Nice Cover for the Killing

"It's just a nice cover for the killing." observe RUSSELL MOKHIBER and ROBERT WEISSMAN at Counterpunch in an essay about the National Book Festival.

Mokhiber and Weissman ask:

Will Dr. Helen Caldicott appear to read from her new book -- Nuclear Power is Not the Answer?

Will Noam Chomsky appear to read from his bestseller -- Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Domination?


Will Amy and David Goodman appear to read from their new book -- Static: Government Liars, Media Cheerleaders, and the People Who Fight Back?

Find out who else won't be there.

[Thanks K.M.}


I think the people who write stuff like that manipulate themselves every time they can get war casualty figures into print - even electronic print. "Auto industry develops bottom impact airbag... troops in Iraq don't have them Bush lied, people died" Shwing!

It really is unfortunate that every author living or dead could not be at the event. I wonder if the people that write articles that always segue (often painfully and difficultly) into a criticism of the current administration for perceived wrongs realize they look like whining third graders who are still mad because Billy accidentally tripped them on the stairs last month.

Is the war in Iraq going swimmingly, should we cut and run However that discussion is not germane to the Book Festival, why they felt it was is a mystery to me.

It's all part and parcel of the mendacity of your anti-intellectual, censorial, propagandist regime. Don't forget that Laura Bush censored American poets by denying them a forum in which to express core political speech on the specious grounds that an event organized at the White House, by a member of the presidency (which the First Lady is), should not be used for politics because that presidency member was not an elected official.

And where are all the right-wings demands for "fair and balanced"?

Oh please, do you people really believe this crap? I'm sure there is no where else in this (well the one south of you Fang) country where poets can read their poetry, no place authors can talk about their books, no place where one can speak freely except at Mrs. Bush's soirees.

You people need to get a grip.

As usual, you miss the point entirely; the point isn't about where they are allowed to speak freely, it is about where -- and why -- they were forbidden to.

Only in the mind of the bivariate typologist is censorship seen as not censorship because it is not being effected everywhere at once. It is the same mindset that creates denial about how a person who lends out books cannot possibly be a "real" librarian because they do so without permission from the state.

Forbidden or not invited or perhaps invited but couldn't make it. The crappy article is not clear on that.

Perhaps it is you that misses the point entirely, everyone is not free to say everything anywhere and anytime they want. Not just fire in a crowded movie theater restrictions, but I doubt Dick Cheney would be allowed to address the DNC convention.

Yes, yes I know that it is an event 'organized' by the LOC, but they didn't invite me to speak either and I wrote a book. I am so upset I think I'll complain about war casualties in WWI.

Why do you hate America? Or is it just Freedom?

Which part of the concept of: "restictions which are reasonable as to time, place, or manner" (paraphrasing if not quoting the U.S. Supreme Court), are in you denial about? Or do not, cannot, or will not understand?

Do you have any notion of the concepts of protected and unprotected speech? Or "core political speech"? How in the nane of all that is holy can you can possibly be so ignorant as to equate criticism of the government with unprotected speech?

Your president sucks, big time, and for a member of the presidency to deny the people access to information saying so is clearly and presently unAmerican. It is communistic; stalinist, even. Dare I go so far as to say hitlerian?

It amazes me how quickly you> this discussion.

No, you Godwined yourself; I am not responsible for you lack of maturity. If you cannot see beyond superficiality, that is your problem, not mine. And I notice that you didn't answer of the questions. But, then, I was fairly certain that you would opt to take exception rather than continue the discussion.

I didn't continue the discussion because it was going nowhere. I don't cry censorship or abrogation of First Amendment rights when I don't get to say everything I want whenever I want. I have a sense of decorum and I wouldn't want to criticize anyone at their party.

There are any number of venues where partisan political speech is appropiate, even encouraged. This was not one of them. You and I share different views on this and continuing this discussion will not change them. Perhaps I am more of a pragmatist than you but I don't see how continuing this conversation can be beneficial.

Oh, and one cannot Godwin oneself.


You go on thinking that, mdoneil.

And just because you think "decorum" is reason enough for you to hold your tongue, that doesn't make it a standard anybody else has to apply to themselves. If you'd rather bow to authortiy and keep silent about its failures and shortcomings instead of speaking out in freedom you are perfectly at liberty to do so. You're expecting others to do the same, however, is not a restriction that is reasonable by any stretch of the imagination.

And, once again, it was not a party, it was a political event at which the hostess prohibited core political speech against the presidency of which she is a member.

It is over, Bob Woodward was there with his crappy new book. Sorry about blowing your conspiracy theory though.

Bob Woodward out of how many that were not invited because they do not kiss the Bush ass? Dare I draw a parallel between Woodward and token niggers?

And there isn't any conspiracy theory involved, although I understand why you have a vested interest in smearing your opponents in the usual right-wing fashion. Bush regime censorship and civil liberties violations are a consistent pattern of behaviour. You do know, don't you, that Bush permits torture in the name of "justice"? That a number of government emloyees who have spoken critically of the government were fired for speaking factually about matters the regime did not want discussed? That members of his presidency have committed an outright act of treason because Joe Wilson refused to remaain silent in the face of Bush's fraud? And now your Republican Party has turned Congress into a snake pit of child molestation and sexual predation; out of its habit of covering up mere embarrassments, it has made itself complicit in yet another outright crime.

Sorry, but it ain't conspiracy theory when there is plenty of factual and documentary evidence to back up one's contention.

Even for those of you who live in denial and accord credibility by where material is published.

Yes, I agree completely. Western civilization, and perhaps even the world will end because Chomsky was bumped in favor of Elmo.

Not that it is related but since you brought it up, Mark Foley is a disgusting pervert and should be in prison.

For someone who lives in the Great White North you seem quite involved in other nations politics. Tell me how is that Karla Homolka freak? She is out of prison now is she not? (I don't follow things up north as closely as you follow things down south.)

Tell me how is that Karla Homolka freak? She is out of prison now is she not?

Mdoneil, how can you be so ineffably stupid? How hard do you have to work to be the way you are? Or, since you make it look so easy, does it come naturally to you?

Have you really never heard of a concept called "Rule of Law"? Do you really not understand that once someone has served the sentence levied against them by the courts, society is legally bound to let that person out? Regardless of what they've done? Even perverts like Foley?

I don't like the idea of that homicidal bitch running loose and most day's I'd just as soon shoot her myself, but she has served her time. I don't have like it, but I do have to live with it.

It never ceases to amaze me that the American Repubican/Conservative/right-wing touts itself as being so law abiding, and yet exploits every opportunity to flout those laws and call for selective prosection and enforcement.

And while Laura Bush's single incident of inviting Elmo instead of Chomsky because Elmo could be counted on to not make politcal hay will not, in and of itself as an isolated incident, cause the collapse of U.S. society, it is, as I pointed out, part of a consistent patter of behaviour which very well could. How typically right-wing of you to "refute" my argument by taking one small part of it out of context.

(I don't follow things up north as closely as you follow things down south.)

Well, just to bring you up to speed, we have not yet invaded any small, defenseless countries under fraudulent circumstances so we can steal its natural resources; our government has not tabled much less voted on legislation legalizing torture or repudiating International Treaties such as the Geneva Conventions; nor has it made any move to repeal the principle of Habeus Corpus.

Our national police force, the RCMP, has, however, become the same kind of stumblebum your FBI already was.

I wondered if she finally got out.

Doesn't St. Pierre & Miquelon say you're stealing their resources? Not that you have to invade them there are only 7K people there.

Geneva Convention? WTF are you talking about, the Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists; heck it does not even apply to non-uniformed non-state enemy combatants. You might want to read them.

Ok, now I'm really done with this. There has to be something else on LISNews we can disagree about.

The Geneva Conventions constrains military conduct -- your military's as much as their's. The U.S. is a signatory of the GCs; terrorists, not comprising a state in and of themselves, cannot be. The Conventions, like any law, are in effect at all times and all places to which your government sends your armed forces. For Bush to say that the GCs don't apply to American servicemen because the enemy they are fighting are not from a signatory of the law, is disingenious and hypocritical.

St. Pierre and Miquelon are not sovereign states; they are territories of France. Canada is in competition with the islands and France the same way we are in competition against the U.S., and the U.S. is against China.