Yesterday, by a 5-3 vote, the City Council of San Diego passed a resolution supporting marriage equality. Jerry Sanders, the Republican mayor-- who campaigned opposing marriage equality-- announced this morning that he had changed his mind and would sign the resolution instead of vetoing it. A former Chief of Police, Sanders, tearfully also announced that one of his daughters, Lisa, is gay and that he would lead with his heart. "The concept of a separate but equal institution is something that I cannot support," he explained, tearfully, with his wife standing at his [side]." Please watch the video; it is very powerful.
I would normally make a smart-ass joke here, but I can't bring myself to do so after watching the video. I'll just thank him for a taking this righteous stand on this issue.
“In the end, I couldn't look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationships, their very lives, were any less meaningful than the marriage I share with my wife, Rana,”
Thousands of protesters have descended on the small town of Jena, La., for a large-scale rally in support of six black students charged in the beating of a white classmate.
They are outraged at what they say is an excessive prosecution of the teens. The District attorney initially had tried to prosecute the students on attempted murder charges.
Martin Luther King III, son of the slain civil rights leader, was there and said the scene was reminiscent of civil rights struggles of the 1960's
For those of you that are unfamiliar with the back ground on the story, here is a YouTube "Cliff notes" version to get you up to speed:
I've seen the term "AfroSpear," "AfroSphere," and "Blackosphere." I guess I'm partial to the title and associated logo! To my way of thinking, the AfroSpear is the realization of a think tank (and forum) for Black (African-American) progressives to discuss, muse, and ruminate issues that affect our communities. Inasmuch, we are not a monolithic entity, the AfroSpear will encourage lively debate, discourse, and an occasional disagreement as we hone a thought or platform on a particular issue. With the power of the current bloggers on the AfroSpear list, I'm encouraged that positive and actionable results will become self-evident.
Community-based nonprofits, operating in low income urban neighborhoods, have a long history of emphasizing economic democracy through the mobilization of community residents. Today, smaller community-based nonprofits continue to provide a range of services that are critical for the social and economic well being of urban neighborhoods. In the U.S., these neighborhood-based nonprofits, with budgets under $5 million, and even less than $1 million, are engaged in charitable and economic activities that touch every aspect of neighborhood life. In many instances, they provide voice to collective interests and needs that are not typically heard in venues of power and wealth. Recent civic dialogue about the future of nonprofits in this country, however, tends to overlook the role and impact of this sub-sector of nonprofits. The public and corporate focus is on downsizing and mergers, performance and outcome measures, or standards of accountability. And, within this dialogue, the issue of social justice and community mobilization is absent.
Community-based organizations in communities of color must return to their original mission on behalf of social justice, advocacy, and political mobilization of residents.
It is the long absence of discussions on issues of social justice in the nation, as a whole, that has resulted in the need for actions like the one that is taking place in Jena today. And these actions would not have happened had it not been through the efforts of those few that pushed it at first. This story slowly moved through to longtail Blogs and up to some of the bigger Blogs in the nation. But, sadly, most in the left Blogosphere only became somewhat familiar with the plight of these students long after the fact.
As I wrote when I covered this in June: "This story has been in the AfroSpear for quite a while." Yet, it had hardly moved near the MSM, unless you count the fact that this story really broke in Britain on the BBC.Yep, you read that right. An American Civil Rights tragedy and our local SCLM media couldn't manage to break the story. Until the last few days. An entire year later.
In a mile-long procession, tens of thousands of civil rights demonstrators from around the nation marched this morning from the courthouse of this racially embattled town to the schoolyard where nooses were hung from a tree last year as a warning to black students.
Chanting "No justice, no peace," the black-clad demonstrators walked down quiet residential streets as homeowners somberly watched from their front steps, their arms crossed in front of them.
This movement that is kicking in the TV screen of every single news network today took forever and a day to get any real notice from these same American networks. But the fact that it is finally getting coverage is a good thing, for the most part.
Sometimes you are a part of something big and you don't eve realize it. The Jena 6 case comes to mind. Thanks to the Afrospear movement and other bloggers of color out there, I have known about the Jena 6 case for months now. It seemed almost surreal to watch it grow and take on a life of it's own. A newspaper story here, a local news clip there, little by little the country started to take notice, and now....
For those of us black activist who use the web as a tool for change, we have been e-mailing each other, blogging about Jena,calling each other, and organizing on the web for months, about this travesty of justice down in Bayou country. Now, finally, the rest of America has caught on. This is now national news, and the Jena 6 has springboarded into our national conscience. It also reinforces my belief that the Internet and the world wide web can also be used as a tremendous tool for activism and organizing for social change.
Today is the culmination of all the work that everyone that rallied around this case has done. There will be a huge rally in Jena today in support of those six men, and from all indications so far it is going to be massive. Countless buses have already left my area, loaded with activist and people who want a change, and who are all just sick and tired of being tired. African American College students have mobilized and united around this cause, and activism seems to have taken the place of apathy.
3 white students at the Illinois Roberts High School in Springfield were suspended earlier today after beating a black student in their school cafeteria, allegedly in protest of the public support for Jena 6.
The victim, black male Johnathon Curtis, 15, was reportedly wearing a Free Jena 6 t-shirt and bracelet when he was approached by Benjamin Barnelli, 17, Blake Sheffield, 16, and Fredrick Tompson, 18. According to eye-witnesses at the school, they then began heckling Curtis, poking him with utensils and smearing food in his face before the fight broke out.
Barnelli punched Curtis in the back of the head which prompted the student to return the punch which landed on Sheffield, causing a black eye. The 3 white students then proceeded to beat Curtis, kicking and punching him for over a minute before a teacher broke up the fight.
I have been unable to verify that Illinois story with any alternate internet or MSM sources, but given how long it took for most of America to notice the Jena 6 story would that surprise anyone at all?
How much longer can we, as a nation and especially as Progressives and Liberals, afford to ignore these issues of justice, equality, and racism before it begins to tear the nation apart? How much longer can we afford to dismiss someone else's "single issue" as being unimportant to us all and disenfranchise them from our ideas of what Progressivism or Liberalism is or should be?
Many in the MSM are calling it a "reawakening of the Civil Rights movement" or other similarly ignorant statements, IMHO. To those of us that have been paying attention to discussions in the AfroSpear, Afrosphere or Blackosphere, or whatever you want to call it... Some of them may agree with me:
The Civil Rights movement never really died. America just stopped paying attention to it.
Well... To those of you that just choked on the bitter taste of reality from the news today for the first time, all I can say is: Are you going to start paying attention to it now? If you are, here is a snippet of the refresher course to wipe the bitter taste of the reality from your mouth:
But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we’ve come here today to dramatize a shameful condition. (MLK)
The fact that the protests in Jena and across the nation are happening is proof that this shameful condition still exists here in America. Meanwhile, blacks -and other minorities - are still living in hopes of the dream.
“I was born in 1953. Like the rest of my generation, I took the America I grew up in for granted – in fact, like many in my generation I railed against the very real injustices of our society, marched against the bombing of Cambodia, went door to door for liberal candidates. It’s only in retrospect that the political and economic environment of my youth stands revealed as a paradise lost, an exceptional episode in our nation’s history.”
That’s the opening paragraph of my new book, The Conscience of a Liberal. It’s a book about what has happened to the America I grew up in and why, a story that I argue revolves around the politics and economics of inequality.
I’ve given this New York Times blog the same name, because the politics and economics of inequality will, I expect, be central to many of the blog posts – although I also expect to be posting on a lot of other issues, from health care to high-speed Internet access, from productivity to poll analysis. Many of the posts will be supplements to my regular columns; I’ll be using this space to present the kind of information I can’t provide on the printed page – especially charts and tables, which are crucial to the way I think about most of the issues I write about.
This should be a fine addition to your liberal dose of reality in Blogtopia. (Yes, skippy coined that!)
Jonathan Aponte, a 20-year-old Army private, has admitted that he arranged to have himself shot in the knee to avoid being sent back to Iraq and then told police he had been wounded in a robbery.
Today, he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor, the Bronx district attorney, Robert T. Johnson, announced.
In a deal with prosecutors, Private Aponte pleaded guilty to one count of falsely reporting an incident in the third degree. Under the agreement, Justice John N. Byrne of State Supreme Court is to sentence him to a term of one year in jail on Oct. 17. His guilty plea in this case also covered any potential charges of perjury in connection with the investigation into the shooting, according to the district attorney’s office.
Support the troops... Bust a cap in their kneecap?
WTF???Is this what it has come to? (h/t Buzzflash)
This video introduces a series of "21st century disaster tips you WON'T hear from officials," by homeland security and disaster management strategist W. David Stephenson. The tips tell you how to use personal communication devices and apps you use every day -- and will use in a disaster whether or not officials want you to -- to communicate with family and friends, and perhaps even to relay critical information to officials, without making a bad situation worse by, for example, making voice calls to let your family know you're ok
I would highly suggest following his directions on this... Just in case. This is a bush disaster world. You never know when you will need this kind of back up.
I am not one for framing debates. Much like BooMan, I think that there is an inherent dishonesty in playing with people's emotions and minds in order to score a political point. But that still does not change the fact that I see things that "they" are doing and could not disagree with "them" more. And my gut tells me that we have to hit meet them head on with a loud and resounding "HELL NO!" And, IMHO, that has nothing to do with framing... It has to do with reality.
I've been trying to find the right words to describe the MoveOn.org advertising fiasco on General Betraeus. I think The Rude One found the right balance.
Obviously, the Rude Pundit doesn't believe in the Bob Shrum/DLC school of cautious political rhetoric, where you try real hard not to piss off the other side 'cause they might hit back. The language of inclusion, though, need not be the language of capitulation. Let's put this in historical perspective: You're Tom Hayden. Let the Rude Pundit and others be Abbie Hoffman. Out here in the blogworld, we can say shit like "Petraeus/Betray Us" because, well, shit, that's what we do. Let us be the dirty fuckin' hippies.
We need you to be mainstream, MoveOn. We need you to be the grown-up. The mainstream media is distracted by shiny objects. Don't actually try to dangle a sparkly charm in front of them.
Yeah...basically.
Sorry dudes... I heartily disagree with both the idea and the reasoning. Here, Lakoff gives his position on this and for a change it has less to do with framing an issue, and is more about the cold hard reality:
"The issue is this: Who has been betraying the trust of the American people -- including our troops -- in bringing about the American invasion of Iraq and in continuing the occupation? What were the acts of betrayal and with what consequences? And is a betrayal of trust still going on, and if so where, how, and by whom?
I have developed a deeper look at these issues. You can read that in my new article Iraq and the Betrayal of Trust. But meanwhile, let's talk about one of the traps we should stay out of: The Politeness Trap.
Bush took advantage of certain conventions of etiquette and politeness when he sent Petraeus to testify before Congress. Those conventions hold that one does not criticize the symbolic stand-in for the military, even when the uniform-wearing stand-in is on an overt political mission that is at the heart of the Administration's continuing betrayal of trust. Decorum can be put to political use, and Bush did just that.
Bush was using a familiar right-wing tactic: identifying himself with a military uniform and the stature of the military in general, when he had no military stature himself. Rudy Guiliani used the same tactic in his ad in Friday's New York Times: by associating himself with Petraeus' rank and role, hoping some of the stature of the military would rub off on him. The implicit message is an attack on MoveOn: in pointing out Petraeus' deception, MoveOn, so Giuliani implies, was being disrespectful of the military itself. This is a typical right-wing attack on progressives, and progressives shouldn't stand for it. They should not be allowed to hide behind the troops. The troops themselves have been betrayed."
Here is the political reality as I see it today:
MoveOn was right. They didn't write any facts that most reasonable Americans would dispute. Did they use harsh words in a flaming sound byte? Yep... And rightfully so. These harsh GOP tactics deserve nothing less than to be hammered with facts.
It is an outrage that these neocon wannabes would get their panties all twisted in a knot over MoveOn pointing out the obvious and, even worse IMHO, is having some Dems run from the facts.
This "polite" political tactic may cut it with the hardcore vote-Dem-until-they-die crowd, but the rest of the political nation is going to point out the absurdities of the Dems playing this game of footsie under the table, and playing it by the GOP rules. I am very disappointed, to say the least, with the repeated wishy-washy mixed signals sent by Dems. Someone has to stand up to the bullies in the GOP, and the Dems aren't doing it.
Forget about "Mommy" Democrats and "Daddy" Republicans and fuck thinking about the god-damned elephant and to hell with being polite about it all... The lefty-Bloggers are the ONLY adults and the Dems are the little kids that can't/won't fend for themselves. And, for a change, MoveOn got something right.
Connecticut's very own JR. Senator, Joe neocon Lieberman, bloviates in another WSJ propaganda hit piece claiming that "advocates of withdrawal risk making the exact same mistake" (Which mistake Joe? Of being completely and totally correct and making you and your warmongering republican brethren look like total failures and lunatics AGAIN?) and, meanwhile, support for the continued occupation of Iraq is slipping even further both in Iraq and the USA to the dismay of Republican operatives currently hitting the airwaves to share their rosy propaganda pictures.
Iraqis currently overwhelmingly oppose the presence of coalition forces to the point where the support of violence against the occupying coalition forces is rising.
Similarly, 80 percent of Iraqis disapprove of the way U.S. and other coalition forces have performed in Iraq; the only change has been an increase in negative ratings of the U.S. performance among Kurds. And 86 percent of Iraqis express little or no confidence in U.S. and U.K. forces, similar to last winter and again up among Kurds.
Accusations of mistreatment continue: Forty-one percent of Iraqis in this poll (vs. 44 percent in March) report unnecessary violence against Iraqi citizens by U.S. or coalition forces. That peaks at 63 percent among Sunni Arabs, and 66 percent in Sunni-dominated Anbar.
This disapproval rises to an endorsement of violence: Fifty-seven percent of Iraqis now call attacks on coalition forces “acceptable,” up six points from last winter and more than three times its level (17 percent) in February 2004. Since March, acceptability of such attacks has risen by 15 points among Shiites (from 35 percent to 50 percent), while remaining near-unanimous among Sunnis (93 percent).
Kurds, by contrast – protected by the United States when Saddam remained in power – continue almost unanimously to call these attacks unacceptable.
Acceptability of attacks on U.S. forces also varies by locale, peaking at 100 percent in Anbar, 69 percent in Kirkuk city and 60 percent in Baghdad, compared with 38 percent in Basra and just three percent in the northern Kurdish provinces.
Remember that one of those things that the lying Surge ESCALATION supporters are touting are the successes in Anbar. Anbar, where there is a 100% acceptability among locals of killing American and other coalition force occupiers.
Bush said he was encouraged by the update he received today from Petraeus and Crocker and touted recent progress especially in the Anbar province.
“I was pleased with what I heard,” the president said. “The strategy we put in place earlier this year was designed to help the Iraqis improve their security so that political and economic progress could follow. And that is exactly the effect it is having in places like Anbar.
Bush said continuing this progress is vital to meeting the strategic interests of our nation.
“We can’t take this progress for granted. Here in Anbar and across Iraq, al Qaeda and other enemies of freedom will continue to try to kill the innocent in order to impose their dark ideology,” Bush said.
“I am going to reassure them that America does not abandon our friends. And America will not abandon the Iraqi people. That’s the message all three of us bring,” Bush said.
If Anbar is the success story, then it is obvious that bush is looking to replicate this 100% support for killing coalition forces across Iraq as a "key to a secure, stable Iraq." As you watch "All three" of them - Bush, Petraeus and Crocker - feed their propaganda and lies to Congress in the next week, remember these successes they had previously been touting in Anbar.
In fact, as near as we can tell, a lot of the numbers, the key metrics about what's actually happening on the ground remain classified.
And not just the numbers themselves.
A few days ago we flagged Karen DeYoung's piece in the Washington Post about critics questioning the alleged decline in violence in Iraq. And one key point she focused in on is the methodology that the folks in Baghdad are using to derive their numbers. Is it really true that it matters how a person is shot (in the front of the head or the back) for whether or not they get counted? Is it true that we're not counting Sunni-on-Sunni or Shia-on-Shia deaths? Or even killings by the folks we're now allied with in al Anbar province?
The best we can tell the methodology Petraeus's staff is using to tabulate the numbers also remains classified.
In other words, it's not just a matter of getting the numbers from Petraeus and his staff and deciding whether you believe them or not. They won't even tell us what the numbers are -- let alone how they came up with them.
The AP reveals that a “briefing chart prepared by the Defense Intelligence Agency says what Gen. David Petraeus won’t. Insurgent attacks against Iraqi civilians, their security forces and U.S. troops remain high.” Most of the insurgent attacks in Iraq continue to be focused on U.S. forces, as the chart shows:
Attacks are up, or have remained pretty much the same, even when you take into account the manipulation of data by the liars that are spewing them out as their idea of success. The only decline? Iraqis have figured out how to avoid killing Iraqis and shifted their focus, and sharpened their aim, on to coalition forces. The Iraqi puppet regime has figured out that the real numbers of casualties are hurting the failed bush administrations' quest for eternal war, so the neoconservative hands up the Iraqi governments asses are are playing the "hide the truth" game from the UN by denying the UN access to Iraq Health Ministry stats:
One of the most credible Iraq-casualties tabulations, crunched by the United Nations, was lost this year after the Iraqi government, embarrassed by the high reported death toll, refused the U.N. access to Health Ministry statistics.
And it's not hard to see why: here are the 2006 numbers from the U.N., month by month, versus an AP-reported month-to-month breakdown of figures compiled from the Iraqi ministries of defense, health and interior.
Jan 06: 1700 UN -- 549 Iraqi ministries
Feb 06: 2100 UN -- 545 Iraqi ministries
Mar 06: 2250 UN -- 769 Iraqi ministries
Apr 06: 2200 UN -- 686 Iraqi ministries
May 06: 2669 UN -- 932 Iraqi ministries
Jun 06: 3149 UN -- 885 Iraqi ministries
Jul 06: 3590 UN -- 1062 Iraqi ministries
Aug 06: 3009 UN -- 769 Iraqi ministries
Sep 06: 3250 UN -- 1099 Iraqi ministries
Oct 06: 3600 UN* -- 1288 Iraqi ministries
Nov 06: 3400 UN -- 1846 Iraqi ministries
Dec 06: 2800 UN -- 1927 Iraqi ministries
If I've made any mistakes in compiling this, I'll adjust as necessary. But here you can see the discrepancy in determining how many Iraqis died each month in 2006 alone.
Is there any doubt that the bush numbers for 2007 are even more dubious? The Iraqis that manage to survive this colossal failure can see the death count around them on a daily basis. There is little doubt why they want us to leave Iraq. But...
"How long do you think US and other Coalition forces should remain in Iraq?"
The autumn 2007 poll reflects growing disillusionment with the occupying forces' presence in Iraq. There is a growing consensus among respondents that coalition troops should leave the country immediately.
Some 47% of respondents now back an immediate withdrawal, compared with 35% in February.
The poll also shows dwindling support for troops remaining in the country, even in support of the Iraqi government and security forces. Only 10% of those surveyed favour coalition forces remaining for that purpose.
Iraqis want us out... So much so they overwhelmingly support killing us in order to get that message across and they really don't care about the disaster that bush and the neocons failures will leave behind. In other words: Don't let the IED hit you on the ass on your way out!
As you may know, a report about the situation in Iraq by General David Petraeus, the Commander of U.S. forces, and others is scheduled to be released next week. If the report says that the situation in Iraq is IMPROVING, what should the U.S. do next: should the U.S. increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, keep the same number of U.S. troops in Iraq as there are now, decrease the number of troops in Iraq, or remove all its troops from Iraq?
Increase 6% Keep the same 32% Decrease 39% Remove all troops 17%
So, even if Petraeus says that the surge is improving things, a solid majority -- 56% -- will still favor removing some or all of the troops. Of course, this number could be related to the fact that in two polls now -- by The Washington Post, and by Gallup -- solid majorities say they don't expect Petraeus to honestly assess the success of his own performance. So no wonder majorities are saying his testimony won't affect what they want for Iraq.
Hey! Americans are starting to get used to the fact that anyone associated with the bush administration will lie to anyone that will listen to them when it comes to keep their endless war alive.
General Petraeus will go before Congress this afternoon to argue that the surge is working -- that sectarian killings and attacks against Iraqi and U.S. forces are substantially down. The military's secret numbers will serve as support for those conclusions, even as numbers from within the government (e.g. those collected by the Defense Intelligence Agency) dispute them.
Let's just repeat that fact over and over. Because that's what Petraeus is planning on doing on Monday, as Karen DeYoung (in an article buried on page A16) explains clearly. Go read the whole article, closely, for a description of the many methods of the Administration's hocus pocus. But I'd like to focus on one particular tactic.
MoveOn has a hot new ad in today's NYT pointing out that Petraeus' statements differ from all the known metrics out there. And boy has it made Sanctimonious Joe pissed. Not surprisingly, Joe is trying to call in those chits he got for agreeing to caucus with the Democrats in January.
The personal attack on Gen. David Petraeus launched today by Moveon.org is an outrageous and despicable act of slander that every member of the Congress -- Democrat and Republican -- has a solemn responsibility to condemn.
General Petraeus has served his country honorably and selflessly for over thirty-five years. He has risked his life in combat and accepted lengthy deployments away from his family to defend our nation and its citizens from its enemies. For this, he deserves the respect, admiration, and gratitude of every American -- not the disgraceful slander of Moveon.org.
It has been widely reported that Moveon.org has worked closely over the past months with many members of the Democratic Party in coordinating their efforts to derail the strategy that General Petraeus has been leading in Iraq.
[snip]
As a member of the Senate Democratic caucus, I therefore call on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to denounce Moveon.org in no uncertain terms for its vile attack on Gen. Petraeus. General Petraeus deserves no less.
Mind you, Joe doesn't address the central allegation that MoveOn makes--that Petraeus is lying to Congress. Which he'd have to do to prove his own accusations about slander. Rather, Sanctimonious Joe says we've got to honor Generals, even if they lie to us.
But the difference this time is that he will knowingly be getting up in front of Congress to tell these lies, and we, the vast majority of Americans, all know it well ahead of time.
Although he has already betrayed the USA by spreading bush propaganda, much like the mistake Joe Lieberman has continually made, we will all be watching to see if Petraeus goes the distance in a typical bush fashion and perjures himself in his testimony to Congress over the next little while.
Just how much of this is dressed-up "Stay the Course!" BS? Take a look at this graph showing troop levels past, present and future (If the incompetent bush gets his way):
WHOA! Is this a familiar pattern? And someone out there representing CT supports this rinse and repeat policy? Sure enough, Bush can always count on Joe Neocon Lieberman:
And lo and behold... We are right back to "STAYING THE COURSE" so that bush can try to punt his failure off on to the next administration. Bush got what he wanted with the last re-escalation, and I guarantee you that as soon as the few soldiers that come back after this most recent surge have finished their minimum time in the USA they will get another flight back to Iraq to RE-ESCALATE this Iraq hole even deeper than it has already been dug.
Rinse... Repeat... Rinse... Repeat... Rinse... Repeat... etc. ad infinitum
Today, General Petraeus attempted to put a positive spin on a failed policy. While the General highlighted some notable military successes, other credible reports underscore the lack of real progress we have made in Iraq. The Government Accountability Office’s report released last week shows the Iraqis have failed to achieve fifteen of eighteen benchmarks. General Jones’ report states that the Iraqis are far from being able to take over for their own security. And the daily news reports out of Iraq paint a grim picture. Our Armed Forces, stretched and deployed nearly to the breaking point, have done their duty bravely and courageously, but the ends to which they have been directed – the political stability of Iraq - are increasingly beyond their control.
This surge isn’t working and General Petreaus effectively admitted this today. This summer has been the bloodiest yet so far for U.S. troops in Iraq, with 264 soldiers killed. There is indisputable proof that this strategy has not accomplished the basic goal laid out by the President in January – giving the Iraqis breathing room to achieve political consensus. To grant this Administration an extension of this failed policy would not only put our soldiers at greater risk, it would put this country as a whole in a more perilous position.
I hope that today marks a new era in our national debate on Iraq. The President must face the facts - achieving military success will not lead to Iraqi political success.
Every best wish, Christopher S. Murphy
Ain't nobody holding their breath on a reasonable response like Murphy's coming from the Lieberman warmongers' camp for lying republican children...
At tonight’s Emmy Awards show, the audience cheered Sally Field’s acceptance speech, which the recognized mothers of U.S. troops. “Surely this [award] belongs to all the mothers of the world,” she stated. “May they be seen, may their work be valued and raised. Especially to the mothers who stand with an open heart and wait. Wait for their children to come home from danger, from harm’s way, and from war. I am proud to be one of those women.”
Field then continued, “If mothers ruled the world, there would be no –” But the Fox Emmycast cut off her sound and pointed the camera away from the stage, silencing the rest of her sentence: “god-damned wars in the first place.”
But Canadian television obviously didn't get the GOP memo passed down to Fox and so they didn't censor Sally Field's Emmy speech:
