A note to our readers

For this edition we need to thank Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude and C.I. of The Common Ills for their help.

Both pitched in with comments that helped shape the editorial in this edition. Everything here goes through five of us (though, granted, when tired, we might just not and say, "It's fine.") Rebecca and C.I. added suggestions and comments and wording. The editorial truly was a group effort and we thank them for their participation.

We'll also thank Rebecca for agreeing to let us reprint her post on Condi and for the interview she granted us. We'll also thank C.I. for, as always, reading over our drafts even in the early morning hours. We don't expect or want spell checks from C.I. We want to know if we're clear, if we've forgotten something and if we turned a phrase correctly or not (and if not, how we could have worded it).

C.I. has been very vocal to us about wanting disclosures like the above printed. In the past, we've given a nod here or there. We were unaware, until Rebecca posted on an e-mail stalker, that anyone would think we were trying to conceal any help or assistance we got from C.I. Having read Beth's e-mail to Rebecca in full, we want to note that we are sorry because we thought C.I. was just concerned over a minor issue. We had no idea that C.I. was being harrassed via e-mail about so-called ethical questions. [C.I. will read this when it's posted online. Also, since Beth seems to be having a meltdown, we'll disclose that C.I. refused to comment on Beth and we're basing our comments on what is available at The Common Ills, on the e-mail Beth sent to us and on the e-mail Beth sent to Rebecca.]

We've stated upfront from day one that we were Common Ills community members. We've thanked C.I. for help. On The Common Ills site, C.I. has noted our articles and noted the assistance. There has never been any attempt on our part or on C.I.'s to act as though we did not have a connection.

C.I. does not determine the content of this site nor do we determine the content of The Common Ills. We appreciate the help we've gotten from C.I. and we apologize that the good deed resulted in harrassing e-mails to the Common Ills web site.

In this issue we present a cutting from the lyrics of Joni Mitchell. We hope you enjoy it and we had a great deal of fun coming up with the lyrics chosen. But we also want to note that we asked C.I. for assistance and, as always, it was granted. However, C.I. would have rather highlighted Carly Simon. We like Carly too. (And C.I. enjoys Joni.) The point in bringing this up is that if C.I. were responsible for content, you can be sure the cutting would have been from the lyrics of Carly Simon.

C.I. also added input throughout various drafts of our TV article. And with regard to our campus spotlight, we couldn't nail that one. We tried doing it in a highly narrative format, then we attempted to do it in screenplay form. A third attempt resulted in the worst round of drafts of the lot and we were ready to junk it when C.I. suggested we just use the quotes. That was an idea we liked. And that's the sort of input and assistance C.I. provided there.

Beth can feel there's some hidden agenda going on but the reality is that we've always noted that we were Common Ills community members (and we remain that) and that C.I.'s noted that on the Common Ills site. Rebecca has an interesting take on the whole thing in her entry on Saturday. As she writes, our attitude was to laugh at Beth's e-mail, Rebecca's was to stand up and say no, C.I. ended up trying to figure out what was said wrong or what wasn't clear and never stopped to consider that the problem might actually be Beth. Knowing that and knowing C.I., we're very sorry because we'll assume many hours have been wasted attempting to explain to Beth in private e-mails that there was no hidden agenda.

We'll also note Rebecca's comments on Beth in full (hope that's okay with Rebecca) because we did get sidetracked in the interview (which was much longer than the printed version you have and was a lot of fun to conduct):

i mention the third estate sunday review not because they will also have an interview with me in tomorrow's edition but while i'm at it, i'll mention that as well.

that was set up after i posted about beth's attempt to bully me but with lynne stewart's case, i really wanted to address that because i do not think enough people are paying attention. i am aware that the majority of the readers who come here are also common ills community members but i know that i have some people who drop by that don't visit the common ills regularly. and i'm assuming that's the same with the third estate sunday review. and that many common ills members don't visit either of us.

that's because we are each telling our truths from our perspective. and the point is more voices being added to the mix. so hopefully that interview (and the editorial) will reach out to a few people who haven't visited my site or who aren't common ills members.

but we all need to do our part to make sure that people are aware of this issue. and thank god for amy goodman, juan gonzales and laura flanders.

lynne stewart's verdict is an injustice and i would hope that blog sphere would take up this issue and champion her. but i'm not the eternal optimist that c.i. is. that's not meant as a slam at c.i.

c.i. can pick up the new york times each morning and honestly believe that somehow today will be different. and each day the paper can disappoint but there's c.i. ever hopeful.

that's really a great trait but not 1 that i possess. which is why i responded to beth right away. i think i got side tracked in the interview with third estate so i'll comment here on what they wanted me to talk about. c.i., third estate and i both received e-mail from beth. third estate saw it as a joke and laughed at it. c.i. saw it as someone seriously concerned who'd misunderstood and c.i. invested so much time in attempting to explain and clarify to beth. i read it once and blogged on it. because i don't have a lot of patience for shit.

attitude is in the title of this blog and if you're a repeat visitor who's missed that point, i suggest you invest in new reading glasses.