in our time. Update:One day, perhaps, in the not-too distant future, a child like this may suffer or even die because some corporate malfeasance: pollution, unsafe workplace, inability to earn a decent living or retire with dignity, any number of things. And should a case involving this issue ever comes to a court on which Priscilla Owens sits, the odds are that she will vote to protect the corporation to the detriment of a child like this. It could be your child, if you have one. They will have to live in a country, in a world, that is far less safe than the world we live in now, a world which is already far less safe than the world our parents lived in.This will be the result of the "deal" which was made this last week, a deal that on its face means absolutely nothing and which allowed "judges" like Owens to reach such a position. We should have stood firm, we should have drawn a line in the sand. But we did not, just as we did not in nearly every important circumstance for the last thirty years. Political leadership that is unwilling to fight for what it believes in will always lose, regardless of the ideals or competency of the opposition. And the price, unfortunately, will be paid by the children. Thursday, May 19, 2005Busy, Busy, BusyI haven't posted much lately, I have had a couple of interviews this week as well as having to go down to the GA DFCS in order to "work off" my food stamps (I'll explain in a soon-to-be-published post). A couple of people have popped a few dollars into the tip jar, and for that I'm grateful. In the meantime, since the new Star Wars movie is coming out, I thought you might enjoy reading Master Yoda's Blog.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005The Suicide OptionIf the Republicans are still searching for a name for what they're planning on doing, I think that's the one that best fits. Just my opinion.
Saturday, May 14, 2005Open Thread: Show 98
Special Commentary! Click Here To Listen!
At long last! The dreaded show 98! Will the universe survive?!?
Listen here. Comment below. Send me your Stupid Boss Tricks! Send me your suggestions for Show 100! Thursday, May 12, 2005Are You Republicans Or Are You Americans?My mantra about Republicans is laid out very simply: They're Republicans first and Americans when it's convenient. Teddy Roosevelt left the party (and even ran against it) because of their stance on worker's rights and conservation, and ever since they've consistantly been the party of the very rich, the party that tells you to pull yourself up by the bootstraps even as they make bootstraps almost impossible for anyone to get. And, in order to survive, they have embraced demagogues, racists, and religious fanatics. Instead of learning from their mistakes, they just find other ways to try the same things all over again, unwilling to admit that their ideology is more than just wrong, it's dangerous.
The latest attempt to bring turn the clocks back a century or so, according to the NY Times, is putting great pressure on the GOP's so-called "moderates" in the Senate. Like it or not, the ball is in their court. They and only they can make a real difference. If they stand up to their party's leaders they can give us hope that we still have at least the semblance of a democratic republic remaining. If they capitulate, the consequences can be enormous. Personally (and yes, I'm being cynical here), I'm betting on capitulation, partly because I cling to the belief that Republicans are cowards when it comes to standing up for principles like the rights of minorities when they're in the majority, but also because the leadership of the Democratic Party is as feckless and uninspiring a group as you can imagine (yes I know Sen. Reid has been doing a better job of leading the Democrats in the Senate than Daschle did, but there's still a long way to go yet). But this isn't about what's good for the Democratic Party, it's about what's good for America. You remember America, don't you? There's a lot of blame to go around for what's happened to this country over the last thirty years, but now it's come down to this. The Senators in question have the opportunity to make an historic choice. The GOP leadership wants nothing more than total control over the political process and these few are the final obstacle. What they do in the next few weeks is going to determine the history of this country for the next fifty years, and it's up to them to decide what's more important: the Republican Party or the United States. I so want to be wrong on this. Please, make me be wrong on this. How Much Is Your Soul Worth?There's been a lot of buzz in the last day or so around the blogosphere about what David Sirota said about ABC's refusal to cover the war in Iraq. Another ongoing story is the Washington Post's downright refusal to cover the British intelligence reports that prove conclusively that the Bush administration was planning on going to war with Iraq and perfectly willing to fix the intelligence (in other words, lie) in order to justify it.
As I have said many times before, these people are well paid for their work. Very well paid. Far more than what most Americans are making. You would think that for all that money they would be willing to do the real legwork that is 90% of true journalism, instead of worrying about what will be good for their ratings. But they aren't interested in doing that. ABC complains to Mr. Sirota that Iraq is a tough story to follow and that readers wouldn't be that interested anyway. The Post's ombudsman simply mentioned that readers had written in to complain about the matter and nothing else. Now we all know that there's kind of a surreal attitude that surrounds the Washington press corps to begin with, and one thing I kind of agree with the right-wingers on is that there's a lot of out-of-touchness going on there; it's just a diference between what version of reality they're out of touch with: my reality of how life is for me and for most Americans, or their reality of, well, whatever their reality is, I'm not entirely sure of what that is to begin with. Hard to tell who's closer to ruining this country more according to them: Birkenstock-wearing liberals, judges who won't go along, gays who have the temerity to want to live together, or that pesky evolution thing. So hard to tell without a scorecard. But I digress. Now, I have no doubt that some journalists are genuinely afraid that if they report the wrong thing they will lose their jobs. These people obviously understand what life is like for us non-creative types who live in the trenches and have to rely on food stamps and other government benefits (as I do right now). These are legitimate fears and I don't blame them for having them. Perhaps some group of limousine liberals would be willing to create a magazine or a newspaper or something and give these honest journalists (as well as a few hard-working bloggers) a chance to live without that fear. Perhaps some Martians will come down and give us all a million dollars, too. Then there are those who are simply going along with the game, writing reports and meeting deadlines, not really caring about what's being written because they're so busy they just don't have time to dig deeper. This, in my opinion, is where most of our "journalists" lie, and for the life of them they just can't understand what all this complaining is about. We report both sides, see? It doesn't matter if one side is lying through their teeh, as long as they get heard! That's what journamalism is all about! Fairness! And finally we have those few, probably more than I care to know about, who are basically just whores. It doesn't matter to them what the truth is any more, as long as it goes along with what their bosses want them to say, well, that's just fine with them. And they know that as long as they keep to it, they'll never have to worry about where their next meal is coming from. Guckert/Gannon is like that now. David Brock used to be like that, until he had an attack of conscience. Which brings me to my point. How much would it be worth, to any of us, to do what they are doing? That is, what kind of money would you accept if it meant that you had to give up your ethics and dignity to get it? Armstrong Williams had a price, so did Maggie Smith and even, for a time, David Brock. The lure of financial stability is a strong one, and I'm sure some of you reading this would be tempted, if offered a certain amount of money to just write propaganda. The question is, how much is your soul worth? What amount would bring you over the edge? That's what I'd like to know. Wednesday, May 11, 2005Yet More Values: IOKIYARPorn merchants have more morals than Republicans, don'tcha know:
"Real" ValuesThe red state, rural, "real people" types love to harp on us ignorant city folk, telling us how immoral we all are. People from, say, a farm in Georgia are certainly far more moral than a boy who grew up in, say Brooklyn. At least, according to anti-abortion extremist Neal Horsley:
It wasn't until my family moved to Florida that I found out just how ignorant and obsessed these people were. They apparently knew everything there was to know bout New York, especially since they'd never been there. I admit I wasn't exactly filled with knowledge about them, either: hell, when they first called me a "Yankee", I was upset because I was a Mets fan! That's how much I knew! And after a short while it dawned on me that these people spent an inordinant amount of time thnking and talking about us "Yankees", not to mention blaming us for everything from bad weather to their aunt's gout. Couldn't figure it out, myself. What did we ever do to them, I wondered? The answer is, not a goddamn thing. I'm no psychiatrist but it seems to me that this kind of obsession ain't exactly good for you, mentally speaking. Now, I admit I'm no expert on farm life. We went to a couple of petting zoos when I was a kid, but that's about it. I don't know what goes on on a farm, but I tell you what (as they say in Texas), judging from what Mr. Horsley had to say, I'm glad I never had the experience. And really, it's none of my business what these people do in the privacy of, er, their barns or whatever. Really, it isn't. But I do take issue when people who fuck mules try to tell me that I'm somehow less moral than they are because I grew up in a big city. "Real" values like that, I can do without. (Via Digby) The Greatest GenerationAvedon Carol talks about the greatest generation and wonders how they became that way:
Still HereWell it's morning and I'm still connected. Been doing job search for about an hour and a half now, I guess. Gonna be hard without a phone. I don't know when the next new show will be out, losing the phone has made it even more urgent for me o get work somewhere, but just so you all know, I haven't abandoned it. And as long as I am still connected I'll continue to post. Meantime if any of you can spare a couple bucks, don't hesitate to make a little donation. Again, don't send anything you can't afford.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005Who Cares What We Think?Avedon Carol, guest posting at Atrios, makes the case that the GOP seems to feel like they're going to live forever, electorally speaking. They're doing things that are so incredibly stupid and hurtful to people that you wonder why anyone would vote for them. Not that there's any shortage of idiots in this country. I've been working with a couple of election reform groups, you'd think there'd be a huge groundswell of support for that: there isn't. At least not enough to make a difference.
The so called "professional" media has more than it's fair share of blame: the outright refusal of the Washington Post to cover the release of documents that proved that the Bush administration had been fixing the evidence about going to war with Iraq. Of course it's not like we haven't heard things like this before: former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said in his book The Price Of Loyalty that the Bush people were looking to war with Iraq as soon as they got in, long before 9/11. And there are still tons of unanswered questions about 9/11 itself. But there's a general attitude of they don't care what we think and we're either too apathetic or too scared to stand up for ourselves. The GOP had better hope they're right on this. They better hope that they get everything they want for the next four or five generations. They better hope that the rest of the world doesn't just up and take us out economically, or that the American people don't simply rise up against them. Because if any of that happens, there's going to be hell to pay for a lot of people. Work Hard, Get ScrewedThat seems to be the prevailing attitude in this country. I just read where United Airlines "won its bid to terminate its four employee pension plans this evening, clearing the way for the largest pension default in corporate history". UA retirees can now look forward to reduced pensions (at best), current employees should probably expect not to get any pensions at all. You can bet, however, that the golden parachutes for the executives will remain intact. Weasels seem to be exempt from their own bad decisions.
Unwanted HiatusMy phone service was disconnected this morning. The internet is still functioning at present, but I don't know how long that will last. So this may be my last post in a very long while. The work situation is as bad as always, and as I expected, the pleas of Ben Burch, myself, and others are falling on deaf ears.
But however long my unwanted hiatus may be, I will return. I just wanted to let everyone know what the deal was. Monday, May 09, 2005OK Here's My IdeaBen Burch gets a reply from Sheldon Drobny of the Paradigm Group to his comments about raising money:
But that doesn't mean that I think the situation is completely lost. I think we have plenty of skilled people here in the blogosphere whp are quite capable of doing a business venture of some sort. It doesn't have to be politically related, just something profitable enough so that we can still fight the good fight. Let's bang our heads together and see what we can come up with... Dear NY Times:(re: Times Panel Proposes Steps to Build Credibility)
I am gladdened by the idea that you wish to build "credibility" with your readers. That is an admirable trait. But I hardly see where "[increasing] our coverage of religion in America...with more reporting from rural areas and of a broader array of cultural and lifestyle issues. is going to do anything to make you more credible in the eyes of your readers. Trust me, rural Americans aren't interested in hearing anything someone from New York has to say. If you want some quick and easy advice about how to restore credibility to your newspaper, here it is: Fire anyone who doesn't do anything but write fluff pieces about Mr. Bush, or regurgitate Bush administration talking points as fact. In other words, fire your stenographers and hire some journalists. Sincerely, Joseph Vecchio Put Up Or Be Shut UpBen Burch, of the White Rose Society which hosts my archives, says it straight:
I wrote earlier about Tammany Hall, the corrupt political machine that ran New York City for many years. They are the poster child for corrupt political organizations, but the reason they lasted so long (over a century) is because they did things to help people out. They got them jobs, they gave them some food, or a few dollars. People understand that, people recognize that, and they are perfectly willing to support even corrupt politicians if they know that those politicians are making a real difference in their lives. I'm not saying that corruption is necessary, I'm saying that what's important is that we help each other out. That is the very core of what it means to be a liberal, after all. The Republicans understand this, we don't. Let me quote George Lakoff, author of the book Don't Think Of An Elephant:
To you blogger groupies, let me also be clear: one day these blogs are going to be irrelevant. Either the right will win the battle completely and they'll be shut down one by one, or the left will retake power and they won't be as necessary as they once were. There's an old Hollywood saying: be nice to peopl eon the way up because you'll meet them again on the way down. I know, I know, my words are falling on deaf ears. I sometimes feel like Cassandra, the Greek lady blessed with the ability to foresee the future, but cursed to never be believed. But let e point something out: the original White Rose Society was formed in Germany during the Nazi regime. They spread their dissent by hand on home-made flyers. Eventually the Nazis found out who they were and executed them. If I were one of the Limousine Liberals, I'd act before that happens to Mr. Burch. Or to them. Thanks to Avedon Carol, who is guest-posting for Atrios (you know the damn link), for bringing this up there, where it can be seen by a lot more people. Avedon lives in England, by the way, where they still have an actual democracy. Sunday, May 08, 2005Quit Yer WhiningIn yet another whiney diatribe from the NY Times about bloggers, Adam Cohen writes:
We don't want the professional media to act as propagandists for the left, we want them to stop acting like shills and start acting like reporters. You whine about the lack of integrity of the bloggers, if you had any integrity to begin with, there wouldn't be a need for bloggers to begin with. Saturday, May 07, 2005Silver LiningBefore I make the point I really want to make, let me be clear: I am not for the guerillas in Iraq. They aren't fighting for freedom, they are fighting to restore the kind of dictatorial regime they had under Saddam Hussein. As I indicated here, the enemy of the Iraqi people during Hussein's time wasn't Israel or Iran, or even America until George W. Bush was placed into the White House. It was Saddam Hussein and the Baathists, who used military force to maintain political control over the majority of the Iraqi people. I have no sympathy for suicide bombers or people who intentionally target civilians.
Having said that, let me say that the insurgents have been very helpful in a very unusual way: they have prevented the United States from rolling into Iran or Syria at will. The US Army is bogged down fighting the resistance, and the Bush administration, in particular Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, have been shown to be incompetent military leaders who lied and bullied their way into invading in the first place, then proceeded to make life worse for Iraqis than it was under Hussein. It's one thing to be a war criminal, it's quite another to be so damn bad at it. They provided the fertile ground for the insurgents, and the insurgents are now preventing the US from occupying the rest of the Middle East. An invasion of Iran or Syria, which is what the neocon cockroaches were plannng, is simply not possible. Iran's population is several times that of Iraq, and whatever ethnic divisions they have within their country would surely disappear in the face of an invading army. In other words, if you think the shit is bad in Iraq, it would be a rose garden compared to Iran, where our soldiers might be dying in even greater numbers, and there would be hundreds of thousands of dead Iranians. The insurgent's presence, while hateful, is accomplishing something positive after all. Update: "aruac" at Dkos responded:
Had we gone in there right away and rebuilt infrastructure and made the every day lives of Iraqis better, if we weren't torturing them in the same prisons Saddam used, if we weren't dropping bottles on their heads, that popular support wouldn't be there today. We may have won the war, but we lost the peace. And we lost it because of the incompetent and criminal actions of the Bush administration. Friday, May 06, 2005FumigationI was asked how much damage the neocons will do before they finally fall. That depends entirely upon us, and based on what I've seen recently I would say quite a bit. If you think things are hairy now it's going to get a whole lot worse in the immediate future. I mentioned Rome previously; one of the reasons Rome became an Empire was, at least in part, because the people of Rome abdicated their responsibilities as citizens.
I think that's what's happening here. There was widespread fraud in the elections of 2000 and 2004, and the Diebold election machines have created a considerable amount of distrust in the integrity of our electoral process. For people who take pride in their ability to govern themselves, these are serious issues, yet, except for a few dedicated groups around the country, there seems to be little interest in fixing, or even addressing, the problem. Fear, intimidation, and just plain apathy are pretty powerful forces after all, and it's so much easier to turn on the TV and just forget about everything, assuming that someone else will take care of it, or it will somehow work out by itself. Others are just fine with the way things are, as long as their team wins, why should they be concerned? Just like the workers at Siemens where I used to work who were only concerned about keeping their jobs, and allowed working conditions to deteriorate. Better than nothing, they would say. But when the plant closes next year, nothing is what they'll have. If and when we officially decide (and I think a substantial number of us have already done so) to give up on this whole "self-rule" idea, the result is liable to be a bigger shock than we expect. Another item that ought to make people angry enough to demand, not just accountability, but criminal proceedings against this administration, are the leaked documents that came out of Britain prior to their elections, about how the Bush administration was lying to all of us about going to war in Iraq. You would think that something as important as lying about killing tens of thousands of Iraqis, not to mention the loss of our soldiers, would be enough to get people really upset. From Juan Cole:
Thursday, May 05, 2005It's All About UsBillmon had a great post the other day about the neoconservatives:
I am somewhat of a student of history myself, hardly an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I know enough to know that things come in cycles and that progress (which I define as the gradual improvement of the quality of life for the most people) occurs both geometrically and chaotically, and tends to takes a step or two back before continuing forward. What we are witnessing now, I firmly believe, is the last gasp of who Billmon refers to as "the Straussians" and the end of the era of great nation-states as we move towards a truly global society (which will bring with it problems of its own: I don't believe in Utopias). If I'm wrong, which I doubt, we might instead be witnessing the beginning of a new Dark Age that will plunge the world into a seemingly endless series of small conflicts that will at best either delay progress for any number of generations or at worst end with the destruction of the human race. Either way, the world of a century from now is going to be drastically different than the world we live in today, and how it turns out it will very likely depend upon what will occur in the next twenty years or so. We are living, in other words, in "interesting times," and, whether we like it or not, it will be up to us to determine what form the society of the future will take. In order to better understand what I'm talking about, let's take a look back at human history in a very brief and general way, because what's happening in America right now isn't that much different from what has happened in many other powerful nation-states since human civilization began roughly six to ten thousand years ago. President Clinton has spoken about history as being a series of conflicts between different groups of "us" versus "them", and how we're moving slowly but surely towards a greater definition of "us". The casual observer would think that he was talking about different nations. That part of it is certainly true: nations rise and nations fall, and they make war with each other for many different reasons. But there's another subtext to what President Clinton had to say: that the conflict between "us" and "them" has not been so much between one community against another, but by communities within themselves. No sane person, after all, wants to go to war. Even among those who have an extreme dislike for people who are different than they are would rarely desire those people dead, and even if they did it's a big jump to actually go out and kill someone. Given a real choice, most people would never go to war. So why do we do it, then? Let's ask Herman Goerring:
Regardless of how the neocons and those before them have manipulated people, and regardless of who they point to as the enemy, the truth is clear: it's all about "them". No matter how a nation gets started, eventually it reaches a point where a few rich and powerful people put themselves into positions of power and use the tools of government for their own ends. As President Theodore Roosevelt reminds us:
The neocons believe that the world exists for their benefit and their benefit alone, and damn everyone else. It's no different from what the Nazis believed, or the assorted emperors and monarchists before them, or the Roman emperors before them, or at any given time in the history of the East. The thinking of the Enlightenment is the greatest threat to their ambitions, because the difference between neocon self-interest and enlightened self-interest is the idea that others have the right to self-interest also. The Enlightenment and it's heir, American Revolution (as flawed as it was because of slavery), did a huge amount of damage to the idea that one class of people was simply superior to others, and the success of the New Deal, to many of our American fascists at the time, must have seemed like the final nail in the coffin. But people who think they are better than everyone else never give up, they exist in every generation, and we have to always guard against them. We progressives build communities for the purpose of counteracting the darker side of human behavior, the neocons and their ilk build systems that embrace and celebrate it. That is one of the primary differences between "us" and "them". Marx wrote about this class struggle as well, and if you understand the working conditions of Europeans at the time he wrote his manifesto, you can see why he believed what he believed (likewise, if you understand the world Ayn Rand grew up in, you can understand why she wrote her objectivist novels). But Marx's vision of a "worker's paradise" failed because in the end it became nothing more than just another tool for a few people to grab power; Communism became very quickly about the Communist Party, in other words, just a different set of "them". In contrast, what liberalism attempts to do is to give everyone equality of opportunity, using the power of government to provide both political and material infrastructure so that people have more power of self-determination. Liberals want to use the power of government to ensure that people get paid what their work is worth and to provide a minimum standard of living so that even the poorest among us need not starve. I'm not saying it's a perfect system, but it is clearly a better alternative than a life based on the whims of corporate boardrooms on the right or political hegemons on the left. What our Founding Fathers did in designing our government was to establish a system where it would take overwhelming popular support to take control of the government: not just the checks and balances in the system, but the idea that the government exists to protect the rights of all of its citizens, even (and especially) those in the minority. I'm not saying we have always lived up to those standards, because we haven't. My belief is that the Founding Fathers erred when they only considered the checks and balances within the government itself, as opposed to a series of checks and balances in society as a whole: the delicate interdependence that exists between a free government, a free economy, and a free press. The American Revolution is an ongoing thing, and it takes time to go against millenia of human nature. What the Founding Fathers could not address they left to future generations, just as the problems we cannot address we also will leave to future generations. Short-term goals must be addressed, of course, but a long-range vision is absolutely necessary in order for us to advance as a society. Jefferson understood that when, in his inaugural address, he stated quite clearly that whole the will of the majority must be followed, the rights of the minority must also be address lest we get tyranny. The neocons and the GOP leadership don't seem to understand that by rejecting Jefferson's idea of minority rights, by "going nuclear", and breaking the rules for their own short-term benefit, they sow the seeds of their own destruction. Should they lose power they will be subject to the same precedents that they are setting now. Again, this is nothing new:
In the end, the neocons will lose this fight, in part because of the work we do here and now. This is not to say that the world of the future is going to be a Utopian paradise, but whatever form it takes they and their kind won't be participating in it, at least not right away. Like the cockroaches they are, once they are defeated, they'll simply crawl back into the darkness waiting for their next opportunity to return. Our job, in the meantime, is to fight the neocons with every tool at our disposal, and at the same time work to build a world that provides people with the tools they need to improve their own lives, and to provide them with a minimum standard of living so that there is little if any fertile ground for the assorted neocons and theocrats of the future. A world where economic fulfillment takes a back seat to personal fulfillment, where the measure of someone's worth doesn't come from the size of their bank account. A world that belongs, not to them, but to us. Tuesday, May 03, 2005Interview: Helen ThomasNote From Joe: This is an excerpt from the book Stop the Next War Now: Effective Responses to Violence and Terrorism, edited by Code Pink co-founders Medea Benjamin and Jodie Evans. I got it from the Democracy For America mailing group.
Helen Thomas, known as "the first lady" of the press, was a White House correspondent for four decades, sitting in the front row during presidential press conferences, asking the tough questions. She was the first woman to hold posts in the White House Correspondents' Association and the National Press Club. She now writes a syndicated column twice a week for the Hearst newspapers. She was one of the only "mainstream" journalists who vehemently opposed the invasion of Iraq and challenged the Bush administration on the fabrications and distortions that led the United States to war. The following is a conversation between Helen Thomas and CODEPINK cofounder Gael Murphy. Gael Murphy: Our so-called independent media, the cornerstone of our democracy, have truly failed us in the most recent events around Iraq. They didn't do the investigations or critical analyses of the administration's policy toward Iraq. They didn't take into account opposing voices, alternative sources, and the millions of protesters. Why do you think the corporate media paid so little attention to exposing the flaws in the Bush administration's justification to go to war? Helen Thomas: I think that the media really went into a coma and rolled over and played dead, just as Congress did. It was a politics of fear after 9/11. Everybody, even reporters, started wearing flags after 9/11. At these White House briefings there was an atmosphere among the reporters that you would be considered unpatriotic or un-American if you were asking any tough questions. Then it segued into a war where you'd be seen as jeopardizing the troops if you asked certain questions. And the administration did an amazing job of linking Saddam Hussein and terrorism. In every briefing I attended in the lead-up to the war, the spokespeople would say, "Saddam Hussein, 9/11"--"Saddam Hussein, 9/11" in the same breath. Obviously they had put the two together and wanted the media to as well. Then a week or so before the war they said there was no connection. Well, by this time, the job was done. It was a beautiful propaganda message, and it worked. Another problem is that there are no investigative reporters anymore. During the unraveling of the Watergate scandal, the Washington Post had eighteen reporters on the story and the New York Times had an equal number, digging in everywhere. In this case, no one was around, really, to challenge the administration. But there were a lot of alternative sources of news and investigative journalism, and there was also the world press doing its job. Don't mainstream journalists look at these other sources? We have a herd mentality here. It was groupthink. Nobody wanted to get out of line. Reporters felt that they shouldn't push too hard. I didn't feel that way. I was against this war from day one, and I kept challenging the White House spokesperson, Ari Fleischer. One day, about six months before the U.S. invasion, I said, "Ari, why does the president want to kill thousands of people?" I mean that's about as simplistic as I could put it. And he said, "Why are you saying that, Helen? They have a dictator! They have no say in their country!" I said, "Neither do we." I went up to Condoleezza Rice after the U.S. invasion and said, "Where are the weapons? Where's the smoking gun? Where's the mushroom cloud?" She said, "Saddam used these weapons twelve years ago, he had them. ..." And then she went up in smoke herself. She flew out of there with her eyes blazing, so angry that she should be challenged. Regarding the White House press corps, is it sort of the cream of the crop of journalists who get to be part of those briefings? Every new administration comes in with a new crop of reporters who have been on the campaign with them and have gotten to know them, and their bosses say, "You're going to the White House because you know intimately so-and-so and can call them up and get an interview." So not only do they tend to be young, but they tend not to question what is said. It almost sounds like reporters are embedded with a presidential candidate and then inherit the White House as their reward. That's certainly true. They get to the White House because they've done a good job on the campaign, they've gotten to know the players, and they're supposed to have this kind of entrée and closeness. And then they engage in self-censorship instead of challenging everything that's being said. I remember Bush's press conference a few days before the war. It was a fiasco, because everybody knew we were going to war and asked things like Do you pray? instead of asking the hard-news questions like: Why are we going to war? Why haven't you done more to avoid it? Why haven't you used diplomacy? Under what justification can you go into someone else's country? I'm also one of the few reporters who push the Pentagon on Iraqi casualties. When I'm writing a column about war casualties, I call the Pentagon and say, "Well, now, how many fatalities?" They'll readily say how many, in battle and in accidents. Then I ask about the wounded soldiers, and they reluctantly tell me about the wounded. Then I say, "How many Iraqis?" And the answer I'd get is, "We don't track that. They don't count." So once I called back and I said, "Look, aren't we supposed to be liberating these people? What do you mean they don't count? I want a rationale for why you don't count them." And they said, "Look, our purpose is not to kill, but if there is resistance, we do our job and don't count the numbers." Iraqis don't want foreigners in their country, and some will resort to terrible things to get rid of them. But what right do we have to be there? That's the bottom line. I can assure you no reporter has asked that question. What right do we have to be there? Did you ever challenge your colleagues about their reporting? No. They knew how I felt, they could hear me, but there is an unwritten rule that you do not challenge your colleagues. Except I must say that the Wall Street Journal called me the crazy aunt in the attic, and so did Fox, for questioning the war. Well, I want to know, who is the crazy aunt in the attic now? I think the Wall Street Journal owes me an apology. Have you always questioned U.S. military involvement? I was in favor of U.S. involvement in World War II. It was absolutely necessary. We were attacked. And our country was unified--we believed in it. I'm critical of unnecessary wars. I hated the Vietnam War, not from the moment Kennedy and Johnson put their foot in the door, but from the time of French colonialism from 1948 and the battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1953. I certainly thought it was wrong for us to go into Indochina after the French had been defeated. I did support the invasion of Afghanistan. I thought we had to go to the core and find out more about Al-Qaeda. But I thought Iraq was absolutely wrong. It was just out of the blue, when Bush came into power and decided that he was going to have a regime change in Iraq. And then Congress signed on the dotted line, giving a blank check without asking any questions! I couldn't believe the people in Congress who actually did that. I couldn't believe Senator Kerry--he went to Vietnam and came back saying, "War is horrible. This is a horrible war and we shouldn't be in it." I suppose that eighteen years in the Senate can make you an Establishment person, and you forget. The authorization to go into Iraq is practically word for word from the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. Why didn't bells ring? How on earth could Kerry have just signed on? Because he was running for president and thought it would get him more votes? So how do we get journalists and the media to do their job, to be critical of administrations and the policies that are not in the best interests of the public? How do we wake up America? I think journalists are coming out of their coma now. I think they're getting a little more feisty. I think the public kind of bore down on the press and the press started to respond, although there is certainly a lot more we need to do. I think the public should reach out to the editorial writers and the publishers and take them to task for their pro-war positions. People should get meetings with the editorial departments of the major papers and the local papers and say, "Look, your paper came out for this war. Can you explain why? And what do you have to say now? Have you changed your mind? Have you printed your new position?" Ask them if they'll do a mea culpa. I'm sure most of them won't, but they should be encouraged to do it. People should also go to the TV stations, including the talk shows. They should complain about the one-sided nature of the guests on the show. They should ask why, every Sunday, did we hear from Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, but not equally from the antiwar side? Remember, a free and independent press is the basis of democracy. Journalism is the last resort against a government with such imperial motives, and we have to hold their feet to the fire. I think that we should shame Congress for signing on the bottom line but not asking the tough questions they should have asked. They defaulted on the most important privilege they have in the Constitution--the right to declare war. They let the Constitution down. They let the country down. I think everyone who voted to authorize the president to go to war should be pinned down. [John D. Rockefeller IV, of West Virginia] was the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. He said that if he knew then what he knows now, he would not have voted to go to war. I would go to every congressman, every senator, who voted for the war, and say, "Knowing what you know now, would you still have voted the same way? And if you would, why?" Reporters should put them on the line, and so should their constituents. Reporters should put presidents on the line as well, and the public should demand that presidents have regular press conferences. During the campaign we should make them say that they will hold regular news conferences every two weeks. Bush hated talking to the press and only did when forced to. He had a seating chart and would pick the journalists he wanted. He was told to not call on me because I would ask a very tough question. He didn't allow any follow-up questions and would get mad if a reporter asked a two-part question. I mean, c'mon. The president of the United States should be able to answer any question, or at least dance around it. Presidents should be obligated --early and often--to submit to questioning and be held accountable. The presidential news conference is the only forum in our society, the only institution, where a president can be questioned. If a leader is not questioned, he can rule by edict or executive order. He can be a king or a dictator. Who's to challenge him? So in terms of the media, looking toward the future, what hope do you see? My hope is that we'll all wake up and realize our tremendous collective failure. Maybe we could have saved lives. Maybe we could have stopped Bush from the folly of invading Iraq. We certainly must learn from our mistakes-- not being aggressive enough, not being curious enough, not demanding enough--so that we can help to stop the next folly of war. And my hope is that people will begin to hold their government leaders accountable, and that we'll have true leaders who understand the horror of war and who do everything in their power to work for peace. Gael Murphy is a cofounder of CODEPINK. Monday, May 02, 2005Like QuicksandI suppose you have all noticed that I haven't been posting much lately, nor have I been doing any new radio shows. To answer your question, no, I haven't quit. I've just been very stressed out and depressed lately due to personal issues. I try to sit down and write (I actually have a big post I am working on), but I don't seem to have any energy to finish something up.
My friend Phyllis from Count Paper Ballots and I went down to Macon, Georgia, to meet with some election reform activists there, a very nice group. Phyllis is one of my cheerleaders and she told me that it's all right to be depressed, and to treat it like quicksand: the more you fight it the deeper you go. Let it find its own level and work your way out then. I'm not alone in being depressed, I talk to a lot of others and they express the same feelings for many of the same reasons: lack of money, concern about the future, etc. And time flows like quicksand too, very slowly, as if we need to see every moment clearly. I don't doubt things will get better, but in the meantime please be patient woth me and let me find my own level. As much as I love doing the radio show, I don't have any particular obligation to do it, or post on the blog. And I still have to concentrate on finding work. So I apologize for the lack of activity, things should pick up again soon. |
|---|---|