Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Peggy Simpson, Katie Couric

"Clinton, Paul and Couric--How Barriers Fall" (Peggy Simpson, WMC):
Alice Paul took nothing for granted. She didn't expect those with power to give it up; she knew challengers had to take it. And she was a brilliant tactician with a sense of what drove politics. When existing suffrage organizations didn’t move politicians, Paul created a more radical National Women’s Party. When President Wilson appeared indifferent to the very idea of extending votes to women--at the time he was pushing democracy for all, overseas--she organized a suffrage parade on the eve of his inauguration in 1913. Marchers were attacked but the headlines expanded support for the cause. Her activists organized the first-ever civilian protest in front of the White House, with some suffragists chaining themselves to the White House gates. Alice Paul and dozens of others went to jail and, when jailers force-fed her to end her hunger strike, she managed to get the word out. The subsequent outrage persuaded Wilson to reverse course and support the suffrage amendment.
Alice Paul continued organizing for another 50 years, working from a house a stone's throw from Congress. She wrote the proposed Equal Rights Amendment in 1923. She lobbied successfully for Title VII of the 1964 Civil rights Act, which bans workplace discrimination.
Today, the Sewell-Belmont House is a nonprofit museum educating students of all ages about women's struggle to win the vote and giving "Alice" awards to women who break barriers and set new precedents.
On Tuesday, CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric will get this year's "Alice."
Board chair Audrey Sheppard said the focus on barriers broken, and on those that still remain, is "very timely" in the wake of Clinton's narrow defeat in her presidential nomination bid.
Last Saturday, Clinton told her supporters to get on with the future. She pledged her unequivocal support for Obama and urged her supporters to follow her lead this fall but also signaled she meant to keep pushing for women’s rights.
"When I was asked what it means to be a woman running for president, I always gave the same answer: that I was proud to be running as a woman but I was running because I thought I'd be the best president. But I am a woman and, like millions of women, I know there are still barriers and biases out there, often unconscious.
"I want to build an America that respects and embraces the potential of every last one of us," she said. "We must make sure that women and men alike understand the struggles of their grandmothers and mothers and that women enjoy equal opportunities, equal pay and equal respect."

Ruth found the above and suggested we both highlight it. We know C.I. has enough to note in the snapshot and that there has to be a reason to mention Hillary. That sounds rude. It's not meant as such. But C.I. believes, as do I, Hillary should take it to the convention. Since she has suspended the campaign, there has to be a plethora of commentaries for C.I. to feel that it can be included in the snapshot.

It's also true that C.I. regularly highlights WMC and Peggy Simpson especially. There was one article by Simpson that did not get highlighted in some manner at The Common Ills and that was the article where she repeated the lie the Obama campaign put out: He was only eight-years-old!

Tell it to someone who either didn't live through it or else baked their mind. Weather Underground was not a one year action. From 1969 (the eight-year-old lie) through 1975, Weather was active. (It was also active in 1976.) Barack Obama was not eight-years-old through all of that. Equally true was that their targets included banks by the time he was a teenager and his grandmother who raised him was a vice-president of a bank so Weather should have been on his radar. He was in college when Bernardine and Bill made national news by turning themselves in. They were on the lam the entire time prior and they popped up in the news throughout that period. The "he was eight-years-old!" lie was repeated by Diane Rehm (which is why I will never again listen to her show, Diane damn well knows better).

I share C.I.'s strong distaste for revisionary history. Whether it's the lie that war resisters who went to Canada during Vietnam were just "draft dodgers" (Canada also welcomed "deserters" and the draft had nothing to do with Canada's policy) or anything else, I do not enjoy seeing the times I lived through rewritten and altered after the fact.

"Bash the bitch" (C.I. and Ava's phrase which is much better than what Maureen Dowd attempted today with "Kill the witch") has had three targets this decade: Judith Miller, Katie Couric and Hillary Clinton.

Miller was held responsible for all the bad reporting that led up to the illegal war. She was publicly stoned while the males slinked away (including her frequent co-writer Michael Gordon). As a 'reporter,' Miller's 'power' was not as great as a prominent columnist. As a print 'reporter,' her reach was not as great as someone on TV. But she and only she was targeted. Pointing that out is not defending Miller, it is noting a lot of men got off scott-free and should have faced the same treatment Miller did.

We all saw what happened with Hillary. Between the two women, Katie Couric was the target.

If you don't grasp that the attacks on Katie were sexism, read Ava and C.I.'s "TV: Katie Was a Cheerleader." You will note from the date of the article that they wrote this before Couric ever anchored The CBS Evening News. The reason for that is because the attacks started immediately, months before she became the evening anchor or even moved over to CBS. It was never about her qualifications. Were it about qualifications, Charlie Gibson (moving from Good Morning America to anchoring World News Tonight at ABC) would have been called out as loudly. He was not called out at all. (Ava and C.I. did call him out, see "TV commentary: About the women.")

At some point, our society is going to have a take serious look at the way women are demonized. Miller was not the target solely because of what she did. Were that the case, the many other males who did the same things she did would have been called out. Hillary was so close to the brass ring -- obviously too close which is why the 'left' Nation magazine (men and women) deployed sexist attacks on her non-stop to destroy her. Couric never even got to anchor before the attacks started. Many years ago, I had a semi-long affair with a man who still works for CBS News. It ended on a good note and we've remained friends who talk at least twice a month by phone all these years later. As a result, if I watch a TV newscast, it's always CBS. Katie Couric has never done anything on air that has been out of the norm for anchors. More importantly, her work has been surperior to the bulk of those who have come before her (and they were all males -- she is the first to anchor the weekday newscast).

In case anyone missed Ava and C.I.'s piece all those years ago, I'm going to offer a condensed form of it below. I think it's one of their finest pieces of writing.

"TV: Katie Was a Cheerleader" (Ava and C.I., The Third Estate Sunday Review):

[. . .]
If women learned anything from the trashing of Katie Couric last week, it was that today, we're all cheerleaders. In their eyes, we're all cheerleaders. Our own work isn't addressed and there's no desire to familiarize themselves with it before weighing in. Call us when it's our turn to stand trial at the war crimes tribunal.

Again, I would strongly encourage you to read it in full. That last paragraph? Take it and apply it to the attacks on Hillary. The attackers didn't feel the need to actually examine Hillary's record, they thought it was enough to make snide remarks, 'jokes' and attacks on her, to suggest that, since she was a wife, her work didn't matter. It certainly didn't matter enough for them to explore it.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Wednesday, June 11, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, issues fall by the wayside for the 'issues' (smears and distortions) and more.

Starting with war resistance.
May 21st was when Corey Glass was told he would be deported. June 3rd Canada's House of Commons voted (non-binding motion) in favor of Canada being a safe harbor for war resisters. He's no longer threatened with deporation on the 12th (Thursday) but has been 'extended' to July 10th. Will the Stephen Harper government really attempt to deport him? That will depend upon how much support Corey Glass has. Over the weekend Canada's National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) issued "NUPGE urges Harper to let Iraq war resisters stay in Canada:"James Clancy calls on minority Conservative government to respect the will of Parliament and stop the deportation of Corey Glass on June 12 Ottawa (9 June 2008) - The National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) is asking the Harper government to honour a House of Commons motion that clears U.S. Iraq war resisters and their families to live permanently in Canada.The non-binding parliamentary motion was approved June 3 with support from all three opposition parties by a margin of 137 to 110. Conservative MPs opposed the motion and the minority government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper has indicated it will ignore parliament on the issue. The War Resisters Support Campaign, based in Toronto, estimates that as many as 200 American soldiers have come to Canada to avoid serving in Iraq. Many of those active in the campaign are resisters who were granted refuge in Canada during the Vietnam war in the 1960s and 1970s. In a letter to Harper, NUPGE president James Clancy urged Harper to intervene in the case of Corey Glass, who has been in Canada for the past two years. His application for citizenship on "humanitarian and compassionate" grounds was denied on May 21 and the Canadian Border Services Agency has ordered him to be deported on June 12. "From all indications, your government is planning to ignore the democratic will of the House of Commons," Clancy wrote. "I am urging you and your government to reconsider this position. This is a matter of some urgency. The war resisters have taken a principled stand against participating in an illegal and disastrous war in Iraq. Their reasons echo those that Canada used when it, too, refused to participate in this war," Clancy said. "Canada must continue to act to honour its own principles and maintain our status in the world community as a peace-building nation. We should quickly welcome the young men and women and their families who have come here to live in peace and who are already starting to contribute to our country's future," he said.Clancy urged Harper to "act now to make it possible" for the resisters to stay in Canada by: ● Stopping the deportation of people of conscience who have resisted an illegal war; and ● Supporting the democratic decision of the House of Commons and the will of the Canadian people. NUPGE More information: ● War Resisters Support Campaign

That's their statement in full and it's very important. A huge cross-section of people ensured that war resisters could stay in Canada during Vietnam -- students, labor, churches. NUPGE's stepping up is important. To keep the pressure on,

Information on war resistance within the military can be found at

Turning to US catty-claws. Senator John McCain made a statement that was clear and one that this community disagrees with. Appearing on
NBC's Today Show, he was asked about withdrawal from Iraq. And stated he wasn't worried about withdrawal estimates ("that's not too important") and somehow it was time for Democrats to embarrass themsleves. What's McCain talking about? His position is that troops should stay in Iraq. He would argue he's not talking about a continued war, he would state that (as he said on Today this morning), troops should remain there as they do in Japan, South Korea, etc.

Anyone truly opposed to the illegal war has an opening to go after McCain. Sadly, we don't have a lot of elected officials really opposed to the illegal war. So instead it was time for hypocrisy and catty natures. Susan Rice -- a long time War Hawk and monger working for the Obama camapign -- repeated talking points of how McCain was "confused," "confusing," etc. As
Lynn Sweet (Chicago Sun-Times) wonders, "Is that a code for suggesting McCain is too old to understand what is going on?" Rice denies it but the Catty Obama Crew has already attempted that nonsense before. They are the cattiest campaign. Senator John Kerry tried to rescue Rice. As usual, he failed (and needs to stop worrying about Obama's campaign and start worrying about the Democratic challenger to his own seat). US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi saw an opening and immediately issued her own statement: "Senator McCain's statement that it is 'not too important' when U.S. troops are redeployed from Iraq is yeat another indication how out of touch he is with the effect the war in Iraq is having on the readiness of our military. Addressing the national security implications . . ." blah, blah, blah. No one cares, Nancy. Everyone knows you're the Speaker of the House. Everyone knows you took power in January 2007. Everyone knows the illegal war drags on. Before you hop on your high horse you need to grasp just how disliked you are around the country. (Visit some campuses, Nancy.) Your self-serving statements only reflect poorly on you and Democratic leadership.

And that's the real revelation here, how Iraq is now a non-issue for Democrats. They can't even showboat convincingly because they've had nearly two years in which they controlled both houses of Congress and they didn't do a damn thing to end the illegal war. Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, uses a lot of words as well. He only makes himself sound like a hypocrite. Too many to name embarrass themselves deliberately twisting McCain's meaning. Of all the people in the world who make sense on McCain's remarks, it's Senator Joe Lieberman. (Whom I personally loathe.) Lieberman labels the organized hit "reflexive attacks" and notes, "It's very obvious what John McCain is saying, and it's consistent with what he's said along the way." [
Click here for the Baltimore Sun's Mark Silva's write up which includes text but also includes video of McCain on Today.] Lieberman also notes what Pelosi, Reid, Biden, Kerry and Rice don't, John McCain actually has a child DEPLOYED to Iraq.

We're not getting issues, we're getting smears. McCain firmly believes the US needs to remain in Iraq and he's not arguing for the illegal war to be continued, he thinks the illegal war (which he doesn't think is illegal) can be tranferred to a smaller US presence which would include many decades on Iraqi soil. That is his position.

It's a position the Democrats should love because it should provide them with the ability to present a strong contrast between McCain and themselves. Today we get smears, catty remarks (that were intended to be about McCain's age or mental well being), we get hypocrisy and so much more. The country (US) would be better off if we could address the issue. The issue isn't "Is McCain senile?" (he's not) nor is it "McCain disrespects the military!" (he doesn't). The issue is McCain has a viewpoint on how he sees the US presence in Iraq. Why can't the Democrats take that issue and run with it?

Partly because for all the nonsense of 'hope' and 'change,' Barack's advanced via character assassinations on his opponents and that's what's going on when McCain's sanity or his support for the military is questioned. It's catty, it's embarrassing and it doesn't help Barack appear mature. But there's no real difference Barack's calling for.
June 5th he told Candy Crowley (CNN, link has text and video) that his Iraq 'policy' on withdrawal (his 'promise' throughout the campaign that US troops would be out of Iraq within 10 months of his becoming president -- in a speech in Houston, Texas, he dropped from 16 months down to 10), "Well, you know, I'd never say there's 'nothing' or 'never' or 'no way' in which I'd change my mind." Really? Because in your speeches you don't include that qualifier. He added, "Obviously, I'm open to the facts and to reason. And there's no doubt that we've seen significant improvements in security on the ground in Iraq. And our troops, and Gen. Petraeus, deserve enormous credit for that. I have to look at this issue from a broader perspective, though." He has to look at it from a broader perspective? Does anyone remember his stump speech that included that 'applause' line? No, because he didn't include it in his speeches.

Barack Obama is not promising to end the illegal war. He is not promising anything. That's the point Samantha Power was making to the BBC in April and why she explained that these 'pledges' he makes on the campaign trail mean nothing, that he'd decide what to do about Iraq if he got into the White House. Not before then.

And that's why this mock outrage is being created by various Democrats [on the very day that
Michael Scherer (Time magazine) points out how faux outrage bit Barack in the butt]. It's a way to create the appearance of a difference between Barack Obama and John McCain. Heaven forbid we have a real difference.

When Barack is asked hard questions or hit with real criticism, his response is to whine that he wants to focus on the issues, that he wishes he could focus on the issues (and his waffles) but instead . . . His campaign launched a smear job on John McCain today. They didn't have to do that. They could have taken the issue of Iraq and presented an actual difference. Instead, it was John McCain's too old, he's senile, he doesn't appreciate military service, blah, blah, blah. Not an ounce of truth in any of those charges.

It didn't have to be that way. If Iraq's going to be an issue, let's have it be one, a real one. Let's see Barack stop the character assassinations and start having that always postponed conversation about the issues he keeps insisting he wants.

And anyone considering themselves part of the peace movement better start hollering. If this is what's going to pass for "Iraq discussions" ('McCain's old and crazy and he hates the military!'), don't even pretend that the illegal war is ending in the next four years. We should all be appalled and saying, "ENOUGH!"
Joshua Frank (Dissident Voice) explains, "Four years ago, as the sentiment against George W. Bush's administration mounted, the entire left-wing spectrum hung on tight to the coattails of John Kerry, grasping for dear life. Critics called it the 'Anybody but Bush' syndrome, but it should have been more aptly coined 'Nobody but Kerry.' Virtually every progressive cause, from labor to environment, had been co-opted by a mindset that would have ensured more of the same. There was no pressure put on Kerry to change, and he didn't." Naomi Klein called that nonsense out in real time and has repeatedly warned since then that the peace movement does not need to go silent for the 'good' of an election.

The peace movement can get co-opted again, it can buy into the Iraq War 'really doesn't matter,' or any other nonsense it wants but as someone who was on campuses after that crap, 'leaders' who think they can pull the wool over the young people again better grasp there will be fallout. The peace movement should call out any candidate who refuses to address Iraq. When Team Obama has the perfect opportunity to draw a real distinction and instead results to smears, it's an indication that Barack's not overly concerned about Iraq. The Iraq War is an ongoing, illegal war that will hit the six year mark next year. Any candidate who thinks character attacks are addressing it really isn't fit to run for the presidency. And anyone thinking "We just have to be silent until November" better accept the illegal war isn't ending via silence. As
Joshua Frank notes, despite Democrats being given control of both houses in the November 2006 elections, "Two years later, we have nothing to show for it. The Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress, yet have rubber stamped virtually ever Iraq war spending bill that has come down the pipeline -- ensuring the bloodbath for years to come."

Let's go straight into some of today's reported violence because the refusal to address Iraq allows the dying to continue.


Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed the life of 1 police officer and left seven more wounded, a Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed 5 lives with ten more people wounded, a third Baghdad roadside bombing that injured two, a Kirkuk roadside bombing that wounded six people and a Wasit bombing that claimed the life of 1 police officer with four more wounded.


Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 corpses discovered in Baghdad and 4 in Kirkuk. Reuters notes 5 corpses discovered in Falluja ("shot and tortured").

Today the
US military announced: "A Multi-National Corps -- Iraq Soldier died of non-battle related causes in Baghdad, June 11. An investigation into the cause of death is under way." 4095 is the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war, 11 is the number for the month thus far.

As the
Seattle Post-Intelligencer points out, "It doesn't matter that people of two nations -- the U.S. and Iraq -- are dead set against an agreement, or treaty -- for permanent, er, long-term military bases in Iraq. And never mind what having such a presence in Iraq would do to that nation's relationship with Iran (a major player on the ground), where leaders suspect that the bases in the 'enslaved' Iraq might be used as launching points to attack their country. The Bush administration is hellbent on banging out the much-denied treaty by the end of July." Leila Fadel and Warren P. Strobel (McClatchy Newspapers) report that the White Hous insists the negotiations on the treaty "can be completed by a July 31 target date" but the White House "is apparently scaling back some of its demands, including backing off one that particularly incenses Iraqis, blanket immunity for private security contractors." They also report that in the US Congress objections are coming from both sides of the aisle as well as from the chairs of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (Joe Biden) and the Senate Armed Services Committee (Carl Levin). Amit R. Paley and Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) explore objections to the treaty in Iraq and quote Sami al-Askari ("senior Shiite politician on parliament's foreign relations committee who is close to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki") stating, "The Americans are making demands that would lead to the colonization of Iraq. If we can't reach a fair agreement, many people think we should say, 'Goodbye, U.S. troops. We don't need you hear anymore.'" Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) also quotes al-Askari, "There is the camp who still believe that we need the Americans to stay and the other camp that says we don't need them anymore. . . . If I'm from the group that believes in the need for the Americans to stay, and then they face me with such a draft, then I'll say, look, I'd rather go with the others." As was noted (and objected to) throughout The Petraeus & Crocker Variety Show that played Congress in April, the Iraqi Parliament will get a vote on the treaty (disguised as a "Status Of Forces Agreement" by the White House) but the US Senate will not. Apparently, Bully Boy needed to wipe his rear on the US Constitution at least one more time before leaving office so that Constitutional mandate that all treaties be approved by the Senate got tossed out the window. M.D. Nalapat (UPI Asia) argues that if SOFA goes through, the puppet of the occupation (al-Maliki) will fall and "other moderate politicians in Iraq could soon become history. From then onwards, public opinion in Iraq will almost certainly turn in favor of those Shia and Sunni politicians opposed to the pact, creating more followers of Moqtada al-Sadr and the former Baathists." Ghida Fakhry (Al Jazeera) asserts, "If the original deadline is missed, it could mean that major obstacles have emerged and that the plan to rush through a deal before George Bush steps down as president might also be in jeopardy." As Dan Eggen (Washington Post) observes, speaking from Germany, Bully Boy referred to Iraq opposition as "noise".

The Bully Boy of the United States: "First of all, I think we'll end up with a strategic agreement with Iraq. You know, it's all kinds of noise in their system and our system. What eventually will win out is the truth. For example, you read stories perhaps in your newspaper that the U.S. is planning all kinds of permanent bases in Iraq. That's an erroneous story. [58 bases.] The Iraqis know -- will learn it's erroneous, too. We're there at the invitation of the sovereign [puppet] government of Iraq. And I strongly support the agreement because I think it helps send a clear message to the people of Iraq that, you know, that security you're now seeing will continue. And one of the lessons of Iraq is, is that in order for a democracy to develop or in order for an economy to develop, there has to be a measure of security, which is now happening. So I think we'll get the agreement done."

Bully Boy went on to declare, "You know, as to -- look, Eggen, you can find any voice you want in the Iraqi political scene and quote them, which is interesting, isn't it, because in the past you could only find one voice, and now you can find a myriad of voices. It's a vibrant democracy; people are debating." Yes, it appears that one thing the America has transferred to Iraq is relief that the reign of the Bully Boy will end in a few months.

On the US political front,
Team Nader breaks down the Lehman Brothers scandal whose Richard S. Fuld announced "a staggering $2.8 billion loss in the second quarter, exceeding the most dire forecasts" and yet nothing changes on Wall Street or, for that matter in Congress: "Still, there is no regulatory action in Washington which doesn't even move on behalf of consumers to regulate the New York Mercantile Exchange where rampant speculation, not supply and demand, decides what you are paying for gasoline and heating oil. With the politicians sleepwalking in Washington, while their campaign pockets are filled by Wall Street cash, isn't it time for the people of America to rouse themselves civically and politically? Act before the financial sector, using your money, shreds itself under the weight of its own top-heavy greed and cliff-hanging mismanagement." Ralph Nader is running for the White House. Matt Gonzalez is his running mate. Team Nader also addresses the NBA today by noting an objection Nader raised in 2000. Steve Powell (The Olympian), writing today of the criminal activity of "former referee Tim Donaghy" who has entered guilty pleas to multiple felony charges, points out: "Donaghy claims it happened in a playoff game in 2002. And looking at the Los Angeles Lakers-Sacramento Kings series, he makes a good case. Even at the time, consumer advocate Ralph Nader, a presidential candidate this year, sent a letter to Stern complaining about the officiating. The Lakers won the game after shooting 27 free throws in the fourth quarter.".

iraqcorey glasswarren p. strobel
mcclatchy newspapersleila fadel
the los angeles timesned parker
the washington postamit r. paleykaren deyoung