Mailbag

Once more into the mailbag. Participating in the responses for this feature are The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and 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, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, and Wally of The Daily Jot.



Tuft10 e-mailed wondering why "you continue to present conspiracy mongering about the Council for Foreign Relations? They are just a group but to read your writings, they are plotting to control the world."





Jim: Tuft10 learned how to write but apparently reading wasn't so easy for him. We've never stated that Council for Foreign Relations is plotting anything. Many others have. More power to them. Our objection to them has been that they are a centrist group passed off, by some, as a left group. It takes a special kind of idiot to make the false charges Tuft10 does. Our opinion has been solely based on their centrist nature. We do not discourage anyone who claims or explores other avenues but we've never made claims Tuft10 suggests throughout his e-mail. Hopefully, come spring 2010, when he gets that college degree, he'll have learned how to read.





Jess: When Ty showed us that e-mail, we all laughed because there's never been a more foolish claim. Tuft10 is noting all these theories about that organization that have never appeared here. Dona said we could answer the e-mail but we weren't going into the theories he's listing because he'd be back to claim that we used his false charges to promote what he's accused of us doing. The Council for Foreign Relations is sometimes called here the Council of Foreign Relations, which is a private joke and maybe that confused Tuft10? But our objection to them is their centrist stance, that's what we've addressed. We've noted that repeatedly, whether dealing with Katrina vanden Heuvel's membership -- no editor or publisher of a left magazine should belong to a centrist organization -- or her laughable attempts to change the centrist organization from within or whatever. We don't think they they supported the illegal war, it's a matter of public record that the Council for Foreign Relations did support the illegal war. Tuft10 either has a huge problem grasping what he's reading or his mind suffers some sort of bleed where he reads something elsewhere and convinces himself he saw it here. We think they're a useless organization, a centrist one, that promoted the illegal war. That's been our position from the start. Other opinions do exist but we haven't had the time or inclination to go into those.





"Sally (not Field)" writes to say she can't believe Ava and C.I. conspired to rob Sally Field of an Emmy win last week in "TV: Losers & Fools" with their review which was "devastating to the accomplishment and work of Sally" Field.





Dona: I do love the nut jobs. In May, I wrote a column on how, due to the reaction to "TV: Friendly faces aren't who we meet," Ava and C.I. were taking it down a notch. They were going to do shorter reviews. They'd be funny, they'd go make their usual strong observations; however, the response to the May review was just too much for them. Not just in the short term, but the long term. If you've read for any length of time, you know that they naturally do that. When the attention gets too much they scale back because it really is impossible to write on that kind of level week after week. The commentaries that Jim and Mike have dubbed "epic" get too much outside attention and Ava and C.I. rightly know that if they follow that up with another similar one, it appears they do that week after week. No one can. So they've done their "peaks and valleys" structure from the start. There was also an effort, and this offended them more, to suggest that the review was the type that they should now do. But again, in May, I wrote about this and that they would return July 22nd with a hard hitting look at Brothers & Sisters. So hats off to Ava and C.I., we knew they were highly intelligent but they are also now psychic and plotted back in May to subvert Sally Field's nomination with a review they would do in the early morning hours of July 22nd. Not only did I write that column in May for the gina & krista round-robin, Mike at his site and Jim in his "A Note to Our Readers" have both repeatedly referenced that column. We're doing this feature first because Jim made the mistake of telling Ava and C.I. about this e-mail and they've since scrapped the review they had planned and instead worked the phones to weigh in on another show. "Sally (not Field)" needs to use that zeal on real issues.





Longterm reader Kaylissa asked if we could find a way to set off the questions in e-mails because it's "sometimes confusing."





Ty: Kaylissa is putting nicely. What happened is that Jim, Dona and I flipped the template awhile back. It's caused nothing but problems and destroyed our archive system. We're hoping to use the Labor Day weekend to figure out if we can switch back because this wasn't just a template switch, it was an upgrade. What happens is we really don't control spacing between paragraphs. When this typed up, we can work on that over and over and yet when we hit "publish" there's a good chance extra line breaks will be added between paragraphs. That does make it confusing on this feature because paragraph breaks appear where they shouldn't be and you have to pay close attention when you read. We had talked about this, Jim, Dona, Jess and I, a few weeks back but hoped it was just a problem to us. So thank you to Kaylissa for letting us know it was a problem for her as well. What we're doing this mailbag is putting the comment section in bold print and hope that works to set it off.





Brita writes that she's been reading The Third Estate Sunday Review for a couple of months and wants three thank yous noted. 1) She is glad The Nation is criticized here because she subscribed to the magazine before the 2004 election and has watched the "decay" ever since, let her subscription lapse and wondered why no one else saw "a giant turn into an infant"? 2) She says the Obama critique is needed as "a counter-balance to all the fluff." 3) In roundtables or mailbags, the person she always wants to hear from is Betty. "She's my favorite."





Betty: Brita, you're my favorite now too. I agree with your points about The Nation and about Obama. C.I. and Mike have done a great job last week pointing out how the magazine's turned itself into a cheering section for Obama, so much so that they will rewrite public events, the YouTube 'debate,' to make Obama come off smart. The fact that Ari Berman, Katrina vanden Heuvel and John Nichols have to rewrite what happened is an indication of both how much help the candidate Obama needs to stay in the race and how pathetic the magazine has become. My mother had an interesting take on the aftermath noting that Obama wasn't just showing his real nature in his attacks on Hillary Clinton, he also seemed to be exploring the "kicked a little butt" nature of George W. Bush in 1984. Mike Gravel accused him, rightly, of being a liar about not taking lobbyist money. But Obama's made his public response all about attacking the only female candidate. What a prince, huh? Same man whose campaign in 2004 attacked a Democratic opponent with a smear campaign that he beat his wife and, also in 2004, attacked a Republican opponent with sealed records on his divorce. Women need to be very suspicious of Barack Obama. It's amazing that in all of last week, there was no attention paid to that, that he was called a liar by Gravel but chooses instead to go to war with Hillary and launches a smear campaign against her saying she's just like the Bully Boy and Cheney. No one is just like the Bully Boy. Even Richard Nixon looks better by comparison.





Caleb noted he never gets quoted and he's been reading and writing us "forever." We meant to include him last week but the mailbag went another direction. So we'll include his question, which is primarily for Rebecca, this week: "Do you think Alberto Gonzales will step down or be pushed out?"





Rebecca: I'm glad that got delayed because if it had been included last Sunday my answer would have been different. I think Alberto Gonzales needs to be removed from his post. And I did think that was possible. Last week, I would've said the Democrats are serious about this and it may be the only thing they are serious about. The situation was coming to a head. They were pushing, they were leading. Then I saw C.I.'s thing about Congress' break, they're going on break from August 3rd to September 4th. Though I didn't know of the break, they damn sure did. And that paints their moves in a different light. I thought they were working up to a real show down. Now it looks like they've been stringing us along. It's doubtful Alberto will be gone by Friday when they start their break. It could happen, but it's doubtful. Over thirty days later, they'll return and have to pick it all back up. In light of that vacation, the refusal to hold Harriet Miers and others in contempt takes on a new light. I was thinking, "They're getting to it, they're going to do it." But it looks like they were just trying to run out the clock. Maybe that's why Silvestre Reyes covered for Alberto two weeks ago to the press ["silvestre reyes is a dumb ass"]? He knew the party wasn't going to do anything anyway. If they don't cite Miers in contempt before taking their month long vacation, I won't take them seriously and will probably find another topic to cover. Not that I don't think ousting Alberto is important but I don't want to end up being seen as a cheerleader for cowards.





Wally: Except for the minimum wage increase tied to the funding the illegal war, blood money, what have the Democrats done? They've funded the illegal war. They've played con games with the American people by pushing legislation that does not bring the troops home. I agree with Rebecca and with her "democrats play in the alberto cesspool" because what it's really starting to look is that the Congress is being used to advance the 2008 election. Congress isn't going to do anything or try to do anything but it is going to allow itself to be used in attempts to win the White House in 2008. They will make fiery speeches that are ultimately meaningless because they won't back them up and the whole point there is to get some fresh wounds on Republicans and, they hope, leave them staggering come 2008. Congress is not the DNC and it is supposed to exist to address the people's business.





Cedric: Exactly and this nonsense about "We can't impeach, it would bring Congress to a standstill!" What has Congress done? The minimum wage thing which is a joke and an insult to working class people -- both because of the time lag in which the final raise is made and because it is blood money -- and what else can they show? That idiotic report on improving health care for veterans -- and it is idiotic and why anyone would put together a panel, as the White House did, without putting an Iraq veteran or their spouse or parent of one on the panel just shows you how stupid the panel was from the beginning -- is exactly the same sort of nonsense Congress has been doing. "We're holding hearings." Big deal, you're not doing a damn thing. But remember, in the 2006 elections, the talk was "we'll have the power to hold hearings!" They have it and it's obvious that it's not being used to do anything, just to try to increase the Dems chances for 2008. The point of hearings is not just to shine a light on abuses, the point is to address them and to remove those who have not led. All I'm seeing thus far is that Congress is interested in hearings to expose but not to address.





Last week's mailbag was supposed to include a comment by Tisha who has also never been quoted or cited here. She wrote, "I've really lost all respect for John Conyers." Conyers is a House Democrat. Tisha's comment actually benefits by being held because a lot of people are sharing her opinion now.





Cedric: I think he's a coward and an old coward to boot. As C.I. pointed out, he had a Reverend arrested for civil disobedience, Rev. Lennox Yearwood. When you do that, don't you damn well try to tout your civil rights background.





Betty: I loved the point, made by C.I., that the usual gas bags came out saying it was racism to question John Conyers but ignored the fact that Rev. Yearwood is African-American and that this really echoes the "Don't attack Clarence Thomas, he's Black!" attitude that protected him while allowing a Black woman, Anita Hill, to be drug through the mud with lies. As for Conyers, he's old he needs to go. When you're over 70, you really need to step down. You should have a life. You should have other interests and the refusal to leave should be because you feel that there is something you and only you can do. His refusal to introduce articles of impeachment demonstrates that there's nothing he's going to do that any other hack couldn't do. He's old. He's tired. Go home.





Ty: Here's where I come down on this, and just FYI, Dona had us all sign up for anything we wanted to respond to hoping that would mean she wouldn't have to make sure everyone spoke and spoke equally or was at least given a chance. Here's where I come down to on this, your history is important until you betray it and when he had protesters practicing civil disobedience arrested he gave up the right to rest on his civil rights laurels. They are now meaningless to today because his actions in ordering the arrests made them meaningless. He's now a kinder Bull Connor in my eyes. Betty said, "Go home." I will echo that and add, "Do so before your damage your reputation further."





Cedric: And just to repeat, when a civil rights leader has anyone arrested for civil disobedience, that's insulting. When the arrested include an African-American Reverend -- one Conyers knew was present -- that's shameful. Conyers is now in a shameful phase and appears to lack the ability to pull himself out of it so he should step down.





Leeza e-mails to note that Aaron Glantz is praising the passage of the Barbara Lee amendment and wonders what we think of that?





Mike: I don't think anyone's listened to KPFA much since May. So I doubt anyone here can comment on some radio report he filed even if it appeared in print in another outlet. KPFA is a little too comfortable with Democratic leadership. The amendment is actually a joke and Norman Solomon cited Phyllis Bennis explaining why: "As the insightful analyst Phyllis Bennis points out: 'The bill states an important principle opposing the "establishment" of new bases in Iraq and "not to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq." But it is limited in several ways. It prohibits only those bases which are acknowledged to be for the purpose of permanently stationing U.S. troops in Iraq; therefore any base constructed for temporarily stationing troops, or rotating troops, or anything less than an officially permanent deployment, would still be accepted. Further, the bill says nothing about the need to decommission the existing U.S. bases already built in Iraq; it only prohibits 'establishing' military installations, implying only new ones would be prohibited'." It's good that Lee introduced it but it's not accomplishing what most think it will and it's also not passed the Senate. It's a weak bill and one that is likely to be watered down if it moves through the Senate.





Kat: I like Barbara Lee, I like Aaron Glantz. I didn't hear the report. I probably wouldn't have agreed with it, for the reasons Mike just noted, but I'm not really interested in KPFA and their Democratic cheerleading. And to pick up on Mike's point, I haven't listened to anything on KPFA in some time. They've managed to do such a poor job that this lifetime listener is taking a lengthy break. That's partly in a show of solidarity with online listeners who are now on a second-tier and whom KPFA has threatened to cut off. I actually wish they would make good on that threat so that all online listeners could demand their pledges back. The radio station elected to have a hissy fit over a rate hike and to then punish online listeners for the rate hike when online listeners had nothing to do with it. Instead of noting something like, "We may have to block musical songs in online streaming," they elected to threaten online listeners with the station may pull the online stream. I don't think it's fair to punish online listeners, especially when they are the only reason KPFA's come close to making their targeted goals. It goes to bad manners and it goes to not valuing them and that's really not what Lewis Hill was hoping for. I feel that they elected to betray the mission statement under which KPFA was created and short of them apologizing to online listeners, I don't plan to listen anytime in the near future. Instead, I've joined the online listening movement and chiefly listen to KPFK right now. If I donate any monies for the rest of the year, I'll be donating to KPFK and if KPFA pulls the online stream, I may ask for my pledge back for this year in a show of solidarity with online listeners. KFCF has already pulled their online stream. They need to pull their website down because there's no reason for it to exist now and if we're being honest, KFCF really doesn't need to exist. They originate very little programming and mainly just serve as a relay station for KPFA. KFCF's phone number is (559) 233-2221 and anyone who has the time and isn't wasting money on a long distance call should telephone to tell them they are cowards. I take this very seriously and wrote down my name for this question for that reason. The whole point of Pacifica, the whole reason it was created, was to combat the mainstream narrative, specifically the selling of war, Lewis Hill was a pacifist. That they think they can now work at eliminating any faction of an audience is appalling and a betrayal of the mission statement. If the rate hike for playing music is so much that it's going to destroy them, that just points to the fact that they've made cheap shows off the backs off of the work of others, cheap shows that really weren't the mandate for Pacifica. This goes to the fact that they've wasted too much time spinning tunes when they should have been addressing the world. It also goes to the fact that KPFA isn't in touch with the listeners because they waited so long to rally opposition to this rate hike. I think C.I. still listens to KPFA but I don't know anyone else who does. Since I'm not turning on the radio, I'm listening less but when I want news and issues addressed, I'm booting up my computer and listening to another Pacifica station, generally KPFK. In terms of Lewis Hill, I take it as a total insult to him. The whole point was to build up listeners and work to get as many as possible. Now they're running them off.





Dona: Just to clarify, people signed up but anyone can jump in after those who signed up are finished talking.





The last e-mail from a regular reader who's never been noted that ending up being held was from Roy who wrote that he really enjoys the playlist. "Even if it's just a list with no comments. I like seeing what other people listen to. I always check out my friends CDs and it's a short feature so I hope you will go back to including it."





Jim: Roy's not the only one who's written about that. We'll try to include it more often and, time permitting, we'll try to do so this edition.





Callie wrote that she's trying to figure out exactly what Ava and C.I. are doing "because I just signed up for Hilda's Mix and there's their work in that too."





Ava: Here we do the TV things on our own and participate in all features here except highlights and anything else, I can't think of anything, that notes we didn't participate. Each week, for Maria, Francisco and Miguel's Sunday newsletter, we review two Spanish language TV shows, for Hilda's Mix we review one radio broadcast show.





Mike: And C.I. solo writes a column for Polly's Brew and for the gina & krista round-robin.





Ava: And also does The Common Ills.





Community member Markus wondered what Elaine thinks of the US peace movement currently. We should note that Markus is one of the community's Australian members.





Elaine: If you'd asked last week, I would've had a different answer. But I'll stick with the positive. The peace movement brought us this far. Fortunately, new groups have emerged and it's probably time for many to pass the torch because they have compromised themselves by becoming Democratic cheerleaders eager to enlist in selling non-binding, toothless resolutions.
There is excitement and that largely comes from the new groups including Iraq Veterans Against the War, World Can't Wait, the new SDS, Grassroots of America and The Camp Casey Peace Institute. There are others but those come to mind. Actually, I should also note Military Families Speak Out because they called out the Congressional nonsense in real time. They've maintained their indepence from any party and remained committed to ending the illegal war. As Markus knows, last week someone in regional leadership of a peace organization, or an alleged one, wrote to C.I. to defend attacks on war resisters and the person who had been attacking them. That doesn't fly with anyone participating here and it's a sign of the complete corruption of older elements of the peace movement that someone thought she could get away with that. Last week, we wrote "Editorial: Stop the Current Illegal War before the next one begins" which we all firmly believe in, that the peace movement should not again sell out its independence to become part of the DNC for the 2008 election. The e-mail that came in on Wednesday, to C.I., only confirmed how right we were to be concerned. As of this moment, the woman has refused to respond as to whether or not she was speaking for the organization or just for herself and that is an important question, one she made necessary by repeatedly citing the organization in her opening paragraph and, of course, the centrist pig also cited it in his Wednesday e-mail. For the record, we will not support any alleged peace organization that thinks attacks on war resisters or IVAW are permissable or allowed. The way I'm reading the situation is that they feel they can now hide behind centrists so they no longer need to support war resisters. I have no idea whether that means they never really supported war resisters or not. But I have no use for them and while C.I., in the roundtable for the gina & krista round-robin, was careful to draw a line between regional leadership and national leadership, I don't make that distinction. This is a serious issue and if a woman who rose to regional leadership can't grasp that, I question the entire organization.





C.I.: Jumping in, as Dona said we could, and just to note that Ava and I are advising Dallas as to what links are needed for this feature so he can hunt them down. Elaine mentioned Camp Casey Peace Insitute. If it has its own site, he's not finding it. There is a page at Gold Star Families which notes more details coming soon.





Rebecca: Any comments on what Elaine said?





C.I.: She makes strong points. The editorial last Sunday did.





Last question for this mailbag is to Ava and C.I. and it's Robbie wanting to know what they have planned to review for the rest of the summer and how difficult it's been coming up with things to review?





Ava: Not as difficult as we thought and that's probably been helped by doing theme pieces in May. We were going to review Medium this weekend. Having been accused of trying to game the Best Actress in a Drama Emmy race, we're going to pass this weekend. We may grab it next week but we're also aware it's not coming back until the middle of the next season. So we may delay it. Medium was reviewed here and may have been done by all of us in 2005 or it may have been the first review C.I. and I did alone. No one's sure and C.I. and I don't re-read the things. We recommended it in real time, whomever wrote the review, and we still do. We may hold off on a review for it and wait until it's about to return to new episodes, currently scheduled for after the Super Bowl; however, Arquette's Emmy nomination meant NBC had to get off their ass and put it back on the air in repeats, currently on Saturdays. But that shows how little support the show, and women, have at NBC. They've got huge holes in their summer line up and they were avoiding airing repeats of Medium. We had Third Rock on our list and may be moving it up to this weekend. That's what we were calling around about, calling friends about to get some backstory and clear up some things.





C.I.: We've still got The George Lopez Show on the backburner. Ty suggesting Singing Bee [TV: The Racial Bee] was an example of how we ended up far less short than we thought we'd be. We were going to review the Victoria Beckham series until NBC turned it into a one hour special. I don't think either of us felt the pressure we felt in May -- the pressure of, "There's so little left to cover." That's largely because we're seeing scripts and, in one case two episodes, of programs that will debut in the fall and we're more focused on, or nervous about, what we're going to start off with there. It's equally true that we were still getting used to the two other TV reviews and the radio review and the whole thing was overwhelming. We're tired but less overwhelmed.





Ava: Good point. Or good points actually. Pax is now airing Who's the Boss in primetime and there have been suggestions from readers on reviewing that as well. It's also true that the panic co-incided with way too much attention for the May commentary. Most of the time, Jim does a good job, now, of not passing on the e-mails. Dona and Ty always do [a good job of not passing on the e-mails]. But just to deal with what happened following "TV: Friendly faces aren't who we meet" . . . We don't do greatest hits. We do real work each week. The response to that one commentary was overwhelming in terms of people who never comment on our reviews were suddenly telling us how great that was and, more importantly, suggesting that's what we should do.





C.I.: Tackle the news programs each week.





Ava: That's not what we do and though it might have been attempting to be helpful, we know what we're doing. Our reviews have regularly tackled the illegal war, the Downing Street Memos, and other topics to do with the illegal war including war resistance. We've been able to do that without leafing through PBS programming and it's good that we did it that way because it reaches more people.





C.I.: The attitude seemed to be that May review was a "serious" one.





Ava: And we did it the way we do all of them. But due to what it was covering, suddenly we were "serious." As though addressing the issues of the way women are portrayed aren't serious? We do know what we're doing here, we've been doing it, week after week, for two and a half years and the people attempting to pressure needed to get that we don't do greatest hits -- meaning we aren't going to churn out something just because we know it will get applause -- and we don't do what others want us to. We found an audience, a large one, doing it our way and we will continue to do it that way. And that's not an insult to anyone who called and called, it is just noting that we know what we're doing and we can look back on the body of work we have done here on TV and be proud. We don't need to hear that now we're doing it, now we're tackling the big issues! We have all along.





C.I.: And the reviews exist first of all to serve the original readers. They are largely young couples with children who can't afford cable or satellite. By being shoved onto the TV beat, we've been able to cover a number of issues that wouldn't be touched on elsewhere and we're proud of what we've done while dealing with a crappy medium. That one review, and Dona call time at any point, was no more 'important' than anything else we've done. The topic was PBS so people who do not normally read or do not normally comment on what they read thought it was more serious. It's no more serious or important than when we've addressed the absence of women and people of color in Saturday cartoons, it's no important than when we've addressed any number of issues. But there was a strong push for us to churn out "greatest hits" as Ava's pointed out. There were three friends suggesting strongly that we make PBS' news our beat and tackle that week after week. We really don't write on command or demand, ask Jim, and when we're pushed -- even nicely -- towards something, we'll usually respond by demonstrating that we cannot be pushed.





Dona: I actually wasn't going to call time on this because you both, Ava and C.I., get stuck taking notes on any roundtable or mailbag so you could have gone on as long as you wanted. But both indicated they were done so I'll just jump in to note, and Ty can back me up on this, the Genie Francis piece was popular with readers including new readers. News industry types loved that May review, regular readers loved the Genie Francis piece. It continues to get mail.





Ty: And people continue to write about that. It's been shared and shared again and again. Just last week, there were probably a little under 20 e-mails on that June commentary noting a friend had passed it on. And look at what's being tackled in what we're calling "the Genie Francis piece" -- sexism, the illegal war and the military brass' attacks on Adam Kokesh and Liam Madden. Last week, I again read e-mails from people saying, "I didn't know about Kokesh and Madden." The reality is that those responding to a review on PBS' 'news' programming are already following the news. That Genie Francis piece lives on and reaches people who do and don't follow the news. The PBS piece was what I call a "monster hit" immediately and we certainly got e-mails from industry types on that. But it's not even the biggest "monster hit" of the summer. The Francis piece, "TV: Losers & Fools" and "TV: Global Boring" all were immediate and bigger "monster hits" and will probably, like other TV commentaries, continue to get e-mails. Pieces Ava and C.I. did in 2005 get e-mails today.





Jim: Right. And I do understand the push, by some friends, to get them to tackle PBS because I've been guilty of that repeatedly. I really did not get what they were doing from the start. I didn't even get why people were responding to what they were doing when it was a group project. Dona had to explain it to me over and over before I finally got it. So I'm not slamming anyone who appreciates their analytical skills and their sense of humor and thinks, "Okay, now they can tackle the big things." But it needs to be noted that they have always tackled the big things. A review of Threshold is used to tackle the administration, for instance. They get their points across and they reach more people in the way they do it. It's just easier for the literal minded, you can include me in that, to see what they're doing when they're tackling so called hard news. And I want to know why the last part of Robbie's question got cut off. I'm guessing Ty was asked to.





Ava: C.I. and I know the journalist Robbie's referring to. The journalist did a feature story --





C.I.: Cover.





Ava: Correct. On an actor and the journalist is employing a number of our catch phrases. We know the journalist and don't feel it's theft but Robbie's not the first one to note that the entire piece reads like we were writing it. We had no input in it and we're glad to know our contributions to 'reporting' have been so great that we are now so obviously imitated.





Jim: I just wanted that in there because Tuesday night, at C.I.'s, a friend was going through highlighting the phrases you two use and came up with 38 phrases in that article.