Monkey
Media
Report Archive
March 2003
Back to the main monkey page
|
Monkey
Media March 2003 Back to the main monkey page |
|
|
3.31.03 - One of the FCC's few public hearings on media consolidation is being held at Duke University at 12:30 this afternoon. The Independent's Fiona Morgan covers the bases nicely, complete with a great pull-out guide to local media ownership (Duke's webcasting the event, too): Duke will host one of only a handful of FCC hearings on the topic. Copps, fellow Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein and their staff have organized the hearings on a shoestring budget over the objection of FCC Chairman Michael Powell, who has said that he doesn't think they're necessary, since anyone can file public comments by mail or online. Btw, I hate to break it to you, but I think FCC Chairman Michael Powell has already made up his mind. [link]
3.29.03 - Just got back from a wonderfully engaging exhibit of Kathy Triplett's ceramic wall sculptures at Raleigh's Lee Hansley Gallery. The show, Wall to Wall: Kathy Triplett, incorporates found objects like bone, coral, metal, circuit boards and more into a series of relief tiles that explore "the ambiguous nature between the worlds of plants, animals and machines." I love variation-on-a-theme-style shows, and the colorful, organic pieces in this one really grab your eye. It runs through April 23. Lee Hansley Gallery, it should be noted, is owned by one of the Triangle's most aggressively outspoken and energetic art boosters, and is located in Raleigh's not-quite-yet-thriving Glenwood South district.
While we're in Artland, you have only one more day
to check out the amazing four-person show, Brothers From
Different Mothers, at Raleigh's downtown Lump
Gallery (I meant to post about this sooner, bu
3.29.03 - "It's scary, okay? Let's face it: There are guys at the Pentagon who have been involved in operational planning for their entire lives, okay? . . . And for this wisdom, acquired during many operations, wars, schools, for that just to be ignored, and in its place have somebody who doesn't have any of that training, is of concern." - Retired General Norman Schwarzkopf on Jan. 28, 2003, discussing Donald Rumsfeld's habit of ignoring military advice. Schwarzkopf added, "When he makes his comments, it appears that he disregards the Army. He gives the perception when he's on TV that he is the guy driving the train and everybody else better fall in line behind him -- or else."
3.28.03 - As the superior military of the United States brings [cough] democracy and freedom to Iraq, it's worth noting the lack of democracy and freedom in the U.S. armed forces. Like African-American soldiers during both World War I and World War II, soldiers in the U.S. military who happen to prefer cuddling up with members of the same sex are denied the basic democratic rights we're supposedly bombing into existence in Iraq. Three cheers for freedom, eh?
Guess what? He was called up to go to Kuwait anyway. Not surprisingly, the military's willingness to disregard its own "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy piqued the interest of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (motto: "Say Nothing, Sign Nothing, Get Legal Help"). An SLDN lawyer sent Osborn's commanders a letter noting 1) how delighted the group was that the Army was letting him serve while openly gay, and 2) how eager SLDN was to chat with the press about the case. That sure helped the Army make up its mind. As stories about Osborn - who'd already left his job and home in Maryland for Fort Bragg - were about to appear in the gay press, the Army quickly gave him an honorable discharge. For his part, Osborn insists that leaving the military wasn't his desired outcome; instead, he says his coming out was "the culmination of more than a decade of mounting frustration" with military homophobia: Despite his record of achievement, since December Osborn has contended with widespread suspicions that his public declaration that he is gay was motivated by an aversion to serving in Iraq. “Everyone has questioned it,” he said. Immediately after he submitted his letter to Cooper, his command launched an investigation...Just in the past week, his commander concluded that Osborn was being truthful in saying he was gay, and that there was no evidence that the declaration was made in order to avoid combat. I'll admit having mixed feelings about this one. When I had a beer with Osborn at Bickett as he stopped in Raleigh for the night, he seemed like a great guy who didn't deserve to die in Cheney's idiotic war. But he also was clearly saddened that he'd been kicked out of an organization that had been part of his life for almost two decades. And I can't help thinking that his skills sure would be useful over in Iraq right now: He is air assault qualified, which means that he can be dropped into “hot spots” by repelling [sic] from a helicopter, and is a cannon fire direction specialist who has used computer equipment to chart artillery trajectories. His current specialty is working as a liaison with local populations affected by battle, particularly in assisting dislocated civilians. Anyone else think the U.S. could use someone like that? Too bad the Army apparently feels that the young troops getting killed in combat in Iraq are better off without a 17-year vet who happens to be queer. And, you know, who am I to question the sound judgment of our military brass? [link] 3.28.03 - Jeanne D'Arc does it again, with a truly beautiful post/mini-essay, this time about the complexity of human emotion, her abusive father and the mixed feelings of Iraqis confronting the reality of U.S. "liberation." Genius, really. If you find you don't have the patience to follow a post of that length, you deserve to live in a world with the FOX network. [link] 3.27.03 - I've been saying the same thing to straight guys for years: "You are not homosexual if you commit one homosexual act." - District Attorney Charles A. Rosenthal Jr. of Harris
County, Texas, arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court in a landmark
sodomy law case. 3.26.03 - As the possibility of house-by-house fighting in Baghdad comes sharply into focus, you might want to spend time at Urban Operations Journal. The site collects a wealth of data about urban warfare experiences - Russian soldiers in Grozny, U.S. soldiers in Hue City and Israeli soldiers in Beirut, among other places - as well as an image library, quotes collection and much more. I was a bit alarmed by the training section, which contains a number of documents from military officials concerned about the "scarcity of training resources" for Military Operations on Urbanized Terrain (MOUT): Because of the limited number of training facilities,
and the varying level of importance placed upon MOUT by different commanders,
training is infrequent and time consuming...less than one third of the
infantry units in Second Marine Division received even the most basic
in MOUT training in the last seven months... Here's retired Col. Randy Gangle, who helped run a 2-year series of urban warfare experiments for the Marine Corps, talking to PBS a few weeks ago: The casualty rate on the urban battlefield is about 30 percent. So, in other words, if you have an infantry battalion of a thousand men, you can expect about 300 of them to be either dead or wounded after the first day of fighting. Horrifying, eh? But Gangle says the average marine, army infantry or tank unit probably gets only "two to three weeks of urban training a year":
Think the polls would look different if U.S. citizens knew about 30% casualty rates? Or that urban warfare specialists are warning our soldiers are "not proficient" at the kind of combat we might be sending them into? I'm the first to admit I don't have a clue how this war's going to turn out, and I'm as bored with shallow "quagmire!" warnings as anyone else. All I know is that the deeper I look into the specifics of the combat the U.S. just started, the more pissed I get that our leaders are sending teenagers to die in it. [link] 3.26.03 - One of the first things you get used to when talking up the possibility of a nonviolent overthrow of a dictator is the quick, sneering dismissal of the idea that a popular rebellion could ever overthrow someone like Saddam Hussein. Once you learn to expect that, it's actually kind of fun to engage folks on this topic. Rick Martinez, a house conservative for the News & Observer (one of many in that particular house), did it today by sneering at activist Rania Masri's suggestion that lifting the economic sanctions and no-fly zones would do more to honor the Iraqi people and get rid of Saddam than anything else. "I figure Iraqis who still have their tongues would have a good laugh at that one," he writes, buying completely into notions of the invincibilty of government power and the helplessness of ordinary people in the face of tyranny. You see that a lot from hawks who pooh-pooh the idea of nonviolent rebellion; it's pretty funny. Notice how Martinez frames the issue when asking Masri about "the position" of the peace and human rights movement: Subjecting Iraqis to another 12 years of Saddam would be preferable to the war the U.S.-led coalition is conducting? She said yes again. We've been here before. Simplistic hawks always present us with only two options: inspections as they've been done in the past or war. Apparently, the notion of including sanctions that hurt Saddam personally while freeing trade in the civilian economy so the people can get food, get healthy and start organizing is too much work or something. And so we send our 19-year-olds into the desert to "liberate" a people who, with just a bit of help, could liberate themselves, thank you. [link] 3.25.03 - Update on the Edwards protest: In their responses to the protest, neither Mark Kleiman nor Atrios (who also worries that "disrupting the democratic process in such a fashion is problematic") have addressed a key issue that led to the thing - namely, the claim that for over three years, Edwards repeatedly refused to even meet with the state's peace activists. Why isn't allowing *that* precedent to be set just as "intolerable," as Kleiman put it, as whatever precedent was set by the noisy drums and chants? Are citizens no longer allowed to hold their elected representatives accountable in even the most basic way? Apparently so. It's a strange kind of liberalism that prioritizes quiet over demands that elected leaders offer a minimum of basic respect to their constituents. [link] 3.25.03 - I see that one of blogdom's "liberal" hawks is outraged at the protesters who raised a ruckus at the John Edwards fundraiser in Raleigh Sunday night. Before I respond to Mark Kleiman, I should mention that he and I exchanged another round of emails over my critique of his support for a unilateral U.S. invasion of Iraq ("Kleiman Gets Fisked," one blogger called it). Kleiman has yet to offer a substantive reply to the criticism I offered of his simplistic "sanctions versus invasion" framing of the problem, nor has he addressed the compelling practical and moral arguments in favor of support for a country-wide rebellion against Saddam led by the Iraqi people themselves (instead of by Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, with U.S. teenagers as the fodder). As the death toll rises and the prospect of close urban combat approaches, it's time to take another look at "liberal hawks" who have yet to explain why they decided an internal Iraqi revolt was a worse option than the current scenario. Your turn, Mark. On to Kleiman's odd attack on the drummers and chanters protesting the Edwards fundraiser. The comments at Atrios' post nicely skewer the attempt to equate the protesters with the Republican mob that shut down the 2000 Florida recount, or with protesters who block abortion clinics. But Kleiman really swings wildly with this one: ...there's no better way to show good faith than meeting with someone in the afternoon and then denouncing him in the evening for refusing to meet with you. That's a great excuse for busting up his little soiree. Let me see if I've got this right: After three years of repeatedly refusing to meet with local peace activists, Edwards agreed to sit down with them just hours before the start of a protest in front of one of Edwards' all-important fundraisers. Somehow, Kleiman spins this as the anti-war groups, not Edwards, acting in bad faith. Oookay. More: Chapel Hill blogger and political activist Ruby Sinreich describes Sunday's shoving incident in the driveway outside Democratic HQ. Ruby was "right there" when it happened (I was about 15 feet away). She seems to put most of the blame on the cops' use of barriers to push the crowd backward (after a local Reverend's unsuccessful attempt to buy his way into the fundraiser). Still More: The N&O printed my letter about police and protesters (I sent it yesterday morning). In the comments at Atrios, local John Iwaniszek says I was "hyperventilating a little" in my original description of the protest, which is probably true. Hey, it was an exciting night. But I did try to stick closely to what I saw with my own eyes, and the incident in the driveway did look ugly. I should have clearly noted that it lasted for just a few minutes out of an over 2-hour event, though. It never occurred to me that someone like Kleiman would extrapolate from what I described to build a case for massive hypocrisy among unnamed liberals. Live and learn. [link]
3.24.02 - My roommate and I were at the protest outside the fundraiser for Senator John Edwards last night. The event, held at the Raleigh headquarters of the N.C. Democratic Party, was effectively disrupted by a crowd of about 200-300 using little more than drums and chanting (ok, and some shoving). Here's what I saw: We got there just after 6pm. The first thing I noticed was a woman with a sign that identified her as a legal advisor from the National Lawyer's Guild. She was busy reminding everyone that we didn't have to obey if the police ordered us to keep moving on a public sidewalk. Duly noted. My favorite moment came next, as the crowd (which seemed fairly diverse in age, race and appearance) waved $1 bills in the air while demanding to see its Senator. It was a nice visual effect; I recommend it highly. It's worth noting that local anti-war groups claim Edwards has repeatedly refused their requests for a meeting. Maybe they should try waving $2 bills instead. A half-hour of speeches followed, and then the chants and drumming began. A friend who said he was considering getting arrested gave me his drums for safekeeping, so I started pounding out beats for the different chants and slowly got into the groove. It felt nice to exercise my Constitutional right to bang on stuff and yell at my elected representatives (I think from now on I'm only going to participate in protests if there are a lot of drums involved). As it got dark and the chants got boring, I wandered over to what looked like a commotion near the driveway. For some reason, a large group of protesters was trying to stop police from closing the driveway's main entrance gate. Much shoving and yelling ensued, none of it pretty. The cops' superior strength eventually won the day, but I felt kind of sick as I watched. Strategies that treat cops as the enemy rarely seem to produce useful results. Anyway, word soon spread that the next move was to fan out across the property surrounding the building and continue drumming and chanting at the donors inside. I liked that strategy much better than trying to shove a cop, so I went through an alley and found myself with a group of people banging drums and plastic tubs at the back entrance to N.C. Democratic Party Headquarters. The appearance of drummers on all sides of the building felt like a turning point. While the police were able to keep the crowd off the Democrats' property, the escalating noise and confusion clearly rattled the folks inside, who were staring out the windows in growing numbers. Donors began to leave, confronting angry chants as they walked out. Whenever the crowd's energy dropped, a drummer would appear out of nowhere, banging hard to encourage everyone to keep it up. I don't know if that was planned; I just know it happened a lot. After twenty minutes of this, a wedge of police officers suddenly burst onto the scene at the back of the building. I didn't realize at the time that North Carolina's Democratic Presidential hopeful was in the middle of the flying V that zoomed past me, inches in front of my nose. I quickly learned it was indeed John Edwards who'd just been rushed past angry Democrats into the back entrance of his state party's headquarters. Not exactly a positive sign of Edwards' North Carolina support. When my roommate and I left at 7:45, Edwards was inside. Some fundraising Dems were still staring out the windows, probably in shock, as the crowd continued to demand that Edwards show himself. Shouts of "Bring Edwards out! Bring Edwards out!" filled the air. The mood was a strange mix of furious and jubilant and showed no signs of abating any time soon. [Naturally, the TV news coverage was disappointing. WRAL 5 and NBC 17 left early, apparently; their stories lasted less than 30 seconds - ridiculously short, given the obvious local discontent with Edwards' Presidential run. ABC 11 did a much better job with a significantly longer and more detailed story, including close-up footage of the driveway skirmish, while presenting both the protesters and Edwards fairly.] Last night's protest was one of the most interesting and effective small demonstrations I've seen in a long time. I'm usually wary of participating in public protests, since one or two idiotic missteps - or deliberate provocations - can unleash a mess of trouble on a movement. While I didn't agree with all of the tactics I saw last night (the two protesters who decided to stand in the way of a couple who were leaving the building, resulting in brief and pointless shoving with two police officers, struck me as particularly clueless), I was honestly impressed with the creative way protesters reacted to the shifting circumstances. Ditto for the Raleigh Police Department. I'm sure some will have a different view, but from what I saw as I wandered the crowd, Raleigh cops demonstrated admirable restraint and courage last night, in the face of a fluid, escalating, uncertain situation. [thanks once again to Randy for the great pictures] [link] 3.23.03 - The best moment from tonight's protest against John Edwards' position on the Iraq invasion - a protest that effectively disrupted a $100-a-plate dinner at state Democratic Party headquarters - was the sea of $1 bills waving above the crowd as people chanted "Bring Edwards Out!" over and over again. Edwards hadn't even arrived yet, but from where I stood, the loud, persistent crowd had obviously rattled the movers and shakers inside. There were some ugly moments as well. I'm off to work, but more later. [link]
3.23.03 - So much for avoiding civilian casualties. Take a look as "Iraqi civilians scream for help as they are caught in the crossfire." Silly of me to expect anything other than bloody meat and broken bones among noncombatants, wasn't it? Here's what you're not seeing on U.S. television right now: About 50 Iraqi civilians were killed in coalition bombing of the southern city of Basra, the independent Arab-language satellite station Al-Jazeera claimed last night. In footage seen across the Arab world, the station aired grisly and explicit images of the dead and wounded, including a child with the back of its skull blown off and blood-stained people being treated on the floor of a hospital. "It's a huge mass of civilians," said one woman angrily as she stood among the casualties. "It was a massacre."
Al-Jazeera...quoted hospital officials in Basra as saying that a total of 50 people were killed – including one entire family and a Russian citizen – when US F-16 warplanes planes bombed the city... Skepticism of all media outlets is the order of the day, of course, but if it's true that coalition forces just killed "a huge mass of civilians" - and that information is being broadcast across the globe - shouldn't U.S. citizens see the footage as well? Doesn't it make us less safe to be out of touch with what the rest of the world is learning about this war? [link]
3.22.03 - Must-read Guardian article, "Unscathed locals sense hope," on the relatively minor civilian casualties - i.e., no reported deaths - in Baghdad so far: ...on the streets of Baghdad, small signs of confidence
emerged, reflecting the belief that this time the Americans might show
mercy to cilvilians, unlike the confrontation over Kuwait in 1991. That
war opened with attacks on "This war looks different. When you have light, when you have water, when you have food, I think you feel more secure. You can feel the change," said Dhia AK al-Jaddue, a doctor in the casualty ward of al-Kindi hospital. "We expected something much more severe." Thank you, universe. And thank you, military commanders who are aiming the bombs. I'm praying it continues like this - even if, as my roommate JB says, it earns Bush a Nobel Peace Prize. I laughed when I heard that, but she looked at me, raised her eyebrows and said, "I'm serious." You know, she's probably right. Hell, they gave it to one of the most famous unindicted war criminals of the 20th century for helping end a conflict he'd prolonged for years, so why wouldn't they give one for this? I really don't give a shit, so long as we don't kill any more Iraqi children.
Folks who don't recall the mistaken U.S. bombing of the Amariyah
shelter in Baghdad during Gulf War I should refresh their memory
with this
1998 article, published on the 7th anniversary of the incident, as
well as this amazing site,
which includes interviews
with the survivors. An estimated 400 civilians were instantly burned
to a crisp, causing the Pentagon (and Colin Powell) to rethink the bombing
strategy. The incident is still fresh in the minds of many Baghdad residents,
who Here's another relevant article, with news that more accurate bombs aren't necessarily reducing civilian casualty rates: In the Gulf War, just 3 percent of bombs were precision-guided. That figure jumped to 30 percent in the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia, and to nearly 70 percent during the Afghan air campaign last year. Yet in each case, the ratio of civilian casualties to bombs dropped has grown. Wonderful. The article lists a lot of different factors contributing to the increased death rate, only some of which are relevant to Baghdad. But even as we're being told the war's most difficult phase lies ahead, I'm hoping this time we reverse the trend of beautiful civilians winding up dead from aerial bombardments. [link]
3.21.03 - The names of U.S. casualties are starting
to arrive back home. "I want President Bush to get a good look at
this, really good look here. - Michael Waters-Bey, father of Staff
Sgt. Kendall Damon Waters-Bey, * - Michelle Waters, oldest sister of Kendall, with tears running down her cheeks * - Kendall's 10-year-old son Kenneth (pictured above) * "There they are." - Mark Beaupre (above left), after the family dog started
barking at 3 a.m. and he realized military officials were walking up to
his door to tell him his son, * - Alyse Beaupre, Ryan's sister, on her last conversation with her brother. * - Colby Willett, cousin of Maj. Jay Thomas Aubin * - Carol Aubin, Jay's stepmother, on the attempt to keep
the truth * - Mark Kennedy, father of Cpl. Brian Matthew Kennedy, who had a wife, 10-year-old daughter and 7-year-old son * I'll say it again, for those who failed to get it before the dying began: We could have gotten rid of Saddam and freed the Iraqi people without risking the lives of these soldiers. That Cheney & Co. didn't even try, even as they made plans for cashing in on the "rebuilding" process, will be a black mark against this administration for as long as there are history books. [link]
3.21.03 - Well, that sure was a quick boycott. Just got word from Lisa McKay, program director for Raleigh country station WQDR, that the Dixie Chicks will be back on the airwaves Monday at 3pm. McKay was last seen telling the N&O's Dennis Rogers that 500,000 votes had been cast in QDR's online poll - a clearly absurd statement, since we know the station's poll software (now replaced) added as many as 85 votes for each click. Takes the number of actual votes down to around 5,000 to 10,000, and since you could vote more than once, the number of actual people voting was probably even lower. It's also worth noting that as of today CNN's Dixie Chicks poll has less than 138,000 votes cast (scroll down to view results). Does anyone really think that WQDR in Raleigh got more online votes than CNN? McKay says she was unaware of the vote oddities, and points out that the phone lines were where the real action was, anyway. Calls ran overwhelmingly against the Dixie Chicks. They may do the same when the station reinstates the trio on its playlists, so Monday might be a good time to let QDR know you appreciate the move: 876-6464 or 1-800-233-9470. [link]
3.21.03 - NC Peace Action has details about the protest planned for Senator John Edwards' Sunday night appearance at Democratic Party HQ on Hillsborough Street in Raleigh. 6:30pm. [link] 3.21.03 - Count me among those who think mainstream liberals like Eric Alterman and the folks at Tapped are being stupid and insulting by complaining about continued antiwar protests. Interesting Times says it best, so I'll quote him at length while mentioning that he's hitting on all cylinders these days: Yes, we didn't stop the war. But I don't think many of those who went to the rallies expected that they would be able to stop it. Most of the people I talked to were even more skeptical than I was. But we did get the word out that there is a significant number of people in this country who are vehemently opposed to the direction Bush is leading this country. He does not have the mandate his supporters and sycophants in the media say he does. We have sent a message to the rest of the people who are also uncomfortable with our present course of action that their discomfort is not isolated and they are not unpatriotic for feeling it... These actions can give courage to those who might not otherwise have it, especially the leaders of the nominal opposition. Would Tom Daschle have felt comfortable making his recent comments about Bush's diplomatic failures and standing by them in the face of withering criticism if he had NOT seen the huge crowds of protesters in the streets? Alterman's comment annoyed me because it seemed so dismissive of what has happened already. Far from being a failure, I consider the fact that we mobilized millions of people to get off their butts and publicly protest Bush's war even before a single shot was fired to be an extraordinary achievement. Remember that the Vietnam War had raged for years before the protest levels reached the kind we have seen in recent months. Alterman's comment was insulting at a time when the anti-war movement needs to be applauded. Alterman should apologize for his ill-considered crack. There's still plenty of work that can be done - and inspiration that can be provided - in the streets. Which doesn't mean that we don't need to see more creative, more joyful and (work with me) MORE FUN protests on our side, as well as better organizing that lasts longer than an afternoon. And yes, I'm guilty as charged on that last one. Need some ideas? Try the great list of 198 Methods of Nonviolent Action at the "A Force More Powerful" site, which Jeanne d'Arc at Body and Soul beat me to posting. Personally, after spending most of the day in a deepening pit of apathy and despair, I can highly recommend two things that I guarantee will rejuvenate anyone feeling blue on the anti-invasion side: 1) Organize your own personal dance protest. Seriously. I did an impromptu one last night at Bickett Gallery after a friend pulled me onto the floor and told me to make sure my feet sent a message to Iraq. I can't tell you how much those 15 minutes of hyper-movement eased the bleak tension I'd been feeling. Instead of screaming and shouting, it might be more effective to get some drums and dance in the streets until the cops come. Dance for civilians everywhere. Dance for the teenage U.S. and Iraqi soldiers. Dance until the universe feels you dancing and you smile at the recognition of that fact. I promise you'll feel much, much better. It'd sure make for better TV, anyway. 2) Take time off the war shit and go hear some of your favorite loud music. Trust me on this one. Rock music helped bring down Milosevic in Serbia (video clip) so you know it can help you. And watching Bob Log tear up the stage at King's tonight restored a good chunk of my spirit, reminded me of my faith in chaotic beauty, and blew new life into my love for this amazing, fucked-up, gloriously stupid universe. Bring on the zombies; my guns are locked and loaded once again. [link] 3.20.03 - "I am disappointed that
the President has decided that --U.S. Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.), March 17, 2003 Watt voted against the Iraq resolution, btw. Why is anyone listening to Tom Daschle instead of this guy? Read the whole statement here. [via N.C.'s Common Sense Foundation] [link] 3.20.03 - The secret life of gay soldiers in the U.S. military: ...abiding by "don't ask, don't tell" requires much more of gays than simply remaining quiet about their sexual orientation. Elaborate charades must often be carried out just to ensure that suspicions do not arise. "If a straight soldier gets a letter from his girlfriend," says J.R., "he can tell his buddies, pass the letter around, show them pictures. If you're gay or bi, you can't. If you get a letter or photo, you rip it up or burn it; you can't keep it." [link] 3.20.03 - Do yourself a favor: Don't bother with CNN, FOX, MSNBC or the rest of the war porn stations. Try these instead: BBC
reporters' Weblog from Iraq and Jordan (and Kuwait, Brussels, etc) 3.20.03 - The U.S. National Security Council's senior director for counter-terrorism has suddenly resigned his position. The UPI story in the Washington Times does a good job on the competing explanations for why Rand Beers - who served under Reagan, Clinton and both Bushes - chose this, of all moments, to leave the government. "Personal reasons?" Maybe: "There is a predominant belief in the intelligence community that an invasion of Iraq will cause more terrorism than it will prevent. There is also a tremendous amount of embarrassment by intelligence professionals that there have been so many lies out of the administration -- by the president, (Vice President Dick) Cheney and (Secretary of State Colin) Powell -- over Iraq." Bamford cited a recent address by President Bush that cited documents, which allegedly proved Iraq was continuing to pursue a nuclear program, that were later shown to be forgeries. "It is absurd that the president of the United States mentioned in a speech before the world information from phony documents and no one got fired," Bamford said. "That alone has offended intelligence professionals throughout the services." I dunno, though. It's hard to believe Rand Beers would be very upset about, ahem, lying in public about terrorism, since he did it himself last November when he claimed FARC rebels in Colombia had trained with al Qaida in Afghanistan. The lie was part of a Bush administration attempt to get a lawsuit against the private mercenary company DynCorp dismissed by invoking the specter of September 11th: DynCorp and the State Department are trying to convince US District Judge Richard Roberts to dismiss a class-action lawsuit filed last September by an estimated 10,000 Ecuadorians against DynCorp because a trial could compromise the wars on both drugs and terrorism. The suit claims the defoliation missions flown by DynCorp have resulted in chemicals blowing across the border between the two countries and has led to a major loss of crops and severe health problems for the local population... "It is believed that FARC terrorists have received training in Al Qaida terrorist caps in Afghanistan," Beers says in the original document. "I wish to strike this sentence," the new version filed by Beers in August says. Hell, maybe Beers really did hit his limit after being publicly caught up in one too many administration lies. Or maybe he's one of the many in the intelligence community who apparently feel that invading Iraq is stupid and dangerous: "If it was your job to prevent terror attacks, would you be happy about an action that many see as unnecessary, that is almost guaranteed to cause more terror in the short-term?" said one official. "I know I'm not." Either way, the article's a must-read. Anyone want to take a bet on how many days it'll take for this to show up in the N&O? Oh, and keep an eye on Colombia, which will surely be Cheney's next target. Update: Via Counterspin, the Washington Post adds useful details, among them a claim of Beers' "general weariness with fighting internal battles." The Post also includes info about two other resignations I hadn't heard about previously, John H. Brown and Mary A. Wright, "the highest-ranking diplomat to resign over the current situation." [link]
3.20.03 - It hardly
seems the time for, uh, naked tits and freaky blues, but
I'd be remiss in the "arts" part of this
3.19.03 - Wake Forest basketball player Josh Howard - chosen as ACC Player of the Year on Monday in a unanimous vote (that's only happened once before) - joins the Dixie Chicks by standing up against war in Iraq in the Winston-Salem Journal today. How many of these folks will it take before America wakes up to the fact that this is a mainstream opinion? Anyway, there's a great Josh Howard photo gallery here. [link]
3.19.03 - A 30-second movie from J.P. Trostle, cartoonist for the Chapel Hill Herald, captures my feelings about this war's sledgehammer approach to "democracy" nicely [Quicktime, AVI]. And the above cartoon captures my feelings about Senator John Edwards' politically opportunistic, immoral position on this war nicely, too (note to Oliver: I can't see any chance of this guy getting the nomination; Gephardt's locking down the disgusting Demhawk position much more effectively). Get your black armbands ready. By the way, Jack DuVall's presentation last night was amazing and inspirational. I filmed some of it and bought his stunning video, Bringing Down A Dictator, a detailed look at the brilliant, carefully orchestrated nonviolent campaign - using ridicule, rock music and massive civil disobedience - that kicked Slobodan Milosevic out of office when he tried to steal the 2000 Serbian election. The fact that the U.S. never even tried to spark this kind of thing before invading Iraq will go down as a black mark in our history. I'll show clips from the talk and video on Monkeytime TV tonight. More later. [link] 3.18.03 - Jack DuVall is speaking at UNC tonight! DuVall, a former Air Force counterintelligence officer, is the co-author of "With Weapons of Will: How to Topple Saddam Nonviolently," which I wrote about in February, and executive producer of "A Force More Powerful," a 3-hour documentary series about nonviolent resistance to tyranny. More after I hear him speak: NONVIOLENT REGIME CHANGE: Alternative to War? A public forum on Nonviolent Conflict Featuring the showing of the PBS Documentary film; “Bringing Down a Dictator” Tuesday March 18th, 7:00pm, UNC-CH Gardner 008 (Preceeded by a workshop on direct action for 5, with food, at a location in the Union). [link]
Here's a must-read New York Times article - cited by the conservative media watchdog group CAMERA as "a balanced piece, interweaving the nitty-gritty of present day events with historical context and presenting conflicting political and religious views" - about the bulldozing of an Arab-owned orchard days after last November's horrible massacre of 12 Israeli guards at the Jewish settlement in Hebron. Excerpt: Following the tradition of their tenacious movement, settlers converted sorrow and anger into territorial gain, building a rough outpost near the site of Friday's ambush. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon endorsed the settlers' aims during a visit to Hebron today... After the rally, some youths attempted to run into Palestinian Hebron, only to be turned back by Israeli forces. In a turbulent crowd, they pounded on the doors of nearby Palestinian houses and then smeared the pale stone with blue graffiti: "Every Arab killed — for me it's a holiday," and, over and over, "Vengeance." God - or the devil - is in the details, as they say, and from a secular perspective the details of this religious land claim are fascinating: A man in running shoes, jeans and a prayer shawl strode to the edge of the clearing and began praying intensely, bending rapidly back and forth at the waist over his prayer book. The outpost took shape around him during the next four hours, as midnight approached. A truck pulled up and, without a word, the driver unloaded a water tank the size of a small car beside the praying man, who did not look around. Steps away, two dozen young people formed a bucket brigade and began pulling stones from an old wall beside another orchard, passing them along to build an enclosure behind a green trailer. First a lean-to appeared, then three silver tents were pitched. Benches were set up, and a rabbi began leading a group in prayers and songs. A flatbed truck arrived carrying a red container for conversion to a shelter. The work proceeded even though they did not have a formal permit to build a new settlement and did not know who owned the land... Israeli children yanked up radishes from a Palestinian field, until Israeli police officers shooed them away.
"If they continue to make trouble, no Arabs, and a Jewish city. If they're good people — if they know this is our land, that God gave it to us — they can stay. If they behave like animals," he added, nodding at the site of the shooting, "then not." Note that in this worldview, the Arabs can only remain in Hebron if they not only stop the terror attacks but also be "good people" by acknowledging the Jewish fundamentalists' divine mandate to the land those Arabs have been living and farming for decades, if not centuries. Well, that's sure a helpful position. Here's more about the conflict between olive harvesters and settlers:
- Israeli Defense Forces guard "innocent" Palestinian olive harvesters - Jerusalem Indymedia looks at the olive harvest's economic and political elements [link]
3.17.03 - What to do when the bombs start falling? I dunno...maybe take time to review the fascinating history of the black armband?
Olonga also called on other Zimbabweans to overcome their fears and stand up for what they believe. "The more people hesitate, the more people hold back, the less we can achieve to bring about a restoration of sanity and dignity to the nation of Zimbabwe. I hope that by our stand, people will be inspired to follow suit," he said.
Olonga's courage should be an inspiration to certain other singers currently beseiged by small minds - and to everyone who feels out on a limb in these kneejerk times. It ain't that hard to stick to your guns. So do it. Oh, one more thing: I know it's a small, silly gesture, but if the bombing of Baghdad begins, I'm going to start wearing a black armband. [Thanks to Dave L. for the suggestion. And yes, that Michael Jordan story in the first paragraph is a joke] [link] 3.17.03 - Oh boy. We get to see what kind of man our President is. Will he respond to this episode the way the leader of a democracy should? Or will the political usefulness of a France-bashing U.S. population keep him quiet? Stay tuned.[via Atrios] [link] 3.16.03 - Hey, has anyone else noticed that WQDR's Dixie Chicks poll adds as many as 85 votes to its alleged "Total Votes" every time you click? Talk about inflating your audience numbers. I've noticed this in the past with polls at QDR's sister station, AM gabfest WPTF, but then it was a consistent 2 votes for every one click. QDR's poll is all over the map - click once and it might add 25 votes, 32 votes, 67 votes...it's completely random and always massively inflated. Taking an average of 30-60 votes per click, what we get instead of the implication that over 55,400 people have voted is a much more realistic count between 900 and 1800. And since you can vote as often as you like, the number of people who've actually bothered to register their opinion is surely much less than that. Wait, it gets better. If you vote that you "Still love" the Dixie Chicks, the poll not only adds an unpredictable number of votes to that category, it also consistently adds a larger number of votes to the "Don't like them at all" category. Try it for yourself if you don't believe me; I even deleted their cookies and voted again to check. Is this the kind of garbage fueling the continued anti-Dixie Chicks hysteria? Here's the station's request line: 919-860-9470, or 1-800-233-9470 if you want them to pay. [link] 3.16.03 - Anyone looking for an example of the brutality at the heart of the "liberal hawk" argument should check out Mark Kleiman's reaction to Salam's thoughts [see below] about being bombed. For some reason, Kleiman decides it's time for disgustingly snide titles like "Picky, Picky, Picky" as civilians in a country that has never attacked the US. confront an atomic-strength bombing. Kleiman's answer to those civilians who'll die unnecessarily? "Sorry, Salam, this isn't about your safety, it's about ours." Appalling doesn't begin to cover the level of insensitivity here. Now, I've enjoyed Kleiman's blog in the past; it's generally thoughtful and interesting. But the fact that his position on the need for a US invasion of Iraq routinely results in some of his most obnoxious and least logical posts should be telling him something. That it hasn't speaks of serious blindness on his part. Of course, I'll need an example to back that up. Let's leave aside the obvious point that Kleiman has yet to explain why he feels a US attack is smarter than, say, a strategy of full support for a popular anti-Saddam rebellion - which, by the way, has never been tried. Instead, let's examine a clear case of a Kleiman "liberal hawk" post that completely fails the tests of basic logic and basic understanding of recent Iraqi history. A polite but unsatisfying email exchange - which ended with Kleiman ignoring the most serious point under discussion - solidified my view that his argument is riddled with glaringly obvious flaws that make it unsupportable. Kleiman begins with an absurdly simplistic framing in the post's title, "Bombs Versus Starvation: The Humanitarian Case Against 'Peace.'" He goes on to base his argument on a false dichotomy so obvious it's embarrassing: Yes, the "shock and awe" bombing of Baghdad will kill innocent civilians; so do the sanctions. What reason is there to think that, if we eschew an invasion now, the sanctions will end before killing a larger number of people than will die as a result of the fighting? Or is starving children to death, or causing them to die of disease, somehow less violent than dropping bombs? As if those are really our only two options. Yep, that's the anti-war position in a nutshell: let's continue starving Iraqi children to death. Kleiman's Limbaugh logic, which equates all "sanctions" with the killing of innocent civilians, is rather shocking in its ignorance. Apparently, he's completely unaware of the intense, decade-long debate about what kind of sanctions the international community should be using against Iraq - a debate that at its pre-9/11 height included both Colin Powell and Dick Cheney calling for "a substantial loosening" in an attempt to reclaim the moral high ground and lessen civilian suffering (and in Cheney's case, probably, make a buck for his pals at Halliburton). Here's the key point about sanctions I have yet to see any "liberal hawk" (let alone the pro-war amen chorus) address: At no time since 1991 did the U.N. sanctions specifically target the personal finances and ability to travel of Saddam and his inner circle, even as the sanctions prevented the construction of water purification and electrical plants necessary for the health of the overwhelmingly young civilian population. Read that again, slowly. Then take a moment to note that the US and UK banned civilian staples like eggs, water pumps and refrigeration devices as "dual use" items with possible military applications. Be sure to scroll down for Powell's famous statement that "you can do certain things with eggs that can create a biological weapon" (I think he meant to say that fertilized eggs can be used to grow viral toxins [link fixed], but who knows). Congressman Tony Hall of Ohio described the utter immorality of the US sanctions policy in April 2000: RAY SUAREZ: So after the sanctions were put in place, Iraq was allowed to sell some of its oil and buy needed supplies. Why is there this kind of privation? REP. TONY HALL: Not enough food, not enough medicines are coming in, in any large quantities. That's the first thing. Secondly, there is a sanctions committee; it is called the 661 Committee, and it's made up of a lot of bureaucrats that are not particularly sensitive to emergency needs and to the disease and things that are going on there. They hold up lists of consumer... not consumer goods, but humanitarian goods like medicines and foods and refrigeration parts that they need to keep serum for polio cool, and they hold these parts up for... because there might be a list of maybe a hundred items, and there might be two or three items that they don't like, so the whole list is held up... Two months later, Hall put it even more bluntly: "The prime killer of children under 5 years of age - diarrheal diseases - has reached epidemic proportions, and they now strike four times more often than they did in 1990...Holds on contracts for the water and sanitation sector are a prime reason for the increases in sickness and death." This is a crucial point in the anti-invasion argument - and one that Kleiman ignores completely. "The social disintegration brought on by sanctions...diminishes the already slim chance that internal Iraqi discontent could be converted into sustained popular rebellion: people consumed with finding their next meal do not have time to overthrow dictators." Add to that disintegration the decisions by both Bush I and Clinton to sell out Iraqi resistance movements in the interests of regional stability, and you have a classic example of a morally bankrupt foreign policy. After such a long, horrific history in which the U.S. actively prevented the Iraqi people from overthrowing Saddam on their own, here come the "liberal" warmongers like Mark Kleiman to instruct us about "the humanitarian case" for bombing the fuck out of a country that has never attacked us. "If the alternative to war is continued sanctions," Kleiman asks, "and if sanctions (and the Iraqi government's response to them) are killing about 90,000 Iraqi children per year...in what sense is war a more violent option than continued sanctions?" Good lord, what an uninformed question. Implying that folks "in the 'peace' camp" are in favor of continued violence against civilians - when we're the ones who've been arguing for years for sanctions that help, not hurt, Iraqi civilians' chances of overthrowing Saddam - is as ignorant and insulting as what's-his-head regularly gets. Kleiman doesn't seem to have noticed, but during the six months prior to the 9/11 attacks (and Donald Rumsfeld's immediate decision to use them as an excuse to go after Saddam), there was plenty of discussion in the Bush administration and elsewhere about implementing sanctions that wouldn't kill quite so many Iraqi children. The Economist noted in May 2001 that the sanctions "merely help to devastate Iraq’s economy and bolster its cruel dictatorship." A February 2001 Brookings Institute report called for "a whole new logic to the reform of Iraqi sanctions" and recommended strategies like the following: 1) Lift sanctions on the export and import of consumer goods. "Initially, this reform would have a relatively minor impact, given the small size of the civilian economy and the limited ability of average Iraqis to purchase civilian goods. However, this action would have immediate psychological value...[and] would legitimize existing black market trade in consumer items, forcing down the current prices of many commodities." 2) Allow foreign investment in the civilian economy. "Such investment is essential if the humanitarian situation of Iraqis is to improve. Although the small size of the non-state economy in Iraq limits the opportunities for private sector investment, the decrepit state of civilian infrastructure offers abundant possibilities for those wishing to invest in Iraq. An investment code restricting the sort of investments that were permissible should seek to ensure that inflows of foreign capital do not further military purposes or greatly bolster the fungible resources of the regime." 3) Tighten the freeze on private foreign assets of the Iraqi regime. "The United Nations has long hesitated to demand that member states freeze the private assets of individuals, as opposed to those of states. As a result, many members of the Iraqi regime are still able to access many of their overseas assets. Clamping down on these resources would increase pressure on the regime while sparing Iraqi civilians any further harm." 4) Enforce travel bans on regime leaders. "The international community has no interest in further isolating the average Iraqi from the rest of the world...While loosening travel restrictions on most average Iraqis, imposing international travel bans on regime figures—similar to those in place against Slobodan Milosevic and his cronies—would further de-legitimize those in power in Iraq. These travel sanctions should serve as interim measures while the United States steps up its efforts to build international support for the indictment of Iraqi figures by war tribunals." None of the above have been tried yet, of course. I say they'd work, along with a coordinated international campaign to create a popular Iraqi revolt, to rid the world of Saddam. Without endangering U.S. soldiers and dropping an atom-bomb's worth of ordnance on Iraqi civilians like Salam Pax. Sadly, the Bush push for "smarter sanctions" included few of the substantive changes left-leaning observers had been calling for, and "forbade outside investment in Iraq's private sector, making it virtually impossible for Iraq to rebuild its tattered infrastructure." The plan was ultimately derailed by Russians anxious to get back billions in Iraqi contracts that had been frozen far longer than anyone expected back in 1991. This is where diplomatic efforts should be focused. Instead, "liberal hawks" spin simplistic arguments that place "the peace camp" squarely on the side of those who've turned a blind eye to the suffering of the Iraqi people and sold them out again and again. Like I said, it's a stunning blind spot. Repeat after me, Mark: "There has never been an assets freeze on Saddam Hussein or his close associates." Ask yourself why that is, "liberal hawks." I'm all ears. Then start wondering how on earth you can believe a massive bombing that murders Iraqi civilians - whose country has never attacked us - is the US's best available option. And then ask yourself how you could possibly have grown to support such a brutally amoral foreign policy. I'm all ears on that one, too. [link]
3.16.03 - Salam Pax - in Baghdad - offers a scathing rant against the almost certain U.S. bombing of his city at Where is Raed? Must-reading. Hope he survives. [via Body and Soul] [link] 3.16.03 - Got an email from the progressives at Muslim WakeUp! - where "prayer is better than sleep" - about their delightful Hug a Jew! program. They have lots of sharp analysis of Muslim life in America and abroad, as well as detailed news and satire. Be sure to check the video of their, um, gorilla street protest about the real missing link between Osama and Saddam. [link]
3.15.03 - Virginia Congressman Jim Moran's clearly offensive statement about "the Jewish community's" support for an Iraq invasion has lots of folks sorting out criticisms of right-wing government policies from criticisms of "the Jews." It's really not that difficult to get a handle on this, once you get past the aggressive emotion so many folks bring to the table. These might help: 1) In the blog world, Amygdala lays out the different kinds of criticisms nicely for Calpundit. He also links to today's NY Times, which notes polls showing that "Jews are less likely than the public at large to support military action against Iraq." The article also includes concerns from one lobbying group that the accusation that "Jews control foreign policy" sets them up to be used as a scapegoat if the invasion/occupation goes badly. Hold that thought. 2) Michael Kinsley helpfully points out that the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee brags about its influence on its own Web site, and then pokes hard: ...you shouldn't brag about how influential you are
if you want to get hysterically indignant when someone suggests that government
policy is Touche. Fortune has also repeatedly placed AIPAC in the top 5 on its "Power 25" list of the country's most effective lobbyists. And while nothing's stopping anyone from trying to organize a similarly powerful Arab-American group, the point here is that while Moran's comments were ridiculously broad and offensive, that's not the case every time someone dares to question the extent to which a small group of conservative Jewish lobbyists might be affecting U.S. foreign policy. 3) A more interesting and provocative argument comes from antiwar activist Stephen Zunes in the liberal Jewish mag Tikkun: ...there are far more powerful interests with a stake in what happens in the Persian Gulf region than AIPAC. These include the oil companies, the arms industry, and other special interests whose lobbying influence and campaign contributions far surpass that of the much-vaunted "Jewish lobby" and its allied donors to congressional races... It is noteworthy that in the authorization of force for the 1991 Gulf War, the majority of Jewish members of Congress voted against the war resolution, which is more than can be said for its non-Jewish members. In the more lopsided vote authorizing the use of force this past October, a majority of Jewish members of Congress did authorize the use of force, though proportionately less so than did non-Jewish members. Oops. So much for Jim Moran. By quoting
Israelis who feel their country is being used as an attack dog by politicians
beholden to U.S. military contractors and energy companies, Zunes also
undercuts the notion that AIPAC Even more provocative, however, is Zunes' suggestion
- echoing the concerns of at least one American Jewish leader in the NY
Times story above - that some U.S. policymakers might be setting
Israel up for a fall if the Iraq invasion goes badly. Instead of placing
blame for a failure on "the undue influence of the oil companies,
military contractors, right-wing ideologues, and excessive corporate influence,"
it would be all too easy to scapegoat those all-powerful "Jewish
special interests." Takes the argument to a new level, doesn't it? Zunes calls the possibility of that type of sellout "not likely," but thinking about it raises all kinds of fascinating questions about the way U.S. policymakers have used Israel for their own interests in the Middle East - a point often overlooked by those who are quick to accuse Jews of using the U.S. to serve Israel. Zunes claims he's heard from Arab foreign ministers that U.S. officials tell them "it's really the Jews who are behind this" - an excuse used to moderate Arab anti-American sentiment. Sure sounds like plausible Realpolitik to me. He also says he hears the same thing from U.S.-based "security analysts" with links to the defense establishment. If he's right, the politically diverse "Jewish community" has a lot bigger problems to deal with than stupid comments from folks like Jim Moran. 4) Finally, National Review looks at Moran's fascinating history of violent incidents - including shoving another Congressman back in 1995 - and notes the role of Virginia's Republicans in keeping Democrat Jim Moran in a safe district. Ah, our old friend: partisan redistricting. If anyone's going to defeat Moran, it'll have to happen in the Democratic primary. Rest assured AIPAC is already on the case. [link] 3.14.03 - Talk about your perils of "embedded" reporting. Fayetteville Observer military reporter Tanya Biank was yanked from Kuwait earlier this week after her boyfriend, a major in the division she'd been covering for months, proposed to her. For more on the bizarre attempt by the Pentagon to remove itself from the scrutiny of civilians - the folks who, ahem, control the military in this country, according to a little document called the Constitution - check Editor & Publisher's informative Iraq and the Press page. Particularly good is 13 Questions We Wish They'd Asked, a direct smack in the head to the sleepwalking White House Press Corps. I like #6 and #9. [link] |
"In
some instances it's hard to tell what's dietetic about the recipes at all,
except that they're unspeakably grim. And yet also, completely insane."
| 3.13.03 - Weight Watchers recipe cards from 1974. What, you need more than that? Ok, try this: Wendy's descriptions
will 3.13.03 - The death of a manic mentally ill person at the hands of seven police officers in Greenville, NC last week is being examined by the State Bureau of Investigation. Eugene Boseman's girlfriend says she watched police hit him "in the back, sides and head as he lay face down." I'm sure I wouldn't enjoy trying to subdue a manic bipolar person, but studies of interactions between police and the mentally ill suggest it's unlikely the cops' only option was beating Boseman down. I wonder, do Greenville police get any special training in how to defuse situations involving mentally ill suspects? The Consensus Project has a number of specific suggestions for 1) recognizing the signs of severe mental illness and 2) stabilizing the scene using "deescalation techniques:" If the person is acting erratically, but not directly threatening any other person or him-or herself, such an individual should be given time to calm down. Violent outbursts are usually of short duration. It is better that the officer spend 15 or 20 minutes waiting and talking than to spend five minutes struggling to subdue the person. Even in situations involving busy traffic (as was apparently the case with Boseman in Greenville), officers trained to patiently deescalate have succeeded in helping mentally ill people. But even though Memphis led the way in 1988, it's only recently that U.S. cities - Cincinnatti, Phoenix and Tampa, e.g. - have begun to implement special "crisis intervention teams" and mandatory training for officers. That's especially sad since the Mental Health Consumers' Self-Help Clearinghouse has evidence that injury rates drop dramatically for both suspects and officers in cities that take a more enlightened approach. "Unfortunately, these programs have been tragedy-driven," says one mental health advocate. "That’s what it has taken to move communities in most places. That and being sued." We'll have to wait for the SBI report to get the officers' side of the story, but if Eugene Boseman's death gets Greenville police to rethink the way they deal with mentally ill suspects, then maybe his family can at least get a little peace from that. You know, since they apparently didn't get to say goodbye to him in person. Family members claim that police refused to allow them to see the body, providing them a Polaroid instead. It sure would be nice to see a reporter ask the department about that particular move. [thanks to Nancy for this one] [link]
3.13.03 - I feel more functional already. Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill has a new branding campaign and logo, so please begin selling the area as a thrilling "region that is indeed a family of communities" immediately. Please note the exciting forward tilt to that Triangle above. While you're at it, feel free to chip in that extra $5000 you've got there in your purse. This new chapter in local history, revealed yesterday, is designed to provide us with "a sense of regional unity and identity." Funny, I hadn't noticed one missing. Sure, if there were ten fewer miles between Carrboro and Garner the local arts and music scenes might be hitting previously unknown heights, but that's hardly the kind of thing a media campaign is going to change. Making sure there are trains running after last call would do far more to create a friendly regional vibe than any amount of hilariously vague corporatespeak. After we get trains here, I mean. Hey, maybe someone should do a media campaign about that. [link] 3.13.03 - Thanks to all the skaters who called the show last night; you were great (rerun times here). I was surprised when Tommy Harward called, too. Here's the link to his flatland freestyle clips (try this, this and this). Here's an article called "The Dilemma of Freestyle." And here's a summary of injury rates per thousand participants for skateboarding ("surprisingly safe"), basketball, football and other sports, using data from an October 2002 study in the perfectly named Journal of Trauma. Btw, if a story one caller told about Raleigh police is true - a cop hauled two 15-year-olds who were walking with skateboards into the police station, made them stand with their noses in a corner for a half hour and then failed to cite them for anything - someone in the RPD needs to check themselves. I'll post more skate links tonight. [link]
3.12.03 - Tonight's guest on Monkeytime TV will be the guy who organized last Sunday's skate protest. 18-year-old Travis Knapp-Prasek spoke before Raleigh's City Council last week and is also the brains behind Skate NC, a site he started 2 years ago and whose forum now serves over 1200 registered users. Travis will be phoning in at 8 to talk about local skaters' battles with police (who destroyed a homemade skatepark behind the abandoned women's prison last month) and the attempt to build a park downtown. Hey, it's more than I was doing at 18, that's for sure. [link] 3.12.03 - Great article about the Iraqi left from last week's LA Weekly; turns out many of them "firmly oppose the Bush administration’s war plans." Here's what they do support: "Iraqi leftists want the international community to back an Iraqi-led military uprising against Saddam." The leftist party has also long been Iraq’s most diverse political movement, cutting across traditional population lines to incorporate many disenfranchised majority Shias and minority Kurds. Even though tens of thousands of Communists and other leftists have perished in Saddam’s gulags and are still actively targeted by the ruling Ba’athist regime, the Iraqi CP today maintains a clandestine network across Iraq that experts deem to be of significant scale and political potential. That network provides some of the best and most detailed reporting on armed resistance and government repression within Iraq. Indeed, human-rights activists, from Human Rights Watch to Amnesty International, rely heavily on the detailed reporting that comes out of Iraq via this network. So why aren't we hearing more about these folks? Oh, yeah: The Communist Party and other Iraqi leftist groups refused to join the recent U.S.-backed Iraqi opposition meeting in London, pointing out that Washington has only been planning to replace Saddam’s regime with another minority dictatorship. The Iraqis closest to Washington remain deposed aristocrats... Instead of the U.S.-backed return of the old ruling class, the Communist Party and Shia and Kurdish opposition groups want U.N.-monitored elections inside a post-Saddam Iraq leading to a federal representative government. This is an ongoing struggle yet to be adequately reported, unfortunately, in any U.S. publication, and the issue represents a genuinely democratic frontline with, so far, few if any so-called American progressives on it. A federal representative government? Can't have that! Far better to install a U.S. puppet and leave most of Saddam's terror-driven bureaucracy in place, right? The article overstates Western progressives' ignorance of the Iraqi left's concerns, I think, but it's probably true that the absurd fear of the word "communism" in the U.S. is partly to blame for the lack of more vocal support. Hopefully, the LA Weekly article could move that along. Also, be sure to read this Guardian piece debunking the right-wing lie that the "true voice of the Iraqi people" is behind Bush: A new myth has emerged in the pro-war camp's propaganda arsenal. Iraqi exiles support the war, they claim, and none took part in last month's march through central London. So if the peaceniks and leftwingers who joined the protest had the honesty to listen to the true voice of the Iraqi people they would never denounce Bush's plans for war again. This is a common refrain from the talk radio amen chorus - led locally in all its deceptive ignorance by WPTF's Jerry Agar. But what's this? Wrong, and wrong. A large number of Iraqis were among the million-member throng, including two key independent political groups. They carried banners denouncing Saddam Hussein (thereby echoing the sentiments of many non-Iraqis since this was not a protest by pro-Saddam patsies, as the pro-war people also falsely claim). They represented important currents in the Iraqi opposition, and ones whom the Americans have repeatedly tried to persuade to join the exiles' liaison committee. Folks like Agar don't know jack about the "true voice" of the Iraqi people. The difference is that I don't pretend to. The very idea that the Iraqis who've been running clandestine resistance and intelligence from inside the country for years (while the CIA-created Iraqi National Congress preened in exile) might prefer an alternative to a massive U.S. bombing is outside folks like Agar's comprehension. And if it wasn't? So what? Agar's perfectly happy insisting that we're saving Iraq's neighbors even as 95% of the people in Turkey, for just one example, oppose a U.S. invasion. They must not know what's good for them. But Agar sure does. Read to the end of the Guardian commentary, where an Iraqi opposition leader who's rejected invitations to, as he puts it, "give a cover to US military operations" describes why the sanctions used since 1991 have kept Saddam in power. [thanks to Dave L. for these] [link] |
Left-wing
Israeli groups routinely object to 
