C.I.: Last week's "Ike Turner (Ava and C.I. feature)" dealt with the wave of justifications for torture stemming from the death of serial torturer Ike Turner who beat Tina Turner and many other women and created, for the children in his orbit as well as the women, a constant sense of violence about to emerge. It was unhealthy, it was disgusting and it was criminal. It was torture.
Ava: Out of all the ones taking part in that wave, we noted only two writers because we felt the rest were trash. The two we made exceptions for were Danny Schechter and Elijah Wald. Five journalists wrote to complain and Elijah Wald also e-mailed.
C.I.: Ty read us points from Wald's e-mails and we replied via Ty. Elijah Wald's piece at CounterPunch originally appeard in The Los Angeles Times where it was meant to represent one take and rock critic Ann Powers was intended to represent another view. In addition, Wald is a musical historian. He's identified as a "musican" and a "journalist" at CounterPunch but really what he is a musical historian. He is going to be grappling with Ike Turner's death, Turner's place in history and other examples of torture in music history for some time.
Ava: Wald, as Ty told us over the phone, appeared to be attempting a genuine dialogue so we were more than happy to reply. Our time is very limited and we don't read the e-mails at this site unless Ty's on vacation. Jess, Dona, community members Martha, Eli, Shirley, C.I. and myself are attempting to deal with the huge number of e-mails coming into The Common Ills when we're in inboxes. Inboxes are not C.I. and my first priority, we're on the road every week speaking with various groups about Iraq and how to end the illegal war. Wald didn't ask that anything be noted but C.I. and I were talking aboutit throughout last week and both agreed that, putting aside the fact that he was commissioned to write one point of view piece that was to compliment another writer's point of view piece, he is a historian and he's going to be evaluating and re-evaluating Ike Turner and others throughout his career so we thought that was very different from the multitude of men weighing in with the Ike wave.
C.I.: Wald and Danny Schechter made public statements and we weighed with our own take. We noted in the piece that they weren't trash. We try very hard not to link trash. Once, we linked to Rush Limbaugh in a review and only did that because we knew Ty, Dona and Jim would face a slew of e-mails of saying, "That's not true!" We, Ava and I, went back and forth over linking to that piece of trash but we don't hit the e-mails and we didn't want the right-wing pouring in with their "That's not true!" nonsense and taking up all of Ty, Dona and Jim's time. On the piece last week, there was a wave of nonsense and we could have linked to many. We went with those two and noted they weren't trash and noted how saddened we were they were part of the wave.
Ava: We regularly link to Danny Schechter here, we have used his book for a book discussion, we have regularly mentioned his film WMD and many other things. In addition, C.I. does know Danny Schechter and, at The Common Ills, Danny has been linked to and defended repeatedly. With Elijah Wald, we're not aware of any links or mentions at this site or The Common Ills prior so we wanted to note that he was a historian and that he will be addressing the topic repeatedly over the years. Especially as a historian, that is his role. We disagree with his evaluation strongly but it needs to be noted that he will have to address this topic repeatedly due to his role. Hopefully that will include a re-evaluation.
Jess: I'm dealing with the five journalists to note a few things. I have read all five e-mails and have spoken to Jim and Jim's father who is a real journalist. Jim's father read over them and noted that the entire thing seemed to have an echo chamber fact and wondered if it was part of campaign? He also thought three were "rather stupid" to reply to replies from Dona and Jim with what were clearly insults and describes those three in terms we won't include here. He noted that those three who want to accuse Ava and C.I. of errors have the burden of proof of demonstrating errors. One of them wants to say that he doesn't remember it that way and, as Jim's father pointed out, he wasn't "there" to remember in the first place. Mid-week, Jim went through and researched every fact mentioned in Ava and C.I.'s piece. He checked with friends of Ava and C.I.'s, many of whom they'd spoken to prior to writing the piece, and especially helpful was a former Rolling Stone reporter who noted not only pieces in Rolling Stone but other publications as well as I, Tina. Jim typed up an annotated version of Ava and C.I.'s piece, e-mailed it to his father who looked over it and said, quote, "No surprise, Ava and C.I. knew their stuff." Jim's father asked that this be included to the five journalists: "Before commenting on a piece, you are required to read it. When alleging errors, you need to note the errors. You then need to explain why they are errors. None of you did that and you really embarrass the profession with your actions. You also embarrass your gender rushing in to vent that two women 'dared' to point out the obvious about Ike Turner. As men over fifty, your first thought should have been, 'Why am I rushing to defend a criminal?' As journalists, your e-mails should have been professional enough to offer more than baseless assertions. All of you embarrassed yourselves and your profession." We're not done with this topic, I know Elaine has a comment, but we wanted to open with that. Ava and C.I. intend to attach their comments regarding Wald to their piece from last week. But they did want to note Wald at the top of this roundtable and that's why we started the roundtable off that way. Participating in this roundtable are The Third Estate Sunday Review's Ava and me, Jess, 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. Ruth of Ruth's Report is on the line. She says, "Just to listen." But we've told she can jump in at any point. I'm moderating the roundtable because C.I. and Ava didn't want to and that's partly due to the fact that they are the ones taking notes in all our transcript pieces and it can be difficult to do that and moderate. Jim usually moderates so if you think I've done an awful job, e-mail and Jim will love you for it. I'm going to toss to Elaine and anyone can jump in. We do have other topics but this topic is the reason Cedric's participating. Last weekend, he told us he intended to take this week off. Then this nonsense started and Betty, who feels very strongly, asked him if he could make time for the roundtable. Okay, Elaine.
Elaine: Jim called me last week and was furious regarding one of the five journalists. They all ticked him off, rightly, but one especially. He read that nonsense, which was actually two e-mails from the same journalist. I wrote about it at my site ("Only women & countries get 'discovered'"). I was offended, and still am offended, for many reasons including responsible adults do not make excuses or justifications for domestic abuse. On another level, I was offended, as was Jim -- and he said if I spoke about this to consider the comments from both of us -- about the attitude in the e-mail which included the suggestion that Dona, who had replied first to the asshole, apparently doesn't speak plainly. Jim read that e-mail to me and only a fool and a sexist could read a simple statement as to why Dona was disturbed by the e-mail could e-mail back that he was confused. As Jim's father noted, the whole thing had an orchestrated feel to it and that includes e-mailing that, paraphrase, "I haven't read the article but I'm bothered by it." Read the damn article before you comment. Along with the insult to Dona -- which enraged Jim who is involved with Dona . . . Let me stop for a second. Dona is the most basic and straightforward of any of us. That comes through here in book discussions, roundtables and mailbags. Dona doesn't go philosophical, she doesn't go esoteric, she is the most plain spoken of any of us. If you can't grasp a simple sentence from her, you have cognitive issues. More likely, you couldn't grasp plain English because you have problems with women which, again, would explain why you felt the need to defend a man who spent his entire life beating women. Also on that e-mail, those two e-mails from one journalist, there seemed to be a feeling that 'poor Ike' only beat Tina -- he beat many women -- because of his cocaine problem. As I told Jim on the phone and noted in my post, Ike was beating women long before he did cocaine and Jim should, which he did, call a record producer who is a friend of C.I.'s and ask him about introducing Ike to cocaine in the late sixties. The "late sixties." Ike was beating Tina long before then. The Dona aspect is important because Jim was offended and it is the reason that C.I. weighed in at The Common Ills which normally would not happen. I saw C.I. on Friday and we didn't speak of this. That's usually the case. We have important topics like the illegal war as well as our own lives and general friendship topics to catch up on. C.I. does not know and will not know who wrote those e-mails. But, in case that was a question in C.I.'s entry on this, no, this isn't a journalist you've slept with, just one you know. As you guessed, if it was one you slept with, I would have been even more vocal in my post. He is so not C.I.'s type.
Jess: And on types, I will note that a planned roundtable shortly will explore types. An e-mail came in on that from reader Suzette, it's on two aspects actually. Rebecca was all for it but the rest were undecided. C.I.?
C.I.: Hold on. Okay, we can answer Suzette's question because it is specific and can be used to draw attention to a topic that needs more attention. The concern on Jim's part was that it might be trivializing a topic and I do understand where he's coming from. But I also understood Rebecca's arguement and if it makes anyone who reads it think about the main topic, which isn't attraction per se, then good and if it's seen as frivilous on our part, I really don't care. I think it could backfire on us, so be it. If we're seen as less 'serious,' then, as Cedric would say, "Oh well." The fact is it's an important topic, one that has to do with the illegal war, and at this point, we're willing to do anything to get people to think about that topic. And if it does that for even three extra seconds, I'm fine with it.
Jess: Which is the reasoning that has us all on board and Suzette e-mailed three weeks ago. We just haven't had time for a roundtable and we know people have been thinking about their answers so don't want to grab it for this roundtable when many aren't present due to the holidays. Rebecca and her husband are spending today through Christmas Eve with his family and then Christmas Day with her family.
Mike: Rebecca, Flyboy and their baby.
Jess: Correct. And Jim and Dona are at her parents' home and flew there on Thursday. Ty flew to his grandmother's to celebrate the holidays. My parents have come out to California to celebrate. Cedric is helping out at his church with several elements of their Christmas service and that's why he intended to take off this weekend. I'm going to toss to him.
Cedric: This is a topic, Ike Turner, that Betty feels strongly about. That wave of Ike Defenders was disgusting on every level and it offended me and many other people.
Jess: Right. Cedric stopped and I think that's my indication to note the overwhelming positive response to Ava and C.I.'s article from victims of domestic abuse and from women who weren't victims but their sisters were or their mothers were or their best friends were. By last Thursday, this was the most response on anything this year. We thought "Who's killing the peace movement?" would be the one the most responses because that was overwhelming and big enough to actually surpass Ava and C.I.'s TV commentaries. But their feature regarding the realities of Ike Turner topped that.
Cedric: I talked to Dona who was working the e-mails more than usual due to the fact that Ty flew home last Tuesday and was off the e-mails after that. She stressed how it was painful to read those e-mails because women were sharing so much and that, although she knew domestic abuse was a problem and knew Ava and C.I. had written something strong, she really had "my eyes opened" as to how common and brutal domestic abuse was in many women's lives. And that's my big point here, all five of those jerk-offs posing as journalists in real life, they didn't give damn about the victims. They minimized, and this is true of those writing pieces defending Ike as well, a very brutal, very deadly experience that so many women live through. There's no excuse for that. They should all be ashamed of themselves.
Betty: Last weekend, Jim suggested that topic. We all heard it. The way it works is you've got the West Coast group at C.I.'s -- that's usually C.I., Ava, Dona, Kat, Ty, Jess and Jim. You've got Wally on the phone from Florida, me on the phone from Georgia, Cedric on the phone from the mid-west which is as personal at Cedric intends to be online, and from Mass., you've got Mike, Elaine and Rebecca participating. Now Jim knew, my guess, he can correct me if I'm wrong, that Ava and C.I.'s first reaction would be "no." So he brought up it up not before we all got together for the endless conference call, but when we were all present. Ava and C.I. are tired and they're having a hard enough time doing the TV commentaries due to the strike. Regardless of topic, they're not looking to do another piece by themselves. I didn't weigh in before they said yes only because (a) I know how tired they are and (b) Jim was going rapid-fire. They only agreed to write the feature when Jim started reading outloud from a woman who e-mailed this site to share how that 'Poor Ike' nonsense made her feel, a victim of domestic abuse who has to put up with that crap about her own abuser. Had Jim not been arguing so quickly, I would've weighed in and I would've said, "I know you're both tired and I know you have other reasons for not wanting to touch this topic, but it's too important and none of us can write that as strongly as you can." I would've asked them to write it. And that was before Jim read from the e-mail which, honestly, had me crying as I was listening. My father saw the pieces that went up Thursday -- "Jamie Leigh Jones and other realities ignored," "the strong women (and thank god we have them!)," "Only women & countries get 'discovered'" and "Torture, Dave Lindorff, Dave Zirin" -- and he called with the same question I had: Were those journalists whining White men? He wanted to also know if it was okay to call Jim and ask him? I told Jim had probably already boarded the plane but I'd call that night, at Dona's parents' house, and ask. They were all White. Big surprise.
Cedric: That's when Betty called me and wanted to do a three-way call with Ty. On that call, Ty apologized because there's no way he can participate. He goes to his grandmother's only three times a year. Like Wally and me, his father died when he was very young. His grandparents raised him for the most part, as did mine. We are all three African-American, Betty prefers Black which is fine, but we are the voices in this community that are online. There are others in the community, such as Gina, who weigh in via newsletters. But we are the most public faces for Black and African-American members. And as such, we need to weigh in on topics like these. Ty was trying to figure out how to juggle Sunday's events or if he could just go without sleep on Saturday night to be able to take part in this writing session. I told him to forget it. I said I would make time for the roundtable and pointed out that I don't have to travel to be with my family and I could swing the time. I really did want a weekend off. I enjoy this, but I really did want a weekend off. But this topic is too important and if it means Ty doesn't have to try to juggle his weekend, which is with his grandparents, his family and his boyfriend and that needs to be noted too because Ty's boyfriend is on the East Coast and they've had to be long-distance since Ty moved out to live with C.I. That hopefully changes in May when his boyfriend graduates, but that's another reason I didn't want Ty trying to juggle this.
Betty: Right. Ty's got a lot on his plate this weekend and the purpose of the three-way call was to figure out if we should write something that I'd post at my site or we could all post at our sites or if that wasn't possible -- and I didn't think it would be -- we could address it on the phone so that I would be all the stronger when I brought the points up in the roundtable.
Cedric: There's a word I don't use but it is the only term for it: Wigger. I'm really sick of these White men who distort my culture. Behaviors that are juvenile, offensive and/or criminal get mass marketed as the 'norm' and 'authentic' by corporations and any White journalist who wants to take part in that is, in my opinion, nothing but a Wigger. Whitey needs to grasp that he will never be African-American or Black and he can defend gun toting, abuse and everything else but it's not going to make him African-American or Black. And anyone it does make him look 'down' to isn't really all that smart to begin with.
Betty: The gun-toting, woman beating, drug addict Ike might be someone's idea of what it is to be Black, but it's not and it's offensive. It was offensive to read that crap during the wave. It was offensive to hear excuses that his father was lynched. So what? Or do you think that is the natural Black response to oppression? That we say, "Oh, we're oppressed. Let's find someone else to oppress!" Like Cedric, I don't use the "W" term. I'm glad he did for this discussion. But I can't force myself to even say it. But you're not 'down' with us. You're not helping Black people by justifying criminal behavior. We don't need that 'help' and we don't want it. So don't paint yourself as friend of Black people because all your nonsense defence of Ike did was put out the idea of "What do you expect from those people?" That's what it really says. It says that we're less than White people and so if we do something criminal it's to be excused because we aren't fully functioning people. I think Keesha said it best in the round-table for last Friday's gina & krista round-table when she said, "That's not normal and it's not normal in our community." But we didn't get those voices. We got a lot of White men, many of whom may or may not have beaten women as well, saying that it was excusable and offering childhood experiences or drugs or that the music business is so hard that the Black man can do this and we shouldn't be surprised and we shouldn't be appalled. That is racism. And my people were not helped by that wave of "Poor Ike." I'm practically shouting right now, I should add. And if you think I'm angry, you should have heard my father. Noted with Dad's permission, his younger brother beat my aunt. And he did it for a number of reasons including the fact that he thought it made him "a man." My father didn't call that out all those years ago in his own family only to have, all these years later, a bunch of White men show up and act like abusing women was excusable because the abuser may have suffered racism. It's not excusable for any reason and we don't need you to trying to be 'down' with us by saying, "Poor Ike."
Cedric: Do we have any more time?
Jess: We have all the time you want to take for this topic.
Cedric: What the Whiteys defending Ike don't grasp is how this plays out in my community. They may have seen the film What's Love Got To Do With It? and been appalled, although reading their writing, I'd be surprised. But there is very real hatred towards women marketed to my community and there are young men who do not know any better and pick up on it. They make jokes about it. Like, "Don't make me go Ike on you." We are already suffering from the toxic gangsta rap in my community and the last thing we need is outsiders, alleged professional thinkers, coming along to say that a man who tortured women isn't a criminal because he's not White. We don't need that 'pass,' we don't want that 'pass' and you insult my community when you attempt to provide it. I think you're all racists, I think you're disgusting and I think your valentines to Ike are criminal because they justify criminal behavior. And let's point out that you won't be living with it. Women will and predominately African-American women. Your desire to make Ike 'cool' during that wave will have effects and it will be seen on the faces and bodies of women while you continue living in your White worlds far removed from the damage that you have taken part in.
Betty: Which is a really important point. And Cedric and I are fully aware that the nonsense also has an impact on non-Black culture but we're also aware that the whole point of grown men defending Ike is so that they can look 'street' and 'down' and 'authentic.' There's nothing 'authentic' or Black about beating women. But perpetuating the myth that there is allows many women to live at risk. You should all be ashamed.
Jess: Okay, anyone else want to add anything to it?
Wally: In Elaine's piece, I was really glad she included C.I.'s remark about who gets discovered. Jim read the piece to us all and, after that, C.I. made the comment. Our reaction was, "That needs to go in!"
Ava: But we had written the piece while everyone else was supposed to be working on another one and we didn't want to go back to that piece and we also didn't have the time because the edition was so far behind. But it is true. And Betty had something she wanted to say about that, I believe.
Betty: I forgot that. I was on the phone with everyone last week and with Ava I was pointing out that not only were they elevating a criminal and endorsing criminal behavior but they were downgrading a strong Black woman who was a true artist. I'm talking about Tina Turner. The whole wave was about degrading women and the wave promoted violence against women; however, it's equally true that one woman in particular, Tina Turner, was being robbed of her accomplishments. I talked about this with C.I. and I want to toss with C.I.
C.I.: Let me catch up. Okay. We dealt, Ava and I, with the nonsense of discovery. But, briefly, there are a number of other falsehoods to be noted. Ike Turner was a big fish in a small pond and would be a one-hit wonder, a minor charting one-hit wonder, were it not for Tina. The Ike and Tina Revue was a visual experience and let's be clear that Tina grabs at least half the credit. More is deserved because she was the star and the focal point. But Tina and the Ikettes came up with their dance routines, they decided what to wear -- clothes and hair -- and while Mick Jagger made the moves his own, Tina did teach him steps. This nonsense of he 'discovered' her was nonsense. The lie that he 'molded' her was also a lie. Here's an example of an Ike 'contribution.' Tina's performing "I've Been Loving You Too Long," a song she loved, Ike hated Otis Redding, and developing it into a real concert moment, night after night. It's a sexual moment, no question. It wasn't, however, a filthy moment until Ike began to 'add' his own 'inspirations' which included, long after it was an audience favorite, filthy trash talk from the stage after the song and moaning during it. Ike was along for the ride, he was not a star. The public makes stars and the multitude of people never considered Ike one. It's a bit strange because when the 'frontman' is a man, there's never so much effort to downgrade him to elevate someone else in the band. The closest thing to the nonsense of the wave were the attempt to tear apart Janis Joplin -- attempts that have never gone away -- and build up men in the band. Janis was the star. Janis walked into a room or on stage and electrified the room. The same with Tina. To give an example of a male, the same with Jim Morrison. Tina was the star and what carried Ike into semi-fame. As a songwriter, Ike's got nothing to brag about even if you're generous and call contributions his just because they were published with his name on them. Tina's vocal makes "A Fool In Love" and for those who want to believe Ike wrote it and want to claim it's a great song, consider the reality that it's not a classic song. It's a classic recording, largely due to the vocal. But it's not a song that everyone rushes to cover. Unlike Otis and many other people from the same period, nothing with Ike's name on it -- deserved or not -- ended up being an evergreen. He's got no "Sitting On The Dock Of The Bay," he's got not "A Change is Going To Come," he's got no "For Once In My Life," go down the list. The songs with his name on them -- erratic in scope due to the many different writers who wrote those songs -- aren't covered. And I don't just mean now, I mean throughout. I'm sure at some point, some wack job will do a tribute, the Lemonheads recorded Charles Manson's 'songs,' but the fact of the matter is that songwriters of that period, sixties through 1976, include Ashford & Simpson, Stevie Wonder, Holland-Dozier-Holland, Otis Redding and many more. Ike was no songwriter even if he's given "authorship" for songs that bore his name but he didn't write. Pre-sixties, pioneers include, but are not limited to, Little Richard and Chuck Berry. Both managed to not only score hits they wrote but also write songs that have had long lives. So what are we left with? His guitar playing? Not all that, in my opinion, but go for it and make your case elsewhere if you disagree. Band leader? Ike underpaid everyone, he cheated everyone, he invented fines for everyone. The Ike and Tina Revue had a huge turnover and before you make the claim that this was otherwise, you better talk to some of the men and women who worked for the revue and walked out. There is still huge bitterness over that. If 'success' means something, anything, made it out on stage in the non-stop performances, fine. If that's how low your standards are, fine. But too many talented people were kicked out or run off for a logical argument to be made that he was a 'bandleader' worthy of praise. It's equally true that he was old and out of it while attempting to appeal to a young audience. That's another reason Tina deserves more than half the credit for the revue. Along with the visuals, it was up to Tina to make the case for updating the sound -- really the only reason the revue is known for the bulk of the sixties and the early seventies -- and people attempting to make the case to Ike knew it wasn't going to work that way and they'd go through Tina who would attempt to make the points. So we're talking about someone who wasn't a star, has no songwriting that's stood the test of time even if authorship doesn't enter into it and made sure that the Ike and Tina Revue would always be second rung by running off musicians who were actually talented. Nothing in that speaks of legacy and, note, the abuse was set aside for that argument. His torture, of many women, shouldn't be set aside. But for those eager to do so, you have a really hard time making a case for Ike's 'legacy.' It's equally true that he made no real contributions to the Civil Rights Movement. We're not talking about the Staple Singers or Dick Gregory here. We're talking about a very inward man. Betty, there were some points your father raised with me in terms of Tina's comeback. Did you want to cover those?
Betty: I will. I didn't my father had called you. He wanted it noted that Ike regularly minimized and denied his behavior after it was widely reported and also repeatedly belittled Tina's talents and accomplishments. That include his lying to the press that he was going to tour with Teena Marie, that included his trashing "We Don't Need Another Hero" and sticking up for Ronald Reagan who was in the White House at that time. That's the reality of the piece of trash that some people, some White men, want to defend. I've summarized and simplified that because I do know we have other topics. But I'll add that Ike was repeatedly tearing Tina down after he comeback. That was Dad's big point.
Cedric: And that's something I wasn't planning to bring up. If I'd known about that point, I would've gone into it more but I will note that my grandmother was very vocal on how the attacks didn't end when Tina left and that, this is more or a less a quote, all Ike was left with to hurt Tina after she escaped was words and he tried to use his words to hurt her repeatedly. I'm going to stay for the rest of the roundtable but I think Betty and I've covered the points that Betty, Ty and I felt were most important. I know there were other topics and --
Jess: Don't apologize. Readers love anything having to do with music so that alone made it worthwhile. The fact that we were discussing race and gender only more so. Ruth, I know you just wanted to listen, but do you want to say anything before we move on?
Ruth: Sure. All the ink on Ike Turner reminded me of a basic reality, and I'm old so this goes far back, it's always the men. Dionne Warwick could probably benefit from an evaluation of her legacy as a singer. One of the things I love most about Kat's CD reviews, and that's a hard thing to narrow it down to just one, is that she writes with a historical context and, shocking for some, it includes women's role in history. I was in college when JFK was assassinated so I have seen a great deal in my lifetime and there is no denying that women have regularly been stripped from music history and that they continue to be which may be one of the most offensive aspects of the Ike wave since it was, in part, about stripping Tina Turner of her deserved and earned credit.
Jess: Thank you for that point and feel free to jump in anywhere. We've got the illegal war on the agenda and there are several points we've got on the list. I think we can probably do this best and quickest if we just weigh in without "Here's a point, let's discuss. Okay, here's another point" etc. So I want to start with Kat and then go straight to Wally. After that, everyone jump in as you want but I think that will get the ball rolling. Kat?
Kat: First, thank you to Ruth for her kind words. Well, I'll offer up a campus report. Most courses either ended this week or the week prior so we were picking up a different blend on campus. Dona's taken over scheduling so it's not fly here, fly there, fly here, fly there and we can hone in on an area which is a big help. And we also had more high school groups this trip, but I'm talking about college age. Now maybe during semesters these people are so busy that they're not able to follow the news regularly -- or the tiny output that passes for 'news' -- but the big thing for me this week was realizing how little information is getting out there for some people. Now the Myth of the Great Return has been dropped by big media, finally. It imploded. And of course little media never bothered to call it out. That's in real time and that's since it imploded. But that was what stood out to me. There were so many students, college students, who honestly thought that Iraqis were returning and that the refugee crisis had been halved if not done away with. I'm not insulting anyone and, let me note, even the students who thought the Great Return was taking place knew that the crisis numbered over four million. There was a comment C.I. made last week in an entry, I don't remember which one and Dallas doesn't need to try to hunt down a link for it, but there was a report in The New York Times which stated that the myth was based on two caravans, that the Iraqi government only sent in two caravans. And C.I. said something like, "If true, that's a hell out of a lot of publicity off two caravans." And it really was. I was talking to Ava and C.I. all last week about this, the Great Return, and about how surprised I was to find so many students believed in it. But what it underscored was two things in the end, for me. One: Big media continues to sell the illegal war. Two: Little media is prolonging the illegal war by refusing to call out the lies of today. Wally?
Wally: I didn't get Jess' concept until now. I'd noted "Judith Miller" on the topic suggestions. What Kat's just addressed perfectly sets up my topic. Is it time to gather round the campfire, kiddies, and hear again about what Judith Miller did in the lead up to the war and in the immediate time after the illegal war started? No. Miller wasn't the only one lying to begin with but my point in "Judith Miller" was that her name gets repeated and repeated and it's because it's easy. It's not because people are trying to make sure we're informed. If we were supposed to be informed, they'd tackle Dexter Filkins who was more important to selling the illegal war after it started. They'd have tackled the myth of the Great Return. And Rebecca's not here so let me repeat her point which is C.I. hit on those lies starting in November. It didn't take big media finally telling the truth in December for C.I. to call it out. Why the silence from little media? From now on when any media critic utters the words "Judith Miller," my response is to check their own output. And I'm not grading anyone high if they've done nothing on the illegal war. In fact, I consider them a damn liar because by being silent they're allowing the illegal war to continue and the lies to sell the war to continue to spread. The Iraq War hits the five year mark in March and what's passed off as independent media coverage is disgusting. It's too little coverage and it's too superficial.
Cedric: I know I've talked a great deal in this so I'll be brief and just say I agree with Wally 100% and there's not a day we're on the phone working on our joint-entries that we don't raise that point. There's a war going on and no one wants to address it.
Mike: I put down "vets" and this does flow because my point here was that there are a few I talk to because they're Elaine's patients and I'm usally at her office Thursday evenings so I'm talking to them before the group session and after. I also hear from vets who see something at my site. And there is just so much disbelief and anger at ALL media for their lack of coverage. One guy was telling me Thursday, after the group session, that he has to remind himself not to get angry at people he bumps into who are focused on whatever or talking about whatever because he reminds himself how easy it is, even if you're reading the paper every day, to forget that the illegal war is going on. He thinks it's intentional on big media's part, and I agree, but he listed off a lot of little media, and he included blogs in that which we don't consider little media but just to note his point, and just noted how disgusting it is to, basically have a voice or platform, and not use it. When he was in Iraq, if he had computer access, which was often because if you're out in Iraq and not just stationed on a base, you're computer access is a lot less. But he did two tours of Iraq and he remembers some of the big names early in the illegal war who were strong voices and just calling it out. He said he hopes they don't expect credit for that because they've done nothing in the last year. I told him I'd talk about that in a roundtable that was planned here and then after I'd copy and paste that section at my site because he is really angry about that. He said if I did to add one more thing. He knows the war is illegal, he observed it, took part in it. But now he's back here and the easiest thing to do right now would be to deny that and go along with the lie that it's "noble" and the reason for that is because the only people who really seem aware of the war are the right-wingers. I grabbed paper and wrote this part down, this is him speaking, "Do you know what it's like to take part in something you're wrong and come home and want to, need to talk about it but find out that no one gives a __ damn ___? One thing to do is to stop talking and just shove it all inside. But the easiest thing to do is just sort of talk about it to war supporters because they at least listen." That's included with his permission. And before anyone e-mails to say, because Elaine's not going to say a word about it, not even to me, Elaine doesn't talk about her patients. I'm talking about him in terms of what he spoke to me about and with the understanding that he wanted it shared. I tried to think about a way to give an example all weekend and the only thing, which is probably a bad comparison but in case anyone can relate to the illegal war, I could come up with is you're mugged on the street. You've got a lot of pain, anger and other things from that. You want to talk about it. When no one cares except the group going, "You da man! They pulled a gun on you and you're still alive!" after awhile it probably is tempting to turn around and go, "Yeah, I am da man!" just because you need to talk about your experiences and no other group gives a damn. He's considering signing up for IVAW's event by the way. He is going but he's considering signing up to talk.
C.I.: Mike's referring to IVAW's, Iraq Veterans Against the War, March 2008 DC event, the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation that will take place March 13th through the 16th.
Elaine: I can't say whether others are considering or will be participating but I will note that they are all aware of it and would encourage anyone who encounters veterans to get the word out. It's a really important event. And that was my topic. Thursday's "Iraq snapshot" resulted
in all community sites getting astro-turf from one organization that sometimes addresses the illegal war and sometimes doesn't. First of all, Thursdays I have the veterans group in the evening. I do not post on Thursdays unless I'm on vacation. That's been true for well over a year now. I think it's something like 18 or 20 months. So Thursday's snapshot didn't get posted at my site. Thursdays doesn't due to group. On nights when I do post, I always copy and paste the snapshot in as do all community sites. So Sunny sees this e-mail Friday, Sunny runs my office, and she's asking me what that's about? And I mentioned that to Ava on Friday when we were all at Mike's and she said that e-mail came into the public account at The Common Ills as well at which point Rebecca says, "Oh, I got that crap too." I hadn't mentioned it to Mike so he didn't check for it until Saturday but he had it. Betty, who doesn't post on Thursdays, had it. Wally and Cedric had it as well. The same e-mail but not with all our e-mails in the "sent to" address. Which made me wonder if they thought we wouldn't, at some point, mention it to one another. But -- Look it, this is going to be a monster to type. And it needs to be noted "rush transcript" as well.
Jess: Right. Elaine's referring to the size this thing is going to be. It's a monster. When things are this long, Blogger/ Blogspot gets hung up. We'll split up the typing -- Ava, C.I., Kat and myself -- but even so the problem's going to be that at a certain point, Blogger/Blogspot is going to start slowing down and we're not going to be able to see what we're typing because it will lag so far behind. Spell check also won't work on something this long. So it is a "rush transcript" and people can just live with typos when this goes up. Elaine?
Elaine: Well I think we can include C.I.'s comments in a repost but to quote it in full here will add even more length to this piece so I'll just sum it up. Hopefully, not sum it up badly. But IVAW is asking that other organizations not plan any national or DC events during the days that the Winter Soldier Investigation is going on. There's nothing wrong with that request and it should be pretty obvious how that needs to be followed. Just putting this together has required a huge amount of time and planning. So C.I. noted that request and noted, in what was an editorial comment by C.I. but one we all agree with, that IVAW had announced this event in plenty of time for everyone to be aware of it and know that time was carved out and called. That's really basic. Ideally, voices of US service members and survivors of Afghanistan and Iraq will be sharing testimony. This is an important event. So that goes up on Thursday, in the snapshot, and we all get this e-mail on Friday. Even those of us, like myself, Betty and Trina who hadn't reposted the snapshot because we don't post on Thursdays. Sunny's remark won't translate because you really needed to hear the cutting tone in her voice but she said, "Oh, I guess that means they weren't planning to focus on a national disaster that month." But the e-mail, addressed to all of us, as if we wrote Thursday's snapshot, wanted to whine that this was "undemocratic" and that no one should be able "to dominate." I'll speak for everyone, because I've talked to everyone about it, including Jim, Dona and Ty on Saturday: tough. It's not "undemocratic." Basic decency should especially tell the organizations that drop Iraq all the time that this space is reserved. I think it was the fact that this is an organization that rushes off to any other topic -- and away from Iraq -- that offended me so much. They want Iraq during that period and they want it only because it's the anniversary of the start of the illegal war a few days later. Too damn bad. IVAW lives with the illegal war every damn day. They're not picking it up while it's 'hot' and then dropping it to move onto another topic when it 'cools' off or media interest does. So that's what really offended me, that a spokesperson for an organization that does little on Iraq to begin with wants to whine that it's unfair to say they can't grab those days. I mean, the only reason that organization plans or hopes or wants to 'rediscover' the illegal war at that time is due to the anniversary. So I found that very offensive and I wanted to note it here because it is clear that IVAW didn't just ask that no national or DC events be scheduled at the same time out of some unfounded fear. Due to the nature of the anniversary, it's an easy time for groups that do nothing for the bulk of the year to get a little press coverage and at least one worthless organization grasps that. C.I.'s already stated that no other organization or event will be promoted during that period -- that point was checked out with all of us [prior to the snapshot posting], by the way -- and you better believe we're going to stand by that. It's not about being "undemocratic," it's about basic decency. A group that regularly addresses the illegal war has poured time and energy into planning this event and no one else deserves to be noted.
Ava: The e-mailer, I'll just note I'm sick of dabblers. I'm sick of the dabblers and they're rushing off from one topic to another. I think it's disgusting. I think it defocuses and I think it prolongs the illegal war. On a related topic, we don't consider Courage to Resist "little media." I consider them people doing brave, needed and noble work. But if you consider them media, strip them out of the equation for a moment and strip The Common Ills out as well, which C.I. doesn't consider media. Where have you heard, domestic sources, about Eli Israel or any of the war resisters that have emerged this year? You haven't. There's only a number of days left in this year and it's going to end without the stories of Kimberly Rivera, Eli Israel, Brad McCall, Phil McDoweel and countless others never being told by media -- big or small -- in the US. That's disgusting. The fact that it's happened goes to just how defocused everyone is. When we were speaking to the college groups that Kat was talking about earlier, we also had to do a primer on war resisters every time and that's due to the lack of coverage. And that goes to Wally's point that, my opinion, someone who's not addressing the lies about the war being told today who wants to score easy points by name checking Judith Miller should be booed. It's easy, it's building on old work from the past. I have no problem with Miller being mentioned and think she does need to be; however, if you haven't done anything on your own since Judith Miller was exposed, you need to stop using her name to make yourself look good because, in your continued silence, you are just as bad as she is. My reply, when that e-mail came into the public account for The Common Ills, was two words and we'll put a blank in here but I'm sure everyone can figure out what word I used, and it wasn't "love": ___ you.
Wally: That was actually my opening statement but I had a bit more when I replied. I didn't think anyone else would reply. If I'd known Ava was replying to the asshole, I wouldn't have bothered. I'm sick of a lot outlets right now. And I don't know if Ruth wants to comment --
Ruth: I agree with all points made and am enjoying listening.
Wally: Okay, well I'm going to quote you from last week. Ruth had an e-mail asking why she was noting NPR so much lately at her sight? And she had a solid reply but I think this one line she wrote says it all: "If I was going to summarize public radio in 2007 in a single sentence, it would be: '2007, the year NPR won by default'." That really does sum it up. And I was mad before but I'm thinking about what Mike shared and I'm like . . . intensely disgusted now.
Betty: I'd agree with that. And we can, and have, called out the silence on Iraq. But, and I'm thinking about C.I.'s "I Hate The War," people can use their power or not or misuse it. If you ask me, in 2007, a lot of people misused their power and their alleged 'independence.'
Ruth: I will jump in, if that's okay? Since Betty mentioned that entry, which I love, I will jump in to plug The Ballet's "I Hate The War." There are plans for a feature on that this edition and I am going to contribute there but I really want to plug that song.
Ava: As often as possible and it is needed.
Jess: We're going to wind down and since C.I. didn't speak much in the second section, do you have a closing comment, C.I.?
C.I.: I actually think Kat could provide the closing remarks.
Kat: Sure, I'll grab it. We were at Mike's on Friday and Mike and I were talking about the illegal war while he, his dad and I were digging through his father's vinyl collection and spinning records after the Iraq study group. Mike mentioned a story but we got off on something else. The story he mentioned was the one he shared in the roundtable and I think that goes to the problems independent media is creating. Big media is always going to spin and distort. It's a given as sure as the sun will rise and Nancy Pelosi will cave and call it a compromise. So when little media can't be bothered with Iraq they prolong the war. And they allow the myths to take root, myths that it seemed like Ava, C.I. and I spent all last week refuting and calling out. But they damn well better start to think of it in terms of the ones returning to the US and how upsetting it is for them. I'm really, what was Wally's phrase, intensely digusted? I'm really intensely disgusted and think that sums up my attitude towards little media these days. We talk about, and this was a point C.I. made to a group on Thursday, how the Democrats have moved away from talking about the illegal war but it's equally true that so has independent media. It's disgusting and I completely relate to the vet Mike quoted in terms of those voices who had something to say in 2003 and yet, four years later, they're off on a dozen other topics despite the fact that the illegal war drags on.
Jess: Kat did do a wonderful job with closing remarks. To Jim, Dona and Ty who will be checking the site out Sunday, we miss you. To Rebecca, enjoy the holidays. To Cedric, thank you for participating. To the readers who matter, thank you for always being there and thank you for letting us know when we're missing something. We may or may not have a roundtable next week. Jim, Dona and Ty plan to be back next Sunday. I may take some time off. Community sites that usually post on Monday will be posting. In terms of Tuesday, Mike intends to post and, of course, C.I. will be posting throughout.