tuesday in the park with John

I’ll admit, practically every photo of this event—posted all over the place—is better than what I’ve got, but I’m going to give you my impressions, so, just to keep it real, you’ll have to suffer with my images, too.

Several hundred members of the WGA East, their union brethren, supporters, and fans gathered Tuesday afternoon in Washington Square Park. Yes, there were guild member/writers, yes, there were union leaders (UFT, SEIU, SAG, AFTRA), and, yes, their were, uh, you know, stars (Tim Robbins, Danny Glover. Joey Pants), but I want to talk first about the politicians.

I say politicians because, though you wouldn’t know it from the coverage, former Senator and presidential candidate John Edwards was not the only one from that class to show up in support of the writers. There were US Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Anthony Weiner (D-NY), and Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, to name a few. Senator/presidential hopefuls Barack Obama (D-IL) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) also sent statements to be read at the rally.

I make this point not because I’m afraid the coverage was biased towards Edwards (hardly), but because I’d like to point out that it is just maybe possible that all of these folks support the WGA in their fight for a fair slice of future revenue from new media venues.

In fact, much has been made on some blogs about how Sen. Edwards had the audacity to campaign. . . wait, I’ve got it right here. . . Edwards's words went something like this:

This is all about fairness, it's about opportunity, it's about making sure those who create the work that generates revenue actually gets to share in that revenue. We have to show that we're gonna have economic fairness and economic justice in America again, and I promise you this: When I'm President of the United States, there will be economic fairness in the United States of America again!

He also said this:

This cause is about making sure that big media conglomerates don’t step on your rights.

Oh.My.God. Just over a month from the Iowa caucus, John Edwards makes an appearance in New York, and dares to mention that he wants to be president—and even kind of says why.

Shameless, I know.

Honestly, to my mind, he kind of wasn’t shameless enough. While it is clear that being at the rally (Edwards also appeared on the west coast picket lines ten days ago), standing with the union, makes the biggest statement, the Senator could have taken 30 seconds to connect his support for labor to some of the anti-poverty and pro-economic revitalization planks in his platform. You know, sell a little. Communicate the benefits (as we say in marketing) of an Edwards presidency. Not that the recent college grad who now does what passes for strike coverage in the New York Times would have necessarily noticed, but I think the writers would have. And, as the mingling crowd that lingered in the park for more than a half-hour after the rally ended made clear, these people like to network!

(Senator Edwards did apparently do some of that communicating to reporters after the rally.)

Also almost completely absent from the coverage were the issues around which this strike revolves, or just how good the various union leaders that spoke were at articulating these issues. They’re great in a room (as we say in the biz), even if that room is outdoors. These people really know their audience, and inspired it—it was impressive.

. . .


(All of my pictures of Edwards make him look like he’s singing. . . )

(. . . or like Gilbert Gottfried.)
And, I’d be, like, a bad journalist if I didn’t also publish the photo that confirms the prejudices of the establishment media.

(h/t gem spa for the links to some of the other coverage)

too pissed to blog

I really thought that with the elevation of Democrats to the leadership of both houses of Congress that the worst of my politicocentric rages were behind me—but today, my cardiovascular system and I discovered that I was wrong.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 — Two months after insisting that they would roll back broad eavesdropping powers won by the Bush administration, Democrats in Congress appear ready to make concessions that could extend some crucial powers given to the National Security Agency.

Administration officials say they are confident they will win approval of the broadened authority that they secured temporarily in August as Congress rushed toward recess. Some Democratic officials concede that they may not come up with enough votes to stop approval.

Say what??? Are you fuckin’ kidding me? Have we learned nothing. . . again? Did the Democratic leadership fail to read the editorials back in August that shot their cavalier strategizing square through the strangely missing moral core? Did they fail to read my blog???

Sadly, everything—absolutely everything—that I, the New York Times, the Washington Post and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) said back in August still applies (please take a moment to click back to that post—I can’t bear to write it out again). And that leaves me seething to point of crimson face and bulging eyes.

Today, even the previously resolute and admirable Rep. Nadler seems to be showing his jelly-leg.

Mr. Nadler said that he was worried the Senate would give too much ground to the administration in its proposal, but that he was satisfied with the bill to be proposed on Tuesday in the House.

“It is not perfect, but it is a good bill,” he said. “It makes huge improvements in the current law. In some respects it is better than the old FISA law,” a reference to the foreign intelligence court.

Not perfect, in this case, is not good enough. . . and not at all good. Calling the proposal an improvement on the current law is like calling a stake through the heart an improvement on water-boarding followed by a stake through the heart. I will remind everyone, including Mr. Nadler, that all the Democrats have to do (like all they had to do in August) is NOTHING. This colossal capitulation mistake is set to expire around Valentine’s Day—this no time to pen another love letter to the Bush Administration and its cowardly pals in Congress.

Jerrold Nadler is my Representative, and I plan to give him a piece of my mind. I urge all of you to do the same with the men and women that claim to represent you. . . especially if he or she is a Democrat. (I can’t believe I just wrote that. . . I can’t believe I just had to write that.)

Remind them that you support moral representatives that uphold their oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic—including the Bush/Cheney Administration.

Remind them that our most basic liberties hang in the balance. Tell them that you will stand by them if they stand strong themselves. Teach them what you and civil liberties experts already know about this purported FISA compromise:

‘This still authorizes the interception of Americans’ international communications without a warrant in far too many instances, and without adequate civil liberties protections,” said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, who was in the group that met House officials.

Caroline Frederickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said she was troubled by the Democrats’ acceptance of broad, blanket warrants for the security agency rather than the individualized warrants traditionally required by the intelligence court.

“The Democratic leadership, philosophically, is with us,” Ms. Frederickson said. “But we need to help them realize the political case, which is that Democrats will not be in danger if they don’t reauthorize this Protect America Act. They’re nervous.

“There’s a ‘keep the majority’ mentality, which is understandable,” she said, “But we think they’re putting themselves in more danger by not standing on principle.”

Indeed, they are putting us all in danger. Let we the people try not to let that happen.

(Gosh, I guess that you just can’t really be too pissed to blog—who knew?)


Update: Apparently things are at least a little grayer than the Gray Lady would have us believe. According to Glenn Greenwald and Christy Hardin Smith, there is much to feel good about in the House version of this legislation. Christy is urging folks to call their Reps in support of the work of the House Progressive Caucus in restoring some safeguards and adding some new requirements to the FISA process.

Serves me right to go on record after only reading the paper of record.

Of course, the proof is in the endgame, which will involve the Senate and some serious backroom bullying and front room grandstanding by the likes of GW, Dick, and Mike McConnell. I am still uncomfortable with the idea of “umbrella warrants,” and, frankly, the whole idea of a secret FISA court strikes me a singularly anti-American, but, from a lobbying and calling your Representatives standpoint, perhaps it is best we keep our powder dry for the moment, and call to support what we like about this Conyers-Reyes proposal.


(cross-posted on capitoilette and Daily Kos)

stop me if you’ve heard this one. . .

There are three new reports out on the failures of the Bush Administration to deal with Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. . . wait, that sounds almost passive. . . let me rephrase: There are three new reports out on the willful disregard for public safety and health exhibited by the Bush Administration during and after the Hurricane Katrina disaster (that’s better). For instance:

A GAO report revealed that EPA publicly downplayed the risk of asbestos inhalation, which is often released during home demolition, to city residents and failed to deploy air monitors in predominantly African-American neighborhoods. Furthermore, EPA waited nearly eight months to inform residents that short-term visits could expose them to dangerous levels of asbestos and mold.

Hmmm. . . downplayed risk of asbestos, downplayed risk of asbestos. . . where have I heard—oh, yeah:

Committee Chairman Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-Manhattan), whose district includes lower Manhattan. . . cited a 2003 finding by the EPA's inspector general that Whitman's assertion the air was "safe to breathe," was falsely reassuring and lacked a scientific basis.

"In the six years since the attacks," Nadler said, "we have accumulated a mountain of evidence that tens of thousands of those exposed are suffering from chronic respiratory disease and, increasingly, a variety of rare cancers."

. . . .

Nadler and others also pointed to the vetting of EPA press releases through the White House. They cited one Sept. 13 draft that said preliminary EPA sampling indicated "no or very low levels of asbestos. However, even at low levels, EPA considers asbestos hazardous in this situation."

They noted the tone of the final release was reassuring rather than cautionary, saying, "EPA is greatly relieved to have learned that there appears to be no significant levels of asbestos dust in the air in New York City."

I don’t know, what do you think—just a coincidence?

Didn’t think so.