Sunday, October 22, 2006

Truest statement of the week

The above is Isaiah's latest comic and we thought a visual "truest statement of the week" would be a nice change. As C.I. summed it up: "Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts: 'Bully Alone.' Bully Boy grabs his face with both hands and shrieks, 'Vietnam!'"

A Note to Our Readers

The note will go up this evening.

Hey --
And we're back. First off, if Blogger/Blogspot acts up next week, no highlights. We ended up finishing about two to three hours earlier than we've done lately but it could have been an hour if we hadn't done highlights. We know readers like them, we do as well. But four hours were lost attempting to log into Blogger/Blogspot and not being able to do so. The illustrations take time as well. Due to the e-mails, if we have them, we'll post them. Rebecca works hard photo shopping them (thank you, Rebecca) and we enjoy doing them. (We worked on them while Blogger/Blogspot was down.) But next week and any other that Blogger/Blogspot acts up, we'll end up doing a post where we note highlights but don't repost them in full. It's a time issue.

This week, we had highlights:

Humor Spotlight: Wally and Cedric explain Love Bully Style
Blog Spotlight: Rebecca breaks it down for Gail
Kat's Korner
C.I. explains "And the war drags on"
Blog Spotlight: Mike gives John Kerry a campaign warning
Blog Spotlight: Elaine on justice
Humor Spotlight: Thomas Friedman returns
Kitchen Spotlight: Halloween Gorp in the Kitchen

We thank everyone for their permission to repost. We also had new content and that's by the following:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and, me, Jim;
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man;
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review;
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix;
Mike of Mikey Likes It!;
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz;
and Wally of The Daily Jot

The new content?

The students of Gallaudet University are standing up -- This was the last thing we wrote and when the decision was made to include highlights, C.I. said, "Fine, but this is being written." We wanted to tackle the topic last week. There wasn't time. In the time since, members of the community who are hearing impaired had weighed in and C.I. had told them we'd cover it here and had planned to last week. We're sorry for the delay. We're always running behind but this is important and needs coverage. It's an important issue and it is a part of student activism that's going on around the country. (And around the world.)

John Mayer's Waiting on the World to Change -- Delays? We did the illustration last week but it wasn't dry so we couldn't scan it and pass it on to Rebecca who photoshops illustrations and posts them at her site (which is where we pull them from). We think this actually benefitted from the delay. The final draft of the text last week got completely rewritten, rethought out. It's an example of where a delay (and two editions worth of drafts) paid off.

Matthew Rothschild's "shameful thing" -- Mike was going to tackle this but time was short. We were up for it (including C.I., if it hadn't involved students, C.I. probably wouldn't have participated). We link to Alan Maas in it and he references the commentary we're addressing. Dallas, who hunts down all links (thank you, Dallas), couldn't find the commentary and we had two theories: (1) it was pulled and (2) maybe it wasn't said? On the first, C.I. said it wouldn't be pulled from the site. There might be a correction or an apology but it would stay up. Which left us wondering where it could be? C.I. zoomed in on "said" in Maas' article and asked Dallas to check the daily two-minute radio commentaries. It was there but Dallas had to listen because there was no text with it. (That may be a new development. Previously, it has included text.)
If you go after students, we think you're "shameful" one. That's all of us involved in this. This probably was the feature that took the longest time. In the first draft, a great deal more was covered. It's a group process and we had to go with what we all could live with. Everyone gave a little on this. (Anytime someone doesn't want to give a little, that's fine, they can simply say, "Note that I'm not a part of that feature.")

The Third Estate Sunday Review E-mail Bag -- Dona hoped this would be a quick feature. We were finally in Blogger/Blogspot on one computer (Betty's) and we were way behind due to the log in problems. It ended up being longer than we thought but Ty notes it's popular in the e-mails that have come in so far.

Quck take: The Generals! -- Having failed at a quick feature, Dona said, "No links, just an opinion piece." We tossed out ideas and came up with this topic.

CounterWhen? -- Another feature that should have been written last week but there wasn't time. For those who've written for our "data," here is your answer.

Cory Kahaney & Maureen Langan (Ms. Foundation event) and Bob Watada's speaking tour --
Bob Watada is beginning his third speaking tour to raise awareness on his son Ehren Watada, the first commissioned officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq. Also note that: "First up, at the Ms. Foundation event Monday, October 23rd, two of GreenStone Media's The Radio Ritas will be performing: Maureen Langan and Cory Kahaney. If you've heard them (and the third Rita Nelsie Spencer), you know that's going to be a treat (and a worthy cause). We don't believe the newly started GreenStone Media has an NYC outlet yet so it's also a chance for New Yorkers (and surrounding areas) to hear what they're missing out on right now. (You can listen online at GreenStone Media.) The event is at Carolines (Broadway at 50th or 1626 Broadway Between 49th and 50th Streets ) and Maureen Langan and Cory Kahaney are scheduled to take the stage at 5:30 p.m. We're sure the event and the performance are 'Don't miss'."

Truest statement of the week -- C.I. was crossposting as we were starting this note (taking entries from The Common Ills and transfering them to the mirror site) and Jess noted we didn't do a "truest" this week. What captured last week's theme? Jess suggested a visual and we agreed. So we have a "truest" and, for a change, it's a visual. (And a funny one.)

Editorial: Kyle Snyder's return to the US is part of a movement of resistance -- Kyle Snyder is returning to the United States from Canada next month. This is important. (And Ty says the second most popular feature in the e-mails that have come in so far.) There's a "__/___" that we left in and didn't realize. C.I. and Jim were disputing the line in Private Benjamin. We meant to check that out before posting. Those betting on C.I. being right were correct. So what was the most popular feature? Do you have to ask?

TV: Parlor games are rarely riveting -- Sally e-mailed wondering what else there was to review? She's a big fan of the reviews but feels like they've covered so much already this year.
Ava and C.I. respond that "what will we review?" is their big question each week. They're thinking, right now, of tackling a show they enjoy but are pretty sure they'll address another show. (They'll also be making calls throughout the week to find out if anything's in "danger" and if so grab that. As they've noted before, they're attempting to grab anything that might get pulled before January right now so that they've got some things to review throughout the spring. Rebecca suggested a syndicated show last week and they are going to grab that but will wait for the summer on that. It will still be on then.)

So that's the edition. Hopefully, you found something that made you laugh, made you think or made you angry. See you next week.

--Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.

Editorial: Kyle Snyder's return to the US is part of a movement of resistance

"I saw my friend completely change into this demon. I saw his soul die right in front of me." That's how Kyle Snyder explained to Mike Howell (Vancouver Courier) watching his friend shoot an Iraqi who was raking rocks. Snyder's time in Iraq was supposed to be spent rebuilding, as he has said in many forums, that's what he signed up for. That wasn't what he saw. There was no reconstruction going on. There were prostitutes being brought to the base, there was a massage parlor right across from Camp Diamond. Possibly that's how the US administration intends to provide opportunities for work to the women of Iraq who have lost most, if not all rights, since the illegal war began?

What does the US administration and the US military intend for young Americans? That's a key question because Kyle Snyder, like many others, signed up with the promise of education and health benefits. As he explains in Michelle Mason's documentary Breaking Ranks, the recruiters were after him. Even attending the five-foot four inches Synder's high school graduation: "I had just recieved my high school diploma. I get off of the stage and here's another recruiter right outside the door -- waiting for me. I look back at it now and everything that I'm going through, everything that I've worked through I can retrace down to that moment that I signed that fucking contract."

After he joined, his fiancee became pregant while he was on leave. He had been given lots of lofty promises about the health care she'd recieve. That never happened. The baby was never born. Synder blames the military for not providing health care. As he told Karen Button (New Orleans Voices for Peace), "The military took my child."

The military didn't do much. They didn't investigate the incident where the Iraqi raking rocks was shot (and lost a leg) which sent a message that Synder shared with Gary Mason (The Globe & Mail), "Basically, what my commanding officers were telling me was I could get angry with anyone in Iraq and, because it was war, it didn't matter what happened. That was not the right answer." This was demonstrated in another incident, recalled in Mason's Breaking the Ranks, where he led a blindfolded Iraqi "into the building into city hall and within five minutes of him being in city hall I heard a BANG."

"I wanted to start a family, I wanted to go to college," Synder said August 13, 2006 speaking to the Veterans for Peace who'd come to the Canadian border. "Basically, the same things I want to do now."

It's a pretty simple dream, nothing big, nothing grandiose -- what many Americans would see as as a basic life, not even "the American dream." Synder's dreams of a simple life were in contrast to his own childhood, as he told Button, "I wasn't a good kid. I didn’t have a good background. I was in foster homes from thirteen to seventeen, then when I was seventeen, I went through a government program called Job Corps. So, from thirteen all the way up, I didn't have parental figures in my life really. My parents divorced; my father was really abusive towards my mother and he was abusive toward me. I've still got scars on my back. I was put in Social Services when I was thirteen. I was an easy target for recruiters, plain and simple."

Which is the story for too many young Americans and those gas bags who want to scream "Volunteer military! Volunteer military!" might do well to look at the economic realities for so many who sign up -- what is "choice," what is "volunteer," when, as Jessica Lynch and many others have demonstrated, there are no other choices?

Gold Star Mother and member of Military Families Speak Out Doris Kent is one of many mothers who can share the sad reality of this war. Her son, Jonathan Santos, died in Iraq October 15, 2004. As she explained to Mike Howell, his main reason for enlisting was to pay for college, ideally to USC or UCLA in California. As she told The Seattle Times, "When he was in Iraq he gathered about 75 books, so somebody named him 'the librian'." [Books for Soldiers is a service that will allow you to select books and to avoid the trip to the post office to mail them.] There is something very sad when the basic, not "the American dream," is untainable for so many in this country.

As Doris Kent told Athima Chansanchai (Seattle Post-Intelligencer), "His junior year, a recruiter got hold of him, and he said, 'Mom, I'm going to earn my own college money.' I said, 'No. I'm going to pay for it.' We argued about it for three months." Earning college money becomes even harder when the current administration has cutting funding to student loans and grants. It's a rush to the economic bottom for the country and one of the few benefitting are military recruiters who prey on the innocent and promise things that they know will never have to be delivered. As Eileen Brennan's character tells Goldie Hawn's Judy Benjamin in the film Private Benjamin, "I don't care. I don't care what your lousy recruiter told you." So it is, and so it always has been. But each generation of Americans faces fewer and fewer opportunites and real wages have remained, at best, stagnant for the last thirty years. In such a reality, in a nation that doesn't manufacture but does do 'service,' the term 'volunteer' becomes another useless, prettied-up term like 'termination' (for firing) and 'downsizing' (for lay offs).

Bully Boy truly is "the CEO" leader. Just like other CEOs, he is awarded while everyone else gets screwed. While the court's fool (not even jester) John Tierney sees the Wal-Mart model as a 'model for peace,' the reality is far different. In Friday's New York Times, Paul Krugman again noted the huge rewards for the top and the neglect of the middle and bottom: "In the 1960's and 1970's, C.E.O.'s of the largest firms were paid, on average, about 40 times as much as the average worker. . . . In the 1990's, executive stock options proliferated -- and executive pay soared, rising to 367 times the average worker's pay by the early years of this decade."

As Naomi Klein documents in the groundbreaking book No Logo, the 'service economy' is built upon high turnover, little pay and transition but not promotion. True in the country's production is outsourced, true in the countries that are outsourcing. In such an economy, words like 'choice' and 'volunteer' have little meaning but they do provide cover as they sugar coat reality.

So with "choice" meaningless, the recruiters prey. In April 2005, Kyle Snyder followed the examples of Jeremy Hinzman, Brandon Hughey and who knows how many others and self-checked out. In Canada, he applied for asylum. No war resister has been granted asylum during the Iraq war (a direct contrast to the Vietnam era). Hinzman and Hughey's appeals are supposed to result in a verdict any day now.

Like Darrell Anderson before him, Kyle Snyder has made the choice to return to the US. Staying is a valid choice and a brave one. It means knowing you may never be able to return to the United States. Even attending a funeral leaves you open to arrest. Snyder's plans currently are to return in November. All summer long the resistance went public and it should have been the story of the summer. You should have read articles, heard and seen reports. That didn't happen. Maybe that's changed. Maybe now the media can grasp that this is a movement and it does deserve coverage. (And, sadly, when we say "the media," we mean independent media. Even The New York Times covered Ricky Clousing's court-martial and sentencing -- click here for Laurie Goodstein's article.)

During the Vietnam era, these actions got more attention and more coverage from the mainstream than they have been getting from independent media. (For a chronicle of the resistance during Vietnam, check out the documentary Sir! No Sir!) Last Thursday, The Nation posted Staughton Lynd's "Soldiers of Conscience" (The Nation) and Amy Goodman interviewed Lynd on Friday's Democracy Now! We'd like to see those two actions as encouraging signs but we're aware that that's just two independent media outlets. When no one else seemed interested, Amy Goodman established that she would try to interview each war resister who went public. (Mark Wilkerson hasn't been interviewed yet.) That was great for 2003, 2004, 2005 and probably early 2006. But this is no longer a case of one person stepping up and then, awhile later, another. This is becoming a movement. And it needs to be covered like one. Goodman and The Nation, by highlighting Lynd, demonstrated that they grasp it is a movement so we'll slap gold stars on both of them for last week. But the coverage needs to be there and it needs to be coming from more than just two outlets. Translation, if you've got time for a write up of a sit down with the Dalai Lama, you've got time to do a write up on war resisters.

Unless you just don't care and if that's the case, you need to be upfront about it. Not hiding behind, "I had to skim four books for a review this week!" If you just don't care, then absolutely, the coverage you provided this summer cuts it.

But some people don't have that luxury. For many who are standing up, for many who are gone, for family and friends of all, the war has come home. Maybe not to your gated communities. But it has come home. On Friday, C.I. noted Max Bootsy's inane comment:

". . . the impact here is more isolated because so many soldiers come from military communities which are clustered in a handful of states." Oh really?
American troop fatalties? Alabama: 47; Alaska: 10; Arizona: 66; Arkansas: 35; California: 284; Colorado: 34; Connecticut: 22; Delaware: 12; Florida: 117; Georgia: 83; Hawaii: 13; Idaho: 16; Illinois: 107; Indiana: 56; Iowa: 33; Kansas: 31; Kentucky: 46; Louisiana: 63; Maine: 12; Maryland: 52; Massachusetts: 45; Michigan: 97; Minnesota: 39; Mississippi: 35; Missouri: 48; Montana: 12; Nebraska: 29; Nevada: 24; New Hampshire: 14; New Jersey: 47; New Mexico: 21; New York: 132; North Carolina: 63; North Dakota: 13; Ohio: 125; Oklahoma: 47; Oregon: 46; Pennsylvania: 135; Rhode Island: 10; South Carolina: 39; South Dakota: 17; Tennessee: 58; Texas: 245; Utah: 14; Vermont: 18; Virginia: 83; Washington: 53; West Virginia: 18; Wisconsin: 60; Wyoming: 7.

Whether the number is 7 (Wyoming) or 284 (California), it's not isolated to a 'few' states. And those are just the fatality numbers. The war has come home.

Speaking in August, Kyle Snyder noted, "I am a 22 year-old combat veteran from the Iraq war." He is one of many who have been touched by the war and he's speaking out. His story matters, his stand matters.

He is not alone and shouldn't be covered as if he is or given the impression that he is. He's part of a movement that includes Camilo Mejia, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Aidan Delgado, Jeremy Hinzman, Brandon Hughey, Patrick Hart, Corey Glass, Ricky Clousing, Mark Wilkerson, Kevin Benderman, Joshua Key, Ivan Brobeck, Robin Long, Ryan Johnson, Clifford Cornell, Katherine Jashinski, Agustin Aguayo, and many more.

For information on war resisters in Canada, War Resisters Support Campaign is the site. And
more information on war resisters who have gone public can be found at Courage to Resist. The latter of which recently noted of Ricky Clousing:

Ricky is currently being held in a military brig at Camp LeJune in North Carolina and it is urgent that he receive your words of encouragement and support! Please write to Ricky today!

TV: Parlor games are rarely riveting

When the entertainment industry gets desperate, it's never pretty. When the well runs dry, there's a tendency to grab for ideas anywhere. One that you'd think they'd given up on is games. What should have been the nadar was assuming that if you enjoyed being Miss Scarlet or Col. Mustard during a board game, you'd love to see Clue play out on the big screen. Box office returns slapped the film industry in the face but didn't prevent Mario Bros and other snooze-fests. Now TV's joined in the dullness. It takes questionable talent to suggest that if board games and video games have failed, the thing to try now is a parlor game. Hence ABC's Six Degrees.

How bad is this Thursday night offering? So bad it should come with a warning label or Bo Derek in the cast -- either would ward off unsuspecting viewers. Even without such precautions, the word's obviously getting out to judge by the sinking ratings.

After how the show managed to get on the air, the biggest question appears to be what happened to Campbell Scott's hair and why it was brown in all the promotional material but gray on the show? Answer: Because there's more than six degrees between the reality of the show and the way it was promoted.

It was promoted as an involving, complicated drama that would hook viewers. Since it comes from JJ Abrams, we knew better. Early on, we heard that the cast couldn't do a thing with what was on the page. One viewing and you'll grasp why.

The show wants to follow a group of characters who sometimes interact with one another and sometimes don't. The connections are the Kevin Bacon parlor game where every actor can be connected to Bacon in six steps (Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon). Surely the same 'geniuses' will next tackle Dungeons & Dragons and other 'games' that most people don't play and won't play.

Campbell Scott. Let's all face reality here, he can make it on the stage, he can't in film or TV. He killed Singles with his wooden performance. Dying Young was the first bomb Julia Roberts experienced post-Pretty Woman and a large portion of the blame is his. His only true success (we don't count his bland performance in Longtime Companion as a hit) was in The Spanish Prisoner where his stiffness was built into the writing. On stage, his natural hestiancy and belaboring can work. On screen the only role for him is Principal Skinner in a live action film of The Simpsons.

In Six Degrees, the Tinman plays Steven Caseman and we're not sure what was more laughable, Scott attempting to play a stuff shirt on extasy or how he ended up accidentally taking the pills. The love-drug came off like the like-drug and, like the child playing Scott's son, we were creeped out as well.

Scott is the child of actors George C. Scott and Collen Dewhurst. That sentence is the closest Scott will ever get to onscreen greatness. He lacks his father's onscreen energy and his mother's onscreen warmth. For a forty-five-year-old actor who's been making films since 1987, he doesn't have a great deal to show for it. Six Degress won't change that.

Hope Davis has been cast as Laura. She's never achieved much either so it's no surprise she doesn't in the show. In fact, the only surprise may be that her character's not paired up with Scott's but, apparently, there's a line of dullness that even this show dares not cross -- at least one.

Laura can't seem to pull it together on Halloween (the episode aired a week too early) so she ends the night at home, on the couch alone, drinking a glass of wine, and reading a magazine. There's no music playing from the stereo and the quiet death that's supposed to represent the character just respresents one more burial in Davis' career.

Three actors try very hard to overcome the scripts (we'll get to the scripts in a minute): Jay Hernandez (playing Carlos), Erika Christensen (Mae) and Bridget Moynahan (Whitney). Moynahan has created her own character and comes off the best. Hernandez and Christensen try too hard to bring the writing to life and suffer for it.

In Campbell's extasy trip, you see all that is wrong with the show. He starts out with his (much younger) girlfriend. He can't go out with her to a party, he's promised the day to his son. Apparently while trick or treating in broad daylight, he begins tripping but seems to think he's having a stroke (maybe he was watching his performance on a monitor?). After a paramedic explains to him that he's tripping, he sends his son packing and ends the episode at the party with said girlfriend. No one cares, no one is involved. There's nothing in the performance, as written or played, that makes anyone give a damn about Steven. Viewer curiousity, if it exists, revolves solely around how such a bland, inward driven character could hook up with a young girlfriend who clearly enjoys life? (Many more days around Steven will kill that love.)

One scene Thursday captured the audience's reaction, Mae's brother was on the run (don't ask) and she turned him in (ditto) only to return to Laura's where she's the nanny of Laura's child. Laura looks up at her (possibly smashed on booze but it's hard to tell with Davis' stilted acting) and asks Mae about her night. The overly long recap (of what the audience has seen the past hour) includes many pauses and, most importantly, not many questions from Laura. Told that Mae's brother wasn't doing well but now he may be getting the help he needs, Laura (like the audience) doesn't care enough to ask what happened to him? She just nods, sips and ends the scene by noting the possibility of meeting him sometime.

Oh, maybe, Laura, maybe someday.

The scene was as uninvolving as the show and Laura's tepid interest in Mae's life mirrors the audiences' interest in the characters.

The concept was a parlor game. What the writers rip off is Play It Forward -- a movie that damaged (if not destroyed) the careers of all involved. If, during a holiday season, audiences didn't want to ponder the inner workings of the human soul embodied in sub-strata, the writers should have known they were addressing a theme that would cause viewers to reach for the remotes.

The tedius nature of the characters is supposed to play 'real' in the same way that Hope Stedman was supposed to strike you as 'complex' a decade ago. In both cases, more was in the brain than on the page and none of it made to the screen. Six Degrees is really about ennui. Can the human heart survive . . . boredom?

It's doubtful ABC can and that's why the suits are grumbling about the fact that Abrams promised more involvement in the show than he's delivered. (His distancing from the show is matched only by the detachment in Davis' performance. We would add Scott's performance as well but, warning, he attempts to 'act' in an episode that will air shortly. It's not pretty and is to acting what Seinfeld's Elaine was to dance.) Moynahan breaks through the tedium but, though you can picture her character at a Sonic Youth concert, there's only so much one performer can do. Hernandez too often settles for a 'literal' interpretation of the script and comes off like a pretty boy who studied acting under David Charvet. Christensen would do well to grasp that 'twinkling' rarely transfers from the page to the screen. (Despite what the writers of this show believe.)

As you watch and yawn, you're left to wonder is ABC's attempting to broadcast a sleeping aid? ABC, on the other hand, wonders how they got stuck with this program? It's quite simple. They wanted to please JJ Abrams and they bought a questionable concept and his assurances that he would be hands on. If there's a lesson for the network here it is: The next time Abrams attempts to sell you on a parlor game, quickly suggest he play one: The Quiet Game.

We'll all be a lot better off.

The students of Gallaudet University are standing up

High school and college students kick start the immigration rights movement in May. (And continue using their free speech though, as noted earlier, the middle-aged set can only scold. Possibly middle-aged spread has weighed on them more than even the waistlines of their Dockers know.) Across the nation, college, high school and, yes, even middle school students have the sort of talks about Iraq that our media refuses to provide. Don't believe the Desk Jockeys or Belt Way Babies, young people are standing up. An example of that is going on at Gallaudet University.

Do you know Gallaudet University? It's a college for the deaf and hearing impaired. It's been around for years. How long? When they started, they didn't issue degrees. That changed via Congressional legislation signed into law by the president. The president? Abraham Lincoln.

Are you starting to grasp how historically significant the college is?

From the college's website:

Gallaudet University is the world leader in liberal education and career development for deaf and hard-of-hearing undergraduate students. The University enjoys an international reputation for the outstanding graduate programs it provides deaf, hard-of-hearing, and hearing students, as well as for the quality of the research it conducts on the history, language, culture, and other topics related to deaf people. In addition, the University’s Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center serves deaf and hard-of-hearing children at its two demonstration schools and throughout the nation by developing, implementing, and disseminating innovative educational strategies.

Here they are noting sign language (pay attention to this):

Gallaudet University is irrefutably the world's expert on American Sign Language. Having a rich history of being a leader in deaf education for over a hundred years, as well as being the premier educational institution that identified ASL as a true and independent language, it is clear that if you're interested in studying either ASL or the study of deaf people and deaf communities, Gallaudet University is the place.
A major in ASL will give you a strong foundation if you're interested in pursuing a career in deaf education, linguistics, interpretation, sociology, or social work.

The "world's expert," "irrefutably," remember that. Why? Protests have been ongoing throughout this year. They have to do with the fact that 'powers that be' want to install a new president and she's not fluent in sign language.

As Susan Kinzie (Washington Post) noted, "The presidency of Gallaudet is a position carrying enormous weight for many as the symbolic center of the deaf community. Jane Fernandes, the woman in question, is also seen by the students as not very friendly. Faculty? "Last May, the faculty overwhelmingly passed a vote of no-confidence against Fernandes and the board of trustees, which supervised the search process, [Dr. Barbara] Gerner de Garcia added" (Ben Adler, Campus Progess). The faculty voted no-confidence again last week.

Last May, Fred Hiatt (Washington Post) observed: "But others are suspicious of her conversion, of her not signing with native fluency and of what they see as her insufficient zeal in combating 'audism' (discrimination against the deaf) on and off campus." Take the last part, just the last, she's seen as possessing an "insufficient zeal in combating 'audism'". And she wants to be president of the first college for the deaf in the United States?

Fernandes doesn't help her own (weak) case by issuing statements like these: "Hearing aids are better than ever. Implants are better than ever. Progress in genetics is leading to the idea that you could choose not to have a deaf child. All that puts huge pressures on these deaf students."

Did you catch that? The one who would be president says: "Progress in genetics is leading to the idea that you could choose not to have a deaf child." If you were a deaf student (maybe you are, the community has a number of hearing impaired members) and you heard the soon-to-be president of the premiere college for the deaf state "Progress in genetics is leading to the idea that you could choose not to have a deaf child," would you be alarmed? You should be. Would a historically Black college or historically women's college allow be thrilled by similar statements from their own presidents-in-waiting? "Progress in genetics is leading to the idea that you could choose not to have an African-American child" probably wouldn't go over very well at Howard University. (Nor should it.)

She's tactless. What the students see as a lack of warmth strikes others as, at best, indifference and, at worst, cruelty. When that statement can tumble out while she's attempting to defend herself, forget sign language fluency, she's got a communication problem.

That's why students and faculty have rejected her. She may personally be the nicest and warmest person in the world but the way she conducts her professionally is careless and sloppy (and that's being kind). Her approach is a gesture and people are recognizing that she's giving them the middle finger.

We're sure some lackeys of the left would argue that she's just using her free speech. She's welcome to use it all she wants. She's not welcome to represent the historical college. That's what the students are protesting. The school came about as a sign of progress (a real one, not the psuedo progress of 'choosing not to have a deaf child') and it remains both historically significant and pertinent to today.

The post of president is symbolic and carries great weight. Students protested in 1988 to get the first deaf college president. It shouldn't have taken that long (over a hundred and forty years after the institution came into being). And it's too important for someone who, at worst, is out to water down what the university stands for and, at best, can't get her message across.

She's not fit. Just as every pair of shoes won't fit everyone, every position won't fit everyone. She's trying to squeeze her feet into pair of shoes that weren't made for her. And people should recoil in horror. This isn't acceptable.

Fernandes told Diana Jean Schemo of The New York Times that it was "essential that I stay" putting the emphasis on her and not on the students, not on the college. It's a nice little ego trip, it's not reality. From Schemo's article:

Some deaf students and advocates disagree, saying they fear a weakening of American Sign Language at an institution that should be its standard-bearer. Deaf students here said that American Sign Language, which uses gestures to express words and ideas rather than specific letters, was easier for them to understand than other forms of communication that may translate letters and syntax that they have never heard and that are more difficult to grasp.
Erin Moran, who is studying for a master's in counseling and was handing out fliers opposing Dr. Fernandes, criticized her for not banning students from speaking in front of deaf students, instead of using only American Sign Language. When that happens, Ms. Moran said, deaf students feel shut out at an institution that should help strengthen their identity as deaf people with a right to participate fully in the world.
"It's about accessibility," Ms. Moran said. "It's a cultural issue. We couldn't access it if somebody is having a spoken conversation. It all needs to be accessible."

While Fernandes places the emphasis on herself, the students are talking about the fact that her moves will leave students (who have always been welcome at the university that's been the leader in the promotion of ASL) out. Who's thinking of the college and who's thinking of herself?

Ben Adler notes estimates of thousands of students protesting October 13th (133 of which were arrested). The current president, I. King Jordan, has done nothing to address the situation. It's been ongoing since May and he continues to issue statements from on high, dismissing the criticism.

Two votes of no-confidence from the faculty. Repeated protests (even in the face of arrests) by students. You can't dismiss those standing up. To do so is to render them invisible. That the nation's first college to recognize the deaf, created to serve them, now wants to apparently 'upgrade' to a new student body and leave behind their own mission is really sad. And if I. King Jordan wishes to continue to ignore the pleas of faculty and staff, he might want to remember that what was created through an Act of Congress can be dismantled by one as well.

The students aren't backing down. If Fernandes doesn't have the common sense, let alone good grace, to withdraw her name at this point, the situation will only get worse. At some point, someone who really cared for the university (even if they felt they were misundersood as the poor communicating Fernandes does) would put the university ahead of themselves, ahead of their own ego, and say, "You know what? I care about Galludet University. It existed long before I was born and I want it to continue to prosper. For the good of the university, I'm withdrawing."

That's what a real leader would do at this point but as Fernandes has repeatedly demonstrated, she's no leader.

Students are committed, they are standing up, they are out there fighting for what they believe in. And though it probably wouldn't win an essay contest opposite an ass kisser telling pleasing tales to their elders ("Why doesn't my generation care! Only I care! What's wrong with us kids today!"), the students of Gallaudet University are fighting something that really matters.

John Mayer's Waiting on the World to Change

Me and all my friends
We're all misunderstood
They say we stand for nothing
And there's no way we ever could
Now we see everything that's going wrong
With the world and those who lead it
We just feel like we don't have the means
To rise above it all
So we keep waiting
Waiting on the world to change
We keep on waiting
Waiting on the world to change
[. . .]
Now if we had the power
To bring our neighbors home from war
They would have never missed a Christmas
No more ribbons on the door

Thus spake John Mayer. The song's "Waiting on the World to Change" from his latest CD Continuum. As a single, it's reached number twenty on the Hot 100 and number two on the Adult Top 40. (The CD has made it to number two on Billboard's album chart.)

So what does it mean?

First of all, it's not a statement from or by "young people." Mayer hits 30 next October 16th and his audience is more likely to listen to Norah Jones than Green Day.

As though he hailed from the factories of Orville Redenbacher, he popped onto the scene in 2001 and 2002 instructing audiences that their body was a wonderland in the most asetic manner. Since then, Mayer's attempted to prove that he's got more than corn. We'd argue he's done that with the last two CDs.

These days, he's singing jaded songs to a jaded audience. We'd argue that "Waiting on the World" and "Belief" are targeted to them. (On the latter, written by Mayer, the chorus repeats: "We're not gonna win the world/ We're never gonna stop the war/ We're never gonna beat this/ If belief is what we're fighting for." No, we don't think the lyrics stand up to deep thought either.)

Mayer's documenting his own life and some are responding to his lyrics. (We think he's improved immensely in his writing of music and playing of it. We'd be more impressed with the vocals if he'd let loose. Rebecca's just glad he's changed his hair from the "ragged cotton ball look.")

There's a lot to be dejected about these days. We'd argue a lot of people will feel even more dejected in a few more weeks. Why? Elections.

Mayer writes lyrics that read like someone with a strong belief in the electoral process as cure all. While all involved in the writing of this feature will be voting in November and many are working on efforts to turn out the vote, we honestly think the over hyping of what can and cannot be accomplished through the ballot box means that after any election, some grow dejected and some are left to pick up the pieces. We think that's true whether your top pick wins or loses.

We think the ones responding to the lyrics of Mayer's "Waiting for the World to Change" include people who worked on many issues (we'd guess sweatshop labor being chief among them) and have seen that elections change very little.

We don't begrudge Mayer his interpretation (and we actually enjoy the song and the entire CD). But independent media is in hype mode and we don't think Mayer's song could have come at a better time. You see, and mind you, we're not talking about mainstream media, candidates with questionable records with regards to civil liberties, civil rights, reproductive rights and more pushed as though they were the embodiment of the best of the system. Most aren't.

If you're a first time voter (and seven of us participating in this feature are young enough to remember clearly our hopes and expectations the first time we voted), you're being sold a huge bill of goods and, truth is, most of it wouldn't pass a basic inspection.

From time to time, you'll be told that. Not outright, but in an aside. It'll be stressed that the Democratic Party, with control of one or both houses, will be able to do things so you should vote for them regardless of the individual candidate. While a Democrat controlled house is better than a Republican controlled one, it's not an answer. It's a tool but it's promoted as an answer. As though Democrats didn't just join with Republicans in stripping citizens and non-citizens of the very justice system this nation was built upon.

We're not slamming the outlook expressed in Mayer's song. It's the job of the artist to communicate and the sentiment expressed isn't uncommon. We will slam the ones who are so busy hyping candidates and elections that, come November, there will be a lot of buyer's remorse. We personally prefer CounterPunch's near universal, healthy disrespect for all candidates to much of the blather and gloss too many independent media outlets are engaging in. The comedown's going to be tough for first-time voters and you have to wonder why independent media engages in that each election cycle?

The 'non-partisan,' the 'independent' media bangs the drum each election cycle. Ruth Conniff, to cite one example, has already magnanimously suggested that " If there is a Green Party candidate who is running against an atrocious, conservative Democrat then by all means that's a great person to support." Color us underwhelmed.

But that attitude certainly explains the lousy commentary that the Conniffs have been turning out of late. Dispatches from Teddy's (Kennedy), praise for the likes of Joe Biden, superficial, non-thought pieces that don't inform you because they aren't meant to inform. They're about access and they're about turning out the vote for the Democratic Party. We'd suggest that independent publications stop giving us glossy bios and beltway talk and start exploring the reality of candidates. We'd further suggest that Congressional beat includes following legislation through -- writing about the actual impact on the people.

Leave the 'close up' looks to Vanity Fair if you can't go beyond the obvious. Vanity Fair's a glossy for a reason. But the gloss intrudes into independent media and it's no wonder that each election cycle voters confront the post-election reality and feel disempowered.

It's easy to include as an aside, and many do, that it takes more than elections. But when you're only coverage of the way people can make a difference is at the voting booth, you're sending out a stronger message with that than with any of your asides.

The stronger message is what gets through and why Mayer's song "Waiting for the World to Change" speaks to many. They've been hyped (and, in some cases, lied to) too many times. They've been burned and they know that. They feel disempowered because they were sold voting as empowerment.

Our advice is to vote for the candidate (in all races) that speaks most clearly to your issues and concerns. If that means Democratic, great. If that means Green or another third party, go for it. Your vote is your vote. It's not guaranteed, it's not for sale. You need to own it. And you need to grasp that the way the system is set up (big money contributions, jerry mandered districts, questionable voting machines, rigged voting rolls), your vote isn't the be-all-end-all.

The fright wing has tilted the country to the right for years and they've done so regardless of whether their party controlled a house (Congress or White). They've done it by agitating (and other means). The left has basically accepted that candidates would represent them. Once elected, there's been no effort to hold their feet to the fire.

Mayer sings of "Waiting for the World to Change." The World Can't Wait. And elected officials are never leaders. If you're dejected, good. When illusions crumble, that can be empowering. Independent media jaw boning in the exact manner that we criticize the mainstream media for isn't empowering. It's sending out a message that elections are the be-all-end-all and it's demonstrating that useless blather comes in all mediums.

The song that best sums up the American people on John Mayer's Continuum may be "In Repair" which ends with: "I'm in repair/ I'm not together but I'm getting there."

Matthew Rothschild's "shameful thing"

"A shameful thing happened," Matthew Rothschild intones and no, he's not speaking about his magazines refusal to cover young America or provide them with a voice in the magazine he's the chair of (The Progressive).

He's speaking of students at Columbia or at least his interpretation of their actions when Jim Gil Christ of the Minuteman project came to speak.

Rothschild says that he's basing his conclusions on "at least according to some reports". Some reports? We called friends there. (C.I. called professors --including one who's an old lover -- and Rebecca says that stays in or "I scream bloody murder. I'm not the only one with a sexual past!") What we found out was what we knew before we started calling. (Possibly Matthew Rothschild has no friends, or ex-lovers, at Columbia to call?)

Jim Gil Christ came to Columbia at the invitation of the College Republicans with the intent of spreading his hate speech. Students opposed organized. Some walked on stage, two of which unfurled a banner. They did not attack Gil Christ nor any of the Minutemen. One student was attacked.

Whose free speech is it?

That's our question for Matthew Rothschild. It's a funny sort of free speech where only one can get out a message. It's a non-interactive, top-down speech he seems to favor. Oh sure, he tells you, you can boo and hiss and heckle. If your boos and hisses drown out the speaker have you stepped on their "right to be heard"? Rothschild tosses around words like "gagged." That's inflamtory language and a shoddy argument and even for the too often timid Rothschild. (And that's how we see it.) He wasn't "gagged."

If you're in favor of booing and hissing and heckling, then a banner isn't a problem. Bum rushing the stage isn't a problem. So what bee got up his bonnet that he called the students' behavior "shameful"? The same bee that flies up his bonnet too often if you ask us: The need to be 'respectable.'

Unfurling banners? We're all for it. We applaud CODEPINK's many successes in that area. What happened was that Gil Christ couldn't stand free speech. He couldn't stand the fact that the truth was displayed in banner form and that he was revealed as a liar instead of being embraced. He wasn't for free speech when he appeared on Democracy Now! either in what was supposed to be a debate with student activist Karina Garcia -- not only did he bail before the half-way point, he had his attorney present to vet his remarks.

But ain't it good to know he's got a friend . . . in Rothschild? Instead of applauding the students for making their voices heard (and they didn't escort the Minutemen out, the Minutemen elected to leave), he wants to call the students "goons." (Sidebar: Is Rothschild's a shameless plugger? What's with all the use of "progressives" in his commentary. We asked students if they self-identified that way, or if they'd been contacted by Rothschild, "no" was the answer on both questions. One joked that being called a "progressive" may have been the biggest insult Rothschild made towards them.)

The "goon," in this case, is Rothschild. Like Gil Christ, only his voice will be heard if he can have his way. The man who hired a middle-aged man (naturally) to write about a student led movement (the immigration rights movement that kick started last spring by students) still can't find a way to include students in his magazine or commentaries except on the recieving end of a scold.

Mike was writing about this on Friday and called C.I. (who does like Rothschild's work) to make sure it was "okay." [The response was, "Write what you feel and I'll have no problem with it."] When C.I. told the core group about this, we got on the phone to find out what the "goons" thought of Rothschild. Let's just break it to him gently, it wasn't pretty.

But, as one pointed out, the only way a young person is noted by any outlet of The Progressive is "when it's time for them to grab you by the ear and pull you to the woodshed. Is it any wonder that most students don't bother to read it?" No, it's really not.

Last week, Rebecca was pitching an article but there wasn't time. This week, as C.I. noted, "It goes to pattern." What had bothered Rebecca was the "Editor's Note" of the October 2006 issue where the chair of the board of directors, Rothschild, appears to equate his stance with Human Rights Watch (which Rebecca doesn't care for). It went to pattern because of the "according to some reports" Rothschild offered in his radio commentary. Where does Rothschild get his information?

Does independent media read independent media? If they did, Rothschild might not have penned his valentine/mash note to Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch. On the page four "Editor's Note" (entitled "Cheap Slurs" -- and, no, he's not talking about his own treatment of students and young Americnas), Rothschild writes, "Kenneth Roth . . . did not back down." He's referring to the calling out of the violence when the Israeli government went wack-job all summer. (We're sure you're familiar with it, independent media dropped every other story to cover it nonstop.)

Roth didn't back down? Were we Thomas Friedman, we'd leave it at, "Matthew Rothschild, meet The Nation." But we're not lazy and empty minded. (Nor fond of ripping off comedic bits that failed years ago.) Writing in The Nation, Philip Weiss noted:

Remaining in the mainstream is vital to HRW. While Roth stuck to his guns on Israel's "indiscriminate" bombings, and the organization repeatedly condemned Israel's use of cluster bombs in civilian areas, it also seemed to go out of its way toward the end of the war to blast both sides. The chariness alienated the international left. Roel Bramer, a Dutch-Canadian, resigned from the board of the Toronto chapter of HRW in August, saying its criticism of Israel was too tepid. In a resignation letter, Bramer wrote, "Ken [Roth] is quoted as stating that we abide by a 'fact/research-based application of international human rights and humanitarian law'" and criticize governments on human rights grounds, not political ones. "I feel that HRW should protest boldly and loudly against this borderline genocide and the calamitous rubble and grief Israel has left behind."
Roth does not appear to be too worried about his credibility on the left. He is much more concerned about the right, even if that means fielding arguments about whether the Bible is primitive. One board member, Shibley Telhami, an Arab-American who is sometimes enraged by Israel's actions, says engaging the pro-Israel community is vital to the organization's mission, and his own. "The New York Sun is framing HRW in a context that resonates with a community that's much broader.... What you have here is Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, within the American political mainstream, not just the Jewish groups, saying that this is about Israel's right to defend itself and let them finish the job. But you've got to connect, so you think, What is the best mix of effectiveness, credibility and principle? I struggle with that every day."

We're beginning to worry that the same is true of Rothschild? Could you, for instance, safely say, "Rothschild does not appear to be too worried about his credibility on the left. He is much more concerned about the right . . ."?

Roth, Human Rights Watch in fact, is a lot like PBS and NPR, they've gotten used to ignoring the left and catering to the right. Roth will worry, fret and respond to the right. They will, as they did, increase their criticism of Lebanon to appear "fair." The left?

Forget it. They don't care. They want you to be there when they need money and they're under attack. But they'll program (NPR and PBS) and issues statements (Roth, et al) to appease the right. Why does the media tilt right? One reason is because so many continue to cater to it.

Which brings us back to Rothschild. What's really the purpose of him covering students at Columbia? He's not been interested in students for much of 2006. It's like the nonsense where he couldn't shut up about the 9-11 Truth Movement. He ignores and ignores, then finds the area he wants to lash out on.

Is The Progressive's goal to become this decade's The New Republican? It seems headed that way with its useless 'beltway talk' from Ruth Conniff. Yes, you can point to Howard Zinn. You could point to Barbara Ehrenreich at The New Republican when it was gasping for breath in the 80s. (We enjoy Ehrenreich -- who is not in every issue -- so we'll try not to suggest too strongly that her addition to a magazine is the print equivalent of "jumping the shark.") But the mag's top heavy on Ruth Conniff, Amit Pal (who appears to be not just to the right of Arundhati Roy but to the right of Fareed Zakaria as well) and Matthew Rothschild -- all of whom seem to breathe and exhale The New York Times -- by choice.

In his "Cheap Slurs" note, Rothschild writes that his "predecessor, Erwin Knoll, used to say, 'If we're not pissing someone off every month, we're not doing our job.'" Who gets pissed off by The Progressive these days? It's the most mild banquet of bland you could imagine more often than not. (Though readers published on the mag's letters page would disagree -- they've been vocal all summer along about their problems with the magazine.)

In fact, the most excitement the mag's caused in recent months was last week when we all wondered, "Who the hell is Amber Hewins?" (C.I. put us wise.) There was Hewins writing to us, "Dear Friend" (we feel just awful for not knowing her), about what a dandy gift The Progressive made. We'll note that she cited two writers for the magazine -- Molly Ivins and Howard Zinn. We wouldn't cite Ruth Conniff's scribbles if we were trying to lure money either but Ivins, like Zinn, doesn't appear every issue. (C.I. notes when Hewins sent out the same type of letters for The New York Review of Books, she noted approximately twenty writers. These days, apparently, the pickings are slim . . .)

So let's be really clear. The Progressive's coverage of the immigration rights movement has fallen into two categories: non-existant or laughable. Laughable includes their much touted 'new columnist' who's written only one column and that one was laughable as he scolded young people from his middle-aged perch. We care about many issues. But for our offline time, we've decided to focus on two solely: Iraq and immigration rights. We take them both very seriously. There's been nothing to suggest that The Progressive does.

Maybe the Stephanie Miller interview that Rothschild can't stop praising is supposed to make up for the lack of coverage? We don't see how. Miller comes off like either an idiot or a lackey with her comments about how corporations only care about money and will air anything. (We'd suggest she and Rothschild both read Jeff Cohen's new book Cable News Confidential.)
As wit goes, she's hardly Kathy Griffith (though they do physically favor one another), let alone Dorothy Parker. But Rothschild's enthralled. Could it be because of the Barry Goldwater connection? He seems to operate from some need to signal to the right that, like Michael Jackson, "I'm not like other guys."

A little less signaling, a little less hand holding, a little less attempt to be the Readers Digest for The New York Times would make for a better magazine. But if the concern was truly a better magazine, 'reviews' of books that included statements such as "Klein's utterly entertaining" and "I can't help it though, I enjoy reading Klein" would be handed back to the author (Ruth Conniff) with the instructions that The Progressive does not exist to gush over the middle-of-the-road-on-the-right-hand-side-of-the-stripe Joe Klein. Additional notes might include telling Pal to research a story beyond what was written in The New York Times and telling Conniff that nobody likes an aging cheerleader.

While we await that day, consider Alan Maass' comments on Rothschild and others (CounterPunch) trashing the students and siding with the 'free speech' of the Minutemen:

Such arguments display both ignorance of what Gilchrist and the Minutemen represent, and disrespect for the historical commitment of the left to speak out against racism and oppression.
The issue of the Columbia protest has been framed as a narrow question of free speech--for Gilchrist only, it seems, not those who protested him--when the important issue is the responsibility of anyone who opposes racism not to let it go unchallenged.

Please note, we've yet to suggest a boycott of The Progressive. Were we too, we're sure Matthew Rothschild would have a radio commentary calling us "goons" and "shameful" and saying we were "gagging" him. That doesn't concern us. We're a little worried about his attempts to 'brand' his magazine and fearful that, in the process, he'd dub us "progressives." But mainly, we're just aware that most young people already boycott the magazine because it doesn't speak to them. Can't reach an audience you never cover and somehow, despite globe hopping like crazy from issue to issue, they can find time for hob knobbing with DC office holders and the Dahli Lama, they just can't get over their aversion to students and young Americans. Well, remember, Conniff lives in a community that's not-been-touched by the war in Iraq.

The Third Estate Sunday Review E-mail Bag

We're going over some of the e-mails, not all, that have come in this week. Ty picked fifty and, from those, we selected the ones to respond to here. In some instances, as Ty would point out, one of the ones chosen by him was chosen because others had commented on the same topic.

A note on the e-mails, Ty is working the account the best that he can. Dona and Jim (Dona laughs at "and Jim") try to help out. Ava and Jess are working the e-mail accounts for The Common Ills, as is C.I., so they're busy. The burden falls on Ty. (He'll be taking at least two weeks off from the e-mails in December.) He catches as many as he can and, when it gets really backed up, sends out a "help!" at which point everyone of the core six attempts to. An individual response depends upon whether the person who reads your e-mail thinks one is needed or not. If we do a suggested feature, we don't give a heads up. We had a woman e-mail two weeks ago complaining that we'd done her suggestion several months back and hadn't alerted her to that. We won't. If you're suggesting something and want it covered, we think you should be suggesting it to a site you read. It's not our job to even take suggestions. If we like it, we do it(and note that it was suggested -- usually in our "A Note to the Readers"). We don't have time to turn out an edition, read every e-mail and also write back and also do "heads up, we're covering that!" By the end of any edition, we're all tired and ready to go to sleep.

Bobbo44x e-mails to object to our praise for Green Stone Media noting that, "You have a lot of nerve piling on independent media and then praising this fluff."

Bobbo, GreenStone Media has a stated mission, to carve out space for women's voices. That's its goal. Evaluating it means evaluating how it lives up to that goal. It is not an attempt to provide investigative reporting. It is attempting to reach an audience that has largely tuned out on radio for some time now. We applaud their efforts and find the shows humorous and well put together. Bobbo also felt that he could go his "whole life without ever knowing what those girls think." We're sure his life reflects that and we're sorry for him. Others would do well to check out GreenStone Media. [For the record, Bobbo is the only one who complained this week about the feature or the recommendation.]

Lynn e-mails about music and Paul Simon's new CD Surprise which "I love, love and thank you for noting it. I generally get my music from BMG's club and reading the comments on Surprise were reason enough to go to a store and purchase a CD which I probably haven't done in five years." Lynn had comments about Kat and about Ava and C.I.'s remarks in the roundtable she's referring to. Lynn was only one of many to wonder about Ava and C.I.'s disagreement on the CD.

Addressing Kat first, she's in Ireland where a family members is dying. She had hoped to piece together some writing while she was there and have a music review. It's turned out to be much harder than she expected (and she expected it to be hard). What is being attempted, with her permission, is C.I. going through her drafts (Kat calls them "scribbles") to attempt to piece together a review of one CD. The goal is to get something up by the last day of this month. (C.I. notes all words will be Kat's. "This will be piecing together, not rewriting.") Kat made that request of C.I. because it was done on a review she felt was too long (C.I. disagreed) and she begged for editing help on. She was thrilled with the way that turned out (neither of them can recall which one it was, but Kat stated that it was noted at her site, C.I.'s editing help on the review). So look for a review by the end of October.

Surprise is "the favorite" CD of one of us right now (Jim). We can all listen to it, including Ava. Ava and C.I. addressed the CD before the roundtable and felt there were some interesting points to be raised. (C.I. sees Ava's point, calls it "valid" and wishes it had been discussed.) What happened was that the readers weren't the only ones surprised. We were surprised during the roundtable. (Ava says there was a "loud gasp.") At which point, Ava dropped the topic because "if it was shocking the ones participating, it was probably going to be lost on the readers." Ava has no interest in revisiting the topic but C.I. sums it up by explaining that Simon is addressing Iraq through spirituality and, "to some," that might seem an easier way to address it. "This was a topic we were planning to explore at length," C.I. states. "That's why I'm going on and on at that point during the roundtable. Ava was planning to respond and then we thought there would be a lively debate. When the gasp came up, I looked at Ava and she shook her head. So we dropped it, both of us. But it is worthy of exploration."

Dona, who did not gasp, explains the gasp as occurring because "we're just not used to those two have any sort of conflicting opinions. That was the edition we were doing with just the core six of us and we were concerned about it in terms of producing it and in terms of it being interested. Jim had expressly asked everyone two days prior to bring something more than 'loved it!' to the table. To that end, they'd worked out an avenue that they thought we could all pursue. I regret that the shock prevented us from doing that. I wish we had addressed it because I talked to Ava that evening about it and she had some strong points. Her attitude then was 'at least he's talking about the war' which I agree with but I do think we would have been better served in that roundtable by exploring the issue and, had we gone beyond the core six, I'm sure we would have. Had others been participating, someone would have grabbed it and run with it because the others are on the phone. I think it was the shock on all of our faces, including my own, that led to Ava and C.I., and let me stress that 'and C.I.,' to shut that down."

Jess adds that "especially with Kat in Ireland," we're all concerned about the music coverage in the community and notes that Elaine has picked up some of that slack. We're doing our postponed feature this week (postponed due to the paint not being dry on the illustration) and we will try to note music more regularly.

Candace, Gilbert and Savannah are among those who wrote to say that the editorials on war resisters and the lack of coverage need to be written and that it needs to be covered repeatedly until the situation improves. We agree. Kyle Snyder, a war resister who went to Canada, is returning to the United States in November. It will be interesting to see whether or not the coverage has improved any when that happens.

Z1833 e-mailed wondering if "the rest of you" could weigh in now that Ava and C.I. have on their reviews. That's a wonderful idea and one we would like to do this edition. However, we're doing this as an easy piece. The first four hours of this edition were repeated error messages from Blogger/Blogspot. We've scaled back our edition right now. (And are only able to log in to our account on one computer even now. The rest continue to get the error messages.) We will have a new review from Ava and C.I. and we will have the editorial. After that, we're honestly not sure. We were about to give up completely when Betty hollered into the phone, "I'm in!" Betty's typing this feature and did the editorial. We thank her for that. We have no idea what the problem with Blogger/Blogspot is. If it's over in time, we hope to work on Z1833's suggestion which is a good one.

Also commenting on Ava and C.I.'s backstory on the reviews is Annie who writes that she enjoyed that and that she started coming to this site when she found Ava and C.I.'s review of Jessica Simpson and Nick Lachey's 'Tour of Duty' 'special.' She writes that she's come back every week for the reviews and that she does read the other features ("many of which I enjoy"). We get that a lot and their reviews are the site's calling card. We're all aware of that and have been for some time. Along time ago, there was talk (from Jim) about how they'd get a week off. They've never had that. There was one week where they tackled criticism of a movie and they followed that with two reviews (covering three shows) to make up for it. What we are considering is a 'best of' or 'clip job' of some of their criticism reduced to one line or paragraph. We're trying to work on that bit by bit so that at some point in the future we can say, "Take the weekend off. You've earned it."

Marvin writes to say that the highlights are his favorite part of each edition because "I often miss stuff." Also citing the highlights is Korey who enjoys them "because they're the first things up. When you guys run late, I'll just read over the highlights while I wait for the new stuff to go up." Korey also notes that Ava and C.I.'s review of Shark went up "right around midnight" EST last Saturday. It did. It was up for about twenty minutes. That was a mistake. They'd finished it and we were reading over it when, instead of hitting the "save as draft" button, one of us accidentally hit "publish post." When that was realized, it was pulled so that the artwork could be added. Korey, you're spending too much time at this site!

Ty (not our Ty) e-mailed about the illustration Jess did for the TV commentaries. He felt sure it was a stethoscope. He is correct. Our Ty says there were 121 guesses and that not-our-Ty was the only one who guessed correctly. Jess was letting the illustration dry and intended to then paint in a TV screen with the idea that Ava and C.I. are commenting on the health of TV entertainment. He forgot and then time ran out. He hated the illustration (though readers wrote in to say they enjoyed it). He congratulates not-our-Ty on guessing what it was and notes that Rebecca photo shopped it for all the ones who enjoyed the illustration.

On the topic of illustrations, DreamsVA5 wants a preference for illustrations "and not photos" noted. DreamsVA5 feels "it shows more creativity." Echoing that is William who says he's enjoyed the illustrations and has picked up a set of water colors "and it really helps me unwind." We agree with the last point. The painting and charcoal, et al, is always the most enjoyable point for the core six because we're doing them together. When we're all together, all of us work on the illustrations not just the core six. (Ty notes that Kat always worked on the illustrations until she had to go to Ireland).

BBall enjoyed the illustration in last week's editorial but noted, "I enjoy them all. Some are great, some are so-so but it's nice to see people trying. I enjoy the attempts to make it more visual." We'd agree with the evaluation (especially "so-so") and we'll note that we can reprint Isaiah's comics anytime with his permission. We've used him before to get original illustrations here as well; however, he's now doing a comic for the gina & krista round-robin and Polly's Brew so when we decided to work on visuals, we really didn't want to impose on him. One of our big concerns was that there's not a "face" on an issue and we were thinking of Darrell Anderson. We wanted his "face" to be present. Running someone else's photos creates a risk of legal objections and hurt feelings. Ty remembered that Isaiah had done an illustration of Jane Fonda so that they could note Monster-In-Law at The Common Ills and suggested we do our own illustration of Darrell Anderson. That's really what started it and then, when we were all together and playing around, it was so much fun that we've continued.

Last week, it was a choice between trying to get the illustrations up or working on more content and Jim argued strongly for illustrations noting that many of our readers are enjoying it. We do have problems (as many e-mails noted) with the illustrations not showing up in full. (That's also a problem for Cedric in his Friday entry where the illustrations are cut in half.) That's beyond our control. We can play with it and play with it but we really have no control over it. Due to those problems, we decided not to try a collage this week. If only half of it showed up, that would be a problem. When only half the illustrations (other illustrations) show up, that doesn't have to be a problem (in one instance, we thought it improved the illustration).

Kendrick wishes we'd do a "Truest statement of the week" every edition. We wish that too. It's a simple feature after we've selected to what to go with. But the reality is time is limited and we wish more than we do. If you can figure out a way to add more hours in the day, develop it and become rich.

Nolanda wrote that she'd noticed there was independent publication we do not note anymore even when criticizing others. No, we don't. And like Nolanda, we don't care for it. It's on it's last legs and we won't be the ones to pull the plug but when it collapses, we do have the parody at the ready including the title.

Louis wonders why we still have the "read more" option. We'd planned to return to that. Originally, you'd see the first few paragraphs and then click on "read more" to continue reading the feature. It let the page load more quickly and we like the way that looked. After about six months of this site, the Blogger/Blogspot problems began in earnest. As those continued, we put the "read more" option on hold thinking we might go back to it. We won't be going back to it for a number of reasons including the time required for the code to be put in. We need to take it out and as soon Kendrick figures out how to add more hours to the day, we'll get right on that.

Brandy saw the comments on junk food in last week's note and, pointing out that we often write about what music we listened to during an edition, wondered about food. In answer to her questions, Jess is a vegetarian. He is not a vegan. When we noted that Ty had cooked dinner a few weeks back, that was because we were all thrilled. We stay up all night on these editions and we're falling over when we finally get to bed. Ty cooking meant that the core six could eat. We were all tired to cook. We were too tired to order in. And none of us wanted to face anyone outside the front door. What Ty fixed was sandwiches. He cooked bacon, made toast and cooked some soybean.

What do we eat? At various times, any of us are munching on something. Right now C.I.'s eating some pumpkin seeds. Mike just stated, "Pumpkin seeds are not food!"

Mike's eating Ben & Jerry's Dave Matthews blend of ice cream which Jess once suggested to C.I. and, after eating it, C.I. hasn't been able to listen to the Dave Matthews Band since. (Jess likes the flavor, C.I. loathes it.) Rebecca says that she and Elaine are snacking on some food Trina prepared including fudge. Dona's made some French onion dip so the core six will be having that soon. Betty weighs in with Whoppers. Wally's snacking on pretzels, Cedric's eating some leftovers (meatloaf from a recipe by Trina that she intends to post after Halloween).

The core six (or all of us when we're all together) usually nibble on platters throughout. On the platters right now are grapes, pine apple chunks, carrots, brocoli and celery. For the five of us who left grey NY for sunny CA, the move has meant a lot more nutrients. In the old days, the five of us (Dona, Jim, Ty, Jess and Ava) would be scarfing down Bugles, Cheetos, fried cheese, etc. Drinks include, but are not limited to, iced tea, water, diet colas (Rebecca and Dona especially can't live without their diet colas), V8, tomato juice, apple juice and Wally loves Jolt cola. We also indulge in beer and margaritas from time to time. (Margaritas when Kat's here. She makes the best margaritas in the world.)

Quck take: The Generals!

The Generals will save us!

That's the cry of some on the left and some in the general vicinity. They hide behind them and, in the process, seem to forget a great deal.

For the record, the generals wouldn't have prevented the US involvement in Vietnam and wouldn't have gotten the US out of it.

For the record, when Bully Boy says he'll listen to the generals he may be making his most accurate statement. "Listen to them." He won't abide by them and candidates for Congress who tell you they will (as some are doing) are proving that they have no concept of democracy.

In a democracy, civilians control the military, not the other way around.

If some of these 'winners' win their elections, look forward to a lot worse than the Patriot Act coming out of Congress.


Press inquiries? At this site that usually translates as, "I'd like to interview Ava and C.I." We're used to that. So imagine our surprise when one feature generated press inquiries on another topic? The feature? "Are You On CounterSpin's Guest List?" which ran here October 8th.

Did we reply? Hey, we've got a life and we're not here to spoonfeed. We had intended to do a feature last week to answer the pressing question.

Which was? "Can I see your data?"

Can you see our data? How damn lazy is the mainstream press?

CounterSpin's parent, FAIR, did a study of PBS' NewsHour and that did require a lot of work, a lot of recording data. Us?

Instead of requesting our "data," the mainstream press would have been better served learning how to obtain "data" themselves.

Here's how we did it. We narrowed the scope to October of 2005 through March of 2006. We did that because that's what FAIR did. So we looked at the same time frame.

The hardest work? Counting.

Why is that? Because CounterSpin is online. You can listen online. That includes the archived broadcasts which, if you scroll through, shows you every guest for every episode.

Now maybe the mainstream press was worried that prankster Noam Chomsky or funny man Paul Krugman pop in for "bits" unannounced? Maybe that's why they needed our "data"? If that's the case, no, every guest is listed. The way the half-hour show breaks down is headlines, guest one and then guest two. Sometimes the show devotes itself to only one guest (that was always a male in the time frame we looked at). When that happens, only one guest is listed in the archives.

So we counted up the guests (and got 36 male guests, 13 female). You can check our math, maybe we added wrong? It comes to three less than 39 so it's a little less than one-third. We rounded up for one-third.

We also were asked about the hosts which we found most confusing. Janine Jackson's photos are not classified. She is obviously a woman and she is obviously an African-American woman. Steve Rendell and Peter Hart are obviously males and White males.

For one episode, Julie Holler filled in for a host. That was when Danny Schechter was a guest. Otherwise, week after week, you have two of the three acting as host.

Julie Hollar was also a guest two weeks ago. That wasn't in our time frame studied and we're glad about that because Steve Rendell acted as host and co-guest. The episode would have been better served by having Janine Jackson co-host it with Peter Hart. There were times when Rendell came off not like someone who read FAIR's study on The NewsHour but someone who co-wrote it. To be expected because he did co-write it.

One mainstream reporter e-mailed to ask whether our criticism meant that there was "a split in the left"? We believe we noted (and have before) that we support the work FAIR. We believe we've also noted that CounterSpin can go for fluff. (And in terms of the mainstream press we know, we've noted that the program is not seen as "fair" but as one that hands out passes to some in the mainstream and goes after others over and over.)

A split in the left? There would have had to have been a partnership to begin with. We've never been partners with CounterSpin. Or for that matter FAIR.

We're feeling, more and more, like clones of Alexander Cockburn, we've got disdain for pretty much everyone. (Probably for you reading this right now as well if you're not one of our regular readers.)

CounterSpin was going to be addressed because the issue of how some in the mainstream sees it was being brought up. C.I. had noted it at least twice at The Common Ills without naming the program. That's C.I.'s style. And avoids the queries about "splits"? Rebecca noted her feelings about the program at her own site (Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude) and then, when we were all in DC and getting cornered at one party about why we never point out that the program appears to play favorites with regards to the mainstream? (The ignoring of Dexter Filkins is the second most popular criticism, the first is the attitude/glee towards CBS and, for those interested, the third is never asking the obvious question about Chris Hedges second source for his story about terrorists training in Iraq, which ran right after 9-11, that imploded on him).

The only people we serve here are our regular readers. (And we even manage to piss some of them off from time to time.) The perception about CounterSpin (and we agree with it largely) was hurting FAIR. If the FAIR study hadn't included the fact that The NewsHour did not book a peace activist as a guest, we probably would have addressed in some other manner. But our jaws dropped at that because we've been making the point that independent media needs to be booking and covering the peace movement for some time. FAIR is right to criticize The NewsHour but if it's going to criticize another program, CounterSpin needs to get it's act together.

There is no excuse for it. There's not the excuse of "We cover what the press covers, we critique them." That may be what they do (on good days) but did the press cover the protests against the war? Don't reduce that to a headline (if even that), bring on someone who was there and get their take on the press coverage. That's what they often do. They just don't provide an outlet for that when it comes to peace activists.

When we read over the full study, it was noted by C.I. and Ava that we should also take a look at the male-female ratio of guests because they listen to the program every week and they knew that the only statistic worse than that would be the issue of race. (We were kind, because FAIR's celebrating their anniversary this month, and didn't note the count for race. Anyone wanting to just needs to visit CounterSpin's archives.)

We don't think there's a split because there's never been a "merger." But we do and will criticize those we feel are lacking with coverage of the war. (And tossing out a question in the middle of an interview and noting the war is important is laughable when you and your guests dispense with the topic in about the time it took to ask the question. Which, for the record, happened on the program where they discussed FAIR's study.)

In terms of The Common Ills, it was first noted there (without being named, but you'd have to be headless and brainless not to have known what program was being critiqued) because friends at CBS were really pissed off about the fact that each week, in headlines, there always seemed to be room to knock CBS -- even if its mistake was not as large as other networks that week who got a pass. (They also feel that Peter Jennings pretty much had a permanent pass the entire time he anchored. Whether that's true or not, we don't know. We didn't study that period.) But they are correct that CBS is an excuse to go to town. The same program that couldn't discuss a Guild complaint lodged against Dexter Filkins and John F. Burns was happy to tell you about a lawsuit that they stated alleged racism -- but then that had to do with CBS. They can also point out that there's been no interest in ratings (nor should there be) when critiguing except with regards to CBS. Friends of C.I.'s (at CBS) didn't feel it was fair and so C.I. noted it there. Rebecca's criticism has always been about how the program could hurt FAIR. When we wrote the piece, we wrote it because we already knew we were going to address it after being cornered in DC. The fact that the FAIR study objected to The NewsHour not including peace activists as a guest when CounterSpin had done the same thing meant we were going to address it that week.

Hope that clears it up.

Cory Kahaney & Maureen Langan (Ms. Foundation event) and Bob Watada's speaking tour

This is a PSA on two items.

First up, at the Ms. Foundation event Monday, October 23rd, two of GreenStone Media's The Radio Ritas will be performing: Maureen Langan and Cory Kahaney. If you've heard them (and the third Rita Nelsie Spencer), you know that's going to be a treat (and a worthy cause). We don't believe the newly started GreenStone Media has an NYC outlet yet so it's also a chance for New Yorkers (and surrounding areas) to hear what they're missing out on right now. (You can listen online at GreenStone Media.) The event is at Carolines (Broadway at 50th or 1626 Broadway Between 49th and 50th Streets ) and Maureen Langan and Cory Kahaney are scheduled to take the stage at 5:30 p.m. We're sure the event and the performance are "Don't miss."

We'll miss because we're not in the NY area. And it will be our loss. The five who relocated to CA -- Jim, Dona, Jess, Ty and Ava -- note, "Oh sure, after we've moved!" Jim wants to emphasize Corey Kahaney because that's his favorite Rita -- we suspect he's got a bit of a radio crush but he swears she's "just too damn funny." So check it out and you can decide whether Jim needs to get honest (he is, after all, involved with Dona) or if Kahaney and Langan are really "too damn funny."

If they don't do it for you (Jim suggest some people don't have a sense of humor), note that this 17th annunal event will also feature comedic performances from Michele Balan, Roz G, Judy Gold (who the core six have seen live and swear is hilarious), Dana Goldberg and Laurie Kilmartin. [We've only seen Gold live. We're sure the others are funny as well.]

Great event, great cause. Suzanne Whang will host and Gloria Steinem, Sara K. Gould and Caroline Hirsh are scheduled as presenters. That's this Monday, the 23rd.

The other event we want to note involves Ehren Watada's father. Ehren Watada is a war reister, the first commissioned officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq. He feels the war is illegal and that he would be putting himself and those under him at risk of war crimes. He's taken a brave stand and his parents have been speaking out to raise awareness on him. (His mother is Carolyn Ho. His step-mother has been accompanying Bob Watada.) Ehren Watada is waiting to see what the military will do the recommendations from his Article 32 hearing in August. In the meantime, his father is now about to begin his third speaking tour.

It takes a lot of stamina, a lot of love and a lot of belief to do what Bob Watada is doing. If you support Ehren Watada's stand or are curious to learn about it, please consider attending if Bob Watada is coming to your area. (The core six have seen Bob Watada speak, and Ehren's step- mother whose name we're blanking on. And we would rate it a can't miss event.) (C.I. says Ehren's step mother's name is Rosa Sakanishi.) From Veterans for Peace:

Bob Watada Speaking Tour
Oct 26-Nov 17, 2006
Please check the schedule for locations closest to you. If you are interested in hosting Bob Watada in your city, please contact
Doug Zachary.

Oct 26, 7PM
Phoenix, AZ
Location: TBA
Sponsor: Veterans for Peace Chapter 75
Contact: John Henry, 602-400-9179, 408-704-0192,
Oct 27, 7PM
Albuquerque, NM
Location: Albuquerque Center for Peace and Justice
202 Harvard Dr SE
Sponsor: Veterans for Peace Chapter 63
Contact: Sally-Alice Thompson, 505-268-5073, 512-463-2014,
Oct 28, 1 – 4:30PM
Houston, TX.
Sponsor: Military Families Speak Out, Veterans for Peace Chapter 12, Iraq Veterans Against the War , Cy-Fair Democratic Club
Location: Live Oak Friends House, 1318 West 26th StreetEntertainment by Bill Passalacqua and Hank Woji, "Sir, No Sir"
Oct 28, 6:15PM
Houston, TX
Location: Dan Electro's Guitar Bar, 1031 East 24th Street. "Celebration of Resistance"
Sponsors: Military Families Speak Out, Veterans for Peace Chapter 12, Iraq Veterans Against the War
Contact: Sherry Glover,,
(H) 832-363-1741, (C) 713-929-1132
-Bob Watada, ---- David Rovics

Oct 29, 1PM
Austin, TX
Sponsor: Code Pink/Austin, Veterans for Peace Chapter 66
Contact: Fran Hanlon, 512-454-6572,
Peter Ravella, 512-220-1740
Heidi Turpin, (C)512-565-2242,

Oct 29, 5:30PM
Austin, TX
Café Caffeine -- 206 West Mary
Sponsors: Code Pink, Veterans for Peace Chapter 66, Iraq Veterans Against the War
Contact: Doug Zachary,, (C) 512-791-9824
Heidi Turpin, (C) 512-565-2242,
Fran Hanlon (H) 512-454-6572, ,

Oct 30
Austin High Schools
Oct 31, 7-9PM
Norman, OK
Location: Cleveland County Fairgrounds - Lobby
615 E. Robinson
Sponsor: Veterans for Peace, Iraq Veterans Against the War
Contact: Jeri Reed, 405-307-0352, cell 405-606-9598,
Nov 1, TBA
Miami, Florida
Democracy for America Miami Dade and the South Florida Veterans For Peace Chapter 32
Venue and time TBA
Nov 2, TBA
Cincinnati, OH
Meet Dr. Victoria (Vic) Wulsin, candidate
for congress 2nd district Ohio currently leading Jean Schmidt who
called Rep John Murtha from PA. a coward.
Sponsor: Vietnam Veterans Against the War
Venue: TBA
Nov 3, TBA
St. Paul MN.
Location: Quaker Peace Center -- 1725 Grand Avenue
Sponsors: Veterans for Peace Chapter 27
Contact: Barry Reisch, (H) 651-641-1087 © 612-269-8934
Nov 4, 11AM
Milwaukee, WI.
Location: Great Lakes Arlington Event
Contact: Mark Foreman, 441-760-9991,
Sponsor: VFP Chapter 102
* See the unveiling of a new "Arlington"
Nov. 5, 2PM
Boston, MA
Encuentro 5
33 Harrison Ave. 5th floor
Asian American Movement Ezine
Asian American Resource Workshop
Boston Hawaiian Club
Chinese Progressive Association
Massachusetts Global Action
New England Japanese American Citizens League
Nov 5, 7PM
Cambridge, MA.
Location: Unitarian Church, Harvard Square
Sponsor: Veterans for Peace Chapter 9, Smedley Butler Brigade and Chapter 45, Samantha Smith Chapter
Contact: Lee VanderLaan, 978-257-2350

Nov 6, 2-4:30PM
Boston, MA
Location: University of Massachusetts/Boston
Sponsor: The Institute for Asian American Studies
William Joiner Center for the Study of War and Social Consequence
Time: 2-4:30 pm
Nov 6, 7PM
Worcester, MA.
Location: Clark University – University Building, Lurie Room
Sponsors: Veterans For Peace Chapter 10
Contact: Bob Flanagan, 508-755-1479,

Nov 7, 4:30PM
Portland, ME
Location: Meditation Center
Sponsor: Veterans for Peace, Chapter 1
Contact: Doug Rawlings, 207-293-2580,,
Nov. 7, 6-9PM
Brunswick, ME
Location: Morrill Room, Curtis Memorial Library, 23 Pleasant Street
Pot luck supper and speaking engagement
Time: 6 - 7:30pm
Nov 8, 7PM
Albany, NY
Sponsor: VFP National
Location: TBA
Contact: Elliot Adams, 518-441-2697,
Nov 9, TBA
Philadelphia, PA.
Location: Annenberg School of Communication, Penn University, Room 109
Sponsors: Iraq Veterans Against the War, Delaware Valley Veterans for America, Military Families Speak Out, Gold Star Mothers
Contact: Bill Perry, 215-945-3350,

Nov 10, 7:30PM
New York City, NY
Location: St. Paul/St. Andrews Methodist Church
West End Avenue and West 86th Streets,
Sponsor: NYC Area Chapters of VFP & IVAW Contact: Thomas Brinson, 631-889-0203,
George McAnanama,

Nov 11, 11AM-5PM
New York City, NY
Veterans Day Parade
Sponsor: NYC Area Chapters of VFP & IVAW
Contact: Thomas Brinson, 631-889-0203,

Nov 12, TBA
Long Island, NY

Nov 13, 7PM
Ann Arbor, MI "The Ground Truth" and Bob Watada
Location: TBA
Sponsors: Michigan Peace Works,
Contact: Phillis Engelbert, 734-761-5922,

Nov 14, TBA
St. Louis, Mo.
Location: Friends Meeting House
1001 Park Avenue
Sponsors: Veterans for Peace Chapter 161, 314-754-2651
Contact: Chuc Smith, 314-721-1814,
Nov. 15, TBA
Norfolk, VA
Location: Norfolk/Virginia Beach
Contact: Tom Palumbo, 757-470-9797
Nov 16, 9AM
Asheville, NC
Location: Warren Wilson College
Sponsor: Veterans for Peace Chapter 99
Contact: Tim Pluta, 828-645-1717,

Nov 16, Noon
Asheville, NC
Location: TBA -- media conference
Sponsor: Veterans for Peace Chapter 99
Contact: Tim Pluta, 828-645-1717,

Nov 16, 2PM
Asheville, NC
Location: Mars Hill College -- class presentation
Sponsor: Veterans for Peace Chapter 99
Contact: Tim Pluta, 828-645-1717,

Nov 16, 7PM
Asheville, NC
Location: University of North Carolina -- public presentation
Sponsor: Veterans for Peace Chapter 99
Contact: Tim Pluta, 828-645-1717,

Nov 17, 7PM
Atlanta, GA
Location: The First Iconium Baptist Church, 542 Moreland Ave
Sponsor: Veterans for Peace Chapter 125, The Georgia Peace and Justice Coalition/Atlanta, and Atlanta WAND
Contact: Debra Clark, 770-855-6163,

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
Poll1 { display:none; }