Jim of The Third Estate Sunday Review has one peeve with C.I. of The Common Ills and it's that some of C.I.'s best work is buried within a post. I had an e-mail from Jim and I knew right away, before I opened it, what it was going to be about. I'd read The Common Ills this morning and when I got to "NYT: "Mixed Review of Bush Pick in Oversight of Gambling" I could just hear Jim saying, "You didn't even put Todd S. Purdum's name in the title."
C.I.'s reply would be, based on past replies, that there's not enough time for perfection and if there are going to be entries up at The Common Ills, they just have to be what they are. (Which can be shorthanded to Kat's "It Is What It Is" motto.)
I understand both points of view. Jim wants the best stuff to really be noticed and C.I.'s feelings are that the posts are for the members and there's no point in attempting to cater to outside the membership.
Jim wants it to be the best because Jim's a member of The Common Ills and thinks it's an amazing site (I do too). But the reality is C.I.'s too busy to worry about "Will this get attention?" or "Will this add readers." C.I. doesn't care. The site is a resource/review and any member can tell you it's about helping you find the voices that speak to you.
C.I. truly doesn't give a damn what people outside the community think. And that's probably why the membership is so huge. Kat would say it's "organic" and that's what speaks to people.
But Jim's a friend and he feels like C.I. had some criticism that was both needed and humorous. He was looking at action alerts and media criticism today and found that Robin Toner and Elisabeth Bumiller are the focus of the Tuesday criticism of The New York Times.
Todd S. Purdum embarrassed himself again. C.I. called him on it. No one else has that Jim's seen.
My friends at the nursing home who just became Common Ills members would disagree with Jim. They were raving over this morning's entries and talking about when Todd popped up in the middle, it was a "gut buster" and provided needed laughter.
That might be, intentionally or not, what C.I. was going for. Jim thinks in terms of a journalist filing a single report and C.I. thinks more in terms of film.
But I'm tired and when I called Jim I told him I could excerpt the section. Which I'll do in a minute. But here's my thoughts on whether or not it would have made a difference if C.I. had made Todd a single entry. It wouldn't have made a difference. First of all, The Common Ills is known at this point. It's been mentioned on NPR and all over the web. Second of all, a lot of the Democratic sites refrain from calling Todd out because he's married to a Democrat from Clinton's administration. So I don't think it would have made a difference. (And Dona was agreeing with me, I could hear her in the background while Jim was on the phone.)
The Common Ills is too independent to be noted. C.I.'s too pro-peace, too pro-choice, too-pro minorities, too . . . It's not a site for the centrists or the middle of the roaders. It never will be. Sometimes "helpful" bloggers will e-mail C.I. saying "Don't write about that" and the only thing that does is make C.I. write about it more.
It's not an echo chamber of talking points. Nor is The Common Ills trying to shore up weak spined Democrats (no spines?) just because there name is "Harry Reid" or whomever.
I started my site to draw attention to the community and all the great sites coming out of it. I understand Jim thinking, "Okay, well if it had just been about Todd . . ." but the reality is, it wouldn't have been linked to then. We, members, know who links and who doesn't. We know who highlights and who doesn't and we're very aware that one site in particular doesn't anymore. (Which is why The Third Estate Sunday Review dropped it a few weeks back.) C.I. says, "Don't try to get it linked" and we get the lecture from C.I. in the gina & krista round-robin, then a few weeks later, someone e-mails to tell Gina and Krista about a site (like the one that Third Estate dropped) that didn't link when they'd e-mailed. (Eddie and Ryan are usually the two who will pay attention to C.I.'s lecture for about two or three weeks and then try for links.)
But, and this is something I've realized since I started my own site and started getting e-mails, it doesn't matter. The Common Ills is a big community. And most of members didn't see a link somewhere and become members. We had someone we know pass it on to us. The community built through word of mouth and that's really how it continues to build.
Don't e-mail me to gripe about that because I'm not excusing one site in paticular that no one goes to anymore for a reason (one that Kat will be delinking from either tonight or tomorrow because Jim called her this evening and she didn't even know she had the site on her blogroll).
But I started my site, Seth's started his site and we've got another member soon to start their own site. There's really no need to go outside the community.
If people are concerned with social justice and with issues that Democrats are supposed to stand for, they'll find the site. If they're not, they won't.
I'm not excusing the sites that have certain members upset. I was one of the people saying "Delink from ___" because that person a) insulted Isaiah (which enraged the community) and b) always wants to be mentioned at The Common Ills but when Billie checked that site she found out that he never mentions The Common Ills at his site. A member will notice that the same way that a member will copy and paste and send something through the community.
But we've go the round-robin, we've got The Common Ills of course, we've got Rebecca, The Third Estate Sunday Review, Betty, Mike, Elaine, Kat and now Seth. There will be a new site shortly. We're not getting smaller, we're getting larger. Last Friday's poll in the round-robin is something C.I.'s taking very seriously and thinking about.
Right now, there's the weekly (sometimes more) gina & krista round-robin and nine sites. The Common Ills isn't even a year old. That its launched so many voices in so short a time tells you that with or without someone scared that The Common Ills is too left or too into minorities or too into pro-choice or whatever the excuse is, the community just continues to build.
I see Jim's point but I think he's wrong. (He knows I think he's wrong.) There were times when I felt like he did before I started my site. I'd be upset that a really great entry that was on something important wasn't being noticed. (By mid-day, had anyone else noted Ralph Nader's complaint against Harriet Miers from today's Democracy Now!? Not that I saw and that's pretty important. She refused to comply with a request that she's bound by her office to comply with.) But now that I'm getting e-mails from members, I'm really getting how big the community is. I should have grasped that from the round-robin but I really didn't.
The Common Ills doesn't spit out talking points and because of that, or the decision not to push Harry Reid as the great savior or whatever, it's not noted by those working from a playbook of talking points.
I ended up doing things differently than I planned here. I was going to do a blog report. That was what the Big Mix was going to be. Instead, I've written about the elderly and some of their issues, about race and other things. C.I. told me that the only rule was that there were no rules.
And the result is that if you're independent, you're voice has more value. There are people who never get e-mails and that's probably because they're running down talking points.
I couldn't imagine making time in a schedule with no time at all to just repeat what everyone else says but there are a lot of sites that do that. The fact that The Common Ills doesn't is why all of us value it so much. And it's why Jim likes to think that, for instance, if the Todd S. Purdum comments had been in their own entry, they would have gotten attention from outside the community. But that's not the way it works.
I don't know if there will be changes to the permalinks (C.I. doesn't call it a blogroll) anytime soon or not but I do know that C.I. has read the complaints and is taking the poll from the latest round-robin very seriously. In some ways, its our fault because we follow that stuff, C.I. doesn't. C.I.'s lost in the e-mails and if we'd raised this issue sooner, it might have already been dealt with. Coming on the heels of the continued ignoring of Rebecca, it is something C.I.'s taking seriously. But C.I. didn't know about that until we started bringing it up.
I want to note my good friend Isaiah who had "Celibacy in the City" today, his latest The World Today Just Nuts comic strip. That was hilarious. We were passing it around at work and Isaiah does great work. Ignore ___ who is an idiot who just wanted to use the community and not give back. But Natalie told C.I. about the insult to Isaiah a week after it happened and C.I. asked Isaiah if it bothered him. Isaiah said not really. It's one of those things that festers and it does bother Isaiah now. More importantly, it bothers the members. ___ is no longer linked. Whether we'll have to hear "I was reading and wanted to share" comments in entries anymore or not, I don't know. (I would guess not.)
But members had followed ___ in the copy and pastes and for him to slam Isaiah and also to be saying, "Great post and I wrote about this if members are interested"? Billie went there and if it's a great post, why wasn't it noted?
If a member took the time to provide ___ with raw data for research, why wasn't that noted as well? (That data now goes to Mike.)
So the point is that we take care of each other in the community. We stood by West, who wasn't even a member when he got attacked. Eddie forwarded the e-mail from the attacker and we don't go to that site anymore (C.I. had already delinked from it). It was bad enough what was done to West but to find out that the jerk was e-mailing trying to get dirt on West was offensive.
West was just a high school kid who spoke his mind and got attacked for it and threatened with delinks if he didn't apologize. Then his apology wasn't good enough. That was bad enough to turn us all off that organization. (And give credit to Rebecca because she got the e-mail from West and wrote him back immediately saying, "Call me." She then stood up for him and others didn't. C.I. did. But others didn't. And we note that as a community.) But when the round-robin published the e-mails by the jerk trying to get information on West that so offended the community. He wasn't a member and hadn't even written C.I. at that point. But C.I. and Rebecca didn't play (as some did), "Oh too bad, that's your own personal problem." Their attitude was, "You liked our work and we're not going to pretend like what was done to you was okay just to have a link." They spoke their mind and that's why the community is tight and strong.
I still can't believe that the jerk and his boss got away with what they did. You'd think the organization would have told them, "Look, you were out of bounds. You need to apologize." Because that didn't happen and West never got an apology (for the attacks or for the attempts to go behind his back, a day before the attacks, and pry into his life) and members have never gone back to that site. We never will.
I had an e-mail from Brenda wondering how I searched online and I don't have time to write back so I'll put an answer in here. I'm using the same hub that other members are using. The one that integrates the software that we all purchased and then added the add on from UK Computer Gurus. I don't understand the "hub" talk either but I think it means that we're routed. I'll pass the e-mail onto the UK Computer Gurus because they're back from their September vacation and we should have a newsletter from them this weekend.
Here's C.I.'s latest on "Todd Purdum's Stinky Jock" (my title):
Todd Purdum and Neil A. Lewis file "Miers Known as a Hard-Working Advocate for the President" which is full of "news." Here's one example:
It has been a long time since Ms. Miers lacked encouragement, and for the last 12 years she has had the support of an important patron.
Is Todd trying to get a job at People? "It has been a long time since Ms. Miers lacked encouragement!" The first clause of the sentence screams for an exclamation point. Breathless writing?
You bet. Who can breathe when the fumes from Todd S. Purdum's smelly jock are wafting all around!
It gets better!
Ms. Miers has been a go-to person for Mr. Bush ever since, first as his appointee to the Texas State Lottery Commission, which she helped clean up; then as White House staff secretary, directing the flow of . . .
She helped clean it up!
Uh, Todd, get your fingers out of your jock and pick up the morning edition of your own paper.
Blumenthal's a little less sure than you are. Todd. Todd! Quit sniffing your fingers and read Blumenthal's article.
She is known among friends and associates as a hard-working and thorough advocate, someone staunchly loyal to Mr. Bush and possessing an unusual ability to remain calm and out of public view in the glare of the White House.
Friends don't trash her? It's "news"!!!!
What she is not known for are her personal views on the hottest legal and political issues of the day.
Has a more awkward sentence appeared in the Times this week? Well you can't type with two hands when you're sniffing the fingers of one. Purdum's grooving on his own funk, people. Cut him some slack.
"I think she's conservative in the sense that most lawyers are conservative, that she looks at the issues in that case," said Linda S. Eads, a professor at the Dedman School of Law at Southern Methodist University, from which Ms. Miers graduated and to which she returned as an adjunct professor. "I don't know her to be an ideologue."
Linda S. Eads. She's what, Todd?
Diane Ragsdale (an African-American woman) is identified as a "liberal Democrat" but all the white folks get a pass? Is that how it works, Todd?
Linda S. Eads. Served under Corny John Cornyn. Which means she served under Bully Boy. Why is she treated as impartial? Just a law professor, apparently. One who also fiercly supported Priscilla Owens but the article doesn't tell you that either. So she supported Owens and she was in the attorney general's office under Corny, under Bully.
Todd's surpassed himself today. He must have worn a cup, and not just a strap, while writing this one. Probably gathered all the other kids and went behind the fence with them so he could show off his jock and cup.
todd s. purdum
celibacy in the city
the world today just nuts
mikey likes it
seth in the city
the third estate sunday review
kat/'s korner of the common ills
thomas friedman is a great man
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
like maria said paz
the common ills
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Monday, October 03, 2005
Iraq and The Third Estate Sunday News Review
Here's my section from The Third Estate Sunday Review's news review. We're trying to make sure people know about the news review because it's a feature that Dona came up with and it's proved to be pretty popular. If someone's new, The Third Estate Sunday Review only publishes on Sunday. They're an online magazine. They were the second blog to spin off from The Common Ills. And C.I.'s a member of The Third Estate Sunday Review now. At first, it was just "I help out" but C.I. always helps out and C.I. and Ava do the TV reviews there so C.I. really is a part of it.
A lot of us help out. I help out when I can and I never get to make it to the end because I've always got to get to bed for church. They do this on Saturday nights and Sunday mornings and it's always an all nighter. So I usually bail half way through. But I'm glad to help out in my own little bit. I think, if nothing else, it helps to have one more African-American voice. Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Good Man helps out and Ty is a member of The Third Estate Sunday Review.
The news review is done like it's a radio or TV show. C.I. is anchor (and hates being anchor) and Dona and Jim are going around making sure everybody's got enough material and helping edit if time is short. They're really the producers. All of us doing reports know what we're going to say basically. C.I. has no clue what we're doing until right before when someone's finishing and Dona will whisper over the phone "Okay, Cedric's coming up and he's going to discuss Dahr's latest article on Iraq" and then C.I. will do the introduction and we'll do our report and C.I. may stop you in the middle to ask a question.
The reason for the news review is that it can take a little over an hour. We start at 15 minutes before and then once we start Dona's watching the time and she and Jim will say, "We're long, you'll need to lose a minute" or something similar. They stick to the hour because the whole point of Dona figuring out a new feature was to try to find something we could do that wouldn't take all night. By doing the news review like it is a radio or TV program, we're confined to the hour and that's it. At the end of the hour, it's over. If C.I.'s asking questions, sometimes it's because Dona's just whispered, "We're not ready, stretch." It's fun but I know C.I. would rather do a report and thinks it's just sitting there asking questions. I disagree because you need a strong anchor who has knowledge and if you read the thing and watch for the questions and realize that Dona's just said "stretch" and C.I. has to think "What do I ask or what do I say?"
you realize that you really need someone like that who can think on their feet.
My friends at the nursing home asked me yesterday about how we did this feature and when I got done explaining, they said I should just do a post about it.
They were wondering if we were assigned topics. That doesn't happen. Jess's parents are looking at stuff in the 15 minutes before, looking all over the web, and they'll tell us some topics and if we're interested in one of those, we can grab it. Most of the time, people have an idea of what they want. It might be a topic Jess's parents found or it might be something else. After we pick our topic, we tell Dona and Jim and they may ask, "Why do you think this is important?" After you explain why, they say, "Make sure you're making that point in your report." Kat always closes because she's really good at cutting. So if there's only 2 minutes or if there's 5 minutes, Kat can get up there and wing it. She doesn't even have to time her stuff. She asks Dona to tell her when there's 1 minute left and that's really all she needs.
I think it lets everyone bring something they're interested in to the table.
So once C.I. says "Welcome to The Third Estate Sunday Review News Review," the clock is ticking and everyone's rushing around. The person who's ready in the 15 minutes prior goes first and while that's going on the rest of us are working on our reports and Jim and Dona are checking and seeing if you need help finding stuff and Jess's parents are looking for your topic so it's a real group effort on research. Then it's up to you to figure out what to use and how to say it.
It's better to go early because you can do your full report. If you don't go early, you may get cut. So everyone tries to finish as quickly as possible. But sometimes it's hard to finish early and that's when you end closer to the end. Ava's usually ready early but she waits because she can do the edits easy if we're running short on time.
So that's the process and the story behind it. Now here's my section of the news review:
C.I.: Thank you, Elaine. Still on Iraq, we go to Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix. Cedric, you're focusing on Dahr Jamail, correct?
Cedric: Yes, on Dahr Jamail's most recent article,"Securitizing the Global Norm of Identity: Biometric Technologies in Domestic and Foreign Policy." Elaine just got finished discussing the latest torture revelations and noting how the techniques migrated from Latin America to Iraq.Dahr Jamail, unlike Dexter Filkins of The New York Times, has never shied from discussing realities in Falluja. The "pacification" techniques used in Falluja. As Elaine noted while we researching, the Falluja reporting also depended upon the mainstream accepting military statements as fact and refusing to give voice to the people of Falluja. Jamail writes:
Cedric (con't): People should be aware of this. They should question whether it's an "American" thing to do in order to "build democracy" and they should ask themselves how they'll respond when the technique migrate back to the United States with calls for a national i.d. card.
C.I.: Cedric, some may hear "biometric" and think, "What is that?" Retinal scans in the film The Minority Report may help illustrate but could you give some more examples.
Cedric: Certainly. Jamail goes into this and explains "the body as passport." Some examples of biometrics include facial scans, iris scans, digitized finger prints and things such as body heat emitting from the face. As Jamil points out, the debate over national security leads to some advocate similar tactics in this country.
C.I.: You mentioned the national i.d. card which would be hard to implement for a number of reasons, among which is the GOP's long so-called support of 'state rights'; however, the way around that has been to require that states develop their own i.d.s and do so under general guidelines. What are your thoughts there?
Cedric: As an African-American male, I worry that digitized cards will be one more technique to disqualify African-Americans. For instance, you go to vote, "Woops, your card doesn't read, you can't vote." The disenfranchisement in the last two presidential elections is enough to cause me to worry whenever a Republican controlled Congress wants to "help" America because some people get helped and some people get hurt and, from my viewpoint, it's the powerless that get hurt and a few years after the fact, the mainstream press can note that in passing while remaining silent in real time. I think you see that in the "pacified" areas in Iraq which result not in safety but in people losing homes and ending up living in tents as evacuees.
C.I.: Thank you, Cedric. With other updates from Iraq as the constitutional referendum approaches, we go to Mike of Mikey Likes It!
iraq
mikey likes it
the common ills
the third estate sunday review
kat/'s korner of the common ills
like maria said paz
dahr jamail
A lot of us help out. I help out when I can and I never get to make it to the end because I've always got to get to bed for church. They do this on Saturday nights and Sunday mornings and it's always an all nighter. So I usually bail half way through. But I'm glad to help out in my own little bit. I think, if nothing else, it helps to have one more African-American voice. Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Good Man helps out and Ty is a member of The Third Estate Sunday Review.
The news review is done like it's a radio or TV show. C.I. is anchor (and hates being anchor) and Dona and Jim are going around making sure everybody's got enough material and helping edit if time is short. They're really the producers. All of us doing reports know what we're going to say basically. C.I. has no clue what we're doing until right before when someone's finishing and Dona will whisper over the phone "Okay, Cedric's coming up and he's going to discuss Dahr's latest article on Iraq" and then C.I. will do the introduction and we'll do our report and C.I. may stop you in the middle to ask a question.
The reason for the news review is that it can take a little over an hour. We start at 15 minutes before and then once we start Dona's watching the time and she and Jim will say, "We're long, you'll need to lose a minute" or something similar. They stick to the hour because the whole point of Dona figuring out a new feature was to try to find something we could do that wouldn't take all night. By doing the news review like it is a radio or TV program, we're confined to the hour and that's it. At the end of the hour, it's over. If C.I.'s asking questions, sometimes it's because Dona's just whispered, "We're not ready, stretch." It's fun but I know C.I. would rather do a report and thinks it's just sitting there asking questions. I disagree because you need a strong anchor who has knowledge and if you read the thing and watch for the questions and realize that Dona's just said "stretch" and C.I. has to think "What do I ask or what do I say?"
you realize that you really need someone like that who can think on their feet.
My friends at the nursing home asked me yesterday about how we did this feature and when I got done explaining, they said I should just do a post about it.
They were wondering if we were assigned topics. That doesn't happen. Jess's parents are looking at stuff in the 15 minutes before, looking all over the web, and they'll tell us some topics and if we're interested in one of those, we can grab it. Most of the time, people have an idea of what they want. It might be a topic Jess's parents found or it might be something else. After we pick our topic, we tell Dona and Jim and they may ask, "Why do you think this is important?" After you explain why, they say, "Make sure you're making that point in your report." Kat always closes because she's really good at cutting. So if there's only 2 minutes or if there's 5 minutes, Kat can get up there and wing it. She doesn't even have to time her stuff. She asks Dona to tell her when there's 1 minute left and that's really all she needs.
I think it lets everyone bring something they're interested in to the table.
So once C.I. says "Welcome to The Third Estate Sunday Review News Review," the clock is ticking and everyone's rushing around. The person who's ready in the 15 minutes prior goes first and while that's going on the rest of us are working on our reports and Jim and Dona are checking and seeing if you need help finding stuff and Jess's parents are looking for your topic so it's a real group effort on research. Then it's up to you to figure out what to use and how to say it.
It's better to go early because you can do your full report. If you don't go early, you may get cut. So everyone tries to finish as quickly as possible. But sometimes it's hard to finish early and that's when you end closer to the end. Ava's usually ready early but she waits because she can do the edits easy if we're running short on time.
So that's the process and the story behind it. Now here's my section of the news review:
C.I.: Thank you, Elaine. Still on Iraq, we go to Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix. Cedric, you're focusing on Dahr Jamail, correct?
Cedric: Yes, on Dahr Jamail's most recent article,"Securitizing the Global Norm of Identity: Biometric Technologies in Domestic and Foreign Policy." Elaine just got finished discussing the latest torture revelations and noting how the techniques migrated from Latin America to Iraq.Dahr Jamail, unlike Dexter Filkins of The New York Times, has never shied from discussing realities in Falluja. The "pacification" techniques used in Falluja. As Elaine noted while we researching, the Falluja reporting also depended upon the mainstream accepting military statements as fact and refusing to give voice to the people of Falluja. Jamail writes:
Out of these ruins, occupation forces argued they were erecting a 'model
city', replete with a high-tech security infrastructure centered on biometric
identification strategies to manage returning citizens. Returnees are
fingerprinted, retina scanned, and issued a mandatory identity badge displaying
the individual's home address and collected biometric data.
Cedric (con't): People should be aware of this. They should question whether it's an "American" thing to do in order to "build democracy" and they should ask themselves how they'll respond when the technique migrate back to the United States with calls for a national i.d. card.
C.I.: Cedric, some may hear "biometric" and think, "What is that?" Retinal scans in the film The Minority Report may help illustrate but could you give some more examples.
Cedric: Certainly. Jamail goes into this and explains "the body as passport." Some examples of biometrics include facial scans, iris scans, digitized finger prints and things such as body heat emitting from the face. As Jamil points out, the debate over national security leads to some advocate similar tactics in this country.
C.I.: You mentioned the national i.d. card which would be hard to implement for a number of reasons, among which is the GOP's long so-called support of 'state rights'; however, the way around that has been to require that states develop their own i.d.s and do so under general guidelines. What are your thoughts there?
Cedric: As an African-American male, I worry that digitized cards will be one more technique to disqualify African-Americans. For instance, you go to vote, "Woops, your card doesn't read, you can't vote." The disenfranchisement in the last two presidential elections is enough to cause me to worry whenever a Republican controlled Congress wants to "help" America because some people get helped and some people get hurt and, from my viewpoint, it's the powerless that get hurt and a few years after the fact, the mainstream press can note that in passing while remaining silent in real time. I think you see that in the "pacified" areas in Iraq which result not in safety but in people losing homes and ending up living in tents as evacuees.
C.I.: Thank you, Cedric. With other updates from Iraq as the constitutional referendum approaches, we go to Mike of Mikey Likes It!
iraq
mikey likes it
the common ills
the third estate sunday review
kat/'s korner of the common ills
like maria said paz
dahr jamail
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Dating, pioneers
That’s the way it goes I’m guessing. I was all ready to get on and find out that Blogger is down. I called Elaine to make sure she was seeing the same thing I was seeing and she was.
I told her I’d go into Microsoft Word and do my post and if she wanted to take the night off that was cool. She picks up Wednesdays for me. That’s a church night and you’ll probably never find anything here on a Wednesday night. So always just head on over to Like Maria Said Paz.
So we have a new blogger in the community. His name is Seth and he blogs at Seth in the City. I had planned to add him to my blogroll but now I don’t know. Blogger being down really screws up my plans. I’d thought I’d do an entry and then head on out for dinner at my aunt’s. We’re all going there because my cousin just got engaged.
This isn’t a formal dinner. That’ll come tomorrow night. But my aunt wanted to have everyone over from my cousin’s side of the family. I don’t know about other people and maybe I’m the only one who ever feels this way but . . .
I’m glad for my cousin. He’s got a great woman who loves him and she’s got a great man who loves her. I have no problem being with them. But I do have a problem being with the family during events like this because I’ll hear, "When are you getting married?"
When I find the right woman. Haven’t found her and I’m not desperate to. I date and there are some nice ladies but it’s just not been where you think, "Okay, I want to spend all my life with her."
I said that to this aunt last time when another cousin got married this summer and she grabbed pen and paper and started saying we were going to make a list and then find me someone. I don’t think you go shopping with a list. It happens when it happens.
If I was shopping, it would be probably someone like Betty and that’s not me trying to make a clumsy pass. But Betty’s the sort of woman if I was looking for a type and not that moment when you know "This is the one." She’s pretty, she’s got a great laugh, she’s obviously great with her kids and she’s just really interested in the world.
I can find pretty and beautiful real easy. But it’s not that easy to find someone who’s interested in the world. Two weeks ago, I was out with a woman and she said she’d heard I liked current events. I’m sure my eyebrows shot up because I know I was eager to hear what she was going to talk about.
Turns out that she wanted to talk about this man who’d killed someone or someones in his family. So I listen and wait thinking she’s going to talk about domestic abuse or something like that. But all she did was talk about the gruesome details. She says, "And I love CSI!"
So that date went no where. I don’t care for CSI and you can read Ava & C.I.’s review of CSI Miami to figure out why. I just don’t like those shows and the way we’re supposed to root for the trampling of people’s rights. 24 is just disgusting and I can’t stand that show either.
But I’m not someone who thinks talking about blood stains on the carpet is talking about current events. Maybe I’m crazy or the only one who feels that way but that’s how I feel.
If she’d even done a Headline News kind of thing where she just tossed out factoids and didn’t offer anything of her own, I might have thought about asking her out again. But it was one hour and ten minutes about the crime scene and about her going, "I just can’t believe it! Can you believe it?" every five minutes.
Usually, when it’s obvious that I’m with someone who doesn’t know one thing about the world around them, I’ll try to talk about music. That’s a waste of time too. Unless I want to hear about Little Kim’s trial. Or probably this week, hear about Diana Ross’ DUI bust. Paul Mooney did a thing on that on BET this week. Maybe you saw it, maybe you didn’t. But I agreed with Steve Harvey about it being disrespectful to Tracee Ross who was sitting out front.
I also felt like, that was two years ago. Is that the best Mooney can do? A joke built around something that happened two years ago?
I’m sorry Diana Ross had a drinking problem. Since she’s not been arrested since, I’ll assume she’s gotten help.
But the woman’s been making music since the early 60s. She had her first hit in 1964. That’s over forty years of being a public personality. I don’t think one arrest is that big of a deal. Alcoholism is a disease and she obviously had a problem. It’s not really about who she is to the black community.
Even if Tracee Ross hadn’t been out there, I still would have thought Mooney was tasteless. I hear a lot of jokes about Smokey Robinson’s hairstyle in the Dr. Pepper commercials and it did look weird. If Mooney was doing a joke on Diana Ross like that, I might have laughed. But to pick a moment from two years ago that was disappointing and to be making fun of her like that. I just felt like he was crapping where he eats. He was coming and trashing someone who really broke barriers for us.
Glen Campbell got busted and they had crazy photos of him all over the net. That’s more recent. Why didn’t he make fun of Campbell?
It just seemed to me like there was a line and he crossed it.
There are nothing disappointments for African-Americans, he doesn’t have to dig two years back or try to burn a pioneer to get a cheap laugh. I quit watching Saturday Night Live because Maya Rudolph was always doing Diana Ross skits. I didn’t think they were funny or even well thought out. I felt like she thought, "I put on this wig and I play with the hair and act stupid and it’ll be so funny."
I wonder how she’d feel if that was Minnie Ripperton someone on Saturday Night Live was making fun of. In case anyone reading this doesn’t know, Minnie Ripperton was Maya Rudolph’s mother.
There are enough attacks on the black community without us needing to hear them from members of the community. Diana Ross was busted once. Why is it a big deal? Christian Slater’s been busted how many times and I don’t see people doing jokes about that. And Christian Slater’s not even a big star.
Diana Ross is a big thing. She never needs another hit, we’ll always know she came out in a time when black people didn’t have a lot of crossover success. She and the Supremes got on Ed Sullivan a lot. Her group was second only to the Beatles for having number 1s in the 60s. That’s a big thing. She went on to a solo career, had more hits, got an Oscar nomination (which Halle Berry didn’t mention in her long acceptance speech – probably the only woman Halle didn’t mention), raised three daughters into beautiful strong women and is still raising two sons.
There have been highs and lows but she’s like the black community, we keep on going. So hearing Paul Mooney dig two years into the past for stale jokes to attack a pioneer with just rubbed me the wrong way. I also felt sorry for her daughter Tracee who was in the audience with the camera on her while Mooney was mouthing off and making a jack ass of himself.
Steve Harvey said he would have slugged anyone who talked about his mother like that. I think if Tracee had done anything other than sit there, the press would have been all over it. If she’d gotten up and walked out, the headlines would be "Prima Dona Tracee Ross Storms Out of BET Celebration!" If she’d done like Harvey, it would have been "Tracee Ross? No, Trashy Ross! Ross Slugs Paul Mooney."
I think she was in a difficult situation and you saw that Ross and others in her family had taught her to hold her head high and conduct herself correctly. I don’t think there was anything else she could have done.
But I think Paul Moodey owes her an apology and I don’t think he was funny.
Blogger’s still not up. I didn’t plan to write about Tracee Ross tonight. I was going to do some links and note some stuff that members have been doing at their sites. But I’m going to have to hit the door in a bit. If I have to leave before Blogger’s up, I’ll post this when I get back. It’ll be late so I won’t be adding to it.
Go read Betty's "Thomas Friedman's Endgame Should Start With A Shower," Mike's interview with Betty, Rebecca's "Christine & Pop Politics" Ava & C..I.'s "TV Review: Three Wishes," Kat's "Kat's Korner: Stones Keep Rolling," Ruth's latest "Ruth's Morning Edition Report" and C.I.'s "Quick note." And Elaine's "The gloom of the world is but a shadow." She did that yesterday and it's amazing.
And let me just swipe from C.I. because I've got to run out the door.
From "'Why Are You Here' and 'What's Changed'" (The Third Estate Sunday Review's voices from the protests in D.C. article), we're again noting Benny with apologies that he was overlooked. Thanks to Shirley for catching that.
87) Benny, 17, high school student: For the first time it feels like maybe a difference can come. We're studying about government and it really seems wild and out there but it's about us and I guess Cindy Sheehan drives that point home to me. So I am here for that reason and the change is that people wake up and you can see it in my class. We're debating and discussing what does free speech mean and what are your duties to be an American and stuff that I have never taken time to think on and it just seems real and connected to me. Maybe it's selfish and all too because we got the guys on campus goin, "Sign up and we'll take care of you. Free college." All these promises and you ask about war and like injuries and they don't talk about it. They brush you off or say, "You just watch out for yourself and you're fine." And I bet the 1900 men and women who are dead were watching out but that didn't save them. So it's just a lot to think about and maybe having government this year drives it home.
Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude
Mikey Likes It
Thomas Friedman Is A Great Man
The Common Ills
Cedric's Big Mix
The Third Estate Sunday Review
Kat's Korner
Like Maria Said Paz
Seth in the City
Diana Ross
Tracee Ross
Three Wishes
C.S.I. Miami
I told her I’d go into Microsoft Word and do my post and if she wanted to take the night off that was cool. She picks up Wednesdays for me. That’s a church night and you’ll probably never find anything here on a Wednesday night. So always just head on over to Like Maria Said Paz.
So we have a new blogger in the community. His name is Seth and he blogs at Seth in the City. I had planned to add him to my blogroll but now I don’t know. Blogger being down really screws up my plans. I’d thought I’d do an entry and then head on out for dinner at my aunt’s. We’re all going there because my cousin just got engaged.
This isn’t a formal dinner. That’ll come tomorrow night. But my aunt wanted to have everyone over from my cousin’s side of the family. I don’t know about other people and maybe I’m the only one who ever feels this way but . . .
I’m glad for my cousin. He’s got a great woman who loves him and she’s got a great man who loves her. I have no problem being with them. But I do have a problem being with the family during events like this because I’ll hear, "When are you getting married?"
When I find the right woman. Haven’t found her and I’m not desperate to. I date and there are some nice ladies but it’s just not been where you think, "Okay, I want to spend all my life with her."
I said that to this aunt last time when another cousin got married this summer and she grabbed pen and paper and started saying we were going to make a list and then find me someone. I don’t think you go shopping with a list. It happens when it happens.
If I was shopping, it would be probably someone like Betty and that’s not me trying to make a clumsy pass. But Betty’s the sort of woman if I was looking for a type and not that moment when you know "This is the one." She’s pretty, she’s got a great laugh, she’s obviously great with her kids and she’s just really interested in the world.
I can find pretty and beautiful real easy. But it’s not that easy to find someone who’s interested in the world. Two weeks ago, I was out with a woman and she said she’d heard I liked current events. I’m sure my eyebrows shot up because I know I was eager to hear what she was going to talk about.
Turns out that she wanted to talk about this man who’d killed someone or someones in his family. So I listen and wait thinking she’s going to talk about domestic abuse or something like that. But all she did was talk about the gruesome details. She says, "And I love CSI!"
So that date went no where. I don’t care for CSI and you can read Ava & C.I.’s review of CSI Miami to figure out why. I just don’t like those shows and the way we’re supposed to root for the trampling of people’s rights. 24 is just disgusting and I can’t stand that show either.
But I’m not someone who thinks talking about blood stains on the carpet is talking about current events. Maybe I’m crazy or the only one who feels that way but that’s how I feel.
If she’d even done a Headline News kind of thing where she just tossed out factoids and didn’t offer anything of her own, I might have thought about asking her out again. But it was one hour and ten minutes about the crime scene and about her going, "I just can’t believe it! Can you believe it?" every five minutes.
Usually, when it’s obvious that I’m with someone who doesn’t know one thing about the world around them, I’ll try to talk about music. That’s a waste of time too. Unless I want to hear about Little Kim’s trial. Or probably this week, hear about Diana Ross’ DUI bust. Paul Mooney did a thing on that on BET this week. Maybe you saw it, maybe you didn’t. But I agreed with Steve Harvey about it being disrespectful to Tracee Ross who was sitting out front.
I also felt like, that was two years ago. Is that the best Mooney can do? A joke built around something that happened two years ago?
I’m sorry Diana Ross had a drinking problem. Since she’s not been arrested since, I’ll assume she’s gotten help.
But the woman’s been making music since the early 60s. She had her first hit in 1964. That’s over forty years of being a public personality. I don’t think one arrest is that big of a deal. Alcoholism is a disease and she obviously had a problem. It’s not really about who she is to the black community.
Even if Tracee Ross hadn’t been out there, I still would have thought Mooney was tasteless. I hear a lot of jokes about Smokey Robinson’s hairstyle in the Dr. Pepper commercials and it did look weird. If Mooney was doing a joke on Diana Ross like that, I might have laughed. But to pick a moment from two years ago that was disappointing and to be making fun of her like that. I just felt like he was crapping where he eats. He was coming and trashing someone who really broke barriers for us.
Glen Campbell got busted and they had crazy photos of him all over the net. That’s more recent. Why didn’t he make fun of Campbell?
It just seemed to me like there was a line and he crossed it.
There are nothing disappointments for African-Americans, he doesn’t have to dig two years back or try to burn a pioneer to get a cheap laugh. I quit watching Saturday Night Live because Maya Rudolph was always doing Diana Ross skits. I didn’t think they were funny or even well thought out. I felt like she thought, "I put on this wig and I play with the hair and act stupid and it’ll be so funny."
I wonder how she’d feel if that was Minnie Ripperton someone on Saturday Night Live was making fun of. In case anyone reading this doesn’t know, Minnie Ripperton was Maya Rudolph’s mother.
There are enough attacks on the black community without us needing to hear them from members of the community. Diana Ross was busted once. Why is it a big deal? Christian Slater’s been busted how many times and I don’t see people doing jokes about that. And Christian Slater’s not even a big star.
Diana Ross is a big thing. She never needs another hit, we’ll always know she came out in a time when black people didn’t have a lot of crossover success. She and the Supremes got on Ed Sullivan a lot. Her group was second only to the Beatles for having number 1s in the 60s. That’s a big thing. She went on to a solo career, had more hits, got an Oscar nomination (which Halle Berry didn’t mention in her long acceptance speech – probably the only woman Halle didn’t mention), raised three daughters into beautiful strong women and is still raising two sons.
There have been highs and lows but she’s like the black community, we keep on going. So hearing Paul Mooney dig two years into the past for stale jokes to attack a pioneer with just rubbed me the wrong way. I also felt sorry for her daughter Tracee who was in the audience with the camera on her while Mooney was mouthing off and making a jack ass of himself.
Steve Harvey said he would have slugged anyone who talked about his mother like that. I think if Tracee had done anything other than sit there, the press would have been all over it. If she’d gotten up and walked out, the headlines would be "Prima Dona Tracee Ross Storms Out of BET Celebration!" If she’d done like Harvey, it would have been "Tracee Ross? No, Trashy Ross! Ross Slugs Paul Mooney."
I think she was in a difficult situation and you saw that Ross and others in her family had taught her to hold her head high and conduct herself correctly. I don’t think there was anything else she could have done.
But I think Paul Moodey owes her an apology and I don’t think he was funny.
Blogger’s still not up. I didn’t plan to write about Tracee Ross tonight. I was going to do some links and note some stuff that members have been doing at their sites. But I’m going to have to hit the door in a bit. If I have to leave before Blogger’s up, I’ll post this when I get back. It’ll be late so I won’t be adding to it.
Go read Betty's "Thomas Friedman's Endgame Should Start With A Shower," Mike's interview with Betty, Rebecca's "Christine & Pop Politics" Ava & C..I.'s "TV Review: Three Wishes," Kat's "Kat's Korner: Stones Keep Rolling," Ruth's latest "Ruth's Morning Edition Report" and C.I.'s "Quick note." And Elaine's "The gloom of the world is but a shadow." She did that yesterday and it's amazing.
And let me just swipe from C.I. because I've got to run out the door.
From "'Why Are You Here' and 'What's Changed'" (The Third Estate Sunday Review's voices from the protests in D.C. article), we're again noting Benny with apologies that he was overlooked. Thanks to Shirley for catching that.
87) Benny, 17, high school student: For the first time it feels like maybe a difference can come. We're studying about government and it really seems wild and out there but it's about us and I guess Cindy Sheehan drives that point home to me. So I am here for that reason and the change is that people wake up and you can see it in my class. We're debating and discussing what does free speech mean and what are your duties to be an American and stuff that I have never taken time to think on and it just seems real and connected to me. Maybe it's selfish and all too because we got the guys on campus goin, "Sign up and we'll take care of you. Free college." All these promises and you ask about war and like injuries and they don't talk about it. They brush you off or say, "You just watch out for yourself and you're fine." And I bet the 1900 men and women who are dead were watching out but that didn't save them. So it's just a lot to think about and maybe having government this year drives it home.
Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude
Mikey Likes It
Thomas Friedman Is A Great Man
The Common Ills
Cedric's Big Mix
The Third Estate Sunday Review
Kat's Korner
Like Maria Said Paz
Seth in the City
Diana Ross
Tracee Ross
Three Wishes
C.S.I. Miami
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Back Home and Blogging
I didn't post last night. I was tired when I got back from D.C. and I had promised the guys at the nursing home that I drop by and tell them all about it. So last night, that's what happened.
I thought it would be an hour but it ended up being three. It was a great visit but I was wiped out.
They care, my three friends. They did their own protest at their nursing home. They're good looking men so they had some ladies helping them out too. They took pictures of their Saturday protest and they were showing me those and I was so proud of them.
I'm not just saying this because they'll be reading it. But they will be reading it because we raised enough money at the church to get them their own laptops. I was so happy about that. I didn't have time to check on that before I left but I knew there was enough for one laptop. But the church really showed them how much they mattered to the congregation and kicked in heavy and hard.
It's also led to the start of a program. Most of us switch computers. And we toss out our old ones or sell them. If we toss them out, they're just going to a landfill.
So from now on, when a church member is upgrading to a new computer, the older one will be given to an elderly person. That'll be great. And my best friend who kept saying, "Well I don't know how to talk to old people" and using that as an excuse signed up to be the one who teaches them how to use their computers. I had asked him to visit on Sunday afternoon because that's one of my usual visiting times but I was in D.C. He visited Saturday and Sunday. Saturday with our preacher and his family to bring them the laptops and then he spent most of the day getting them set up and showing them how to use it.
They were e-mailing each other Saturday. "Is this working" and that sort of thing. They have e-mail down. And my friend Carlton's coming back this Sunday to check them more tricks.
We have a bulletin board at our church. Everyone checks it out on Sundays but it updates all the time. So if you're not coming in for a group or a choir rehearsal or a Wednesday night service, you can miss some things. My preacher's oldest daughter is going to e-mail out the items on Mondays and Fridays to all of our older members with computers so that they can know who's selling what, who's had a baby, who's in need of what and all that.
Guess what they did Saturday night? They listened to The Laura Flanders Show. Online. Their first time hearing that. C.I. had noted it Saturday morning and they wanted to check it out. I didn't hear it because we were still taking part in activism and the fun when it came on but they said she did a great job and had all these people on talking about the protests. They were really impressed with a state senator but they didn't know her name and I haven't heard the show yet.
I got an earful about my site. They said, "You didn't blog since Thursday!" I told them that I blog when I have the time and that I thought I would be blogging but it didn't happen and then there were all the problems with The Third Estate Sunday Review stuff getting lost in posting.
But one thing I did do last night was e-mail Gina and Krista. They wanted to know if they could get signed up for the gina & krista round-robin. Gina and Krista had closed off that a week or two ago. And that is a firm cut off. I knew that, I respected that. But like I told them in my e-mail, these are great guys, they just got online Saturday, they want the round-robin and it would mean a lot to me if they could get it.
So this morning, I'm rushing around trying to get ready for work and the phone rings and it's Gina and she said this once they can waive the cut off. She said not again. She said if someone else at my church wants it, they'll have to get the guys to foward the ones they're sent. But she said these guys are practically part of the community already because we've heard about them and they're like family so this one time.
Thank you, Gina and Krista. This is going to make them so happy.
They really are great. I asked Carlton what they talked about because his big excuse has been he doesn't know what to talk to "old people" about. He said if they were all like my three friends, he'd have no problem. My guys are the best but I bet he'll find out when he starts teaching other people how to use computers, that there are many people out there he can talk to and they've got interesting stories and thoughts.
They had one complaint about C.I. and it was, "Are we supposed to go to all these links?" I told them no and that the whole point of the pull quotes was to give you the information that C.I. or whichever member selected it thought was most important. "So it's like a greatest hits 8-track?" That made me laugh. (Still does.) Exactly. You can just read the pull quotes. A lot of members do that.
They said Mike makes them laugh and they loved the competition between Mike and Rebecca over who was going to declare themselves president with Bully Boy out of D.C. The big surprise to me on Monday night was that they each got e-mails from C.I. They were using the published address and they tell me that they e-mailed C.I. to say how much they liked The Common Ills. I was trying to explain to them that C.I. was still in D.C. for most of the day Monday and that C.I. wasn't checking that account so don't be upset about not hearing a reply yet and they asked me what I was talking about?
C.I. had already written them.
They played it off real cool at first and then they started laughing. They said they had figured it would be a few days before they heard anything so they were surprised too. They were also pleased about having the private address for members because C.I. told them to use that from now on. So they were saying, "We're members now." They are members now. They better start looking for some things to share with the community. I also told them they should think about starting a site. They don't think anyone would be interested. I told them Ruth used to feel that way too and now she does Ruth's Morning Edition Report. They read that Saturday.
I didn't. I am so far behind and need to catch up. But they read it and they were asking about Ruth and Tracey. Mainly they were asking why Ruth didn't think anyone would be interested because they really like her writing. I tried to tell them that the same thing applied to them but they aren't convinced. I'll keep working on them though.
Tomorrow I've got church so there won't be a post. But tomorrow Elaine will be posting at Like Maria Said Paz and she's grabbing Wednesdays at her site so I don't have to feel guilty about always missing them. Rebecca will be blogging tomorrow as well so people should check out Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude. And let me plug my good friends Mike and Betty. Tomorrow Mike will have an interview with Betty at his site Mikey Likes It! So there will be a lot to read without me.
I thought it would be an hour but it ended up being three. It was a great visit but I was wiped out.
They care, my three friends. They did their own protest at their nursing home. They're good looking men so they had some ladies helping them out too. They took pictures of their Saturday protest and they were showing me those and I was so proud of them.
I'm not just saying this because they'll be reading it. But they will be reading it because we raised enough money at the church to get them their own laptops. I was so happy about that. I didn't have time to check on that before I left but I knew there was enough for one laptop. But the church really showed them how much they mattered to the congregation and kicked in heavy and hard.
It's also led to the start of a program. Most of us switch computers. And we toss out our old ones or sell them. If we toss them out, they're just going to a landfill.
So from now on, when a church member is upgrading to a new computer, the older one will be given to an elderly person. That'll be great. And my best friend who kept saying, "Well I don't know how to talk to old people" and using that as an excuse signed up to be the one who teaches them how to use their computers. I had asked him to visit on Sunday afternoon because that's one of my usual visiting times but I was in D.C. He visited Saturday and Sunday. Saturday with our preacher and his family to bring them the laptops and then he spent most of the day getting them set up and showing them how to use it.
They were e-mailing each other Saturday. "Is this working" and that sort of thing. They have e-mail down. And my friend Carlton's coming back this Sunday to check them more tricks.
We have a bulletin board at our church. Everyone checks it out on Sundays but it updates all the time. So if you're not coming in for a group or a choir rehearsal or a Wednesday night service, you can miss some things. My preacher's oldest daughter is going to e-mail out the items on Mondays and Fridays to all of our older members with computers so that they can know who's selling what, who's had a baby, who's in need of what and all that.
Guess what they did Saturday night? They listened to The Laura Flanders Show. Online. Their first time hearing that. C.I. had noted it Saturday morning and they wanted to check it out. I didn't hear it because we were still taking part in activism and the fun when it came on but they said she did a great job and had all these people on talking about the protests. They were really impressed with a state senator but they didn't know her name and I haven't heard the show yet.
I got an earful about my site. They said, "You didn't blog since Thursday!" I told them that I blog when I have the time and that I thought I would be blogging but it didn't happen and then there were all the problems with The Third Estate Sunday Review stuff getting lost in posting.
But one thing I did do last night was e-mail Gina and Krista. They wanted to know if they could get signed up for the gina & krista round-robin. Gina and Krista had closed off that a week or two ago. And that is a firm cut off. I knew that, I respected that. But like I told them in my e-mail, these are great guys, they just got online Saturday, they want the round-robin and it would mean a lot to me if they could get it.
So this morning, I'm rushing around trying to get ready for work and the phone rings and it's Gina and she said this once they can waive the cut off. She said not again. She said if someone else at my church wants it, they'll have to get the guys to foward the ones they're sent. But she said these guys are practically part of the community already because we've heard about them and they're like family so this one time.
Thank you, Gina and Krista. This is going to make them so happy.
They really are great. I asked Carlton what they talked about because his big excuse has been he doesn't know what to talk to "old people" about. He said if they were all like my three friends, he'd have no problem. My guys are the best but I bet he'll find out when he starts teaching other people how to use computers, that there are many people out there he can talk to and they've got interesting stories and thoughts.
They had one complaint about C.I. and it was, "Are we supposed to go to all these links?" I told them no and that the whole point of the pull quotes was to give you the information that C.I. or whichever member selected it thought was most important. "So it's like a greatest hits 8-track?" That made me laugh. (Still does.) Exactly. You can just read the pull quotes. A lot of members do that.
They said Mike makes them laugh and they loved the competition between Mike and Rebecca over who was going to declare themselves president with Bully Boy out of D.C. The big surprise to me on Monday night was that they each got e-mails from C.I. They were using the published address and they tell me that they e-mailed C.I. to say how much they liked The Common Ills. I was trying to explain to them that C.I. was still in D.C. for most of the day Monday and that C.I. wasn't checking that account so don't be upset about not hearing a reply yet and they asked me what I was talking about?
C.I. had already written them.
They played it off real cool at first and then they started laughing. They said they had figured it would be a few days before they heard anything so they were surprised too. They were also pleased about having the private address for members because C.I. told them to use that from now on. So they were saying, "We're members now." They are members now. They better start looking for some things to share with the community. I also told them they should think about starting a site. They don't think anyone would be interested. I told them Ruth used to feel that way too and now she does Ruth's Morning Edition Report. They read that Saturday.
I didn't. I am so far behind and need to catch up. But they read it and they were asking about Ruth and Tracey. Mainly they were asking why Ruth didn't think anyone would be interested because they really like her writing. I tried to tell them that the same thing applied to them but they aren't convinced. I'll keep working on them though.
Tomorrow I've got church so there won't be a post. But tomorrow Elaine will be posting at Like Maria Said Paz and she's grabbing Wednesdays at her site so I don't have to feel guilty about always missing them. Rebecca will be blogging tomorrow as well so people should check out Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude. And let me plug my good friends Mike and Betty. Tomorrow Mike will have an interview with Betty at his site Mikey Likes It! So there will be a lot to read without me.
Monday, September 19, 2005
Rebecca, the heat and C.I. on Iraq
One guy wrote me about Rebecca's "potty mouth" in the Sunday thing they did at The Common Ills. I read it and I didn't have a problem with it. If it had been up at Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Rebecca's site, it would have contained a lot more language, explicit.
The guy's got a problem with Rebecca. I don't. He tries to lure me into some debate about Christianity and I'm sorry but my Bible doesn't say "Thou Shall Stab Your Friends In The Back."
I like Rebecca. I like what she says. I like how she says it.
Hope everyone had a good weekend. I don't know. Sunday, at church, I was worrying because we've got air conditioning in our church but the older ladies had their fans out, which isn't uncommon, but they were "glowing" (never tell an older black woman she's "sweating" unless you know she won't be offended) while a lot of the older guys were looking really warmed over too.
My preacher is going to have someone come out and look at the air conditioning because it didn't get very cool in there. Hopefully, it just needs something minor. But it was pretty warm in there. A lot of the older people really need the air conditioning. Some of them don't have any in their homes or, because of tight budgets, can't afford to use it.
If they don't have any, the church tries to get them fans. Not one fan because no old person is going to park themselves in front of a fan all day. If they're living on their own or with a spouse or a friend, they've got stuff to do in the kitchen, stuff to do in the living room. So the church always tries to provide them with three fans.
There's a very sweet older woman at the church who kept saying no the fans because she wanted a boxed fan. The preacher and his wife showed her how the oscilating fan worked better because it moved around and how she could pull up the little lever and make it stay in place.
They visit her a week later and she's got the white levers up on all of them. Why? Because "all that turning can't be good." She thought she would wear it out.
Which reminds me of a story my friend Vern used to tell. It was 1987 and he and his wife had just gotten a new TV because the old one wasn't working. The picture was leaning sideways forever and then the picture and sound just went out. I remembered the kind of TV he was describing and you may too, you had this strip of metal buttons that you touched, not pressed down and you could go up and down the channels. The new TV had a remote and it scared him to death changing channels. Back in his day, you changed channels by turning the knob on the TV set and every time you turned it to a new channel, the picture would jump. So you didn't turn it all that much in Vern's house. Then with the one with touch buttons, it was a little easier. But that was the first time, on the TV set he got in 1987, that they could surf without any concerns. He said he hated it. Said it was better in the old day where you sat through something boring maybe but you saw the whole thing.
I miss Vern a lot. I'm worried about the other three guys at the nursing home because I know they miss him too. The choir director's wife was telling me Sunday that when you got a group of friends like that and one dies, the other's seem to follow after. I hope that's not true.
We hit 1900 U.S. military deaths in Iraq. Made me think of what C.I. wrote Saturday:
I'll note Richard A. Oppel Jr., Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker's "Baghdad Bombings Raise Anew Questions About U.S. Strategy in Iraq" (which is credited with this note: "This article was reported and written by Richard A. Oppel Jr., Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker."):
Although the attacks in Baghdad suggest that there may be cells of insurgents there, or at least that they can sneak into the city to plant bombs, senior officials at the Pentagon and in Iraq say they believe that Mr. Zarqawi and the insurgency's "center of gravity" is now in the bends and towns of the Euphrates River valley near the Syrian border.
Commanders say they plan to squeeze the Zarqawi leadership and Iraqi insurgents in those areas. Throughout the spring and summer marines and Army forces staged raids into those same towns, confiscating weapons and killing scores of insurgents. But many fighters melted into the countryside, and there were not enough coalition troops to keep a sufficient presence in the villages.
Commanders say new offensives in Anbar Province in coming weeks will be modeled on the siege of Tal Afar, which used 8,500 American and Iraqi troops.
"You will see the same thing down along the Euphrates Valley to push back out and restore Iraqi control to the area around Qaim," Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top American commander in Iraq, said in an interview in Baghdad. General Casey said the Iraqi forces had little control of the country's border with Syria on either side of Qaim, a desolate town on the Euphrates.
Why am I noting it? I think we should remember what "commanders" say in this piece for a future date. Also we've dropped to the figure "8,500" (the one Elaine noted was consistent with other reporting but inconsistent with the Times' claim on Sunday [11,000]). And because "you will see the same thing." Not what's reported in the Times, but the same actions in Tal Afar that you saw in Falluja will be repeated elsewhere. Unlike the optimists quoted in the report, this will not be the end of it (even with death squads) but fuel for more rage.
Hopefully, Christian Parenti was correct and the Times reporters (at least Dexter Filkins) are aware that there is reality and then there is the spin that's characterized too many reports from the paper. We're told, by commanders who lead in the story, that Iraqis are cooperating to halt the insurgency (they're supposedly outraged by the violence). We've heard that claim before. We heard that claim, in fact, before we invaded.
It's offered as new and developing as though we've all acquired early senility and forgotten all that's come before. And we're also supposed to believe not only that in choosing between their own citizens and the occupiers, Iraqis are siding with the Operation Enduring Falsehood "coalition," but that they're ratting them out.
"Secretarian" wasn't a word that popped up much in the limited Tal Afar coverage in the Times. But it's worth noting the term. No doubt many sects are turning on each other (some believe that has been the US plan). But the idea that a country of people embraces an invader over their own people goes against history and political theory. Today commanders present it as fact.Here are the facts. Violence rages still. Violence has not been "subdued." It is unlikely that it will be "subdued" with these actions. We could let Negroponte unleash all the death squads his heart may desire but everyone that's killed will be replaced with friends and family. That's how a resistance breeds. That's historical.
There is no "subduing." This isn't a state in the United States (though certain policies seem to attempt to make it that). This is a foreign country. And to the citizens the US is a foreign force.They will argue and fight amongst themselves and we may prove momentarily effective at playing them off one another but not in the long term. In the long term, they want us out and they will not be "subdued" or "channeled." This isn't an issue of "Give us ___!" whatever service. This is an issue of autonomy and it won't go away while we're there.
Our presence only adds to the problems. "Fine tuners" will no doubt trumpet today's claims by commanders with choruses of "See!" I'm not sure what they think they're seeing (possibly the happy talk the Times portrays and gives far too much weight to -- though give the paper credit for clearly identifying who reported what), but it's an ahisotrical approach (and, bluntly, an ignorant one) to think that this is a turning point in the favor of Operation Enduring Falsehood.
"Winning" defined by the terms of the administration will mean more massive killings and they may delay certain attacks, maybe planned ones in the works, but this is how a resistance breeds.If you and I argue over the tree in the middle of both of our properties, I may kill you and claim the tree. Before I claim victory, I better be prepared to kill everyone close to you and everyone who's not pleased that I moved into the neighborhood.
We're talking a Biblical slaughter (term used intentionally). No baby Moses better be floated down a river.If I don't kill everyone then they will be there to tell what happened, to stroke the outrage and to encourage it.
There is no turned corner here. Suggesting there is requires a denial of history and a denial of how a resistance operates. That a nation (the US) supposedly so consumed with the Bible can't grasp the basics suggests that maybe they might need to read a little more closely. Otherwise, cries of "Let my people go" may come as a shock to them.
These are points that are raised later in the article, after the happy talk:
But independent analysts suggest that the strategy of driving the insurgents from urban centers and trying to capture or kill as many as possible, aiming especially at leaders, may be flawed. The violence in Baghdad is only one problem. Another is that the fighting may work against the search for political consensus among Iraqis.
Whether it was an editorial decision or one on the part of the journalists, pushing reality down into the article, as opposed to leading with it, was a mistake.In terms of past reporting, however, I'll give the writers (and the paper) credit for noting reality somewhere in the article. You lead with the most important information, however, and happy talk isn't important to anyone but the people spinning. Readers need reality from the start.
If I reassemble the article on my own, there are few quarrels I have with it. (As always with the paper, the reliance on "official sources" would be a quarrel I have with the article.) For a Times piece it's a strong one. But as assembled, weighted with happy talk at the start, it's not as strong as it should be.
A daily paper wants to provide you with a sense of "This just happened!" so possibly it's a problem with the form itself? However, I'd suggest that the opening paragraph could have been written in such a way that we'd have both history and what the military is spinning today.
Hopefully, this is a sign of stronger reporting to come from the Times.
------------
As a member of The Common Ills community, I've got to say, I have always enjoyed it best when C.I. addresses the issue of Iraq.
The guy's got a problem with Rebecca. I don't. He tries to lure me into some debate about Christianity and I'm sorry but my Bible doesn't say "Thou Shall Stab Your Friends In The Back."
I like Rebecca. I like what she says. I like how she says it.
Hope everyone had a good weekend. I don't know. Sunday, at church, I was worrying because we've got air conditioning in our church but the older ladies had their fans out, which isn't uncommon, but they were "glowing" (never tell an older black woman she's "sweating" unless you know she won't be offended) while a lot of the older guys were looking really warmed over too.
My preacher is going to have someone come out and look at the air conditioning because it didn't get very cool in there. Hopefully, it just needs something minor. But it was pretty warm in there. A lot of the older people really need the air conditioning. Some of them don't have any in their homes or, because of tight budgets, can't afford to use it.
If they don't have any, the church tries to get them fans. Not one fan because no old person is going to park themselves in front of a fan all day. If they're living on their own or with a spouse or a friend, they've got stuff to do in the kitchen, stuff to do in the living room. So the church always tries to provide them with three fans.
There's a very sweet older woman at the church who kept saying no the fans because she wanted a boxed fan. The preacher and his wife showed her how the oscilating fan worked better because it moved around and how she could pull up the little lever and make it stay in place.
They visit her a week later and she's got the white levers up on all of them. Why? Because "all that turning can't be good." She thought she would wear it out.
Which reminds me of a story my friend Vern used to tell. It was 1987 and he and his wife had just gotten a new TV because the old one wasn't working. The picture was leaning sideways forever and then the picture and sound just went out. I remembered the kind of TV he was describing and you may too, you had this strip of metal buttons that you touched, not pressed down and you could go up and down the channels. The new TV had a remote and it scared him to death changing channels. Back in his day, you changed channels by turning the knob on the TV set and every time you turned it to a new channel, the picture would jump. So you didn't turn it all that much in Vern's house. Then with the one with touch buttons, it was a little easier. But that was the first time, on the TV set he got in 1987, that they could surf without any concerns. He said he hated it. Said it was better in the old day where you sat through something boring maybe but you saw the whole thing.
I miss Vern a lot. I'm worried about the other three guys at the nursing home because I know they miss him too. The choir director's wife was telling me Sunday that when you got a group of friends like that and one dies, the other's seem to follow after. I hope that's not true.
We hit 1900 U.S. military deaths in Iraq. Made me think of what C.I. wrote Saturday:
I'll note Richard A. Oppel Jr., Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker's "Baghdad Bombings Raise Anew Questions About U.S. Strategy in Iraq" (which is credited with this note: "This article was reported and written by Richard A. Oppel Jr., Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker."):
Although the attacks in Baghdad suggest that there may be cells of insurgents there, or at least that they can sneak into the city to plant bombs, senior officials at the Pentagon and in Iraq say they believe that Mr. Zarqawi and the insurgency's "center of gravity" is now in the bends and towns of the Euphrates River valley near the Syrian border.
Commanders say they plan to squeeze the Zarqawi leadership and Iraqi insurgents in those areas. Throughout the spring and summer marines and Army forces staged raids into those same towns, confiscating weapons and killing scores of insurgents. But many fighters melted into the countryside, and there were not enough coalition troops to keep a sufficient presence in the villages.
Commanders say new offensives in Anbar Province in coming weeks will be modeled on the siege of Tal Afar, which used 8,500 American and Iraqi troops.
"You will see the same thing down along the Euphrates Valley to push back out and restore Iraqi control to the area around Qaim," Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top American commander in Iraq, said in an interview in Baghdad. General Casey said the Iraqi forces had little control of the country's border with Syria on either side of Qaim, a desolate town on the Euphrates.
Why am I noting it? I think we should remember what "commanders" say in this piece for a future date. Also we've dropped to the figure "8,500" (the one Elaine noted was consistent with other reporting but inconsistent with the Times' claim on Sunday [11,000]). And because "you will see the same thing." Not what's reported in the Times, but the same actions in Tal Afar that you saw in Falluja will be repeated elsewhere. Unlike the optimists quoted in the report, this will not be the end of it (even with death squads) but fuel for more rage.
Hopefully, Christian Parenti was correct and the Times reporters (at least Dexter Filkins) are aware that there is reality and then there is the spin that's characterized too many reports from the paper. We're told, by commanders who lead in the story, that Iraqis are cooperating to halt the insurgency (they're supposedly outraged by the violence). We've heard that claim before. We heard that claim, in fact, before we invaded.
It's offered as new and developing as though we've all acquired early senility and forgotten all that's come before. And we're also supposed to believe not only that in choosing between their own citizens and the occupiers, Iraqis are siding with the Operation Enduring Falsehood "coalition," but that they're ratting them out.
"Secretarian" wasn't a word that popped up much in the limited Tal Afar coverage in the Times. But it's worth noting the term. No doubt many sects are turning on each other (some believe that has been the US plan). But the idea that a country of people embraces an invader over their own people goes against history and political theory. Today commanders present it as fact.Here are the facts. Violence rages still. Violence has not been "subdued." It is unlikely that it will be "subdued" with these actions. We could let Negroponte unleash all the death squads his heart may desire but everyone that's killed will be replaced with friends and family. That's how a resistance breeds. That's historical.
There is no "subduing." This isn't a state in the United States (though certain policies seem to attempt to make it that). This is a foreign country. And to the citizens the US is a foreign force.They will argue and fight amongst themselves and we may prove momentarily effective at playing them off one another but not in the long term. In the long term, they want us out and they will not be "subdued" or "channeled." This isn't an issue of "Give us ___!" whatever service. This is an issue of autonomy and it won't go away while we're there.
Our presence only adds to the problems. "Fine tuners" will no doubt trumpet today's claims by commanders with choruses of "See!" I'm not sure what they think they're seeing (possibly the happy talk the Times portrays and gives far too much weight to -- though give the paper credit for clearly identifying who reported what), but it's an ahisotrical approach (and, bluntly, an ignorant one) to think that this is a turning point in the favor of Operation Enduring Falsehood.
"Winning" defined by the terms of the administration will mean more massive killings and they may delay certain attacks, maybe planned ones in the works, but this is how a resistance breeds.If you and I argue over the tree in the middle of both of our properties, I may kill you and claim the tree. Before I claim victory, I better be prepared to kill everyone close to you and everyone who's not pleased that I moved into the neighborhood.
We're talking a Biblical slaughter (term used intentionally). No baby Moses better be floated down a river.If I don't kill everyone then they will be there to tell what happened, to stroke the outrage and to encourage it.
There is no turned corner here. Suggesting there is requires a denial of history and a denial of how a resistance operates. That a nation (the US) supposedly so consumed with the Bible can't grasp the basics suggests that maybe they might need to read a little more closely. Otherwise, cries of "Let my people go" may come as a shock to them.
These are points that are raised later in the article, after the happy talk:
But independent analysts suggest that the strategy of driving the insurgents from urban centers and trying to capture or kill as many as possible, aiming especially at leaders, may be flawed. The violence in Baghdad is only one problem. Another is that the fighting may work against the search for political consensus among Iraqis.
Whether it was an editorial decision or one on the part of the journalists, pushing reality down into the article, as opposed to leading with it, was a mistake.In terms of past reporting, however, I'll give the writers (and the paper) credit for noting reality somewhere in the article. You lead with the most important information, however, and happy talk isn't important to anyone but the people spinning. Readers need reality from the start.
If I reassemble the article on my own, there are few quarrels I have with it. (As always with the paper, the reliance on "official sources" would be a quarrel I have with the article.) For a Times piece it's a strong one. But as assembled, weighted with happy talk at the start, it's not as strong as it should be.
A daily paper wants to provide you with a sense of "This just happened!" so possibly it's a problem with the form itself? However, I'd suggest that the opening paragraph could have been written in such a way that we'd have both history and what the military is spinning today.
Hopefully, this is a sign of stronger reporting to come from the Times.
------------
As a member of The Common Ills community, I've got to say, I have always enjoyed it best when C.I. addresses the issue of Iraq.
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Quick one
Tommy e-mailed asking where the Wednesday post was and in case anyone's wondering, I don't post Wednesdays. It's a church night and I don't have time to post. Elaine's always going to try to post on Wednesdays for that reason so check out Like Maria Said Paz on Wednesdays.
If she needs a day covered, I'll try to do the same for her.
I need to note something from The Third Estate Sunday Review. It's from the book talk we had there. It's all worth reading but Gina & Krista asked us to talk about children's books and then asked that we spotlight our own picks on our own sites. That's because tomorrow, in their round-robin, they're taking a long look at children's books. So here was my choice again because Gina and Krista do a lot to help me so I want to give something back:
Cedric: My favorite growing up was a little book called The Harlem Globetrotters and Basketball's Funniest Game. A nephew has the book now and we pass it around because it's an easy book and because it features African-Americans. Also, a kid who might not read something else, if he or she likes sports, will usually pick it up. Growing up, we all fought over this book. I don't just mean when we were little. But my sister had it before me, okay? It was passed down to her and then it was my turn. When I was reading bigger books, she tried to claim it back and kept saying she had only "loaned it" to me. It's funny now, but there were some intense fights over this book. I called my brother to find out the credits for it and it's by Clare and Frank Gault and illustrated by Charles McGill. It's probably not a great book, I'm sure it isn't. But it's one that's held the interest in my family.
Jim: My favorite book was a sports book too and is far less weighty than your choice. But it's by the same authors and I didn't know that. Clare and Frank Gault. It was my dad's book so it was also passed on.
Cedric: Really?
Jim: Yeah. Dick Ericson did the illustrations though. It's called How to Be a Good Baseball Player. My dad got it when he was nine-years-old. I don't remember this, but my mom says he read it to me over and over even when I was in the crib. Baseball's real big with my dad. He coached my little league team. Ty, Jess and Ava tease me about moving in with Dona over at her place with Ava but if they see the book there, they'll know I've moved because I wouldn't live anywhere without that book. What I can remember is Dad going over this book with me all the time when I was in elementary school. As summer approached, he'd pull out the book and we'd read it and look at the pictures. It's really an instructional book and I'm probably choosing it more for memories than the book itself but here's a quote:
Another thing I'll point out is that Mike's got great stuff up at his site Mikey Likes It! all the time. But yesterday (and this is probably part of the non-great stuff), he posted his interview with me. So you can check that out if you're interested.
I was reading Rebecca's stuff at Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude today and I was playing catch up so I was reading what she wrote yesterday and Tuesday. I was honestly a little concerned about her because she's got a cold and she seemed pretty down. She assured me she was feeling better and I hope that's true. She said the whole John Roberts thing has depressed her and she doesn't feel like she can write about it because her ex-husband's parents had such a fit when she was going to write about her abortion. So it's been a not so great time for her.
Even with that, I think she wrote a really great thing on Tuesday about p.r. I know this is a hard time for her and she feels like her arms are tied behind her back. I told her she should just say "screw you" to her ex-in-laws but I know she won't. I will say if she needs something, she can holler.
Rebecca helped me a lot with my site and I've talked about that at the old site and I don't think I really talked about it in the interview yesterday. I don't think I made much sense on anything. But Rebecca, when she's well, is fiery and passionate and when I needed a pep talk, she would give it and make me feel like I could do anything. Her belief in me kept me blogging so I want to say that I don't just hope Rebecca is feeling better, but that I also couldn't have kept going without her. If she needs something, she better holler.
Johnny just saw C.I.'s editorial on the reporting from the Green Zone and wrote me to say how much he enjoyed it and asked if I could steer people to it again. So read this because it's laying it on the line while others tiptoe. And read Joseph C. Phillips "The Other Story of Katrina" from The Chicago Defender too. And don't miss this news from Democracy Now!:
State of Texas Executes Frances Newton
The state of Texas has executed Frances Newton. She was killed by lethal injection shortly after 6 o'clock last night despite widespread calls for a stay of her execution. She is the first African-American woman to be executed in Texas since Reconstruction. Her supporters included Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, the Austin American Statesman and the head of the American Bar Association. Numerous questions were raised about whether Newton received a fair trial when she was convicted of killing her husband and two children 18 years ago. Her state-appointed attorney, Ron Mock, did not interview a single witness in preparation for her trial. He has since been barred from handling capital cases due to incompetence. Hours before her execution, the Supreme Court denied a petition to stop her execution.
Common Ills
If she needs a day covered, I'll try to do the same for her.
I need to note something from The Third Estate Sunday Review. It's from the book talk we had there. It's all worth reading but Gina & Krista asked us to talk about children's books and then asked that we spotlight our own picks on our own sites. That's because tomorrow, in their round-robin, they're taking a long look at children's books. So here was my choice again because Gina and Krista do a lot to help me so I want to give something back:
Cedric: My favorite growing up was a little book called The Harlem Globetrotters and Basketball's Funniest Game. A nephew has the book now and we pass it around because it's an easy book and because it features African-Americans. Also, a kid who might not read something else, if he or she likes sports, will usually pick it up. Growing up, we all fought over this book. I don't just mean when we were little. But my sister had it before me, okay? It was passed down to her and then it was my turn. When I was reading bigger books, she tried to claim it back and kept saying she had only "loaned it" to me. It's funny now, but there were some intense fights over this book. I called my brother to find out the credits for it and it's by Clare and Frank Gault and illustrated by Charles McGill. It's probably not a great book, I'm sure it isn't. But it's one that's held the interest in my family.
Jim: My favorite book was a sports book too and is far less weighty than your choice. But it's by the same authors and I didn't know that. Clare and Frank Gault. It was my dad's book so it was also passed on.
Cedric: Really?
Jim: Yeah. Dick Ericson did the illustrations though. It's called How to Be a Good Baseball Player. My dad got it when he was nine-years-old. I don't remember this, but my mom says he read it to me over and over even when I was in the crib. Baseball's real big with my dad. He coached my little league team. Ty, Jess and Ava tease me about moving in with Dona over at her place with Ava but if they see the book there, they'll know I've moved because I wouldn't live anywhere without that book. What I can remember is Dad going over this book with me all the time when I was in elementary school. As summer approached, he'd pull out the book and we'd read it and look at the pictures. It's really an instructional book and I'm probably choosing it more for memories than the book itself but here's a quote:
How do you throw a fast ball?
One way is to grip the baseball with two fingers across the seams.
Or you can grip the ball using two fingers along the seams.
And some pitchers like to use only one finger across the seams.
Another thing I'll point out is that Mike's got great stuff up at his site Mikey Likes It! all the time. But yesterday (and this is probably part of the non-great stuff), he posted his interview with me. So you can check that out if you're interested.
I was reading Rebecca's stuff at Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude today and I was playing catch up so I was reading what she wrote yesterday and Tuesday. I was honestly a little concerned about her because she's got a cold and she seemed pretty down. She assured me she was feeling better and I hope that's true. She said the whole John Roberts thing has depressed her and she doesn't feel like she can write about it because her ex-husband's parents had such a fit when she was going to write about her abortion. So it's been a not so great time for her.
Even with that, I think she wrote a really great thing on Tuesday about p.r. I know this is a hard time for her and she feels like her arms are tied behind her back. I told her she should just say "screw you" to her ex-in-laws but I know she won't. I will say if she needs something, she can holler.
Rebecca helped me a lot with my site and I've talked about that at the old site and I don't think I really talked about it in the interview yesterday. I don't think I made much sense on anything. But Rebecca, when she's well, is fiery and passionate and when I needed a pep talk, she would give it and make me feel like I could do anything. Her belief in me kept me blogging so I want to say that I don't just hope Rebecca is feeling better, but that I also couldn't have kept going without her. If she needs something, she better holler.
Johnny just saw C.I.'s editorial on the reporting from the Green Zone and wrote me to say how much he enjoyed it and asked if I could steer people to it again. So read this because it's laying it on the line while others tiptoe. And read Joseph C. Phillips "The Other Story of Katrina" from The Chicago Defender too. And don't miss this news from Democracy Now!:
State of Texas Executes Frances Newton
The state of Texas has executed Frances Newton. She was killed by lethal injection shortly after 6 o'clock last night despite widespread calls for a stay of her execution. She is the first African-American woman to be executed in Texas since Reconstruction. Her supporters included Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, the Austin American Statesman and the head of the American Bar Association. Numerous questions were raised about whether Newton received a fair trial when she was convicted of killing her husband and two children 18 years ago. Her state-appointed attorney, Ron Mock, did not interview a single witness in preparation for her trial. He has since been barred from handling capital cases due to incompetence. Hours before her execution, the Supreme Court denied a petition to stop her execution.
Common Ills
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Spotty
Another spotty entry from me. Gina & Krista are spotlighting children's book in a long essay in their regular round-robin (Friday) and we're supposed to note our favorite children's book.
Here's what I shared with The Third Estate Sunday Review:
Cedric: My favorite growing up was a little book called The Harlem Globetrotters and Basketball's Funniest Game. A nephew has the book now and we pass it around because it's an easy book and because it features African-Americans. Also, a kid who might not read something else, if he or she likes sports, will usually pick it up. Growing up, we all fought over this book. I don't just mean when we were little. But my sister had it before me, okay? It was passed down to her and then it was my turn. When I was reading bigger books, she tried to claim it back and kept saying she had only "loaned it" to me. It's funny now, but there were some intense fights over this book. I called my brother to find out the credits for it and it's by Clare and Frank Gault and illustrated by Charles McGill. It's probably not a great book, I'm sure it isn't. But it's one that's held the interest in my family.
Jim: My favorite book was a sports book too and is far less weighty than your choice. But it's by the same authors and I didn't know that. Clare and Frank Gault. It was my dad's book so it was also passed on.
Cedric: Really?
Jim: Yeah. Dick Ericson did the illustrations though. It's called How to Be a Good Baseball Player. My dad got it when he was nine-years-old. I don't remember this, but my mom says he read it to me over and over even when I was in the crib. Baseball's real big with my dad. He coached my little league team. Ty, Jess and Ava tease me about moving in with Dona over at her place with Ava but if they see the book there, they'll know I've moved because I wouldn't live anywhere without that book. What I can remember is Dad going over this book with me all the time when I was in elementary school. As summer approached, he'd pull out the book and we'd read it and look at the pictures. It's really an instructional book and I'm probably choosing it more for memories than the book itself but here's a quote:
I'll note two more things quickly. Mike interviewed me over at his site Mikey Likes It! so if you're curious, you can read that there. Also be sure to check out C.I.'s "NYT: Todd S. Purdum 'cupping' the story" which will make you laugh hard.
http://www.blogger.com/ rel="tag">The Common Ills
Here's what I shared with The Third Estate Sunday Review:
Cedric: My favorite growing up was a little book called The Harlem Globetrotters and Basketball's Funniest Game. A nephew has the book now and we pass it around because it's an easy book and because it features African-Americans. Also, a kid who might not read something else, if he or she likes sports, will usually pick it up. Growing up, we all fought over this book. I don't just mean when we were little. But my sister had it before me, okay? It was passed down to her and then it was my turn. When I was reading bigger books, she tried to claim it back and kept saying she had only "loaned it" to me. It's funny now, but there were some intense fights over this book. I called my brother to find out the credits for it and it's by Clare and Frank Gault and illustrated by Charles McGill. It's probably not a great book, I'm sure it isn't. But it's one that's held the interest in my family.
Jim: My favorite book was a sports book too and is far less weighty than your choice. But it's by the same authors and I didn't know that. Clare and Frank Gault. It was my dad's book so it was also passed on.
Cedric: Really?
Jim: Yeah. Dick Ericson did the illustrations though. It's called How to Be a Good Baseball Player. My dad got it when he was nine-years-old. I don't remember this, but my mom says he read it to me over and over even when I was in the crib. Baseball's real big with my dad. He coached my little league team. Ty, Jess and Ava tease me about moving in with Dona over at her place with Ava but if they see the book there, they'll know I've moved because I wouldn't live anywhere without that book. What I can remember is Dad going over this book with me all the time when I was in elementary school. As summer approached, he'd pull out the book and we'd read it and look at the pictures. It's really an instructional book and I'm probably choosing it more for memories than the book itself but here's a quote:
How do you throw a fast ball? One way is to grip the baseball with two fingers
across the seams. Or you can grip the ball using two fingers along the seams. And
some pitchers like to use only one finger across the seams.
I'll note two more things quickly. Mike interviewed me over at his site Mikey Likes It! so if you're curious, you can read that there. Also be sure to check out C.I.'s "NYT: Todd S. Purdum 'cupping' the story" which will make you laugh hard.
http://www.blogger.com/
Monday, September 12, 2005
Swiped
I said I ws going to sleep but ended up fooling around online. Glad I did. I always say I'll spotlight The Chicago Defender and I never do (I do link to them on my blogroll). Something always happens. "Meant to." Like my previous post.
Saw this at The Common Ills and I'm just going to swipe from C.I. and post it here. Haven't cared much for John Kerry since he didn't fight for a recount but I'll give him credit for having something in an African-American newspaper.
Swiped:
Keesha e-mails to note John Kerry's "Commentary: Lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina" (The Chicago Defender):
The evidence that our nation was unprepared for hurricane Katrina is undeniable. Thousands of our fellow citizens losing their lives not to wind and water -- but thirst and starvation. Rescue attempts failing to materialize days on end, leaving mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, to perish in ways embarrassing to fathom in this society: children running out of medication; elderly too long without dialysis; patients whose oxygen tanks went empty or respirators went offline.
When people were stuck on those roofs, they weren't just cut off from the floors beneath them. They were cut off from the world, including the nation that pledged to protect them.The failure in Washington was indeed undeniable and embarrassing, and time will continue to expose the scope of the injustice exacted on the people of New Orleans.
In the meantime, we must honor those lost in the hurricane by making a strong commitment to the survivors. And our first responders should be commended for their bravery in the face of countless dangers.
If there is any silver lining for Americans in the face of this tragedy, we can find it in the courage of our people. Families are gathering food, clothes and supplies and sending it south by the truckload. Americans are opening up their homes to complete strangers. The generosity and compassion of the American people is incomparable but sadly these past few days Americans have learned the hard way that generosity and compassion from those who are in charge of the federal government is in short supply.
Keesha's cool and always finding neat stuff. We served together on the committee at The Common Ills that selects the blogs to add to the blogroll over there and I just want to close with a shout out to Keesh.
Saw this at The Common Ills and I'm just going to swipe from C.I. and post it here. Haven't cared much for John Kerry since he didn't fight for a recount but I'll give him credit for having something in an African-American newspaper.
Swiped:
Keesha e-mails to note John Kerry's "Commentary: Lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina" (The Chicago Defender):
The evidence that our nation was unprepared for hurricane Katrina is undeniable. Thousands of our fellow citizens losing their lives not to wind and water -- but thirst and starvation. Rescue attempts failing to materialize days on end, leaving mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, to perish in ways embarrassing to fathom in this society: children running out of medication; elderly too long without dialysis; patients whose oxygen tanks went empty or respirators went offline.
When people were stuck on those roofs, they weren't just cut off from the floors beneath them. They were cut off from the world, including the nation that pledged to protect them.The failure in Washington was indeed undeniable and embarrassing, and time will continue to expose the scope of the injustice exacted on the people of New Orleans.
In the meantime, we must honor those lost in the hurricane by making a strong commitment to the survivors. And our first responders should be commended for their bravery in the face of countless dangers.
If there is any silver lining for Americans in the face of this tragedy, we can find it in the courage of our people. Families are gathering food, clothes and supplies and sending it south by the truckload. Americans are opening up their homes to complete strangers. The generosity and compassion of the American people is incomparable but sadly these past few days Americans have learned the hard way that generosity and compassion from those who are in charge of the federal government is in short supply.
Keesha's cool and always finding neat stuff. We served together on the committee at The Common Ills that selects the blogs to add to the blogroll over there and I just want to close with a shout out to Keesh.
Lecture
I'm tired tonight. I only spent an hour at the nursing home visiting. I told the guys I was really wiped out and going home to do a few minutes online and then hitting the sack. I told them I'd make it up by going over tomorrow night. So I get asked why I didn't just not show tonight?
Because I feel like they hear a lot of promises that aren't kept. I feel that way with Vern especially.
At his funeral, I had to hear over and over from different people in his family how they meant to visit him in the nursing home. Meant to. Like he just went in a week or so ago. He was in there for over five years. With one exception, the last family visit he had was in January. He died in September. I don't think there's an excuse for that.
I tried to be nice about it but if they pressed me, I gave my opinion. I know that one side of the family has another member in a nursing home so I didn't see the point in telling them something that would comfort and absolve them.
They need to be thinking about the other family member.
Vern had some grandchildren who called and wrote. And he really appreciated that. He had a grandson in college on an athletic scholarship and she clipped stories on the team all year and sent them to him even when she didn't have time to write a real letter. He appreciated that and understood she was "on the tip of the United States" as he liked to put it because she was in Florida.
Other people, especially full grown adults, didn't have that excuse.
I hang with the three guys still at the nursing home. I'm there to visit them. But I look around and see a lot of lonely elderly people. It's like they just got dumped there and then forgotten.
So if you're reading this and you've got someone in a nursing home, a friend or a family member, you visit them. If they're too far and you don't have the money for a trip, you write and you call them.
I see a lot of people hanging on with hope that they are going to be remembered by someone who knows them. I think that's pretty sad that a lot of times that doesn't happen.
I walk in and the ladies start talking going on about how I'm there to see my friends. As I pass them, they'll always greet me and I greet them back and with their names when I know them.
The guys tell me that they're becoming celebrities and everyone's always asking them about their friend from church and telling them how lucky they are to have someone visiting.
I can tell a joke but I'm not the funniest guy. I'm not the smartest guy. But all it takes is just a visit and a listen to really make their day.
When I went Sunday afternoon, I took my youngest brother. He tickled them. He's a funny guy and always joking. But it doesn't matter to them if I'm making them laugh or not. They just appreciate that someone is stopping by and talking to them. I told my preacher this was the best thing he ever did, this program.
If you've got a family member or a friend in a nursing home, you make the time to visit. If you don't know anyone in one but you have time to spare, regardless of your age, I think you should consider volunteering in some way. It may not seem like much to you but it really means a lot to them.
And if you're like most of Vern's family who couldn't make the time for visits or calls or letters, I guess maybe someday you'll be in a nursing home and everyone will forget about you. I'm not saying "fate" or "punishment." But his kids are getting older and they didn't make a point to visit and take their children so when they're older there's no way their own children will see it as important to visit. You model behavior and the behavior Vern's kids modeled to their own children was put Vern in the nursing home and get on with your life. So it may come back to bite them in the butt. If it does, they'll have only themselves to blame.
Mike e-mailed me about C.I.'s editorial Saturday and said he, Elaine and Rebecca were all linking to it. I was going to anyway because I printed it out Sunday and took it to the nursing home. They couldn't stop talking about that tonight. They loved it and were talking about the "fools" in the press who got us into this war and keep us in it.
We're going to start a drive at the church to get a laptop for the guys. I think they'll get a kick out of that. I print stuff for them and I take mine when it's charged up. I need to get a new battery since the thing's always dying. But the church is behind it. Some think we might be able to raise enough for three but even if it's just one, I know they'll be happy.
If you didn't read the editorial Saturday, make a point to read it now because three of the wisest men I know say it's the kind of talking we need to be having right now.
"Editorial Reading press releases, live from the Green Zone"
[Note: This is an editorial.]
What the hell goes on in the Green Zone? Forget the rumors that led to a guild becoming involved (rumors of wild behavior on the part of Times reporters, rumors that someone was fired for telling truths to wives back in the United States, rumors, rumors, rumors), exactly what do they do?
Not a whole hell of a lot.
The big Iraq news of the week was Tal Afar. The Times front paged Kirk Semple's " Baseball in Iraq: As Pastimes Go, It's Anything But." Apparently the jock fumes reach the Green Zone as well. (Though I'll refrain from pinning this one on Todd S. Purdum.)
This is a front page story. Why? Not because it's a big story in Iraq. It's not. It's a piece of disgraceful fluff. It's Operation Happy Talk. And while it goes on, while we're bored with a non-story passing for front page news, the Times can't even report on Tal Afar.
What do they do in the Green Zone?
Yes, Friday, finally, a story ran in the Times on Tel Afar: "U.S.-Iraqi Sweep Arrests 200 in Rebel Staging Area" but the Times receives no credit for that article, it's an Associated Press article. Whatever it's positives or minuses, all the Times did was run a report by another news organization.
So what do they do in the Green Zone?
And what the hell is Robert F. Worth? Is he a reporter? Is he an op-ed writer? Read"Basra Bombs Kill 16 Iraqis and 4 U.S. Contractors" and try to answer that question.
I'm unable to grasp how, in a story on bombings, this opening qualifies for a news report:
There was also a piece of good news: American military officials said [. . .]
What did "American military officials" say? It doesn't matter for this discussion. (A contractor was released.) What is that judgement call ("good news") doing in the paper? Is Worth channeling Matt Lauer? Tip to Worth: "In other news . . ." You're supposed to be reporting. You're not there to editorialize.
The sentence, the part noted above, reveals all that is wrong with the Times reporting on Iraq."American military officials said . . ." That's the basis for every damn thing. (Yes, I'm tossing around "damn." Call me Bumiller. But "damn" is much more mild than the word I'm saying outloud as I dictate this.)
Reporters are supposed to serve as the eyes and ears of the public. That's why they're called the "watch dogs." That's not happening when every "report" is a press release. "American military officials said . . ." And what did you see Robert F. Worth? What did you hear? Not what were you told. What did you observe all by yourself?
Or does that require leaving the Green Zone? From all accounts, it's Delta House there so who would want to leave -- other than someone with a modicum of taste?
Look they can Boys Gone Wild it or not all they want in the Green Zone, I don't care. I do care what makes into print but I wonder if anyone reporting from the Green Zone does?
I did a conference call with three friends (reporters) on this asking them to play devil's advocate so I could anticipate the responses. (The Times would call the phone call "reporting.")
So here's the big argument. "It's not safe. I could lose my life."
You know what, cover cook-offs. If that's your excuse, cover cook-offs. No one's forcing you to be there. The paper certainly isn't forcing anyone. Reporters are choosing to be there. If you're a reporter and you're there, you need to be reporting.
It's not safe, doesn't cut it. It wasn't safe for Daniel Pearl. He went after the story. Others have before him and will after. The attitude of "Oh it's tough here so you have to cut me slack" doesn't wash. You get off your asses or the Times needs to appoint J-school graduates who are ready to dig in and find stories. (Which the Times, being the Times, will water down. But a diluted news report is still more powerful than any of the diluted press releases that regularly get filed.)
There is nothing, I repeat nothing, that reporters can point to with pride coming out of Iraq for the paper. You're not making a name for yourself. The t-shirt you should be furnished with when you depart can only proclaim: "I SURVIVED THE GREEN ZONE." That's all that's being done. Reporting isn't being done. (And the Times is becoming a joke to other print organizations over their "reporting" from Iraq.)
Want a blast from the past? Try this ("More Iraqi Army Dead Found in Mosul; 2 Clerics Slain," November 23, 2004):
Basic services are still unavailable in Falluja, and the valves in the city's main water-treatment plant are still not working. But troops will provide bottled water until the plant and the city's heavily damaged water and sewer pipes can be fixed, the general said.
The general said it, did he? Well Richard A. Oppel. Jr. and James Glanz, did you follow up on that? Or did you just print what you were told? (Rhetorical question.)
Does anyone working for the Times in Iraq do anything more than play telephone chain? Does anyone not buckle immediately?
From Molly Bingham's "Home From Iraq" (Atlanta Journal-Constitution):
The intimidation to not work on this story was evident. Dexter Filkins, who writes for The New York Times, related a conversation he had in Iraq with an American military commander... Towards the end of one of their conversations, Dexter declined an invitation for the next day by explaining that he'd lined up a meeting with a "resistance guy." The commander's face went stony cold and he said, "We have a position on that." For Dexter the message was clear. He cancelled the appointment.
If you're going to discuss Iraq, you have to discuss Filkins at some point. I'm aware it's more pleasing to discuss Judith Miller. But if she had a part in getting us over into Iraq, it's the "reporters" like Filkins who keep us there. For the record, Filkins has denied Bingham's version of the events. People will have to make up their own minds as to whom to take the word of.
While you're attempting to sort that out, let's again note this:
Christian Parenti mentioned Filkins last night on The Laura Flanders Show: "Dexter Filkins politics are very different from the Dexter Filkins politics we know in the New York Times. [In person, he's saying] 'Oh it's awful, the situation is totally out of control.'" That's a paraphrase (I've left out a "Dude" among other things).
Oh, it's awful, the situation is totally out of control?
Didn't seem that way when Filkins reported "In Faulluja, Young Marines Saw the Savagery of an Urban War" -- his rah-rah-rah piece of "award winning" journalism. Six days after the battle (Nov. 15), Filkins' story makes it into print. Exactly how slowly does he type? Exactly whom edited that copy?
From Dahr Jamail's "Iraqi Hospitals Ailing Under Occupation" (pdf format, you can find the quote below at this site here):
Burhan Fasa'a, a cameramn with the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation (LBC), witnessed the first eight days of the fighting. "I entered Falljuah near the Julan Quarter, which is near the General Hospital," he said during an interview in Baghdad. "There were American snipers on top of the hospital," who, he testified, "were shooting everyone in sight." The Iraqi Red Crescent would have to wait a full week before being permitted to dispatch three ambulances into the city.
Not quite the way Filkins reported it. For that matter, not quite the way Richard A. Oppel, Jr. and James Glanz report it. (They report that the Iraqi Red Crescent found no one when they entered Falluja. They just fail to seriously address why that is.) It goes beyond Filkins but Filkins has the prize and he contributed the go-go boy gone wild story that portrays a massacre as a video game.
Reality: Preceding the blood bath, males of "fighting age" were prevented from leaving that city. The destruction was severe and has not been "fixed." (Does the United States military still provide bottled water? Did they ever? Not what they told you, but what you could verify, please.)
Press releases continue to pass for reporting ("Hussein Confessed to Massacre Order, Iraqi President Says") and they should all be worried. They're the upcoming Judy Millers. They're the laughingstock of many of their peers. (Filkins epecially whose appearance on Terry Gross's Fresh Air is legendary -- and the tales repeated of it are far more interesting than what he actually said on air.)
Let's note this:
On this 60th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Amy Goodman, host of the national radio and TV show "Democracy Now!" is submitting a formal request to the board of the Pulitzer Prize, calling for The New York Times and its reporter William Laurence to be stripped of the 1946 Pulitzer Prize for their coverage of the atomic bomb. Laurence was also on the payroll of the US War Department. Goodman recently wrote an Op-Ed in The Baltimore Sun (written with journalist David Goodman, her brother) called "The Hiroshima Coverup" (see http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0805-20.htm ).
Goodman said, "William Laurence and the New York Times won a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on the atomic bomb, and his faithful parroting of the government line was crucial in launching a half-century of silence about the deadly lingering effects of the bomb. It is time for the Pulitzer board to strip the atomic bomb apologist and his newspaper of this undeserved prize."
This is Filkins future. I used to assume that it would take place long after he was gone. (And long after I was gone.) But he's the one reporters bring up to me. They're friends and they know I consider his reporting proganda. (Had the election gone differently, would his story have been more realistic?) So maybe they're just saying what they say to please me? I don't think so. (I could, as always, be wrong.)
But away from them, when you walk someone through Filkins reporting, someone who has no idea who he is, they grasp that its people like Filkins that keep us in Iraq.
By failing to report accurately what Operation Enduring Falsehood did (and what they do) they allow a number of otherwise well meaning people to think "fine tuning" is an answer. (Filkins is also a laughing stock for a TV appearance I missed. He supposedly minimized a trial for the abuses of Abu Ghraib -- with regard to instructions from above.) Fine tuning isn't an answer. As Filkins allegedy told Parenti, "It's totally out of control." Until that truth makes it into the reports, I'm saddened by those who argue fine tuning and aren't war hawks but I don't blame them for the failures of the press to report reality. They're being short changed. (Hawks aren't. They don't need excuses to continue war. They thrive on it the way some in the Green Zone thrive on the chaos.)
But here's the reason Filkins may feel the bite while he's still alive. Some domestic reporters in the United States aren't speaking fondly of the embeds. They're pointing fingers right now as the clampdowns that reporters have gone along with in Iraq come home to the United States.
The Boys Gone Wild are also a joke to people who've served in the area. And those first hand accounts will continue to come out. A Worth or Glanz will be embarrassed for being so quick to print press releases, but Filkins was in Falluja. He saw with his own eyes and he didn't report.
The bodies, the limbs piled up in the streets, Filkins somehow missed. And he was there. A friend at one of the top ten (circulation) dailies has gone from lukewarm support of Filkins' infamous "reporting" to outright disgust with it. The opinion is there is no "comeback" from it. That Filkins could do a mea culpa and return his prize and he'd still be damaged goods.
That kind of talk may not make it into the Green Zone but Filkins should worry. And so should the paper.
In an early November piece on Falluja (this one co-written with James Glanz), a military officer told Filkins that "it ought to go down in history." Filkins accepted the gung-hu attitude, too bad he didn't consider the words themselves. This will go down in history.
This will haunt the Times and it will haunt Filkins.
Amy and David Goodman may not get the Times stripped of a Pulitizer (though I hope they do) but just addressing the issue accomplishes something. And when the issue of Dexter Filkins is seriously addressed it will further tarnish the paper's name.
With Judith Miller, the paper waited far too late to address the situation. (Both her reporting itself and the legal argument they attempt to make -- they not Millers' attornies.) If they hem and haw with regards to what passes for "reporting" from Iraq currently, they'll further hurt their already badly damaged reputation.
In the meantime, by not revisiting the press releases they published, they do real reporting, democracy and the people of the United States a huge disservice because they're not reporting. It took Cindy Sheehan to act as the spark to wake up a nation. The Times could have done that long ago with some strong reporting. It shouldn't be the job of the editorials to try to later straighten out the reporting.
And as the press in the United States feels they're under attack, they're making some rather rude comments about those in the Green Zone that they feel have condoned this sort of behavior.
Democracy Now! noted the following Friday:
The journalists who have been covering Hurricane Katrina have literally been risking their lives for the last week. Reporters have been stationed in and around New Orleans since the Hurricane hit and have tirelessly reported on the devastation to the city. Some journalists have expressed enormous outrage at government officials for their slow response. A few television reporters openly broke down on air as they report the horrific conditions and the desperation of victims. Reporters have witnessed the militarization of the city and are starting to feel the effects of the government crack-down on information gathering. FEMA is now rejecting requests by journalists to accompany rescue boats searching for storm victims. In addition, journalists are being asked not to photograph any dead bodies in the region. NBC News Anchor Brian Williams reported on his blog, that police officers had been seen aiming their weapons at members of the media. And a blogger named Bob Brigham wrote a widely read dispatch that the National Guard in Jefferson County are under orders to turn all journalists away. Brigham writes: "Bush is now censoring all reporting from New Orleans, Louisiana. The First Amendment sank with the city."Earlier this week, Reporters Without Borders issued a warning about police violence against journalists working in New Orleans. They highlighted two cases – in one case police detained a Times-Picayune photographer and smashed his equipment to the ground after he was seen covering a shoot-out with police. In the second case, a photographer from the Toronto Star was detained by police and his photos taken from him when police realized that he had snapped photos of a clash between them and citizens who the police claimed were looters.
Those in the Green Zone may have kidded themselves, if they were non-Arabic, that they weren't being controlled. It was just the Arabic reporters suffering, right?
A Dexter Filkins could cancel the meeting with the resistance and kid himself that he made the choice. (Like Madonna' s ludicrous claim in the nineties that the difference was she chained herself.) The "choices" that have been made are now impacting reporters outside the Green Zone and they aren't amused.
That's why the Times should be concerned. The rumblings and grumblings are coming from their competitors. Not from independent media, which the Times would easily dismiss (as it so often does). I don't know that other dailies are doing a better job than the Times (the daily I read is the New York Times). Reporters at other papers seem to think to think they are. Three reporters in particular (two at one organization, one at another) are mentioned repeatedly (by press not affiliated with the two organizations).
The Times is aware that Judith Miller has become the fall guy for every reporter that gave breathless (and non questioning) coverage to WMD claims. So they're familiar with the concept of a fall guy. (They've also created a few over the years.) They should be really concerned right now because although Filkins isn't the "name" that Miller is (even people who didn't read her reporting in real time can now list the problems with it), he'll quickly become that. One reporter trying to cover New Orleans has already used Filkins as an adjective to express dismay over conditions that authorities attempted to impose. ("They thought I'd do a Filkins!")
Whereas the derision of Miller began with the independent press, Filkins' is starting at the top. Again, he wrote a first person account of what happened in Falluja. That's hard to come back from as details continue to emerge about what didn't get reported in that piece of melodrama.
The paper should be very worried. It took years for the criticism of Miller to go beyond independent media. If Filkins gets burned by the mainstream press, it will be a much harder hit than any criticism the Times faces over Miller.
The fact that they've continued to offer press releases won't help them either. They should have dealt with this long ago. They need a new chief in Baghdad and they need it right away.
What Americans need is some honest reporting.
Because I feel like they hear a lot of promises that aren't kept. I feel that way with Vern especially.
At his funeral, I had to hear over and over from different people in his family how they meant to visit him in the nursing home. Meant to. Like he just went in a week or so ago. He was in there for over five years. With one exception, the last family visit he had was in January. He died in September. I don't think there's an excuse for that.
I tried to be nice about it but if they pressed me, I gave my opinion. I know that one side of the family has another member in a nursing home so I didn't see the point in telling them something that would comfort and absolve them.
They need to be thinking about the other family member.
Vern had some grandchildren who called and wrote. And he really appreciated that. He had a grandson in college on an athletic scholarship and she clipped stories on the team all year and sent them to him even when she didn't have time to write a real letter. He appreciated that and understood she was "on the tip of the United States" as he liked to put it because she was in Florida.
Other people, especially full grown adults, didn't have that excuse.
I hang with the three guys still at the nursing home. I'm there to visit them. But I look around and see a lot of lonely elderly people. It's like they just got dumped there and then forgotten.
So if you're reading this and you've got someone in a nursing home, a friend or a family member, you visit them. If they're too far and you don't have the money for a trip, you write and you call them.
I see a lot of people hanging on with hope that they are going to be remembered by someone who knows them. I think that's pretty sad that a lot of times that doesn't happen.
I walk in and the ladies start talking going on about how I'm there to see my friends. As I pass them, they'll always greet me and I greet them back and with their names when I know them.
The guys tell me that they're becoming celebrities and everyone's always asking them about their friend from church and telling them how lucky they are to have someone visiting.
I can tell a joke but I'm not the funniest guy. I'm not the smartest guy. But all it takes is just a visit and a listen to really make their day.
When I went Sunday afternoon, I took my youngest brother. He tickled them. He's a funny guy and always joking. But it doesn't matter to them if I'm making them laugh or not. They just appreciate that someone is stopping by and talking to them. I told my preacher this was the best thing he ever did, this program.
If you've got a family member or a friend in a nursing home, you make the time to visit. If you don't know anyone in one but you have time to spare, regardless of your age, I think you should consider volunteering in some way. It may not seem like much to you but it really means a lot to them.
And if you're like most of Vern's family who couldn't make the time for visits or calls or letters, I guess maybe someday you'll be in a nursing home and everyone will forget about you. I'm not saying "fate" or "punishment." But his kids are getting older and they didn't make a point to visit and take their children so when they're older there's no way their own children will see it as important to visit. You model behavior and the behavior Vern's kids modeled to their own children was put Vern in the nursing home and get on with your life. So it may come back to bite them in the butt. If it does, they'll have only themselves to blame.
Mike e-mailed me about C.I.'s editorial Saturday and said he, Elaine and Rebecca were all linking to it. I was going to anyway because I printed it out Sunday and took it to the nursing home. They couldn't stop talking about that tonight. They loved it and were talking about the "fools" in the press who got us into this war and keep us in it.
We're going to start a drive at the church to get a laptop for the guys. I think they'll get a kick out of that. I print stuff for them and I take mine when it's charged up. I need to get a new battery since the thing's always dying. But the church is behind it. Some think we might be able to raise enough for three but even if it's just one, I know they'll be happy.
If you didn't read the editorial Saturday, make a point to read it now because three of the wisest men I know say it's the kind of talking we need to be having right now.
"Editorial Reading press releases, live from the Green Zone"
[Note: This is an editorial.]
What the hell goes on in the Green Zone? Forget the rumors that led to a guild becoming involved (rumors of wild behavior on the part of Times reporters, rumors that someone was fired for telling truths to wives back in the United States, rumors, rumors, rumors), exactly what do they do?
Not a whole hell of a lot.
The big Iraq news of the week was Tal Afar. The Times front paged Kirk Semple's " Baseball in Iraq: As Pastimes Go, It's Anything But." Apparently the jock fumes reach the Green Zone as well. (Though I'll refrain from pinning this one on Todd S. Purdum.)
This is a front page story. Why? Not because it's a big story in Iraq. It's not. It's a piece of disgraceful fluff. It's Operation Happy Talk. And while it goes on, while we're bored with a non-story passing for front page news, the Times can't even report on Tal Afar.
What do they do in the Green Zone?
Yes, Friday, finally, a story ran in the Times on Tel Afar: "U.S.-Iraqi Sweep Arrests 200 in Rebel Staging Area" but the Times receives no credit for that article, it's an Associated Press article. Whatever it's positives or minuses, all the Times did was run a report by another news organization.
So what do they do in the Green Zone?
And what the hell is Robert F. Worth? Is he a reporter? Is he an op-ed writer? Read"Basra Bombs Kill 16 Iraqis and 4 U.S. Contractors" and try to answer that question.
I'm unable to grasp how, in a story on bombings, this opening qualifies for a news report:
There was also a piece of good news: American military officials said [. . .]
What did "American military officials" say? It doesn't matter for this discussion. (A contractor was released.) What is that judgement call ("good news") doing in the paper? Is Worth channeling Matt Lauer? Tip to Worth: "In other news . . ." You're supposed to be reporting. You're not there to editorialize.
The sentence, the part noted above, reveals all that is wrong with the Times reporting on Iraq."American military officials said . . ." That's the basis for every damn thing. (Yes, I'm tossing around "damn." Call me Bumiller. But "damn" is much more mild than the word I'm saying outloud as I dictate this.)
Reporters are supposed to serve as the eyes and ears of the public. That's why they're called the "watch dogs." That's not happening when every "report" is a press release. "American military officials said . . ." And what did you see Robert F. Worth? What did you hear? Not what were you told. What did you observe all by yourself?
Or does that require leaving the Green Zone? From all accounts, it's Delta House there so who would want to leave -- other than someone with a modicum of taste?
Look they can Boys Gone Wild it or not all they want in the Green Zone, I don't care. I do care what makes into print but I wonder if anyone reporting from the Green Zone does?
I did a conference call with three friends (reporters) on this asking them to play devil's advocate so I could anticipate the responses. (The Times would call the phone call "reporting.")
So here's the big argument. "It's not safe. I could lose my life."
You know what, cover cook-offs. If that's your excuse, cover cook-offs. No one's forcing you to be there. The paper certainly isn't forcing anyone. Reporters are choosing to be there. If you're a reporter and you're there, you need to be reporting.
It's not safe, doesn't cut it. It wasn't safe for Daniel Pearl. He went after the story. Others have before him and will after. The attitude of "Oh it's tough here so you have to cut me slack" doesn't wash. You get off your asses or the Times needs to appoint J-school graduates who are ready to dig in and find stories. (Which the Times, being the Times, will water down. But a diluted news report is still more powerful than any of the diluted press releases that regularly get filed.)
There is nothing, I repeat nothing, that reporters can point to with pride coming out of Iraq for the paper. You're not making a name for yourself. The t-shirt you should be furnished with when you depart can only proclaim: "I SURVIVED THE GREEN ZONE." That's all that's being done. Reporting isn't being done. (And the Times is becoming a joke to other print organizations over their "reporting" from Iraq.)
Want a blast from the past? Try this ("More Iraqi Army Dead Found in Mosul; 2 Clerics Slain," November 23, 2004):
Basic services are still unavailable in Falluja, and the valves in the city's main water-treatment plant are still not working. But troops will provide bottled water until the plant and the city's heavily damaged water and sewer pipes can be fixed, the general said.
The general said it, did he? Well Richard A. Oppel. Jr. and James Glanz, did you follow up on that? Or did you just print what you were told? (Rhetorical question.)
Does anyone working for the Times in Iraq do anything more than play telephone chain? Does anyone not buckle immediately?
From Molly Bingham's "Home From Iraq" (Atlanta Journal-Constitution):
The intimidation to not work on this story was evident. Dexter Filkins, who writes for The New York Times, related a conversation he had in Iraq with an American military commander... Towards the end of one of their conversations, Dexter declined an invitation for the next day by explaining that he'd lined up a meeting with a "resistance guy." The commander's face went stony cold and he said, "We have a position on that." For Dexter the message was clear. He cancelled the appointment.
If you're going to discuss Iraq, you have to discuss Filkins at some point. I'm aware it's more pleasing to discuss Judith Miller. But if she had a part in getting us over into Iraq, it's the "reporters" like Filkins who keep us there. For the record, Filkins has denied Bingham's version of the events. People will have to make up their own minds as to whom to take the word of.
While you're attempting to sort that out, let's again note this:
Christian Parenti mentioned Filkins last night on The Laura Flanders Show: "Dexter Filkins politics are very different from the Dexter Filkins politics we know in the New York Times. [In person, he's saying] 'Oh it's awful, the situation is totally out of control.'" That's a paraphrase (I've left out a "Dude" among other things).
Oh, it's awful, the situation is totally out of control?
Didn't seem that way when Filkins reported "In Faulluja, Young Marines Saw the Savagery of an Urban War" -- his rah-rah-rah piece of "award winning" journalism. Six days after the battle (Nov. 15), Filkins' story makes it into print. Exactly how slowly does he type? Exactly whom edited that copy?
From Dahr Jamail's "Iraqi Hospitals Ailing Under Occupation" (pdf format, you can find the quote below at this site here):
Burhan Fasa'a, a cameramn with the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation (LBC), witnessed the first eight days of the fighting. "I entered Falljuah near the Julan Quarter, which is near the General Hospital," he said during an interview in Baghdad. "There were American snipers on top of the hospital," who, he testified, "were shooting everyone in sight." The Iraqi Red Crescent would have to wait a full week before being permitted to dispatch three ambulances into the city.
Not quite the way Filkins reported it. For that matter, not quite the way Richard A. Oppel, Jr. and James Glanz report it. (They report that the Iraqi Red Crescent found no one when they entered Falluja. They just fail to seriously address why that is.) It goes beyond Filkins but Filkins has the prize and he contributed the go-go boy gone wild story that portrays a massacre as a video game.
Reality: Preceding the blood bath, males of "fighting age" were prevented from leaving that city. The destruction was severe and has not been "fixed." (Does the United States military still provide bottled water? Did they ever? Not what they told you, but what you could verify, please.)
Press releases continue to pass for reporting ("Hussein Confessed to Massacre Order, Iraqi President Says") and they should all be worried. They're the upcoming Judy Millers. They're the laughingstock of many of their peers. (Filkins epecially whose appearance on Terry Gross's Fresh Air is legendary -- and the tales repeated of it are far more interesting than what he actually said on air.)
Let's note this:
On this 60th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Amy Goodman, host of the national radio and TV show "Democracy Now!" is submitting a formal request to the board of the Pulitzer Prize, calling for The New York Times and its reporter William Laurence to be stripped of the 1946 Pulitzer Prize for their coverage of the atomic bomb. Laurence was also on the payroll of the US War Department. Goodman recently wrote an Op-Ed in The Baltimore Sun (written with journalist David Goodman, her brother) called "The Hiroshima Coverup" (see http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0805-20.htm ).
Goodman said, "William Laurence and the New York Times won a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on the atomic bomb, and his faithful parroting of the government line was crucial in launching a half-century of silence about the deadly lingering effects of the bomb. It is time for the Pulitzer board to strip the atomic bomb apologist and his newspaper of this undeserved prize."
This is Filkins future. I used to assume that it would take place long after he was gone. (And long after I was gone.) But he's the one reporters bring up to me. They're friends and they know I consider his reporting proganda. (Had the election gone differently, would his story have been more realistic?) So maybe they're just saying what they say to please me? I don't think so. (I could, as always, be wrong.)
But away from them, when you walk someone through Filkins reporting, someone who has no idea who he is, they grasp that its people like Filkins that keep us in Iraq.
By failing to report accurately what Operation Enduring Falsehood did (and what they do) they allow a number of otherwise well meaning people to think "fine tuning" is an answer. (Filkins is also a laughing stock for a TV appearance I missed. He supposedly minimized a trial for the abuses of Abu Ghraib -- with regard to instructions from above.) Fine tuning isn't an answer. As Filkins allegedy told Parenti, "It's totally out of control." Until that truth makes it into the reports, I'm saddened by those who argue fine tuning and aren't war hawks but I don't blame them for the failures of the press to report reality. They're being short changed. (Hawks aren't. They don't need excuses to continue war. They thrive on it the way some in the Green Zone thrive on the chaos.)
But here's the reason Filkins may feel the bite while he's still alive. Some domestic reporters in the United States aren't speaking fondly of the embeds. They're pointing fingers right now as the clampdowns that reporters have gone along with in Iraq come home to the United States.
The Boys Gone Wild are also a joke to people who've served in the area. And those first hand accounts will continue to come out. A Worth or Glanz will be embarrassed for being so quick to print press releases, but Filkins was in Falluja. He saw with his own eyes and he didn't report.
The bodies, the limbs piled up in the streets, Filkins somehow missed. And he was there. A friend at one of the top ten (circulation) dailies has gone from lukewarm support of Filkins' infamous "reporting" to outright disgust with it. The opinion is there is no "comeback" from it. That Filkins could do a mea culpa and return his prize and he'd still be damaged goods.
That kind of talk may not make it into the Green Zone but Filkins should worry. And so should the paper.
In an early November piece on Falluja (this one co-written with James Glanz), a military officer told Filkins that "it ought to go down in history." Filkins accepted the gung-hu attitude, too bad he didn't consider the words themselves. This will go down in history.
This will haunt the Times and it will haunt Filkins.
Amy and David Goodman may not get the Times stripped of a Pulitizer (though I hope they do) but just addressing the issue accomplishes something. And when the issue of Dexter Filkins is seriously addressed it will further tarnish the paper's name.
With Judith Miller, the paper waited far too late to address the situation. (Both her reporting itself and the legal argument they attempt to make -- they not Millers' attornies.) If they hem and haw with regards to what passes for "reporting" from Iraq currently, they'll further hurt their already badly damaged reputation.
In the meantime, by not revisiting the press releases they published, they do real reporting, democracy and the people of the United States a huge disservice because they're not reporting. It took Cindy Sheehan to act as the spark to wake up a nation. The Times could have done that long ago with some strong reporting. It shouldn't be the job of the editorials to try to later straighten out the reporting.
And as the press in the United States feels they're under attack, they're making some rather rude comments about those in the Green Zone that they feel have condoned this sort of behavior.
Democracy Now! noted the following Friday:
The journalists who have been covering Hurricane Katrina have literally been risking their lives for the last week. Reporters have been stationed in and around New Orleans since the Hurricane hit and have tirelessly reported on the devastation to the city. Some journalists have expressed enormous outrage at government officials for their slow response. A few television reporters openly broke down on air as they report the horrific conditions and the desperation of victims. Reporters have witnessed the militarization of the city and are starting to feel the effects of the government crack-down on information gathering. FEMA is now rejecting requests by journalists to accompany rescue boats searching for storm victims. In addition, journalists are being asked not to photograph any dead bodies in the region. NBC News Anchor Brian Williams reported on his blog, that police officers had been seen aiming their weapons at members of the media. And a blogger named Bob Brigham wrote a widely read dispatch that the National Guard in Jefferson County are under orders to turn all journalists away. Brigham writes: "Bush is now censoring all reporting from New Orleans, Louisiana. The First Amendment sank with the city."Earlier this week, Reporters Without Borders issued a warning about police violence against journalists working in New Orleans. They highlighted two cases – in one case police detained a Times-Picayune photographer and smashed his equipment to the ground after he was seen covering a shoot-out with police. In the second case, a photographer from the Toronto Star was detained by police and his photos taken from him when police realized that he had snapped photos of a clash between them and citizens who the police claimed were looters.
Those in the Green Zone may have kidded themselves, if they were non-Arabic, that they weren't being controlled. It was just the Arabic reporters suffering, right?
A Dexter Filkins could cancel the meeting with the resistance and kid himself that he made the choice. (Like Madonna' s ludicrous claim in the nineties that the difference was she chained herself.) The "choices" that have been made are now impacting reporters outside the Green Zone and they aren't amused.
That's why the Times should be concerned. The rumblings and grumblings are coming from their competitors. Not from independent media, which the Times would easily dismiss (as it so often does). I don't know that other dailies are doing a better job than the Times (the daily I read is the New York Times). Reporters at other papers seem to think to think they are. Three reporters in particular (two at one organization, one at another) are mentioned repeatedly (by press not affiliated with the two organizations).
The Times is aware that Judith Miller has become the fall guy for every reporter that gave breathless (and non questioning) coverage to WMD claims. So they're familiar with the concept of a fall guy. (They've also created a few over the years.) They should be really concerned right now because although Filkins isn't the "name" that Miller is (even people who didn't read her reporting in real time can now list the problems with it), he'll quickly become that. One reporter trying to cover New Orleans has already used Filkins as an adjective to express dismay over conditions that authorities attempted to impose. ("They thought I'd do a Filkins!")
Whereas the derision of Miller began with the independent press, Filkins' is starting at the top. Again, he wrote a first person account of what happened in Falluja. That's hard to come back from as details continue to emerge about what didn't get reported in that piece of melodrama.
The paper should be very worried. It took years for the criticism of Miller to go beyond independent media. If Filkins gets burned by the mainstream press, it will be a much harder hit than any criticism the Times faces over Miller.
The fact that they've continued to offer press releases won't help them either. They should have dealt with this long ago. They need a new chief in Baghdad and they need it right away.
What Americans need is some honest reporting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)