Tuesday, January 06, 2009

THIS JUST IN! SENATE ROUND UP, JEB AND CLANSMAN HARRY!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
 
 
THE FORMER GOVERNOR WAS OVERHEARD TELLING FRIENDS, "I'VE BEEN GOVERNOR.  IF THIS CAROLINE KENNEDY THINKS SHE CAN BE APPOINTED INTO THE SENATE WITHOUT EVER HAVING HELD ELECTED OFFICE AND, HONESTLY, HAVING LESS OF RECORD THAN EVEN MY BROTHER, WHY THE HECK SHOULD I RUN FOR ANYTHING?"
 
IN OTHER SENATE NEWS, GRAND DRAGON HARRY REID IGNORED DWAYNE WICKHAM'S WARNING AND REFUSED TO ALLOW THE QUALIFIED SENATOR ROLAND BURRIS TO BE SEATED.  DEMONSTRATING JUST HOW RACIST THAT DECISION WAS, THE ALWAYS TONE-DEAF WONKETTE (REMEMBER A CLICK KEEPS WONKETTA IN PANTIES AND PEANUTS) ATTEMPTS TO TURN THE WHOLE ISSUE INTO A JOKE THEREBY MAKING THE WORLD GLAD WONKS WAS AROUND TO OFFER 'INSIGHT' DURING THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENTS.
 
 
A cursory examination of Senator Reid's political record shows, when it comes to promoting prospective candidates for office, Harry sure seems to prefer white people. The Nevada Senator even felt compelled to make the Sunday morning talk show circuit protesting, perhaps too loudly that the record is misleading, really he wants Americans to know he likes black folks just fine, and we ought not to read racism into his past decision to promote white candidates over blacks in every instance.
 
HARRY REID, THE DRY CLEANER CALLED TO SAY YOUR WHITE SHEETS WERE WASHED AND PRESSED AND THAT THEY GOT MOST OF THE BLOOD OUT OF THEM.
 
 
 
In Iraq, the latest attack on women's rights takes place under the guise of security, always under the guise of security.  AFP reports that ALL women are banned "from visiting a Baghdad district which is home to the city's most famous Shi'ite tomb" and why is that?  Because of the Sunday suicide bombing which, you may remember, Sam Dagher and Mudhafer al-Husaini (New York Times) maintained Monday was carried out by a man despite statements to the contrary.  So you've got confusion as to the gender of the bomber. But you've also got the fact that no men were banned from shrines and these bombings have been going on for over five years now.  Regardless of whether Sunday's bomber was or was not a woman, there's never been a similar effort to ban just men.  It's only women that get screwed over and always while being told that it's for the 'security' of all.  It's not for security.  It has nothing to do with security and when you grasp that this is a pilgrimage and that the pilgrims come from all over Iraq and outside of Iraq, this is blatantly offensive.  It is yet another effort to curtail the mobility of women and even in the 'logic' being offered, there's no excuse for it.  They have still not established the gender of Sunday's bomber.  Dagher and al-Husaini as well as LAT's Usama Redha and Kimi Yoshino provided statements by Iraqis outraged by the lack of security.  What you have is a band-aid measure that will not fix a damn thing but the government wants to scapegoat someone and, just like their allies in the US, the Iraqi government will gladly scapegoat women.  And Reuters is now reporting: "Initial reports said Sunday's bomber was female, although the government later said he was male."  But who's being barred from worshipping?  Monday, the United Nation's Secretary-General's Special Representative for Iraq, Staffan de Mistura, made a point of condemning the attacks on pilgrims and decreeds bombings like Sunday's "appalling and unjustified crimes."  Will de Mistura call out the barring of women from worship or is he only interested in speaking up for the male pilgrims?
 
 
 Statistically female bombers really are not an issue (August 21st, LAT was reporting that "the number has jumped to 30" for the year 2008 -- still not a huge number) but if Iraq's so alarmed, well maybe they should pay more money?  "Awakening" Council members are also known as Sons of Iraq and they do have Daughters of Iraq but they pay them over 20% than they do men.  If they are saying female bombers are just so earth shattering and such a great threat, maybe they shouldn't have been so sexist and cheap?  Maybe they should paid women doing the exact same work the exact same amount?  And "they" is the US.  The US military set up that pay scale, the US military endorsed and embraced sexism.
 
Dropping back to the June 6th snapshot and Badkhen is Anna Badkhen who was filing that report for the San Francisco Chronicle::
 
Badken observes: "The US military pays each member $300 a month to man thousands of checkpoints throughout Iraq.  The Americans have credited Sons of Iraq for the waning Sunni insurgency and the decline in sectarian violence in Baghdad.  But questionable loyalties, often brutal conduct and an uncertain future make these groups a wild card in the ongoing effort to stabilize Iraq.  In April, Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., said these U.S.-funded militias may one day 'turn their guns on us'."  But that cautionary note is dismissed by the White House and, on Friday, Jim Frederick (Time Magazine) reported on the lastest twist to the "Awakening" Council: Female recruits!  US Capt Michael Starz told Frederick that "this is an employment program" and that "many of the women around here are widows and have no way of supporting themselves."  What a load of crap. 
 
If the concern was providing women with opportunities, the US could have done so long ago, could have fought to protect and ensure women's rights instead of installing radical thugs in the puppet government.  Most importantly, while the men make $300 a month, they're paying the women eight dollars a day -- that would be two dollars a day less than their male peers while claiming that there "are widows" who "have no way of supporting themselves."  The US government wants credit for 'creating' employment opportunites for Iraqi women but the US is paying them $2 less a day than the males while claiming that the women needs these jobs because they're supporting themselves and children.  Can you say "exploitation"? The real reason the US is using women, as Capt Starz readily admits is that female bombers are now an issue.  The women are being trained to 'inspect' and search other women.  And apparently that's not a job important enough to warrant equal pay -- at least not according to the US.  And the reason for including Senator Boxer's April remarks was to make it clear that the US government is the one paying the "Awakening" Council members, nothing has changed on that since April.  So the US government is sending the message in Iraq that a woman's work is worth 20% less than a male's. If that figure sounds familiar, Nancy Clark (Womens Media, link has audio) was noting that figure last year: "Women are paid 80 cents for every dollar men are paid and that does NOT include any part-time workers! If it did, it would be even lower."  The women in Iraq are being asked to do the exact things the males are being asked to do and the US government is sending the message that, for the same work, it is okay to pay a woman 80 cents while paying a man a dollar. Capt Starz tells Frederick that the increase in female bombers means, "It is a critical security issue that we find a way to have women searched at high-traffic areas."  It's 'critical' but, apparently, work but apparently not critical enough to offer the same rate of pay.  Repeating, US tax dollars are paying for this program.  (US Ambassador Ryan Crocker repeatedly bragged in April, before Congress, that paying them off meant attacks on US service members was down.  It's the hand-over-your-lunch-money-to-the-bully-and-you'll-be-safe-in-the-playground 'strategy.')  Should it be funded by the US?  I don't think so but as long as the US funds it, it certainly doesn't need to endorse gender discrimination.  But that is what's taking place. 
 
 
And, pay attention, the US put it in place.  That's June.  If today the puppet government wants to say it takes so long to search women (which AFP quotes them doing today), well then they damn well should have hired more women back in June.  The female suicide bombers result in alarmist headlines (here for US News & World Reports) because, "Oh goodness!  It's a woman!"  As if Pirate Jenny was an obscure character from a never heard of play?  As if Pirate Jenny doesn't have her roots in any revolution (including the American revolution).  But, "Oh no, it's a woman!"  So when a female bomber executes a bombing, it's a big deal to the press.  When a man does, it's a single sentence and there's no hand wringing or pondering WHY?????   It's obvious why and the one's pretending otherwise are the same ones pretending that something good can yet come from this illegal war.  And it's pretty obvious that there is HUGE sexism involved in the coverage.  This summer Time offered up "The Mind of a Female Suicide Bomber."  I'm sorry, are female bombers unheard of in illegal wars and occupations?  They become the norm.  And pretending otherwise is not only historically ignorant and sexist, it's damaging to anyone's grasp of what is actually taking place on the ground in Iraq.  They're attempting to make it some sort of pathological sickness in the minds of some woman when this is a natural response to a people occupied, under attack and prevented from self-governance.  There's nothing pathological about it.  Historically, it is a common response.  Mythologically, even more so.  Will Time next offer us "The Mind of Areto"?  Was there any difference in Areto attempting to avenge the murder of Hippolyte and Iraqi women today attempting to avenge the murders of their famillies?  Aztec mythology includes many similar examples, such as La Llorona who acts to avenge the murders of her children.  It's really disgusting that we rush to pathologize a normal response on the part of women that has been historically charted and culturally taught.  The sickness is not inside the women in Iraq who decide to wear a bomb, the sickness is the illegal war and continued occupation and you have to historically and culturally ignorant or else a liar who hopes others are historically and culturally ignorant to push these women's responses off as something unheard of and completely unexpected.
 
By contrast, think about the "biggest" Iraq "news."  Meaning the tid-bit that caught everyone's attention and produced water cooler talk.  A reporter throws his shoes.  A male reporter.  He had a thriving career.  He had to know he was risking throwing that away.  Did we get "Inside the Mind of the Shoe Tosser"?  No.  No, there was never an effort made to pathologize him (or any male suicide bombers, for that matter).  All the clucking is dishonest and needs to stop.  Those doing it are either liars or the most uneducated and uninformed people in the world. Grasping that reporters are, for the most part, glorified general studies majors, World Civ is taught for a reason.  It's not a set of facts to be remembered, there are lessons to impart from it.
 

Posted by at

THIS JUST IN! HARRY REID AND HIS WHITE SHEET!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
 
 
SENATE MAJORITY LEADER HARRY REID AWOKE THIS MORNING AND RUSHED AROUND GRIPING TO LANDRA GOULD REID, "I TOLD YOU I WANTED A GOOD, CLEAN, FLAT ONE.  ALL I SEE IN THE CLOSET ARE FITTED!"
 
FINALLY HARRY REID FOUND A WHITE SHEET TO HIS LIKING AND WORE THAT TO THE SENATE TODAY.
 
 
 
"BURN A CROSS ON HIS YARD!" HOLLERED THE WHITE SHEET CLAD HARRY.  "THAT'S WHAT WE DO IN SEARCHLIGHT, NEVADA!"
 
AS BURRIS WALKED AWAY, HARRY REID COULD BE HEARD HOLLERING, "WOOP-DEE-DEE! I HATE THE COLOREDS."  WHEN TOLD PRESS WAS PRESENT, HARRY REID MAKE A BIG TO-DO ABOUT RUNNING AWAY THEN RETURNING WITHOUT THE SHEET OVER HIS HEAD, APPROACHING THESE REPORTERS AND ASKING, "SAY, WHO WAS THAT RACIST IN THE SHEET DOING ALL THAT YELLING?"
 
 
 
Today the US Embassy in Baghdad held their grand opening ceremony.  Missy Ryan, Peter Graff, Tim Cocks (Reuters) report that John Negroponte (Deputy US Sec of State, former US ambassador to Iraq) and Jalal Talabani (President of Iraq) were on the guest list for the highly exclusive get-together -- well the Embassy is in the highly fortified Green Zone and Al Jazeera notes the "tight security". The three rocked rocked the house with nearly one-thousand additional guests.  The Embassy's press releases brags, "The largest American Embassy structure to date, its scale reflects the importance of the U.S.-Iraq bilateral relationship.  Construction began in 2005 and was completed in 2008 at a total cost of $592 million." $592 million would prevent a huge number of home foreclosures here in the US, but, hey, at least they didn't try to hide the cost today, right?  Oops, they did try to hide the price tag.  CNN plays party pooper informing that the $592 million was "the original price tag" but "the cost could end up $144 million higher" according to a 2007 Congressional report.
 
The Embassy notes that the guests gather to watch the US flag being raised by six Marines with music provided by the Army's 4th Infantry Division Band.  That seven-person band is made up of "Commander, Iraq and Texas, Steadfast and Loyal Chief Warrant Officer Robert Nixon," "Commander, Fort Carson Colorado, Fit For Any Test Chief Warrant Officer Marvin Cardo," "First/Sergeant/Enlisted Band Leader, Fit For Any Test First Sergeant Jeremy Smelser," "Chief; Plans, Operations & Training Division/Rock Band Vocalist/Drum Major Sergeant First Class Dewayne Butcher," "Fit For Any Test, 'Nuf Said Sergeant First Class Troy Hascall," "Bringer of Rock, Burner of Things, Thrower of Towels, Fit For Any Test Sergeant First Class Sean Kerley" and "Trumpet Player, Chief, Logistic & Resource Management Division Sergeant First Clas Henry Reyna"
 
US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker went with a dark suit for the occassion and used the standard GOP red tie for a splash of color while Jalal Talabani demonstrated, that fatty arteries or not, he's still going to eat what he wants and be damn proud of it.  Which is how he turned a dark coat into a mumu.  Well done, Jalal!  Jalal knows the staff of the Mayo Clinic will suck the fat out of those arteries as often as necessary. Party like it's January 2007, Jalal! John Negroponte decided to indulge his Indiana Jones fantasy by wearing a hat (which he did remove for the US national anthem and the flag raising).  And that was just outside!!!  Tom A. Peter (Christian Science Monitor) drops the 411 on all the wack goings on including who played "the diplomatic equivalent of a Wal-Mart greeter": "A US Army lieutenant colonel".  Peter explains that the embassy has a schoolhouse; however, no need to worry that cramped the party mood today: "Although it's currently occupied by coalition forces representatives, embassy officials hope that one day, when the situation here normalizes, Iraq will be a family-friendly posting for diplomats. Just how far off that day is, embassy spokespeople are not willing to speculate".  Alaa Majeed (UPI) points out, "But the transfer does not suggest the Iraqi government is competent beyond the walls of the Green Zone, which houses most of the state ministries.  The Green Zone, since 2003, has split the capital, Baghdad, in two and emerged as a symbol of the inability of the government to bring dignity to the Iraqi people."   
 
Deborah Haynes (Times of London) describes the backdrop to Crocker's speech, "As he spoke, the sound of helicopters buzzed overhead, a reminder of the ongoing US military presence in Iraq despite the shift in power. All US forces in the country came under the authority of the Iraqi Government on January 1 after a UN Security Council resolution authorising their presence expired."  Talabani may have hit the party punch a little too hard because RTT quotes him declaring the US Embassy "will searve as a model for other peoples of the eastern world."  Declared . . . or warned? Apparently Negroponte was hitting the party punch as well which is why Reuters quotes him stating, "It is from here men and women, civilian and military, will help build the new Iraq."
 
And maybe Dick Cheney, president of vice, started celebrating the opening of the embassy early because "drunk" would probably be an improvement over "liar" which is how he came off yesterday on CBS' Face The Nation (link has text and video) as he insisted of Iraq, "I think we are close to achieving most of our objectives. We've seen a significant reduction in the overall level of violence; it's lower now than virtually anytime since we've been there in the spring of '03. We've seen the elimination of one of the world's worst regimes. We've seen the Iraqis write a constitution and hold three national elections. We've now entered into a strategic framework agreement with the Iraqis that calls for ultimately the U.S. completion of the assignment and withdrawal of our forces from Iraq. All of those things I think by anybody's standard would be evidence of significant success. And I think we're very close to achieving what it is we set out to do five years ago when we first went into Iraq."  The never met the benchmarks, Cheney, the ones defined by the White House.  Two years later and they still can't claim to have met the benchmarks for progress -- as defined by the White House.  These weren't longterm benchmarks.  These were benchmarks they were actually supposed to have completed at the end of 2007.  Two years later and they never managed to meet them.  You can fudge it and say "partial" (as the White House did) but, for example, a de-de-Baathification law that not only provides no oversight but is never implemented.  And if you're not grasping the reality of those benchmarks -- which the White House has treated as open-ended and the press has gone along with that lie . . .  May 16, 2007, Democratic Policy Committee, "In September, the Iraqi government publicly committed to meet a series of political benchmarks by the end of 2006 or early 2007, for advancing the national reconciliation process, including measures for amending the constitution; holding provinical elections; reforming de-Baathification laws; regulating the oil industry; and disbanding sectarian militas."  Dick Cheney wants to talk 'improvement,' refer to the benchmarks set by the White House and honestly tell the American people what was achieved. 
 
And on the issue of getting honest about Iraq, Condi Rice, get honest.  December 18, 2008 the US House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform issued [PDF format warning] "MEMORANDUM Re: The President's Claim that Iraq Sought Uranium from Niger".  Background, there was no attempt by Iraq to obtain yellow-cake uranium from Niger.  Former US Ambassador Joe Wilson went to great lengths to explain that fact and was 'thanked' by having his wife Valerie Plame outed as an undercover CIA agent. Bully Boy LIED in his 2003 State of the Union speech and also in a September 12, 2002 speech and a September 26, 2002 speech.  The September speeches  July 8, 2003, Bill Hemmer (CNN) spoke with Joe Wilson:
 
 
HEMMER: We'll take that answer as a bit of a foundation for this interview. Listen to what Condoleezza Rice said about a month ago, early June on "Meet the Press." I'm quoting right now. She says, "We did not know at the time -- no one knew at the time in our circles -- maybe someone knew down in the bowels in the agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery" -- Condoleezza Rice back on June 8. You say that is not possible. Why not?
 
 
WILSON: Well, when I was at the National Security Council, and before I wrote my piece for "The New York Times," I actually checked with very senior officials of the National Security Council from the time I was there, as well as very senior officials in the vice president's office just to refresh my memory.
 
 

MR. RUSSERT: That was in January. And in June -- June 8 -- you were on MEET THE PRESS; I asked you about that, and this was your response.

(Videotape, June 8, 2003):

DR. RICE: The president quoted a British paper. We did not know at the time, no one knew at the time in our circles -- maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew -- that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery. Of course, it was information that was mistaken.

(End videotape)                

MR. RUSSERT: "No one in our circles." That has proven to be wrong.       

DR. RICE: No, Tim, that has not proven to be wrong. No one did know that they were forgeries. The notion of the forgeries came in February or in March when this was--when this came to the CIA. It is true that we learned, subsequent to my comments to you, that Director Tenet did not want to stand by that statement. And I would never want to see anything in a presidential statement -- speech -- that the director of Central Intelligence did not want to have there.

And I'm the national security adviser. When something like this happens, I feel personally responsible for it happening because it obscured the fact that the president of the United States did not go to war over whether Saddam Hussein tried to acquire yellow cake in Africa. He went to war over a threat from a bloody tyrant in the most volatile region of the world who had used weapons of mass destruction before, and was continuing to try to acquire them. And so, of course, this should not have happened.

 

That's all American has because as the Committee On Oversight and Government Reform note, Condi refused to provide them with testimony -- repeatedly.  At one point Alberto Gonzales (then US Attorney General) showed up allegedly offering remarks on her behalf and, in that capacity, Gonzales insisted Condi stated the CIA cleared the inclusion of the uranium claim in both September 2002 speeches. Not true.  The Committee explaines John Gibson ("Director of Speechwriting for Foreign Policy at the National Security Council) testified that "Michael Gerson, chief White House speechwriter, and Robert Joseph, the Senior Director for Proliferation Strategy, Counterproliferation, and Homeland Defense at the NSC" were pushing to include it in the September 12, 2002 speech and the CIA objected. More importantly for Condi, this section of the memo:

 

On September 26, 2002, President Bush delivered remarks in the White House Rose Garden urging Congress to authorize the use of force in Iraq.  During an interview with the Committee, Jami Miscik, the Deputy Director of Intelligence at the CIA, stated that NSC officials "woulnd't take [the uranium claim] out of the speech." As a result, she was asked to explain directly to Dr. Rice "the reasons why we didn't think this was credible."  Ms. Miscik stated that "[i]t was clear that we had problems or we at the most fundamental level wouldn't have been haveing the phone call at all."  According to Ms. Miscik, the CIA's reasons for rejecting the uranium claim "had been conveyed to the NSC counterparts" before the call, and Dr. Rice was "getting on the phone call with that information."  Ms. Miscik told Dr. Rice personally that the CIA was "recommending that it be taken out."  She also said "[i]t turned out to be a relatively short phone call" because "we both knew what the issues were and therefore were able to get to a very easy resolution of it."

 

So would Condi like to amend her public statement: "We did not know at the time, no one knew at the time in our circles -- maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew -- that . . ."?  She clearly did know.  The Deputy Director of Intelligence told her.  Is Condi going to be pressed on that before she leaves the State Dept?
 
 
Truest statement of the week Truest statement of the week II Truest statement of the week III A note to our readers Editorial: The bum works for you TV: Head Games The attacks on Senator Roland Burris Boy, Did He Get A Wrong Number Roundtable This week's Bronze Boobies Complaint Dept. Ty's Corner Idiot of the week Highlights Third Estate 2008 archives by week Third Estate 2006 archives by week Third Estate 2005 achive by week

Posted by at

Saturday, January 03, 2009

THIS JUST IN! SHOWER PRINCESS WITH PRAISE!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE





PRINCESS TINY MEAT'S SUPPORTERS REPEATEDLY INSIST THAT BARACK CANNOT BE CRITICIZED UNTIL HE GETS INTO OFFICE. SINCE THE ELECTION, HE'S CAVED ON THE TREATY MASQUERADING AS A STATUS OF FORCES AGREEMENT, HE'S BEEN SILENT ABOUT THE ASSUALT ON GAZA, HE'S NOMINATED LESS WOMEN TO HIS CABINET THAN THE CURRENT WHITE HOUSE OCCUPANT, HE'S DONE HIS REACH-AROUND WITH HOMOPHOBIC RICK WARREN AND HE'S GONE ON YET ANOTHER VACATION.



AND YET BARACK CANNOT BE CRITICIZED.



CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN THE LOGIC IN THAT?



BARACK CANNOT BE CRITICIZED UNTIL HE IS SWORN IN, INSISTS MARKOS AND THE OTHER SQUEAKY-VOICED DWARFS WHO LIKE LIKE JAUNDICED-FACED WOMEN, BUT BARACK CAN BE PRAISED BEFORE HE'S SWORN IN.



AT THE SO-CALLED "INDEPENDENT" OF LONDON, RUPERT CORNWELL PISSES HIS TIGHTY-WHITEYS AS HE GETS MORE AND MORE EXCITED ABOUT HOW BARACK -- EXCUSE US, "THE COMING OF BARACK"!" -- IS LIKE FDR! OR JFK! OR . . .



RUPERT PANTS AND PANTS AND FINALLY JIZZES IN HIS Y-FRONTS.



REMEMBER, BARACK COULDN'T BE CALLED OUT IN THE PRIMARY BECAUSE IT WAS (A) RACIST AND (B) HE WAS JUST SAYING WHAT HE NEEDED TO GET THE NOMINATION. BARACK COULDN'T BE CALLED OUT IN THE LEAD UP TO THE GENERAL ELECTION BECAUSE WE 'HAD' TO HAVE A DEMOCRAT IN THE WHITE HOUSE. NOW IT'S AFTER THE ELECTION AND THE GIRLY BOYS LIKE MARKOS (WHO SPENT YEARS SLAMMING AND SLIMING ALL DEMOCRATS BEFORE HIS SUDDEN 'CONVERSION' IN NAME ONLY) STILL WON'T LET PRINCESS TINY MEAT BE CRITICIZED.



IT MUST BE HARD FOR THE BLOGGER BOIZE TO BE SUCH LIMP DICKS WORSHIPPING AFTER TINY DICKED BARACK.



FROM THE TCI WIRE:





It's the new year so the press would traditionally contribute their 'looking back' pieces. But why do that and be bound by the facts when it's so much more 'creative' to look to the future and pen fantasies? In today's Washington Post, Anthony Shadid decided to inform that, "The war in Iraq is indeed over"; however, events on the ground begged to differ. Even ten years ago, a reporter trying to do what Shadid has done (war over by press fiat!) would have been the laughingstock of the press corps. Such are the times that Shadid is actually 'outshined' by the actions at another outlet. Leila Fadel. Yeah, she's back in Iraq. And offering all the 'value' and 'pertinence' as Yvette Mimieux did when she decided to team up with Ali Akbar Khan because what the world needed then (1968) was more bad music with poetry (Baudelaire) read over it badly. Flowers of Evil was what those 'geniuses' ended up with and it might as well be the title of Fadel's latest which contains this hidden 'gem': "It's difficult, however, for hope to return so quickly after so much bloodshed." Fadel is, no doubt, very proud of that line just as Yvette knew Flowers of Evil would set the world on fire. But, for the record, bad poetry doesn't have a damn thing to do with journalism. Fadel might try to squeeze that sentence into some sort of crack-pot, Chicken Sop for the whatever but it doesn't belong in reporting.



But we're not getting reporting, we're hearing the sounds of the Up With People singers warming up as they prepare for the ultimate wave of Operation Happy Talk. "There's no doubt," insists Fadel straining to hit notes beyond her range -- but, in fact, reporting is all about doubts. Reporting is all about questioning. Save this garbage for your EST seminar (Erhard Seminars Training) because it's quackery, it's not reporting.



Doubt it? Here's Fadel seeing 'change,' "U.S. officials already have moved out of Saddam Hussein's Republican Palace, which they'd used as their headquarters since U.S. troops took control of Baghdad, and are occupying a brand new, sprawling 104-acre U.S. embassy complex that's America's largest in the world." And this tells us what, Fadel?



It appears to tell us that the largest Embassy in the world is preferred to Hussein's musty, old castle. It appears to tell us that, as was stated long before construction on the Embassy began, the US would move into the Embassy as soon as it was possible. Delays came about because shoddy work was done. And, no, not all of it has been fixed. But those are details that escape Fadel who writes as if she's willing McClatchy's Baghdad operation to shut down. Leila, thinking "happy thoughts" might have allowed Peter Pan to fly, but there's no evidence to suggest it will do the same for a news outlet.





Once upon a time, reporters were expected to deal in facts. Today, it's all word games. Could someone give 'em all Scrabble for their down time and instruct that they practice their trade at all other times? Chief among the foreign outlets needing to unwrap a Scrabble board: AFP. The agency's Benjamin Morgan offers a lede about how Iraq's airspace ("a swathe" of it) is being handed back to it by the US. A swathe? Over 29,000 feet and higher was already controlled by Iraq. Thereby explaining that amazing space program al-Maliki launched. What? He didn't launch one? No, of course not. And it doesn't mean a damn thing that 29,000 to 24,000 feet were returned to Iraq as the new year began. Why is that? AFP quotes Amer Abduljabbar Ismail (Minster of Transportation) stating that "the complete control of our airspeace will not be finished until 2011, when the US military leaves." Poor, deluded, sick liar. The US isn't leaving in 2011 and, if they did, Iraq having control of it's air space wouldn't mean a damn thing because, as was repeatedly revealed in Baghdad press conference after conference this fall, Iraq air force will not be ready in 2011. They freely admitted -- American and Iraqi spokespeople -- that Iraq would require the US well past 2012.



So many novelists, so damn few reporters. It's as though the 90s trend which found the 80s literary set -- Jay McInerney, Tama Janawitz, Bret Easton Ellis, Jill Eisenstadt, et al -- invading the feature profile resulted in a serious case of creative envy among the press corps. (I know and like Jay and will note that he had showed true talent in non-fiction writing. I know others who attempted that feat and will pointedly not bother to make a similar statement regarding the 'merits' of their contributions.)



The Green Zone and Basra airport 'handovers' are worth one sentence outside the real estate listings. If that. Timothy Williams (New York Times) wisely does not attempt to make it the thrust of his report and includes some details on the area that is thought to be the one to watch (including thought to be the one to watch by Barack's transition team):



Mosul, located about 250 miles north of Baghdad, is in a region contested by Sunni arabs and Kurds, and where Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a homegrown Sunni extremist group that American intelligence agencies say is led by foreigners, has been active.

The city's Christian minority was the focus of repeated attacks last year, forcing thousands to flee, although many have returned.Nineveh Province is also the buffer zone between the central government in Baghdad and the semiautonomous Kurdistan region in Iraq's far north. About 5,000 American soldiers are stationed there.



Reuters reported this morning that tribal Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah Salih was entertaining a group of "Sunni Arab tribal leaders" for lunch when a bomber arrived and detonated his or her bomb -- killing his/herself and wounding somewhere between 42 and 100 people (depending on the source). And the death toll? BBC reports at least 30 dead. Anthony Shadid and Saad Sarhan (Washington Post) report, "Iraqi officials said the assailant, a relative of the sheik, was a familiar presence around the house, making it easier for him to pass unsearched through an entrance usually reserved for women in the conservative town of Yusufiya, about 12 miles south of Baghdad." And, yes, it does have to do with upcoming elections (scheduled for January 31st). Sami al-Jumaily (Reuters) explains the get-togehter was "a feast for Sunni Arab electoral candidates and tribal leaders". When you read the garbage about war over and the latest waves of Operation Happy Talk get up to the neck, remember what the 'reporters' forget: The UN has warned repeatedly that violence will increase as the provincial elections approach. Even the US State Dept has echoed those warnings.



RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"The never-ending transition"
"Truce by press fiat!"
"I Hate The War"

"Green Beans and Tomatoes Casserole in the Kitchen"

"Weekend"

"additional thoughts"

"the truth versus the whoring liar"

"UNAMI, Bill Moyers, Janis Ian, Michael Winship"

"2009"

"2008, 2009"

"Michael Winship and Bill Moyers stumble upon the truth"

"Quick thoughts"

"Gaza, Janis Ian, more"

"THIS JUST IN! THE UNITY TRAIN KEEPS ROLLING"

"Unity train keeps on rolling . . ."

"The Common Ills"
"The Common Ills"
Posted by at

Thursday, January 01, 2009

THIS JUST IN! THE UNITY TRAIN KEEPS ROLLING

 BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
 
 
OVERHEARD AT THE OFFICES OF BARACK'S TRANSITION TEAM, "HEY, MAYBE BARACK COULD GET THOSE FOUR MEN TO JOIN RICK WARREN IN PRESIDING OVER THE INAUGURATION?"  OVERHEARD RESPONSE, "IF HE'S REALLY LUCKY! AND SANTA CAME THROUGH THIS YEAR!"
 
AND THE UNITY TRAIN KEEPS A'ROLLING!
 
 
 
 
Today the US military announced: "A U.S. Soldier died, Dec. 31, in Balad, Iraq from injuries sustained during combat operations, Dec. 30."  And they announced: "A Multi-National Division -- Baghdad Soldier died from wounds sustained during a mortar attack in Baghdad Dec. 31."  The announcements bring the total number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4221.  The toll for the month thus far is 14.  You could say, "The death toll so far is the same as the media reported for October" but . . .  14 was the October death toll; however, the media rushed to insist it was 13. So it'll be cute to see if anyone references the October death toll in their reporting and, if so, how they do it.  If your outlet reported 13 and never corrected it, you're really pushing it to just say, "The same number as in October."  13 was the death toll for July -- the lowest monthly death toll for 2008.
 
Speaking of bad reporting . . . The Philadelphia Inquirer's Trudy Rubin wrote a laughable column (another one) that was published in the US on Christmas Eve and was published Monday in Taiwan.  Trudy sees "signs of change on the streets of Baghdad" but, silly fool, she also believes that the US treaty with the puppet government in Baghdad will be followed.  There are puppets in Baghdad smarter than Trudes.  Where to start?
 
The "US Troops Withdrawal Agreement" is what the treaty was called by al-Maliki and what foolish idiots believed it was.  It was no such thing.  The treaty was needed to grant another one-year extension.  The United Nations' Security Council could have extended the mandate for a year but the White House didn't want that.  (Nor did al-Maliki who had -- two years in a row -- already gone around Parliament to get the mandate extended twice.) The treaty needed to cover a year.  When the US began addressing it (in 2007), they frequently spoke of that reality.  Trudy (and Patrick Cockburn) must have been sleeping.  2009 is the only year that both sides have to follow.  2010 can find the contract altered or cancelled.  The same with 2011.  In 2010, both parties may choose to replace it with a new treaty.  It is a one-year contract with two options for renewal. 
 
In mid-November, al-Maliki took to Iraq TV (state TV) to declare, "The pact stipulates that U.S. troops are to withdraw from cities and towns by June 30, 2009.  And it is a deadline that will not be extended.  It also says that [the US] should withdraw from Iraqi land, water and air space by January 1, 2011 -- which is a deadline that will not be extended."  That was back when he was calling it the "US Withdrawal Agreement."
 
Nouri and Bully Boy were shoulder-to-shoulder recently.  Remember that?  At al-Maliki's palace?  Maybe people forget because the one-shoe, two-shoe incident attracted so much attention?  But check the transcript at the White House and see what al-Maliki's calling it?  Is he calling it the "US Withdrawal Agreement"?  No.  He's using the same term the White House did "SOFA" -- Status Of Forces Agreement.  It's not a withdrawal agreement.  And at the December 20th Green Zone press conference, Iraqi Maj Gen Qassim Atta called the treaty the "US Withdrawal Agreement"?  No.  He referred to the June 2009 'withdrawal' as being "according to what's been said during -- the agreements, an agreement, the security agreement". 
 
The US Withdrawal Agreement was just a brand al-Maliki slapped on it in November when he was attempting to pressure Parliament to vote for it.  Since then, that 'term' is no longer used, not even by al-Maliki.  Now let's deal with the June claim Trudy's pimping.  From the December 22nd snapshot:
 
Today Elisabeth Bumiller (New York Times) examines the realities of the so-called US withdrawal from Iraq and it's not a pretty sight.  Bumiller and Thom Shanker reported last week on how the 'plan' presented to president-elect Barack Obama -- the Petraeus-Odierno plan -- wouldn't allow for that campaign 'promise' of a US withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq.  Friday Julian E. Barnes (Los Angeles Times) reported that word games could allow for the impression that promises were being kept -- including what the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement allegedly promised. For context,  Sudarsan Raghavan and Qais Mizher (Washington Post) explained last week, "American combat troops will remain inside Iraqi cities to train and mentor Iraqi forces after next summer, despite a security agreement that calls for their withdrawal from urban areas by June 30, the top U.S. military commander said Saturday."  With all that as the backdrop, Bumiller explains today that "a semantic dance" has begun at the Pentagon over what qualifies as a combat soldier and, with regards to the treaty, "Even though the agreement with the Iraqi government calls for all American combat troops to be out of the cities by the end of June, military planners are now quietly acknowledging that many will stay behind as renamed "trainers" and "advisers" in what are effectively combat roles. In other words, they will still be engaged in combat, just called something else."  Bumiller notes that "trainers" and "advisers" will be the renaming terms for "combat troops" in order to keep them in Iraq: "In other words, they will still be engaged in combat, just called something else." Of Barack, she notes, "it has become clear that his definition of ending the war means leaving behind many thousands of American troops."
 
So that means we've taken care of The Trudys and their "withdraw from major cities in June!" nonsense.  (And it's already been learned that even the private contractors/mercenaries clause may not stand.)  With the well known history of US treaties, you really had to be naive to think it would work out any differently.  Naive or a liar.
 
So let's back up to this 'safer' claim.  The same  December 20th Green Zone press conference found Maj Gen Atta expounding on what's in store for the coming year: "The year of 2009 is going to witness a lot more coordination between Baghdad Amanat and the BOC and also the traffic police to reopen all the closed roads and streets and to also lift or remove all the concrete barries or security barriers, and [. . . .]"  Really?  And the security's going to hold?  Hmmm.  It's very likely that some of the news outlets pulling reporters from Iraq and sending them to Afghanistan may have to alter those plans at some point in the new year.
 

Posted by at

Tuesday, December 30, 2008

THIS JUST IN! JUNIOR'S TURN TO CRY!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
 
 
SAID A SOBBING JESSE JACKSON JR., "WAAAAAAHHHHHHH!"
 
WIPING HIS RUNNING NOSE ON HIS SHIRT CUFFS, JUNIOR WONDERED HOW MANY MILLIONS THE SEAT HAD COST BURRIS AND EXACTLY WHAT HE HAD TO DO TO "GET AHEAD?  I LIES FOR BARACK, I LIED FOR ME.  I LIED AND I JUST KEPT ON LYING.  YOU'D THINK THAT KIND OF BEHAVIOR WOULD BE REWARDED.  WHAT KIND OF A COUNTRY ARE WE LIVING IN?"
 
 
 
 
 
Provincial elections in Iraq (in most of Iraq) are currently scheduled for January 31st.  Today the United Nations announced, "A new United Nations-supported blog site just launced in Baghdad is the latest initiative to engage voters in the nascent democracy and motivate them to go to the polls on 31 January 2009 during the country's provincial elections.  The blog, called 'Vote for Iraq', was launched with the support of the UN-led International Election Assistance Team (IEAT)."  Elections -- if they take place -- will be closely watched for signals of power shifts.  AFP reports that Barham Saleh (Deputy Prime Minister) is sounding alarms of a coming "Arab-Kurdish conflict": "There are vicisous and dangerous attempts to convert the political and economic problems in Baghdad on a number of issues to an Arab-Kurdish conflict."  Saleh is a Kurd.
 
Meanwhile Deng Shasha (Xinhau) reports that Hussein al-Shahristani, Minister of Oil, declared today that a "second licensing round" will take place tomorrow on "ten oil fields". al-Shahristani was speaking on Iraqia TV and declared there would be a December 31st press conference in which he would announce the spoils of war now up for grabs. Gulf Times states, "Iraq has invited international oil companies which haven't been qualified yet by the country's oil ministry to take part in tomorrow's announcement of the second round of tenders to develop its vast oil and gas fields, a senior ministry official has said."

While the tag sales continues, Iraq's assets are currently safe from seizure by foreign creditors. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs released "Foreign Minister's Statement in Security Council on Ending the Mandate of the Multinational Forces" yesterday:

The UN Security Council voted unanimously for adopting a resolution to take Iraq out of Chapter VII and to terminate the mandate of the multinational forces in Iraq. Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari gave a speech in the Council and stated that Iraq has laid the foundations for stability and democracy since 2003.
The minister expressed the gratitude of the Iraqi Government to the members of the Security Council for the continued support for Iraq and its people, adding that Iraq has taken advanced steps in the process of national reconciliation, security and stability in the country.
The new resolution No. 1859 contains the protection of the Development Fund for Iraq and other Iraqi funds and stresses Iraq's obligations under Security Council resolutions.

That wasn't the only statement the ministry released. In protest of the current slaughter in Gaza, the Ministry released "Foreign Ministry Condemns Israeli Brutal Aggression on Palestinians:"

The Foreign Ministry of the Republic of Iraq condemns the Israeli brutal attack against Palestinians that caused many civilian casualties. The act of the Israeli authorities is incompatible with basic international human law and human rights.
The Foreign Ministry calls for the United Nations, Arab League, other organizations and the International and Human institutes to stop this aggression. We call for the Palestinian parties to join forces with all good people in the world to protect the rights and interests of the Palestinians and enable them to practice their legal rights according to International Law.
And, as Betty noted last night, wowOwow was among the few to pick up on the Washington Post's Amit R. Paley and Andrea Bruce exploration of female mutiliation in Iraq.  Andrea Bruce's photos are here and Amit R. Paley's text report is here.  From wowOwow's "Female Circumcision Rampant in Kurdistan, Women's Groups Don't Know Why:"

The group Stop FGM in Kurdistan notes that in 2005, cutting rates of at least 60 percent were reported in some areas of the region.
"The practice has a tremendous cost: Many girls bleed to death or die of infection. Most are traumatized. Those who survive can suffer adverse health effects during marriage and pregnancy. Women and girls are enclosed by a wall of silence," according to Stop FGM. "Experts agree that a strict taboo prevents them from speaking about their experiences --  which is all the same a main factor for the continuance of the practice."
The Kurdish parliament won't outlaw the practice -- even though this region is considered more progressive than the rest of Iraq. But one female lawmaker and doctor last month told AFP that parliament was preparing to outlaw female circumcision. The government is expected to debate the bills in the new year.
 
 
In non-Iraq news, John Walsh (CounterPunch) explores the recent US election and observes:
 
The great fear among the Naderites was that without the help of the GPUS, Nader could not get on the ballot in a sufficient number of states since the GPUS already had ballot access in many places due to the work of many at the grass roots (this author included) .  So how did the election work out?  The statistics are quite revealing.  Starting from scratch and raising money as he went, Nader got on the ballot in 45 states plus DC.  McKinney using the Green "infrastructure" got on the ballot in only 32 states, less than Barr for the Libertarians (45 states) or Baldwin and the Constitutionalists (37 states).  Nader did better on his own with his own activist following than did the Greens.  In fact he got on the ballot in more states than he did in 2000 when he was the GPUS nominee.  If one looks at fundraising the contrast is just as stark, with Nader raising $4,496,180 and McKinney a skimpy $240,130 which is not even sufficient for a decent Congressional campaign.  And the popular vote among third party candidates was: 736,804 for Nader, 524,524 for Barr, 196,461 for Baldwin and 161,195 for McKinney.  These numbers alone are testimony to the abject failure of the GPUS as an electoral force.
But the behavior of the GPUS toward McKinney was downright insulting.  The insult to McKinney came in two ways.  First of all, DemoGreens went over to Obama, giving Cynthia a pat on the head as they went.  A good example is Green guru Ted Glick who proclaimed that, although he "supported" McKinney, he hoped Obama would win and was contributing to the Obama campaign, said dollar contribution being a first for him.  What kind of party i turns on its own candidate?  But the insult came in another way.  Cynthia McKinney took many extraordinarily courageous positions in Congress over the years.  She was an outstanding leader there on issues of peace and justice.  But this record was always secondary in the campaign that the GPUS ran.  She was first and foremost a black woman candidate running with another minority female candidate.  Now that in itself is a very good thing, although Obama upstaged them with this kind of Identity Politics.  But what about McKinney's other achievements?  Most notably she is the first major Democratic politician and the first Congressperson to jump ship on the Democrat Party.  Of course the DemoGreens wanted no such cutting edge claim to a GPUS campaign.  So the GPUS was happy to see the color of McKinney's skin as more important than the content of her character!  This is the road down which "gonadal politics" leads us.  (It is also hard to comprehend why Ralph Nader, gets no credit from the Gonadal Politicians for being an Arab American, perhaps the group suffering most discrimination these days.)
 
 
 

Posted by at

Monday, December 29, 2008

THIS JUST IN! PRINCESS UH BRAT!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
 
 
WE KNOW?
 
NO, PRINCESS BRAT, THAT'S WHY YOU'RE ASKED TO EXPLAIN YOURSELF.
 
IN THE MIDST OF THE INTERVIEW, SHE CHOSE TO INSULT TWO JOURNALISTS.  PRINCESS BRAT SNAPPED,"HAVE YOU GUYS EVER THOUGHT ABOUT WRITING FOR, LIKE, A WOMAN'S MAGAZINE OR SOMETHING? I THOUGH YOU WERE THE CRACK POLITICAL TEAM."
 
WHEN NOT BEING INSULTING, PRINCESS BRAT MIGHT NEED TO EXPLAIN HER INSULTING REMARKS ABOUT WOMEN'S MAGAZINES. 
 
IT SHOULD BE REMEBERED THAT CAROLINE STUDIED JOURNALISM SO SHE MEANT TO BE INSULTING.  HER 'BIG' ASSIGNMENT WAS CRASHING ELVIS FUNERAL.  SHE LIED TO HIS FAMILY, TOLD THEM SHE WAS THERE TO PAY RESPECTS ON BEHALF OF HER FAMILY, AND SHE WAS REALLY THERE TO WRITE A TRASHY LITTLE REPORT.  SHE'S NOT AT ALL DIFFERENT FROM THE PAPARRAZI THAT HOUNDED PRINCESS DIANA.
 
 
 
 
Meanwhile the December 10th death of Haedan al-Jabouri (that may not be the correct spelling) is in the news and the subject of a military investigation.  Michael Ware (CNN -- link has video only) reported the latest events yesterday.
 
Michael Ware: Following a nighttime military operation outside of Baghdad two weeks ago, the US army is now investigating allegations an Iraqi man, a suspected al Qaeda member, was executed in cold blood by a secretive American unit.  An Iraqi farmhouse after a recent raid by US forces.  Items scatted by the soldiers search for weapons.  An elderly mother mourns.  Hadan, her son shot dead by the Americans in Madain on Baghdad's outskirts.  It was Hadan the special forces had come for suspecting he was a bomb maker for al Qaeda.  But now troubling questions have arisen from the operation, questions not of Hadan's life as a potential bomber but rather questions into his death at American hands. Questions grave enough that the US army has launched an inquiry probing claims the death was a special forces execution. The military released to CNN a few details of the night's operation, saying the shooting was provoked.
 
An unidentified voice reads from this December 10th M-NF press release: A man from the building initially complied with Coalition forces' instrucitons, but then returned inside the house.  When he returned outside, he attempted to engage the forces with an AK-47.  Perceiving hostile intent, the force engaged the armed man, killing him.
 
Michael Ware: But the dead man's brothers who witnessed the raid say that's a lie. Hadan, they say, was unarmed, his killing an American execution. The truth however is unclear.  . . . But the Iraqi version is different.  They say all [four] the brothers were stripped to their underwear and forced to lay on the ground, unable to move without the Americans permission, let alone grab a rifle. When Hadan did return inside, they say, it was the Americans who ordered him to do so.
 
Nurhi Subbi [translated]: The American forces ordered my brother to go back into the house.
 
Michael Ware: He was told to turn the lights on, says his brother named Nurhi, and the moment he turned on the lights, the soldiers open fired and then dragged him deeper inside the house.
 
If it was a military execution, take note, that would be the reality of "counter-insurgency" strategies.  The press has refused to explore that and everyone's rushed to airbrush any realities out of it but that is "counter-insurgency" tactics and strategies.  In other news,  despite the claims of 'safer but not safe' Iraq, Saturday saw a bombing with mass fatalities.  Usama Redha and Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) reported at least 24 dead, "A mini-bus laden with explosives ripped the Kadhimiya neighborhood by Zahra square, which hosts a market and bust stop, police said." Sam Dagher (New York Times) offered, "Jalal Hussein, 56, had just parked his car, after dropping off his wife and daughter at the gate, when the bomb exploded a few yards away, creating a huge ball of fire that consumed several vehicles and many pedestrians. He said the bodies and limbs of victims, including many children and women, were scattered everywhere."  Ernesto Londono and Azia Alwan (Washington Post) quoted survivor Ali Abdul Ameer whose wife and daughter were wounded in the bombing, "There is no security.  How come a car like this full of explosives could enter this area?"
 
[. . .]
 
A few non-Iraq related topics.  First, Joshua Frank (Dissident Voice) explores the current attack on Gaza and the reaction of the president-elect:
 
"The president-elect was in Sderot last July, in southern Israel, a town that's taken the brunt of the Hamas attacks," David Axelrod told Chip Reid on Face the Nation. "And he said then that, when bombs are raining down on your citizens, there is an urge to respond and act and try and put an end to that. So, you know, that's what he said then, and I think that's what he believes."
If Axelrod is correct, and Barack Obama does indeed support the bloodshed inflicted upon innocent Palestinians by the Israeli military, there should be no celebrating during Inauguration Day 2009, only mass protest of a Middle East foreign policy that must change in order to begin a legitimate peace process in the region.
 
 
Independent journalist David Bacon latest book is Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press) and at his website (and at many publications) he covers the labor movement in the US and in Mexico.  For his coverage from Mexico (photos and text) including on the striking teachers who were met in Mexico City by the police in full S.W.A.T. mode, click here.
 
Meanwhile the music group  I AM THREE is making a Bootleg recording from their European tour available online, available for download, free of charge.  You can click here (and on the widget for the European tour) or here or here.
 
We're a site/community for the left. Net Right Daily is a site for the right. The Daily Grind is a news mailing you can sign up for from ALG News which is also right-wing. On the latter, BW with ALG News has been especially persistent (and nice) in e-mailing all community sites various ALG News items. Various people have mailed Net Right Daily items to community sites. Trina and I were discussing this and wondering about it? We've gotten some very rude e-mailings from on our side (the left) asking for help (try demanding it) and when we discussed it, others weighed in. The feeling is that the two outlets have been very polite and we're going to toss out a link. We wish the outlets all the best but we are a site for the left. Their persistance and their politeness (and professionalism) means they get the links in this paragraph. If you're looking for what the other side's saying, we would recommend those two. If you're looking to be enraged by what the right's up to, we would recommend those two.
 
 

Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)